/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231127.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 27, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 237
Headlines
A & D PRECISION: Rivera Sues Over Labor Law Violations
A & T FINANCIAL: Sullivan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Washington
A SECRET ADMIRER: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ACA TACOS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Ramirez Suit Alleges
ACE HARDWARE: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
ACTION NISSAN: Seeks New Class Cert Deadlines in Rodriguez
ADAM KLEIN: Turnbull Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
ADECCO USA INC: Recoder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ADVANCED COLLECTION: Burse Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
AGCO CORPORATION: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALARMCO: Court Dismisses Akins' Complaints With Leave to Amend
ALASKA AIRLINES: Vigil Suit Removed to N.D. California
ALL AMERICAN DOOR: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALLIED CAPITAL: Harris Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ALTAMED HEALTH: L. V. Sues Over Personal Injury Claims in C.D. Cal.
ALTICE USA: Patent Scheduling Order Entered in Freedom Class Suit
ALTON LANE INC: Gomberg Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Barnes Class Action Lawsuit in C.D. Calif.
AON PLC: 4th Cir. Affirms Favorable Ruling in ERISA-Related Suit
APPLE INC: Court Grants Smith Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Joint Status Report Entered in Williams Class Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: Louka Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
ATERIAN INC: Final OK Hearing of Mueller Deal Set for Feb. 28, 2024
AZ TORRES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Suit Alleges
BALDWIN GROUP: Nichols Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
BARILLA AMERICA: CMF Continued to March 14, 2024
BARRIOS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Nodarse Claims
BELLARMINE UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEN E. KEITH COMPANY: Lamoreaux Files Suit in N.D. Texas
BENEDICT COLLEGE: Faces Young Civil Rights Suit in S.D.N.Y.
BETTERME INTERNATIONAL: Lyons Sues Over Private Info Disclosure
BF MCCABE HOLDINGS: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIG TEXAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stringer Suit Claims
BIOGEN INC: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for January 2024
BJC HEALTHCARE ACO: Williams Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BLOOM ENERGY: Continues to Defend LPPF Class Suit in California
BLOOM ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Roberts Class Suit
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid to Stay Pre-Trial Deadlines in Laskey OK'd
BON APPETIT: Casey Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON: Faces Langley Suit Over Disclosures
BRANCH BANKING: SCSFCU Seeks to Certify Class Action
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Kennedy Class Suit
BUDGET RVS: Miles Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Walker Suit w/o Prejudice
BURLINGTON STORES: Court Certifies Payton-Fernandez FLSA Collective
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Data Breach Suit in Various Courts
CAMINO FORT: Settlement Reached in Edwards Class Suit
CARGILL INC: Bid to Extend Class Cert Response OK'd in Tavares Suit
CASH 4 KEYS: Potter Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
CAVA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss PFAS-Related Suit Remains Pending
CHARLES RIVER: Mendoza Sues Over Board's Misleading Statements
CHARLES SCHWAB: Continues to Defend Crago Securities Class Suit
CHEEMA FREIGHTLINES: Prince Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Davis Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court
CHEMOURS CO: Faces Suit Over PFAS Contamination of Water System
CHEN & MORGAN: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CHIQUITA CANYON: Howse Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
CHRISTUS HEALTH: Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct.
CLASSICS & COUNTRY: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLEANCHOICE ENERGY: Weinberg Hits Exorbitant Electricity Charges
CLUB 360: Hearing on Reconsideration Bid Continued to March 19
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces ERISA Suit Over Retirement Plan
COMMUNITY HEALTH: White Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 31, 2024
CONNECTICUT WATER: Faces Water Contamination-Related Suit
CONSOL ENERGY: Faces Retirees' Suit Over Retirement Plan
CONTAINER STORE: Faces Hayes Labor Suit in California Court
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: To Settle Melucci Suit Over SEC Filing
COSTCO WHOLESALE: To Settle Rough Labor Suit in California Court
COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Choi Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CYBELANGEL USA: Seeks Denial of Koeller Class Status Bid
D'ALMONTE ENTERPRISES: Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to Dec. 18
DAVID ESQUIVEL: Jones, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid
DEERE & COMPANY: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DEMETRIC GODFREY: Shreves's Bid to Certify Class Tossed
DIGITAL TURBINE: Briefing on Securities Class Suit Ongoing
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Jaramillo Securities Class Suit
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Data Breach Class Suit
DUTCH BROTHERS: Continues to Defend Rein Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders TCPA Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
EDGIO INC: Frouws' Bid to Consolidate Actions in Esfandiari OK'd
EDGIO INC: Settlement in Suit Over Merger Initially OK'd
EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTH: Stein Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
EEA LIFE SETTLEMENTS: Ainsworth Files Suit in S.D. New York
EL CAMINO FORT: Edwards Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
ELKAY PLUMBING: Oshaughnessy Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
ENVIROTECH VEHICLES: Mollik Shareholder Suit Dismissed
ERSKINE COLLEGE: Young Sues Over Violation of Disabled's Rights
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Kraft
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 1, 2024
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Modified Scheduling Order Entered in Aboah
FANNIE MAE: Court Awards Interest on Damages to Shareholders
FATE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Hadian Class Suit
FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kaplan Suit Alleges
FINANCIAL GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 27, 2024
FLIGHT CLUB NEW YORK: McGuire Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
FLOCCO INC: Gomberg Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
FLORIDA SOUTHERN: Violates Disabled's Civil Rights, Young Alleges
FORD MOTOR: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed in Scriber Class Suit
FORD MOTOR: McGautha Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
FORD MOTOR: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Antonyan Suit
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to May 3, 2024
FUTURE MOTION: Ogan Sues Over Defective Skateboard-Like Devices
GENERAL MOTORS: Vita, FXR Seek to Certify Class
GILEAD SCIENCES: Seeks to Exclude Fincham Rebuttal Report in Searcy
GILEAD SCIENCES: Staley Bid for Entry of Set-Aside Order Tossed
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Bid to File Docs Under Seal in Moore OK'd
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Settlement in Chen-Oster Suit Gets Final Nod
GOTHAM PROCESS: Burks Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Holden Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement
H.I.S. GUAM: Parties in Igarashi Suit Must File Supplemental Brief
HARRIS BAY AREA: Norman Suit Removed to N.D. California
HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Faces ECERS Suit Over SEC Disclosures
HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Faces SFPRS Suit Over SEC Disclosures
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Joint Bid for Scheduling Order OK'd in Story
HEARTS TO HOME: Jones Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid Wages
HENDERSON, NE: Court Extends Discovery Deadlines in Woodburn
HOLLEY INC: Continues to Defend Tomlinson Class Suit in Kentucky
HONEST COMPANY: Continues to Defend Sida Class Suit in California
HYPEBEAST INC: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
ILLINOIS DOC: Kucinsky Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
INSIGHT GLOBAL: Floyd Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
INTEL CORP: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal
INTEL CORP: Faces Consumer Class Actions in Various Countries
INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY: Faces Bromberg Suit Over Collection Letters
INTIGRAL INC: Lewis Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in CA Court
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Kaleida Health Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
JAJ ROOFING: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Ticket Purchase
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Files Dismissal Bid of Edley Suit
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Toss Securities Suit Remains Pending
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suit Discovery Ongoing
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Court OK's Fine Bid for Class Certification
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend McIntosh Class Suit
KEVIN LU INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Dou Suit Claims
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Sued Over SEC Disclosures of Singapore Operations
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Houser Suit Under Appeal
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces McLemore Suit Over SEC Disclosures
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voigt Suit Over SEC Disclosures
MAGNUM HUNTER: Court OK's Bid to Certify Class in Sagacity Suit
MARATHON DIGITAL: No Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Securities Suit
MARIANI PACKING: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Diesel
MARIANI PACKING: Extension to File Class Cert Response Sought
MARQETA INC: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit in Delaware
MASIMO CORP: Continues to Defend Vasquez Class Suit
MASONITE CORP: Approval Hearing on Settlement Not Yet Set
MAUI ELECTRIC: Eder Personal Property Suit Removed to D. Hawaii
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Gibson Seeks Licensed Practical Nurses' OT Pay
MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Faces Santanelli Personal Injury Suit in E.D. Va.
MCLEOD EXPRESS: Lohmoeller Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
MCMENAMINS INC: Kirby Judicial Notice Bid Denied
MCPZ FOODS: Solis Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MENARD INC: Court Narrows Claims in Shoemaker SAC
MERIT ENERGY: Court Refuses to Remand Cooper-Clark Class Suit
META PLATFORMS: Obtains Personal Info Without Consent, Wright Says
MGM RESORTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Modified to July 24, 2024
MGM RESORTS: Manson Sues Over Data Security Failure
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settlement of Shareholder Suit for Court Nod
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Water Contamination in Alabama Court
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Cole Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Seeks Denial of Cole Class Status Bid
MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Elevated Radiation-Related Suit
NAPLES BOTANICAL: Wright Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NCAA: Court Excludes Osborne's Cass Cert Opinions
NCAA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 2, 2024
NEW JERSEY: Lovaglio Sues Over Unfair Newborn Blood Testing Program
NEW ORIENTAL EDUCATION: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Rynasko
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Seeks Expedited Class Certification Briefing
NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Settlement
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Kennedy Seeks to File Docs Under Seal
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: White Seeks to File Documents Under Seal
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: White Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
NEWELL BRANDS: NJ Court OKs Settlement of Securities Suit
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Advertising Antitrust Class Suit Trial Date Not Set
NEXTFOODS INC: Settlement in Andrade-Heymsfield Gets Initial Nod
OKLAHOMA WINDOWS: Seeks More Class Cert Response Time in Parisi
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Suit Over Tax Dispute Ongoing in Missouri Court
PAC HOUSING: Faces Hills Personal Injury Suit in E.D. La.
PARKWAY FAMILY: Courts Denies Bid to Strike Siringi's Class Claims
PERRIGO NEW: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Johns
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Fayad Seeks to Certify PMWA Class
PICKLEBALL TOPCO: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Starkgraf's Bid to Hire Counsel Under Advisement
POSTMEDS INC: Faces Garcia Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
PRECIGEN INC: Class Settlement in Abadilla Suit Gets Final Nod
PRESTIGE COMMUNITY: Wins Summary Judgment v. Tu Le
PROG LEASING: Fails to Protect Customers' Private Info, Guzman Says
PROG LEASING: Hawes Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Faces Boyle Class Action in C.D. Calif.
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Faces Doverspike Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Faces Robles Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
RAZOR OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lafleur Suit Says
RB HEALTH: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in DiGiacinto Suit
REAL ESTATE BOARD: March Sues Over Inflated Commission Fees
S&S DONUTS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Moise Claims
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Joint Bid for Class Certification OK'd
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Gallagher Appeals Case Dismissal to 8th Cir.
SATOP HOTEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Mayberry Suit Says
SCOTT SEMPLE: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response in Vega Suit
SCYNEXIS INC: Feldman Sues Over Misleading Business Statements
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit
SENIOR VILLAGE: S.D. Ohio Consolidates Markle and Williams Suits
SKYLER ZHANG: Bid for Clarification OK'd in Fields Suit
SLEEPING BABY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines, Court Says
SPACE EXPLORATION: Keopimpha Sues Over Underpayment of Compensation
SPINNAKER INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 27, 2024
SPOT EDGE: McCorvey Sues Over Illegal Wage Deductions
STABILITY AI: Wins Bids to Dismiss Andersen Suit w/ Leave to Amend
STANDARD INSURANCE: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in ELM Suit
STINGRAY MUSIC: Messner Sues Over Disclosure of Private Information
T-MOBILE USA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due June 21, 2024
TALKSPACE INC: Attys.' Fees & Expenses Awarded in Securities Suit
TALKSPACE INC: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Securities Suit
TARGET CORPORATION: Davis Must Submit Expert Report by Jan. 5, 2024
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Uhrich Says
TELADOC HEALTH: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed
TELADOC HEALTH: Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal Dismissed
TK&K SERVICES: E.D. California Directs Clerk to Close Palma Suit
TOSHIBA CORPORATION: Stoyas Suit Seeks Class Certification
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Partial OK of Class Cert Bid Endorsed
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Witriol Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
TRC COMPANIES: Bandy Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
UCOR LLC: Speer Bid for Class Certification Tossed
UNITED ELECTRICAL: Bid to Decertify Heeg Collective Action Nixed
UNITED STATES: Settlement in Padilla v. ICE Has Prelim. Approval
VALLEY NATIONAL: Allcock Breach Suit Removed to D.N.J.
VIRGIN AMERICA: Allocation Plan, Atty's Fees & Expenses OK'd
VISA INC: Bid for En Banc Rehearing on Access Fee Suit Tossed
VISA INC: Court Junks Plaintiffs' Bid to Remand Suit to State Court
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Bid to File Class Cert Sur-Reply Nixed
WALT DISNEY: Court Narrows Claims in James Suit
WARNER BROS: Continues to Defend Collinsville Class Suit
WELLS FARGO: Bid to Vacate Deadline to Move Class Cert. Sought
WELLS FARGO: Court OK's $1B Settlement in Securities Suit
WELLS FARGO: Court OK's $300MM Settlement in Fraud Class Action
WESTERN FLYER: Class Settlement in Beissel Suit Gets Final Nod
WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES: Dalton Sues Over Discrimination Under ADA
*********
A & D PRECISION: Rivera Sues Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------
LIDIA RIVERA, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A & D PRECISION INC. and WILFREDO CARILLO,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-08315 (E.D.N.Y., November 8, 2023)
seeks to recover damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid worker
from in or about October 1, 2021 until on or about August 25, 2023.
Her duties included cleaning and polishing aircraft parts. She
asserts that the Defendants violated FLSA and NYLL by, among other
things, failing to pay her overtime compensation for time worked in
excess of 40 and failing to provide her with an accurate statement
of her wages each pay period.
A & D Precision Inc. is engaged in the painting of metal products
for aircrafts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
A & T FINANCIAL: Sullivan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A & T Financial
Services, et al. The case is styled as Dianne Sullivan,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. A & T
Financial Services, Clearpath Debt Relief, Case No. 2:23-cv-00322
(E.D. Wash., Nov. 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
A&T Financial Services, Inc. is a small tax & accounting practice
that serves the residents of Phoenix and other neighboring
cities.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
A SECRET ADMIRER: Danso Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Secret Admirer NY,
Inc. The case is styled as Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. A Secret Admirer NY, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-09901 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A Secret Admirer NY, Inc. --
https://www.asecretadmirer.com/index.html -- offers a unique
collection of Luxury & Branded Candles, Diffusers, Soaps & more
gift items.[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
ACA TACOS: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Ramirez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN N. RAMIREZ, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ACA TACOS, INCORPORATED., a California
corporation; THANIA LEDESMA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 23CV02748 (Cal. Super., Oct. 3, 2023) alleges
that the Defendants have, at times, failed to pay minimum and
overtime wages to the Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them,
in violation of the California state wage and hour laws.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to accurately track
and/or pay for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime
rate of pay and for all hours actually worked at their regular rate
of pay that is above the minimum wage.
The Defendants engaged, suffered, or permitted employees to work
off the clock, including by requiring the Plaintiff and Class
Members: to come early to work and leave late work without being
able to clock in for all that time, to complete pre-shift tasks
before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out, to
clock out for meal periods and continue working, to make phone
calls off the clock, the Plaintiff says.
The Defendants also failed to provide the Plaintiff and Class
Members, or some of them, full, timely 30 minute uninterrupted meal
period for days on which they worked more than five (5) hours in a
work day and a second 30 minute uninterrupted meal period for days
on which they worked in excess of ten (10) hours in a work day, and
failed to provide compensation for such unprovided meal periods as
required by California wage and hour laws, alleges the Plaintiff.
Ms. Evelyn N. Ramirez was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee, with duties that included cashier, cleaning bathrooms,
and restocking beverages. She worked for the Defendants from
October of 2022 through June of 2023.
Aca is a Mexican food restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Joshua Shirian, Esq.
Ariella Mehrzadi, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-170
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
josh@tomorrowlaw.com
ariella@tomorrowlaw.com
ACE HARDWARE: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ace Hardware
Corporation. The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ace Hardware
Corporation doing business as: Ace Hardware, Case No.
0:23-cv-03470-KMM-DJF (D. Minn., Nov. 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ace Hardware Corporation -- http://www.acehardware.com/-- is an
American hardware retailers' cooperative based in Oak Brook,
Illinois,.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
St. Michael, MN 55376
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
ACTION NISSAN: Seeks New Class Cert Deadlines in Rodriguez
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. Action Nissan
Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-01344-VR (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order providing new deadlines, and possibly a new
conference date, given the circumstances.
Counsel for Plaintiff has been apprised of this request and has no
objection.
In light of recent health-related developments with its designated
witness, the Action Nissan deposition set for on October 24, 2023
was adjourned. The parties continue to coordinate on a new date and
expect to conduct the deposition prior to the end of this month.
Action Nissan retails new and used automobiles.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MKx0ue at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Darminio, Esq.
WSHB
5 Waller Avenue, Suite 200
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 353-3850
Facsimile: (914) 353-3851
E-mail jdarminio@wshblaw.com
ADAM KLEIN: Turnbull Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adam Klein, et al.
The case is styled as Adam Turnbull, David Acosta, and others
similarly situated v. Adam Klein, Crestview Advisors, L.L.C.,
Crestview III USWS TE, LLC, Crestview III USWS, L.P., Crestview
Partners III GP, L.P., David Matlin, David Treadwell, Eddie Watson,
Joel Broussard, Richard Burnett, Ryan Carroll, Steve S. Habachy,
Case No. 2023-1125-SG (Del. Chancery Ct., Nov. 6, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Adam Klein -- https://www.crestview.com/team/adam-klein -- joined
Crestview in 2007 and is a partner, chairman of the ESG Committee
and a member of the Investment Committee.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
Phone: (302) 654-1888
Fax: (302) 654-2067
- and -
Richard D. Heins, Esq.
Phone: (302) 654-1888
Fax: (302) 654-2067
- and -
Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq.
Ashby & Geddes
PO Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 654-1888
Email: tlydon@ashby-geddes.com
ADECCO USA INC: Recoder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adecco USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Elisa Recoder, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Adecco USA, Inc., Does 1 Through
50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23610349 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Nov. 9, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Adecco Staffing, USA -- http://www.adeccousa.com/-- is the
second-largest provider of recruitment and staffing services in the
United States, offering human resource services such as temporary
staffing, permanent placement, outsourcing, career transition or
outplacement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-488-6555
Fax: 213-488-6554
Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
ADVANCED COLLECTION: Burse Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advanced Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Paula Burse, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Advanced Collection
Bureau, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01321-HLA-PDB (M.D. Fla., Nov. 7,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Advanced Collection Bureau -- https://www.advancedcb.com/ -- is a
collection agency located in Rockledge, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Kanee, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
4000 Ponce De Leon, Suite 470
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Phone: (786) 369-1122
Email: joseph@marcuszelman.com
AGCO CORPORATION: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agco Corporation. The
case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Agco Corporation, Case No.
1:23-cv-09896 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
AGCO Corporation -- http://www.agcocorp.com/-- is an American
agricultural machinery manufacturer headquartered in Duluth,
Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
ALARMCO: Court Dismisses Akins' Complaints With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Louiscreas Akins, Plaintiff v. Alarmco;
Thomas Wilson; Lynn Andrade; and Ira Creenbolt, Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01039-JAD-DJA (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Daniel J.
Albregts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
dismisses the Plaintiff's complaints with leave to amend.
Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, the Plaintiff is proceeding in this
action pro se and has requested authority to proceed in forma
pauperis. She also submitted complaints. Because the Court finds
that her application is complete, it grants her application to
proceed in forma pauperis.
However, because the Court finds that the Plaintiff is attempting
to bring a class action, which she cannot do as a pro se party, it
dismisses her complaints with leave to amend.
The Plaintiff filed the affidavit required by Section 1915(a).
Judge Albregts holds that the Plaintiff has shown an inability to
prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the
request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted under 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(a).
The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.
Judge Albregts observes that the Plaintiff appears to be attempting
to bring a class action. Her complaint consists of: (1) two form
complaints for breach of contract, neither of which is filled out;
(2) a form civil complaint, which includes no facts and is not
completely filled out; (3) a complaint for employment
discrimination, which is missing pages; and (4) letters by other
people discussing their negative experiences while working at
Alarmco.
The last letter--written by the Plaintiff--lists all of the Alarmco
employees and indicates whether or not they are "interested,"
apparently in engaging in the lawsuit. However, Judge Albregts
opines, a pro se plaintiff may not prosecute a class action.
Because the Plaintiff could potentially amend her complaint to only
assert claims on her behalf, the Court dismisses the complaint
without prejudice and with leave to amend.
Judge Albregts, therefore, rules that the Plaintiff's application
to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Plaintiff will not be
required to pre-pay the filing fee. She is permitted to maintain
this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of
any additional fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor.
This order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis will not
extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government
expense.
The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Plaintiff's complaint
(ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6) on the docket but will
not issue summons.
The complaint (ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6) is
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, with leave to amend. The Plaintiff will have
until Nov. 29, 2023, to file an amended complaint if the noted
deficiencies can be corrected. If she chooses to amend the
complaint, the Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to
a prior pleading (i.e., the original complaint) to make the amended
complaint complete.
Judge Albregts explains that this is because, generally, an amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint. Local Rule 15-1(a)
requires that an amended complaint be complete without reference to
any prior pleading. Once a plaintiff files an amended complaint,
the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case.
Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint,
each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be
sufficiently alleged. Failure to comply with this order will result
in the recommended dismissal of this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4jd7ce9f from PacerMonitor.com.
ALASKA AIRLINES: Vigil Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Johnathan Vigil, an individual on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ALASKA
AIRLINES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. CGC-23-609451 was removed from the Superior Court for the
State of California for San Francisco County, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 6,
2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05701.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for: unfair competition;
failure to pay the minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages;
failure to provide compliant meal periods; failure to provide
compliant rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to reimburse employees for required expenses;
and failure to pay sick pay wages.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: +1.213.489.3939
Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539
Email: asommerfeld@jonesday.com
- and -
Aaron S. Markel, Esq.
JONES DAY
150 West Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2100
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone: +1.313.230.7929
Email: amakel@jonesday.com
- and -
Chelsea A. Till, Esq.
JONES DAY
2727 N. Harwood St.
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: +1.214.969.4824
Email: ctill@jonesday.com
ALL AMERICAN DOOR: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All American Door
Hardware, Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. All American Door
Hardware, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09800 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
All American Door Hardware Inc was founded in 2000. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of a number of basic
hardware lines, such as tools, housewares and household
appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ALLIED CAPITAL: Harris Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Capital
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Tiffany Harris, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allied Capital
Services, LLC d/b/a Allied Capital Services, Case No. 1:23-cv-08284
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Allied Capital Services, LLC (ACS) --
https://alliedcapitalservices.com/ -- is a professional business
finance firm specializing in government grants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
275 Seventh Avenue, 7th Floor
10001, Suite 410
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ross@kazlg.com
ALTAMED HEALTH: L. V. Sues Over Personal Injury Claims in C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
L. V. et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-09658-MWF-MRW (C.D. Cal., November 14,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for personal injury
claims.
The nature of the suit is stated as 360 Torts - Personal Injury -
Other Personal Injury.
AltaMed Health Service Corporation is a healthcare services
provider based in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
- and -
Britany Kabakov, Esq.
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
matt@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140
Sacramento, CA 95821
Telephone: (916) 616-2936
E-mail: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com
ALTICE USA: Patent Scheduling Order Entered in Freedom Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREEDOM PATENTS, LLC, v.
ALTICE USA, INC., CSC HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A OPTIMUMCABLEVISION, and
CEQUEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC D/B/A SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS, Case
No. 4:23-cv-00300-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos L. Mazzant
entered a patent scheduling order as follows:
The following actions shall be completed by the date indicated.1
Nov. 22, 2023 P.R. 3-1 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
Infringement Contentions (and P.R. 3-2
document production) to be served.
Dec. 18, 2023 Deadline to add parties.
Dec. 18, 2023 P.R. 3-3 Invalidity Contentions (and P.R. 3-4
document production) to be served. To extent
not
already required to be disclosed, exchange
Mandatory Disclosures on all issues, including
damages.
Dec. 28, 2023 Parties to exchange proposed terms for
construction and identify any claim element
governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (P.R. 4-1).
Mar. 17, 2024 Completion date for discovery on claim
construction (P.R. 4-4).
May 6, 2024 Claim construction hearing.
July 15, 2024 Fact discovery deadline.
Aug. 13, 2024 Expert discovery deadline.
Dec. 4, 2024 Motions in limine due.
Altice is an American cable television provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SYzRnB at no extra charge.[CC]
ALTON LANE INC: Gomberg Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alton Lane, Inc. The
case is styled as Matthew Gomberg, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Alton Lane, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-04303 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alton Lane -- https://www.altonlane.com/ -- is an American menswear
company founded in 2009 by Colin Hunter and Peyton Jenkins,
graduates of the University of Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GLANZBERG
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Fax: (267) 319-1993
Email: david.glanzberg@gtlawpc.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Barnes Class Action Lawsuit in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. The case is captioned as Britini Barnes et al v. American
Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-08302-PA-MAA (C.D. Cal.,
Oct. 3, 2023).
The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract demanding
$6,000,000.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson.
American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trinette Gragirena Kent, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW LLC
3219 East Camelback Road Suite 558
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: (480) 247-9644
Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com
AON PLC: 4th Cir. Affirms Favorable Ruling in ERISA-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 27, 2023, that on October 16, 2023 the
court's judgment, in favor of Aon, became final after the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion on
July 17, 2023 affirming the judgement of the District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina with respect to in a class
action lawsuit against Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., now
known as Aon Investments USA, Inc., Lowe's Companies, Inc. and the
Administrative Committee of Lowe's Companies, Inc. filed on April
27, 2018 in the said District Court brought on behalf of
participants in the Lowe's 401(k) Plan.
Aon Investments provided investment consulting services to Lowe's
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The
plaintiffs contend that in 2015 Lowe's imprudently placed the
Hewitt Growth Fund in the plan's lineup of investments, the Hewitt
Growth Fund underperformed its benchmarks, and that Aon had a
conflict of interest in recommending the proprietary fund for the
plan.
The matter was tried to the Court the last week of June 2021, and
the Court entered judgment in favor of Aon on all claims on October
12, 2021. Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and oral argument took place on
December 7, 2022.
The plaintiffs allege the plan suffered over $200 million in
investment losses when compared to the eight funds it replaced. The
plaintiffs allege that Aon Investments breached its duties of
loyalty and prudence pursuant to ERISA.
Aon PLC is a British-American professional services and management
consulting firm that offers a range of risk-mitigation products.
The firm also provides data and analytics services, strategy
consulting through Aon Inpoint and investment banking advisory
through Aon Securities.
APPLE INC: Court Grants Smith Leave to File 3rd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend their complaint and to modify the case management
schedule in the lawsuit titled CHRIS SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs v.
APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-09527-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
The lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of Apple Watches. The Plaintiffs allege that First
Generation, Series 1 through Series 6, and Series SE Apple Watches
contain "an undisclosed and unreasonably dangerous safety hazard."
More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that sudden swelling of
the watch batteries can cause the screen to detach, shatter, or
crack, exposing its razor-sharp edges and leading to operational
failure of the Watch and/or personal injuries.
The Plaintiffs allege that Apple failed to allot sufficient space
within the watch to prevent the screen issue, despite knowing that
the battery inside the Watch can suddenly swell. They further
allege that the watches have injured them and putative class
members, creating a substantial and material risk of serious
injury, including lacerations, cuts, abrasions, and other
injuries.
In their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), the Plaintiffs seek to
represent a nationwide class, an internet subclass, and
state-specific subclasses in Alabama, California, New York, Ohio,
Texas, and Florida. They assert the following causes of action
against the Defendant: (1) violations of the California Unlawful
Competition Law; (2) violations of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act; (3) fraud by omission under various state laws; (4)
violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and (5)
violations of consumer protection laws in New York, Texas and
Florida.
The Plaintiffs seek leave to file a third amended complaint not to
add or change any legal claims or parties, but to conform their
definition of the Defect (and Apple's knowledge thereof) to the
evidence Apple has produced and the recent inspections of the named
Plaintiffs' Watches that have taken place.
Because the deadline to amend pleadings set in the Court's
scheduling order has passed, Judge Gilliam notes that the
Plaintiffs must meet the "good cause" standard of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). The Plaintiffs have done so here, and
thus, the Court grants their motion for leave to file the proposed
third amended complaint.
Despite the Defendant's insistence that the Plaintiffs were on
notice of the aspects of the expanded definition of the alleged
defect a year before the joint inspection, Judge Gilliam says the
record reflects that the Plaintiffs reasonably assessed a very
large (and ongoing) volume of discovery, and sought leave based on
their review of that discovery and the results of the expert
testing. The Court also agrees that the Plaintiffs are not adding
any new defendants or products, and are simply conforming their
factual allegations regarding the Defect (and Apple's knowledge of
it) to the evidence Apple has produced and the recent inspections.
Judge Gilliam holds that the Plaintiffs have established diligence
and good cause to amend their Complaint. Accordingly, the Court
grants the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.
The Plaintiffs also move to modify the case management schedule.
The Defendant requests that the Court deny the Plaintiffs' motion
to amend in its entirety, but does not specifically set out its
position on their proposed extensions to the case schedule.
Given that the Court has now granted the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend the Complaint, the case schedule clearly will need
to be modified, Judge Gilliam says. However, since it is unclear
whether the Defendant agrees to the Plaintiffs' proposed amended
schedule, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer and file
a joint stipulation and proposed amended scheduling order through
class certification within one week of this order. The proposal
should reflect the Plaintiffs' counsel's commitment at the hearing
to file the class certification motion by January 2024.
If the parties cannot agree on a schedule, they must submit
separate proposed schedules, without argument, and the Court will
impose a schedule.
The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint. Because the Court has granted leave to file the
third amended complaint, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint is terminated as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/h62yfuz2 from PacerMonitor.com.
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Joint Status Report Entered in Williams Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMAND WILLIAMS and ALAN
MICHAEL LARRECOU, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00291-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica Grosjean
entered an order regarding joint status report as follows:
1. In light of the parties' settlement in principle, the mid-
discovery status conference set for November 13, 2023, at 11
a.m. is vacated.
2. By no later than December 7, 2023, the parties shall file a
document to facilitate the disposition of this case. If the
parties believe that Court approval of their settlement is
not
required, they shall provide developed argument and specific
legal citation to support their position.
3. Alternatively, if the parties are unable to finalize their
settlement by December 7, 2023, they shall file a joint
status
report, setting forth the status of settlement efforts and
how
they intend to proceed in this case.
As amended, the complaint characterizes this case as "a collective
and class action brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"), as a
FLSA section 216(b) collective action and California state-wide
class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)."
Aramark provides food and facilities management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R0fSmI at no extra charge.[CC]
AT&T MOBILITY: Louka Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN LOUKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-02031-RSH-MSB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 2, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of
the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay wages for all
hours worked, including overtime; failure to provide meal periods
and pay meal period compensation; failure to authorize and permit
rest periods and pay rest period compensation; failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; and unlawful and unfair business
practices.
The Plaintiff has been employed by AT&T Mobility at one of its many
stores in the State of California as an hourly, non-exempt employee
during the time period of January 2022 to the present.
AT&T Mobility Services LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T
Inc. and provides wireless services in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Hawkes, Esq.
BLANCHARD, KRASNER & FRENCH
800 Silverado St., 2nd Floor
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-2440
Facsimile: (858) 551-2434
E-mail: dhawkes@bkflaw.com
- and -
David A. Huch, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. HUCH
12223 Highland Ave., Ste. 106-574
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Telephone: (909) 463-6363
Facsimile: (909) 614-7008
E-mail: david.a.huch@gmail.com
- and -
Stephen Matcha, Esq.
MATCHA LAW
13223 Black Mountain Rd., #233
San Diego, CA 92129-2699
Telephone: (619) 565-3865
E-mail: steve@matchalaw.com
ATERIAN INC: Final OK Hearing of Mueller Deal Set for Feb. 28, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aterian 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 8, 2023, that the final settlement
approval hearing for the Mueller class suit is set on February 28,
2024.
In October 2021, the Company received a class action notification
and pre-lawsuit demand letter demanding corrective action with
respect to the marketing, advertising and labeling of certain
products under the Mueller brand (the "Mueller Action").
In April 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
resolve this potential action for $0.5 million in cash and $0.3
million worth of coupons, which the Company accrued $0.8 million in
the three months ended March 31, 2022, subject to court approval.
The court preliminarily approved the settlement on August 3, 2023
and has scheduled a hearing for final approval for February 28,
2024.
If that approval is not granted, the Company is prepared to
continue the full defense of this action.
Aterian, Inc. is a technology-enabled consumer products platform
based in New York.
AZ TORRES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rodriguez Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yahaira Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AZ Torres LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company, and Adolfo Torres and Zindy Torres, a married
couple, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02347-SRB (D. Ariz., November
8, 2023) seeks to recover from Defendants compensation for unpaid
overtime wages, an additional amount equal amount as liquidated
damages, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of this
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On or about April 9, 2022, the Defendants hired Plaintiff to work
for them as an hourly-paid manager at the restaurant located at
9897 W. McDowell Rd., #755, Phoenix, AZ. During her employment, the
Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 55 hours per week and was
not paid one-and-one-half times her regular rate of pay as required
under the FLSA for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the
suit.
AZ Torres LLC owns, operates, or otherwise manages a chain of
"Tacos Calafia" restaurants with multiple locations in the Phoenix
metropolitan area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
chris@bendaulaw.com
BALDWIN GROUP: Nichols Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
TERRI NICHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BALDWIN GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-05674 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 2, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act for making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do
Not Call Registry, including Plaintiff's.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of Defendant because telemarketing campaigns
generally place calls to thousands or even millions of potential
customers en masse.
The Baldwin Group, LLC is a limited liability company located in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana J. Oliver, Esq.
OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC.
8780 19th Street #559
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
Telephone: (855)384-3262
Facsimile: (888)570-2021
E-mail: dana@danaoliverlaw.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 738-7080
Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
BARILLA AMERICA: CMF Continued to March 14, 2024
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW SINATRO, et al.,
v. BARILLA AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-03460-DMR (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order vacating the November
15, 2023 case management conference and continuing to March 14,
2024, to coincide with the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
On October 23, 2023, the court entered a stipulated Second Amended
Case Management Scheduling Order in which it adjusted the deadlines
related to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
In relevant part, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion
was August 30, 2023; the deadline to complete depositions of
Plaintiffs' experts regarding class certification was September 29,
2023; and the deadline for Defendant's opposition to the motion for
class certification is November 30, 2023.
The Plaintiffs timely filed their motion for class certification.
On October 27, 2023, the parties filed a joint discovery letter in
which Defendant Barilla America, Inc. moves for an extension of the
September 29, 2023, deadline to complete the depositions of
Plaintiffs' experts.
Barilla produces food products. The Company offers pasta, sauces,
and bakery products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40G4NKO at no extra charge.[CC]
BARRIOS SECURITY: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Nodarse Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE NODARSE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARRIOS SECURITY CORPORATION, HENRY BARRIOS,
Individually, MIAMI MARINA VENTURES, LLLP and INTEGRA MARINAS
OPERATOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-24287-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
November 8, 2023) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff began his employment in or around 2019 as a security
guard. Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff
asserts that he worked approximately 60 hours per week, however, he
was not compensated for the required overtime premium.
Based in Miami-Dade County, FL, Barrios Security Corporation
provides security services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
FLORIN| GRAY
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone: (727) 220-4000
Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
E-mail: wflorin@floringray.com
miguel@floringray.com
BELLARMINE UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bellarmine University
Incorporated. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bellarmine
University Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-09857 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bellarmine -- https://www.bellarmine.edu/ -- is a close-knit
high-impact community of learners located in Louisville,
Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
BEN E. KEITH COMPANY: Lamoreaux Files Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ben E. Keith Company.
The case is styled as Dylan Lamoreaux, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Ben E. Keith Company, Case No.
4:23-cv-01121-P (N.D. Tex., Nov. 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Torts/Pers Inj: Other Personal
Injury or Personal Injury.
Ben E. Keith -- https://www.benekeith.com/ -- is a premier
distributor of top-quality food service products and premium
beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Jon Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: ecfnotices@sanfordlawfirm.com
BENEDICT COLLEGE: Faces Young Civil Rights Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BENEDICT COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-10037 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The nature of the suit is stated as 446 Civil Rights - Americans
with Disabilities - Other.
The Benedict College is a private college in Columbia, South
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite 10003
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
E-mail: michael@gottlieb.legal
BETTERME INTERNATIONAL: Lyons Sues Over Private Info Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA LYONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BETTERME INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-24274 (S.D. Fla., November 8, 2023) arises from
Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to Meta Platforms,
Inc. (Facebook), information which identifies Plaintiff and the
putative Class members as having requested or obtained specific
video materials or services from Defendant. Plaintiff alleges
violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant embedded within its
website a "Meta Pixel" that was provided to Defendant by Facebook.
That pixel tracked Plaintiff's and the Class Members' video viewing
history while on Defendant's website and reported the viewing
history to Facebook along with Plaintiff's and the Class Members'
unique Facebook Identification numbers.
Betterme International is a behavioral healthcare app publisher.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street
Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
- and -
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (305) 336-7466
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW. P.A.
515 E las Olas Blvd. Ste 120,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
BF MCCABE HOLDINGS: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BF Mccabe Holdings,
Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. BF Mccabe Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09803 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BF Mccabe Holdings, Inc. is a BC Company in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BIG TEXAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Stringer Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Stringer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Big Texan Steak Ranch Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00181-Z (N.D. Tex., November 7, 2023)
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Stringer was employed by Defendant as a server and
bartender from March 2023 to present. Allegedly, the Defendant paid
Plaintiff -- and other servers and bartenders like Plaintiff -- an
hourly wage that is less than $7.25 per hour, which is the minimum
wage required by the FLSA. Instead of paying its servers and
bartenders the full minimum wage required by the FLSA, the
Defendant attempted to take credit for the tips its servers and
bartenders earned in order to supplement and meet their obligation
to pay the minimum wage required by the FLSA. However, the
Defendant failed to comply the strict requirements for taking a tip
credit, says the suit.
Big Texas Steak Ranch, Inc. owns and operates a steakhouse in
Amarillo, TX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
BIOGEN INC: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for January 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
Biogen 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 8, 2023, that the ERISA class suit
settlement final approval hearing is set for January 2024.
In 2020 participants in the Biogen 401(k) Savings Plan filed
actions against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts alleging breach of fiduciary duty under
ERISA and seeking a declaration of the actions as class actions and
monetary and other relief.
In August 2023 the court preliminarily approved a settlement under
which it agrees to pay $9.75 million without any admission of
liability.
The court has set a hearing for January 2024 to determine whether
to grant final approval.
Biogen Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in Massachusetts.
BJC HEALTHCARE ACO: Williams Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kisha Williams, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. BJC Healthcare ACO,
LLC, Case No. 2023CH07896 was removed from the Cook County Circuit
Court, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 2, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-15611 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
BJC ACO -- https://www.bjc.org/ -- works together with Medicare to
provide high-quality service and care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
Mark Richard Miller, Esq.
Molly Condon Wells, Esq.
WALLACE MILLER
150 N. Wacker, Ste. 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 261-6193
Fax: (312) 275-8174
Email: eaw@wallacemiller.com
mrm@wallacemiller.com
mcw@wallacemiller.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ada W. Dolph, Esq.
Ala Salameh, Esq.
Danielle M. Kays, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 460-5000
Email: adolph@seyfarth.com
asalameh@seyfarth.com
dkays@seyfarth.com
BLOOM ENERGY: Continues to Defend LPPF Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Lincolnshire Police
Pension Fund class suit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara.
In March 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the Company, certain members of its
senior management, certain of its directors and the underwriters in
its July 25, 2018 IPO alleging violations under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act for alleged misleading statements or
omissions in its Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the
SEC in connection with the IPO.
Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants containing
the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on
April 22, 2019 and Evans vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on May 7,
2019. These cases have been consolidated.
Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed with the court
on September 12, 2019.
On October 4, 2019, defendants moved to stay the lawsuit pending
the federal district court action discussed below.
On December 7, 2019, the Superior Court issued an order staying the
action through resolution of the parallel federal litigation
mentioned below.
The Company believes the complaint to be without merit and in
contravention of its forum selection clause in its Restated
Certificate of Incorporation and it intends to defend this action
vigorously.
Bloom Energy is into clean, reliable alternative renewable energy
using commercially viable solid oxide fuel-cell based power
generation platform, marketing and selling energy servers
primarily
through direct sale.
BLOOM ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Roberts Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that
discovery is ongoing for the Roberts class suit in the Northern
District of California.
In May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the
federal district court for the Northern District of California
against the Company, certain members of its senior management team,
and certain of its directors alleging violations under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act for alleged misleading statements or
omissions in its Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the
SEC in connection with the IPO.
On September 3, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiffs' counsel.
On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
the underwriters in the IPO and the its auditor as defendants for
the Section 11 claim, as well as adding claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), against the Company, and certain members of its
senior management team.
The amended complaint alleged a class period for all claims from
the time of our IPO until September 16, 2019.
On April 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which continued to make the same claims and added allegations
pertaining to the restatement and, as to claims under the Exchange
Act, extended the putative class period through February 12, 2020.
On July 1, 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On September 29, 2021, the court entered an order dismissing with
leave to amend (1) five of seven statements or groups of statements
alleged to violate Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and (2)
all allegations under the Exchange Act. All allegations against our
auditors were also dismissed.
Plaintiffs elected not to amend the complaint and instead on
October 22, 2021 filed a motion for entry of final judgment in
favor of its auditors so that plaintiffs could appeal the dismissal
of those claims.
The court denied that motion on December 1, 2021 and in response
plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to certify an
interlocutory appeal as to the accounting claims.
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion on April 14, 2022.
The claims for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act that were not dismissed by the court entered the discovery
phase.
Bloom Energy is into clean, reliable alternative renewable energy
using commercially viable solid oxide fuel-cell based power
generation platform, marketing and selling energy servers
primarily
through direct sale.
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Bid to Stay Pre-Trial Deadlines in Laskey OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Laskey, et al., v.
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-03194
(W.D. Mo., Filed July 29, 2022), the Court entered an order
granting joint motion to stay pre-trial and trial deadlines.
-- The Court grants the parties' motion. The Court stays the pre-
trial deadlines and continues the current December 18, 2023,
trial
setting until such time as the Court has ruled on the pending
motions for summary judgment and motion to modify class
definition
or class certification.
-- Within 14 days after the Court has issued its rulings, and as
necessary, the parties shall submit a new proposed scheduling
order and dates they are available for trial.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Bluegreen is a leisure, travel, and tourism company.[CC]
BON APPETIT: Casey Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Michelle Casey, individually, and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees v. BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT CO., a California Corporation;
COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 23SMCV05213 (Cal. Super Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Nov. 2, 2023), is brought for recovery of penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") and the Defendants'
violation various provisions of the California Labor Code as a
result of the Defendants' failure to pay wages.
The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to
unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: failure to accurately pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages failure to provide
meal periods before the end of the fifth hour worked and failure to
pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period
before the end of the fifth hour worked; failure to authorize and
permit rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof
worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of
providing a rest period; failing to pay all wages earned and owed
upon separation from Defendant's employ; and failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; knowingly and intentionally
failing to maintain accurate and complete records; and failure to
indemnify for necessary business expenses. As a result, Plaintiff
seeks penalties under Labor Code on behalf of the general public as
private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as server in Los Angeles.
The Defendant provides catering services and operates cafes
throughout the United States, including in Los Angeles County, and
employs numerous non-exempt employees in the State of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
Samuel Almon, Esq.
Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
Phone: (310) 312-0299
Fax: (310) 312-0296
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON: Faces Langley Suit Over Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q
report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 27, 2023,
that it is currently facing a putative class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
on June 19, 2017 by a purported stockholder of the company filed
styled "Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp.," No.
17-cv-00696 naming the company, its Chief Executive Officer, and
its Chief Financial Officer as defendants purportedly on behalf of
all purchasers of the company's securities from May 19, 2016
through June 15, 2017.
On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs, and on
October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
alleging misrepresentations or omissions by the company purporting
to relate to matters that are the subject of a Department of
Justice investigation.
The plaintiffs seek to recover from the company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages. On September 22, 2023,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the dismissed amended
complaint or, in the alternative, for relief from the court's prior
dismissal order and on October 16, 2023, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion.
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation, including its wholly owned
subsidiaries, provides management and technology consulting,
analytics, engineering, digital solutions, mission operations, and
cyber services to U.S. and international governments, major
corporations, and not-for-profit organizations.
BRANCH BANKING: SCSFCU Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sevier County Schools
Federal Credit Union et al., v. Branch Banking and Trust Company,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00138-TRM-DCP (D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying the case as a mandatory class action for
injunctive
and declaratory relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
as
an opt-out class action for damages pursuant to Rule 23(b);
2. Defining the class, the class claims, issues and defenses as
requested;
3. Appointing the Plaintiffs' attorneys as class counsel;
4. Directing the best notice practicable to the class members,
including individual notice to all class members who can be
identified through reasonable effort;
5. Directing BB&T to take every reasonable and necessary step to
contact the class members to ensure that they receive their
award, to offer to reopen their accounts or restore the
balances, as the case may be, to bring home to them the
benefit
of doing so, to accomplish these communications by a neutral
outside agent to be paid for by the bank, to order BB&T to
make
monthly reports to Plaintiffs' counsel of its steps in this
regard, and to require BB&T to submit a proposal as to how it
will accomplished these directives, which will be subject to
Court approval, and
6. Granting all other general relief to which the Plaintiffs are
entitled.
The Plaintiffs -- and each class member—are similarly situated
and have sustained damages as a result of BB&T's breach of
contract.
More specifically, the Plaintiffs and all other class members
opened "high-interest Money Market Investment Accounts" (MMIAs)
with First National Bank of Gatlinburg (one of BB&T’s predecessor
banks).
The key feature of the "high-interest" MMIAs was that the subject
accounts had an interest rate that was "guaranteed [to] never fall
below 6.5%!" The guaranteed interest rate was contained in various
writings and confirmed through the course of conduct of BB&T and
its predecessor banks. It was honored for more than 25 years and
spanned multiple bank mergers/acquisitions. However, in 2018, BB&T
precipitously dropped the interest rate on all of the subject
accounts below of the guaranteed floor of 6.5%, first to 1.05% or
0.75%, and then to 0.01%, effectively doing away with a meaningful
rate entirely.
The Complaint alleges that BB&T has breached a contract entered
into by its predecessor bank [First National Bank of Gatlinburg] by
doing away with an interest rate that was "guaranteed to never fall
below 6.5%!" on certain accounts known as Money Market Investment
Accounts [MMIAs]. This interest rate is referred to hereinafter as
the
Guaranteed Rate or the Guaranteed Interest Rate.
The class is defined as all those who:
1) opened MMIAs with FNB with an interest rate guaranteed to
never
fall below 6.5%,
2) who then converted their MMIAs to Maintenance Accounts which
had the same features as the MMIAs (including the guaranteed
6.5% interest rate) except that they could not make
additional
deposits into the accounts, and who still maintained their
accounts at BB&T on or about January 30, 2018 [the Benchmark
Date], when BB&T announced that it was going to do away with
the guaranteed interest rate and dropped the interest rate
to
1.05% or .75% and then to 0.01%.
The Plaintiffs would divide the class into two sub-classes for
administrative purposes, with one subclass being account holders
who signed signature cards on which it stated that FNB could adjust
the interest rate, and the other subclass being account holders who
did not sign such a card.
Branch Banking was one of the largest banking and financial
services firms.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ug8nPO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Donald K. Vowell, Esq.
THE VOWELL LAW FIRM
6718 Albunda Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
Telephone: (865) 292-0000
Facsimile: (865) 292-0002
E-mail: don@vowell-law.com
- and -
Gregory Brown, Esq.
W. Scott Hickerson, Esq.
G. Alan Rawls, Esq.
LOWE YEAGER & BROWN, PLLC
920 Volunteer Landing, Suite 200
Knoxville, TN 37915
Telephone: (865) 521-6527
Facsimile: (865) 637-0540
E-mail: gb@lyblaw.net
wsh@lyblaw.net
gar@lyblaw.net
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Kennedy Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023,
that the Company continues to defend itself from the Kennedy class
suit in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts.
Kennedy v. Progress Software Corporation, et al. (U.S. District
Court, District of Massachusetts, filed October 3, 2023). BHF has
been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit.
The action relates to a data security incident at an alleged
third-party vendor, PBI Research Services (“PBI”), and
allegedly involves the MOVEit file transfer system that PBI uses in
its provision of services ("MOVEit Incident").
As it relates to BHF, plaintiff seeks to certify a subclass of
persons whose private information was allegedly maintained by BHF
and accessed or acquired in connection with the MOVEit Incident.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that BHF negligently chose
to utilize PBI to store and transfer plaintiff's and purported
class members' private information despite PBI's use of the MOVEit
software which plaintiff contends contained security
vulnerabilities.
The complaint asserts claims against BHF for negligence, negligence
per se, and unjust enrichment, and plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees and prejudgment
interest.
BHF intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse is a major provider of annuities and life insurance in
the United States.
BUDGET RVS: Miles Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MILES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated Plaintiffs v. BUDGET RVS OF TEXAS, LLC, ADAM
MITCHEL, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:23-cv-02478-N (N.D. Tex., November
7, 2023) alleges violations of the minimum wage provisions of the
Texas Labor Code and the minimum wage and overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking a declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, penalties, prejudgment
interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs.
The Defendants had Plaintiff performed work as a salesperson during
the period starting in June 2022. However, the Defendants deprived
Plaintiff of proper minimum wage for all hours worked and proper
overtime compensation for all of the hours worked over 40 per week.
In addition, the Defendants wrongfully misclassified Plaintiff as
an independent contractor exempt from the requirements of the FLSA,
says the suit.
Based in Rockwall County, Texas, Budget RVs of Texas, LLC, is
engaged in recreational vehicle dealership. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Downey, Esq.
4516 Lovers Lane, #204
Dallas, TX 75225
Telephone: (214) 764-7279
E-mail: mdowney@dlawgrp.com
BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Walker Suit w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BurgerFi International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending October 2, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2023, that the
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida signed
the Walker class suit dismissal order without prejudice on
September 5, 2023.
John Walker, Individually and On Behalf of all Other Similarly
Situated v. BurgerFi International, Inc. et al (in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No.
023-cv-60657).
On April 6, 2023, John Walker, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated plaintiffs, filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company and certain current and former executives alleging that
the Company violated certain securities laws by making false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose that (1) the Company
had overstated the effectiveness of its acquisition and growth
strategies, and (2) the Company had misrepresented the purported
benefits of the Anthony's acquisition and the post-acquisition
business and financial prospects of the Company.
On July 20, 2023, the court appointed John Walker and Joseph
Poalino as co-lead plaintiffs in the matter.
On September 5, 2023, an Order of Dismissal without prejudice was
signed.
Therefore, no contingent liability has been recorded as of October
2, 2023.
BURLINGTON STORES: Court Certifies Payton-Fernandez FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, grants in part and denies
in part the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify as a
collective action the lawsuit entitled KIM PAYTON-FERNANDEZ, LAVERN
COLEMAN, and DARNIEL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BURLINGTON STORES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00608-AMD (D.N.J.).
The matter comes before the Court by way of motion of Plaintiffs
Kim Payton-Fernandez, Lavern Coleman and Darniel Williams, for an
order conditionally certifying a collective under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), authorizing judicial notice of the lawsuit to all putative
collective action members, and facilitating notice by requiring the
Defendants to produce an electronic list of putative collective
action members and corresponding contact information. Defendants,
Burlington Stores, Inc., Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation, Burlington Coat Factory Investment Holdings, Inc., and
Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, LLC, do not oppose the motion.
The Court has considered the Plaintiffs' submission and decides
this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For
the reasons that follow and for good cause shown, Judge Donio holds
that the Plaintiffs' motion is granted in part and denied without
prejudice in part.
The background of this case is set forth at length in this Court's
Opinion and Order dated April 28, 2023, and is incorporated by
reference (see Payton-Fernandez v. Burlington Stores, Inc., -- F.
Supp. 3d ---, No. 22-608, 2023 WL 3145140, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 28,
2023)).
The Plaintiffs generally allege that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. ("FLSA"),
and California wage and hour laws by misclassifying the Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees as exempt under federal
overtime laws and failing to pay them overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs, who are present and former "Assistant Store
Managers" ("ASMs") at the Defendants' retail stores within the
United States, contend, among other things, that they regularly
worked in excess of forty hours per workweek without receiving
overtime compensation because the Defendants allegedly had a
company-wide policy, pattern and/or practice of misclassifying ASMs
as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.
The parties previously participated in private mediation of this
matter and reached a settlement, and the Plaintiffs thereafter
moved to certify an FLSA collective for settlement purposes and
approval of the settlement of the FLSA and California state law
claims. The Court, however, denied the motion without prejudice.
The Court first concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to address the
applicable standard for certification of the action as a collective
action, and the Court was, thus, unable to conclude that members of
the collective are "similarly situated" in accordance with 29
U.S.C. Section 216.
In addition, because the Plaintiffs attempted to settle this action
before providing an opportunity for putative collective members to
opt into the case, the Court further concluded that the "Plaintiffs
have no authority to act as representatives of these potential
collective members and settle the case on their behalf at this
time." The Court noted that if the parties seek to settle this
lawsuit as a collective action, they must cure the defects in
substance and use a procedural mechanism consistent with an FLSA
collective action, not a class action. Since the Court's decision,
three individuals have opted into the Plaintiffs' suit by filing
consent forms.
The Plaintiffs now seek conditional certification pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Plaintiffs argue that from Feb. 4, 2019,
through Feb. 28, 2021, the Defendants classified all ASMs as exempt
under the FLSA without regard to the size, sales volume, geographic
location or hours of operation of the store where the ASM worked,
the length of the ASM's tenure, or the supervisor or manager to
whom the ASM reports, and that all ASMs received no overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a collective
action consisting of:
All Assistant Store Managers ("ASMs") who worked in any of
Burlington's stores in the United States at any time between
Feb. 4, 2019, and Feb. 28, 2021, except for ASMs who
participated in the Goodman settlement, for whom the period
shall be Aug. 20, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021 (the "Collective").
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to approve a notice and "Consent
to Join Form" and to facilitate notice to putative collective
members by requiring the Defendants to provide to a third-party
administrator an electronic list of all persons employed as ASMs
within the collective with corresponding contact information.
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
Court will deny without prejudice the request for approval of the
notice and consent form in the form submitted with the Plaintiffs'
motion and will schedule a telephone conference to address the
issues.
First, Judge Donio notes the proposed notice seeks to include a
certain language. As discussed at length in the Opinion denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for settlement approval, the Plaintiffs' counsel
had "neither the authority to represent future opt-in plaintiffs
nor the authority to settle the FLSA claims on behalf of such
potential plaintiffs" at the time they engaged in settlement
negotiations. The Court finds no basis to include in the notice
language about the prior settlement when the Plaintiffs' counsel
was not authorized to engage in settlement negotiations on behalf
of putative class members in the first instance.
Second, Judge Donio finds the proposed form of notice omits
information regarding the rights of individuals, who choose to opt
into the lawsuit. The proposed notice advises putative opt-in
plaintiffs that the parties intend to present to the Court a
proposed settlement shortly after the opt-in period expires, but
the notice does not advise putative opt-ins of their right to
reject any settlement or litigate their claims on the merits. The
Court also will require the parties to modify the proposed "Consent
to Join Form" attached to the Plaintiffs' motion.
Finally, the Court addresses the Plaintiffs' request that the
Defendants provide the "names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates
of employment, locations of employment, social security numbers,
employee work number, if any, work and personal e-mail addresses,
and date of birth" of all employees who fall within the defined
collective.
Judge Donio points out that the Plaintiffs provide no rationale for
their request for such extensive information, some of which --
including dates of birth, social security numbers, and employee
work numbers -- implicates privacy concerns of putative collective
members. Judge Donio directs the Defendants to provide the
Plaintiffs with a list of all ASMs that fall within the defined
collective, the dates and locations of employment, the last known
addresses of collective members, and their last known phone number
and email address, if any. In the interest of privacy, however,
Judge Donio says the Defendants will not at this time produce
social security numbers, dates of birth, or employee work numbers
of the putative opt-in plaintiffs.
In conclusion, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have produced
sufficient evidence to categorize the potential opt-in plaintiffs
as similarly situated to the Plaintiffs at this stage of the
litigation, and the request for conditional certification is,
therefore, granted. The Plaintiffs' requests authorizing judicial
notice of the lawsuit to all collective action members and
facilitating notice by requiring the Defendants to produce an
electronic list of collective action members and corresponding
contact information is denied without prejudice. The Defendants
will produce only the names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of
employment, locations of employment, and work and personal e-mail
addresses of each putative opt-in member.
Finally, the parties will meet and confer concerning a revised
notice form and "Consent to Join Form" in accordance with this
Memorandum Opinion and Order and will address the issues set forth
herein at a status conference to be set by separate Order.
Judge Donio rules that the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally
certify this action as a collective action and for issuance of
notice will be, and is, granted in part and denied without
prejudice in part. The action will be conditionally designated as a
collective action under the FLSA consisting of "All Assistant Store
Managers ("ASMs") who worked in any of Burlington's stores in the
United States at any time between February 4, 2019, and February
28, 2021, except for ASMs who participated in the Goodman
settlement, for whom the period shall be August 20, 2020 to
February 28, 2021."
The Defendants will within thirty (30) days of the date of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order, provide the Plaintiffs with a list of
all ASMs that fall within the defined collective, the dates and
locations of employment, the last known addresses of collective
members, and their last known phone number and email address.
The parties will meet and confer concerning a revised notice form
and "Consent to Join Form" in accordance with this Memorandum
Opinion and Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Oct. 30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6xn45nh from
PacerMonitor.com.
Michael A. Galpern -- mgalpern@lawjw.com -- Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks
Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, in Voorhees, New Jersey 08043; Seth Richard
Lesser -- seth@klafterlesser.com -- Klafter Lesser LLP, Rye Brook,
New York 10573, Counsel for the Plaintiffs.
August W. Heckman, III -- august.heckman@morganlewis.com -- Rudolph
J. Burshnic -- rudolph.burshnic@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, in Princeton, New Jersey 08540-6241, for the
Defendants.
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Data Breach Suit in Various Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caesars Entertainment, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that the
company has become subject to multiple lawsuits after it announced
on September 14, 2023, that a hacker had gained access to its
information technology network as a result of a social engineering
attack on an outsourced IT support vendor used by the company, and
acquired a copy of, among other data, its loyalty program
database.
Between September 15 and October 26, 2023, thirteen class actions
have been filed against us in U.S. federal and state courts in
Nevada, New Jersey, and California, purporting to represent various
classes of persons whose personal information was affected by the
Data Incident. These class actions assert a variety of common law
and statutory claims based on allegations that the Company failed
to use reasonable security procedures and practices to safeguard
customers' personal information, and seek monetary and statutory
damages, injunctive relief and other related relief. Caesars is
seeking consolidation of the cases that have been filed into a
single case.
Caesars Entertainment, Inc. is a geographically diversified gaming
and hospitality company that was founded in 1973 by the Carano
family with the opening of the Eldorado Hotel Casino in Reno,
Nevada. Beginning in 2005, the company grew through a series of
acquisitions, including the acquisition of MTR Gaming Group, Inc.
in 2014, Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. in 2017, Tropicana
Entertainment, Inc. in 2018, Caesars Entertainment Corporation in
2020 and William Hill PLC on April 22, 2021.
CAMINO FORT: Settlement Reached in Edwards Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARDS v. EL CAMINO FORT
LAUDERDALE, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-60720 (S.D. Fla., Filed April 17,
2023), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order denying as moot
motion to certify class in light of the joint notice of
Settlement.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
El Camino is a dog friendly Mexican eatery.[CC]
CARGILL INC: Bid to Extend Class Cert Response OK'd in Tavares Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIBEL TAVARES,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v.
CARGILL INCORPORATED, an unknown business entity; CARGILL MEAT
SOLUTIONS CORP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 1:18-cv-00792-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Sheila K. Oberto entered an order granting the Defendants an
extension to file their responses to the Plaintiff's objections to
findings and recommendations regarding motion for class
certification:
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed on May
1,
2023.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification was referred to
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto for findings and
recommendations
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section636(b).
-- On June 6, 2023, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's
Motion for Class certification and Plaintiff filed her reply on
July 10, 2023.
-- On October 11, 2023, Magistrate Judge Oberto issued Findings
and
Recommendation that Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion be
denied.
-- On October 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings
and Recommendations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
636(b)(1)(C).
-- The Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Objections to the
Findings
and Recommendations are due with 14 days, or by November 8,
2023,
under LR 304.
Cargill is an American global food corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QYdhty at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
E-mail: ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason E. Barsanti, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
501 W. Broadway, Suite 1610
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 234-1700
Facsimile: (619) 234-7831
E-mail: jbarsanti@cozen.com
CASH 4 KEYS: Potter Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cash 4 Keys, LLC. The
case is styled as Mandi Elizabeth Potter, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Cash 4 Keys, LLC, Case No.
4:23-cv-01402 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Cash 4 Keys, LLC -- https://www.cash4keysmo.com/ -- are a real
estate solutions and investment firm that specializes in helping
homeowners get rid of burdensome houses fast.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Kruzyk, Esq.
PARDELL KRUZYK PLLC
501 Congress Avenue, Suite 150
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (737) 310-3210
Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com
CAVA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss PFAS-Related Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Cava Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending October 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that the Company's motion
to dismiss the PFAS class suit remains pending to date.
In April 2022, the Company was named as a defendant in a purported
class action complaint relating to organic fluorine and per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") in the packaging of its grain
and salad bowls.
Hamman et al. v. Cava Group, Inc. was filed on April 27, 2022 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
An amended complaint was subsequently filed on August 18, 2022.
After an initial round of motion to dismiss briefing, the court
granted in part and denied in part its motion to dismiss on
February 8, 2023.
Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 1,
2023 seeking, among other relief, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and medical monitoring.
The complaint alleges that certain of its products are unfit for
human consumption due to the packaging containing allegedly
heightened levels of organic fluorine and unsafe PFAS, and that
consumers were misled by certain marketing claims asserted by the
Company regarding the health and sustainability of the company's
products.
The complaint further alleges that its products may have caused
bodily injuries to the putative class members who consumed its
products.
On April 14, 2023, it filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.
On May 30, 2023, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss, and it responded to the opposition on June 30,
2023.
As of the date hereof, this motion is pending.
CAVA Group, Inc. is into consumer packaged goods consisting of the
its proprietary dips, spreads and dressings. It also operates 279
fast-casual CAVA restaurants in 24 states and Washington D.C.
CHARLES RIVER: Mendoza Sues Over Board's Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA MENDOZA, derivatively on behalf of CHARLES RIVER
LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff v. JAMES C. FOSTER,
DAVID R. SMITH, FLAVIA PEASE, NANCY C. ANDREWS, ROBERT J.
BERTOLINI, DEBORAH T. KOCHEVAR, GEORGE LLADO, MARTIN MACKAY, GEORGE
E. MASSARO, C. RICHARD REESE, CRAIG B. THOMPSON, RICHARD F.
WALLMAN, and VIRGINIA M. WILSON, Defendants, and CHARLES RIVER
LABORATORIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01272-UNA (D. Del., November 8, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants breach their fiduciary duties to Charles River
stockholders by intentionally or recklessly making or permitting
the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements and
violating the federal securities laws.
Plaintiff Mendoza alleges that the individual defendants (as
officers of Charles River and/or as members of the Board) have
conspired to, among other things, disguise and misrepresent the
valuation of the Company and to artificially inflate the Company
stock price. Allegedly, the individual defendants caused Charles
River to make false and misleading statements in the Company's
statements relating to Charles River’s illegal activity with
respect to the importation of non-human primates and the related
Department of Justice investigation into the Company.
Headquartered in Wilmington, MA, Charles River is a full-service,
non-clinical global drug development partner with a mission to
create healthier lives. The company shares trade on the New York
Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CRL." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
hwm@rl-legal.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Erica L. Stone, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
estone@rosenlegal.com
CHARLES SCHWAB: Continues to Defend Crago Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend the Crago Order Routing securities
class suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders
through CS&Co.
The lawsuit names CS&Co and CSC as defendants and alleges that an
agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC
between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty
to seek best execution.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and
equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants consider the allegations to be without merit and have
been vigorously contesting the lawsuit.
After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend,
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017.
Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued
December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on April 30,
2021, and in a decision on October 27, 2021, the court denied the
motion and held that certification of a class action is
inappropriate.
Plaintiffs sought review of the order denying class certification
by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, which was denied.
On September 23, 2022, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification and defendants moved to compel plaintiffs' case to
arbitration.
On February 2, 2023, the court granted defendants' motion, stayed
the case pending the outcome of arbitration, and denied
plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification as moot.
The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding
company. CSC engages, through its subsidiaries (collectively
referred to as Schwab or the Company), in wealth management,
securities brokerage, banking, asset management, custody, and
financial advisory services.
CHEEMA FREIGHTLINES: Prince Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cheema Freightlines
LLC. The case is styled as Stephen Prince, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public
v. Cheema Freightlines LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0011625 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 6, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Cheema Freightlines LLC --
https://cheemafreightlines.com/home40234270 -- is a Trucking
Company started by a Trucker For Truckers. Leaders in the
truckload, Dedicated, Short-haul on the west coast.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100
Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824
Phone: 818-703-8985
Fax: 818-703-8984
Email: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Davis Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cheesecake
Factory, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as DAWN RENEE DAVIS, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al., Case
No. 23CV011650 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty. November 14, 2023).
A case management conference is set for October 25, 2024, before
Judge Christopher E. Krueger.
The Cheesecake Factory, Inc. is an American restaurant company and
distributor of cheesecakes, headquartered in California.[BN]
CHEMOURS CO: Faces Suit Over PFAS Contamination of Water System
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in October 27, 2023, that in May
2023, it is facing a purported class action filed in July 2022 in
Alabama federal court on behalf of certain drinking water utilities
against 3M, EID, Corteva and the company alleging contamination of
drinking water. The matter was removed to federal court.
The complaint alleges negligence, public nuisance, private nuisance
and trespass. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.
The county seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as
injunctive relief to remove per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or
PFAS from the water supply and prevent alleged ongoing
contamination.
The Chemours Company is a global provider of performance chemicals
that are key inputs in end-products and processes in a variety of
industries with customized solutions with a wide range of
industrial and specialty chemical products for markets, including
coatings, plastics, refrigeration and air conditioning,
transportation, semiconductor and consumer electronics, general
industrial, and oil and gas.
CHEN & MORGAN: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chen & Morgan OBGYN
Westside, PLLC. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Chen & Morgan OBGYN
Westside, PLLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08349 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chen And Morgan Ob-gyn Westside PLLC --
https://www.obgynwestside.com/ -- is a Medical Group that has only
one practice medical office located in New York City.[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
CHIQUITA CANYON: Howse Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chiquita Canyon, LLC.
The case is captioned as Steven Howse et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC
et al., Case No. 23STCV20524 (Oct. 4, 2023), was removed from the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-08380-MEMF-MAR to the proceedings.
The nature of suit states Torts to Land. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong.
Chiquita Canyon is in the Sanitary Landfill Operation
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oshea V. Orchid, Esq.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LEGAL
31007 San Martinez Road
Val Verde, CA 91384
Telephone: (661) 221-5561
E-mail: oshea@publicemployees.legal
- and -
Dylan Hackett, Esq.
Rahul Sethi, Esq.
Shelby Miner, Esq.
Vasili George Brasinikas, Esq.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE LEGAL LLP
2415 South Sepulveda Suite 660
Los Angeles, CA 90034
Telephone: (310) 649-5300
E-mail: rahulsethi@sethiworks.com
sminer@minerlegal.com
vasili@publicemployees.legal
CHRISTUS HEALTH: Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christus Health. The
case is styled as John Doe, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Christus Health, Case No. DC-23-18676
(Tex. Super. Ct., Dallas Cty., Nov. 2, 2023).
The case type is stated "Other (Civil)."
CHRISTUS Health -- http://www.christushealth.org/-- is an
international Catholic, faith-based, not-for-profit health system
comprising almost 350 services and facilities, including more than
60 hospitals and long-term care facilities, 175 clinics and
outpatient centers and dozens of other health ministries and
ventures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE DENNIS LLP
3401 Allen Pkwy Ste 100
Houston, TX 77019-1857
CLASSICS & COUNTRY: Robertson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classics & Country,
Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Robertson, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Classics & Country, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-09731 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Classics & Country, Inc. is an award-winning builder of luxury
homes & rental communities in Central NJ since 1988.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
CLEANCHOICE ENERGY: Weinberg Hits Exorbitant Electricity Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC WEINBERG, ROBERT SUDAKOW, and JOANNE SUDAKOW, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CLEANCHOICE ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-09685-PMH
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2023) seeks to redress CleanChoice's alleged
deceptive and bad faith pricing practices that have caused
Plaintiffs and over a hundred thousand consumers in New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Maryland, Washington, D.C.,
and Illinois to pay considerably more for their electricity than
they should otherwise have paid.
According to the complaint, CleanChoice's representations in its
customer contract are false and deceptive, and designed to take
advantage of consumers' good faith and lack of knowledge about, and
access to, accurate wholesale and retail energy pricing
information. In reality, CleanChoice did not provide its customers
with prices based upon the factors included in its contract, but
rather used a pricing methodology that focused on maximizing
profits.
As a result of CleanChoice's unlawful acts, over a hundred thousand
unsuspecting consumers have been, and continue to be, fleeced by
CleanChoice out of millions of dollars in exorbitant electricity
charges. The Defendant's scheme, which often affects society's most
vulnerable citizens, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, and
unscrupulous, the suit alleges.
CleanChoice Energy, Inc. is an independent energy service company
that sells electricity in deregulated energy markets across the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
Daniel J. Brenner, Esq.
WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
305 Broadway, Floor 7
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (914) 775-8862
E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com
djb@wittelslaw.com
- and -
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON
& GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
CLUB 360: Hearing on Reconsideration Bid Continued to March 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN BAZARGANFARD and
BARAK GOLAN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, V. CLUB 360 LLC; ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC; JEHANGIR
MERER; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:21-cv-02272-CBM-PLA (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall entered an order granting
stipulation to continue hearing and briefing for the Defendants'
motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 31, 2023 order:
1. The hearing is continued to March 19, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.
2. The Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed no later than
February
7, 2024.
3. The Defendant's reply shall be filed no later than February
20,
2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SC1DGb at no extra charge.[CC]
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Faces ERISA Suit Over Retirement Plan
--------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October, 2023, that in March
2023, the Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment to
the plaintiffs with regards to a motion filed in June 2023, where
the plaintiffs entered a revised final judgment in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York to
address certain unresolved calculation issues of its retirement
plan, which the company opposed.
In June 2016, a lawsuit was filed in said court against the
employees' retirement plan, the company and certain individuals
claiming that residual annuity payments associated with a 2005
residual annuity amendment to the retirement plan were improperly
calculated for certain participants in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The relief sought included
recalculation of benefits, pre- and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees. This action was certified as a class action in
July 2017.
In July 2020, the court dismissed certain claims, and in August
2020 granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the
remaining claims. In September 2020, the Company appealed to the
Second Circuit. In June 2023, the company filed a petition for
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court requesting permission
for an appeal to that court and that petition was denied in October
2023.
Colgate-Palmolive Company is into oral, personal and home care and
pet nutrition.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: White Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 31, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as White v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01989 (M.D. Fla., Filed
Aug. 29, 2022), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywel entered an
order
granting joint motion for extension of time to file motion for
class certification.
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification is
extended to and including January 31, 2024.
-- However, the parties are cautioned that, to the extent they
have
delayed taking depositions, they do so at their own peril.
Community Health owns, leases, and operates hospitals.
The nature of suit states Employment Discrimination.[CC]
CONNECTICUT WATER: Faces Water Contamination-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
SJW Group disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that in October 2023, the
Connecticut Water Company, a subsidiary of SJW Group, was named as
a defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging that the water
provided by Connecticut Water contained contaminants.
SJW Group is a holding company with four subsidiaries into water
utility and utility-related services, property management and
investment activity.
CONSOL ENERGY: Faces Retirees' Suit Over Retirement Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that it is
currently facing a class action lawsuit filed on August 23, 2017 on
behalf of two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation
Coal Company (CCC), CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. (COK), CONSOL Buchanan
Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori, the company's Chief
Administrative Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia alleging ERISA violations in the
termination of retiree health care benefits.
Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral promises
of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly made by various members of
management during their employment and that they were not provided
with copies of Summary Plan Documents clearly reserving to the
company the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and
Welfare Plan.
They requested that retiree health benefits be reinstated for them
and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all nonunion
retirees of any subsidiary of the company's former parent that
operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer Counties,
West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia whose
retiree welfare benefits were terminated.
On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The complaint was
amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant
CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC and eliminate defendant CONSOL
Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class of
retirees. On October 15, 2019, plaintiffs' supplemental motion for
class certification was denied on all counts. On July 15, 2020,
plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals on the Order denying class certification. The
Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal on August 14, 2020. On
October 1, 2020, the District Court entered a pretrial order
setting the trial date, which was held in February 2021. No ruling
has been issued by the judge.
Consol is a low-cost producer of high-quality bituminous coal,
focused on the extraction and preparation of coal in the
Appalachian Basin.
CONTAINER STORE: Faces Hayes Labor Suit in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Container Store Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that it's
subsidiary The Container Store, Inc. (TCS) is currently facing case
captioned "Rashon Hayes v. The Container Store, Inc." in the Santa
Clara Superior Court.
The company was named as a defendant in said putative class action
and representative action was filed on February 10, 2020 by Hayes,
a former, hourly-paid employee of TCS who was employed from April
2019 to June 2019.
The First Amended Complaint was filed on August 3, 2020 and alleges
eleven causes of action: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid meal
period premiums, (3) unpaid rest period premiums, (4) unpaid
minimum wages, (5) final wages not timely paid, (6) wages not
timely paid during employment, (7) non-compliant wage statements,
(8) failure to keep requisite payroll records, (9) unreimbursed
business expenses, (10) violation of California Business and
Professions Code section 17200, and (11) violation of the
California Private Attorneys General Act.
The lawsuit seeks restitution of unpaid wages for plaintiff and
other class members, pre-judgement interest, appointment of class
administrator, and attorney's fees and costs. TCS denies the
allegations and will continue to defend the case. The parties are
currently engaged in the discovery process and have agreed to
participate in a mediation on February 21, 2024.
The Container Store Group, Inc. is a holding company that owns The
Container Store, Inc., a retailer that provides customers with
storage and organization solutions.
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: To Settle Melucci Suit Over SEC Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2023, that on
February 8, 2023, the parties to a purported securities class
action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California captioned "Nicholas Melucci v.
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al." (Case No.
5:19-cv-01372-LHK) reached an agreement in principle, subject to
the final approval of the court. Said case was filed on March 14,
2019.
It asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleges that the
defendants made false and materially misleading statements and
failed to disclose adverse facts about its business, operations and
prospects. The complaint asserts a putative class period extending
from August 2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified
monetary relief, interest and attorneys' fees.
On October 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on
December 6, 2019.
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated is a commercial-stage
pharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery and development of
medications to treat severe endocrine, oncology, metabolism and
neurology disorders by modulating the effects of the hormone
cortisol.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: To Settle Rough Labor Suit in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the fiscal year ended September 3, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2023, that in September 2023
the parties in a class action against the company alleging claims
under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide
itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating
employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices,
has reached an agreement in principle on a settlement.
In May 2019, an employee filed case captioned "Rough v. Costco
Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 2:19-cv-01340, E.D. Cal. Seeking relief
under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and
attorneys' fees. In September 2021, the court granted the company's
motion for partial summary judgment and denied class
certification.
Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries is principally
engaged in the operation of membership warehouses in the United
States and Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom
(U.K.), Korea, Australia, Taiwan, China, Spain, France, Iceland,
New Zealand and Sweden. Costco operated 861, 838, and 815
warehouses worldwide at September 3, 2023, August 28, 2022, and
August 29, 2021.
COUPANG INC: Continues to Defend Choi Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Coupang 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 8, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend the Choi class suit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
On August 26, 2022, a putative class action was filed on behalf of
all purchasers of Coupang Class A common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to Coupang's registration statement issued in connection
with our initial public offering.
Choi v. Coupang, Inc et al was brought against Coupang, Inc., and
certain of its former and current directors, current officers, and
certain underwriters of the offering.
The action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging inaccurate and misleading or
omitted statements of material fact in Coupang's Registration
Statement in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.
The action was amended on May 22, 2023, and added allegations of
securities fraud under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
and reasonable costs and expenses.
The Company believes the aforementioned action is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against them.
Coupang, Inc. is a retailer in Korea with operations in the United
States, Taiwan, Singapore and China with a preeminent online
presence in the market.
CYBELANGEL USA: Seeks Denial of Koeller Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD J. KOELLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CYBELANGEL USA INC. Case No. 4:23-cv-00319-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying class
certification, pursuant to Rule 23(d)(1)(D) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiff's allegation that CybelAngel routinely violates the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Missouri state law by calling
consumers at residential numbers listed on the federal and state
do-not-call lists ("DNC Claims") to sell its products and services
isn't true.
In reality, CybelAngel sells products and services exclusively to
businesses to help defend against cyber-attacks. As such, it does
not market its products and services to consumers, and it does not
call residential numbers. It also obtains the contact information
for the businesses it communicates with in a variety of ways,
including directly from employees who ask to be contacted because
they are responsible for cybersecurity solutions for their
companies.
CybelAngel is a leader in cybersecurity solutions focused on
External Attack Surface Protection and Management.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40GryyA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
James M. Ruley, Esq.
WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP
1055 Howell Mill Rd. 8th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: (404) 782-0695
E-mail: ryan@wtlaw.com
jruley@wtlaw.com
D'ALMONTE ENTERPRISES: Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to Dec. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISIDRO RECIO, et al., v.
D'ALMONTE ENTERPRISES PARKING GARAGE INC., et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-06153-RA-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary Stein entered
an order that the Plaintiffs' time to complete fact discovery is
extended to December 18, 2023.
Likewise, the Court grants Plaintiffs' request for an extension of
time to file dispositive pre-trial motions or a motion for class
certification, which are now due on January 17, 2024, and are
returnable to the undersigned. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
requested to terminate the pending motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/460XTkt at no extra charge.[CC]
DAVID ESQUIVEL: Jones, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY JONES, DON CARTER,
ROBERT WINTERS, and JOHN BOATFIELD, v. DAVID R. ESQUIVEL and HOWARD
JEFFERSON ATKINS, Case No. 1:23-cv-00112-TAV-SKL (E.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas A. Varlan entered an order that plaintiffs'
objections to the First Report and Recommendation (R&R) are
overruled and the Court accepts and adopts the First R&R, in whole.
-- Michael Stewart's motion for leave to intervene as a member of
the
class and for other relief is denied without prejudice.
-- Additionally, the Court accepts and adopts the Second R&R, in
whole, and plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3szSK5n at no extra charge.[CC]
DEERE & COMPANY: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deere & Company. The
case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Deere & Company, Case No.
1:23-cv-09641 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Deere & Company -- https://www.deere.com/en/index.html -- doing
business as John Deere, is an American corporation that
manufactures agricultural machinery, heavy equipment, forestry
machinery, diesel engines, drivetrains used in heavy equipment, and
lawn care equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
DEMETRIC GODFREY: Shreves's Bid to Certify Class Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD E. SHREVES, v.
DEMETRIC GODFREY, et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00035-BMM-KLD (D.
Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order as follows:
1. Shreves's Motion to Certify a Class and Appoint Counsel is
denied, subject to renewal.
2. Within 28 days of the making of this Order, Shreves may file
an amended complaint, if he is able to do so.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to provide Shreves with an
Amended Complaint form. The Amended Complaint must contain
all
of Shreves's claims in one document and not refer to or
incorporate other documents.
The Court has screened Shreves's Amended Complaint and determined
that, as drafted, it violates Rule 8 and fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
The Amended Complaint will be dismissed if Shreves cannot file a
second amended complaint that complies with this order and the
Court's prior order discussing Rule 8. Any amended complaint must
be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the court-approved form
and may not incorporate any part of the prior Complaints by
reference.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FXYR6r at no extra charge.[CC]
DIGITAL TURBINE: Briefing on Securities Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Digital Turbine 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 8, 2023, that
briefing is ongoing for securities class suit.
On June 6, 2022 and July 21, 2022, stockholders of the Company
filed class action complaints against the Company and certain of
the Company’s officers in the Western District of Texas related
to Digital Turbine, Inc.'s announcement in May 2022 that it would
restate some of its financial results.
The claims allege violations of certain federal securities laws.
These have been consolidated into In re Digital Turbine, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00550-DAE.
On July 19, 2023, the Western District court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 23, 2023, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
September 22, 2023, and briefing is ongoing.
Digital Turbine, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is an independent
mobile growth platform that levels up the landscape for
advertisers, publishers, carriers, and device original equipment
manufacturers that offers end-to-end products and solutions
leveraging proprietary technology to all participants in the
mobile
application ecosystem, enabling brand discovery and advertising,
user acquisition and engagement, and operational efficiency for
advertisers.
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Jaramillo Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS 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 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Jaramillo securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.
On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed against DISH Network and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of DISH Network's securities during the February 22,
2021 to February 27, 2023 class period.
In general, the complaint alleges that DISH Network's public
statements during that period were false and misleading and
contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that it
allegedly maintained a deficient cyber-security and information
technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer
data and its operations were susceptible to widespread service
outages.
In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel, and on October 20, 2023, they filed an amended
complaint that abandoned the original allegations.
In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that, during the
class period, the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G
network buildout that prevented scaling and commercializing the
network to obtain enterprise customers.
The amended complaint adds as individual defendants James S. Allen,
its Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; John
Swieringa, its President, Technology and Chief Operating Officer;
Dave Mayo, its former Executive Vice President of Network
Development; Marc Rouanne, its Executive Vice President and Chief
Network Officer; and Stephen Bye, its former Executive Vice
President and Chief Commercial Officer.
DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case.
DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the
outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential
liability or damages.
DISH DBS Corporation is a holding company and an indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. It offers
pay-TV services under the "DISH" brand and the "SLING" brand. It
also design, develop and distribute receiver systems and provide
digital broadcast operations, including satellite
uplinking/downlinking, transmission and other services to
third-party pay-TV providers.
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS 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 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Jones 401(k) class suit
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against DISH Network, DISH Network's Board of Directors,
and DISH Network's Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary
breaches arising from the management of its 401(k) Plan.
The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or
after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive
recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained
underperforming funds.
On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted,
and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion.
As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations
regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom
Funds.
On November 7, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation
that the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint be
denied as to the duty to prudently monitor fund performance, but be
granted as to the duty of loyalty.
DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case.
DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the
outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential
liability or damages.
DISH DBS Corporation is a holding company and an indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. It offers
pay-TV services under the "DISH" brand and the "SLING" brand. It
also design, develop and distribute receiver systems and provide
digital broadcast operations, including satellite
uplinking/downlinking, transmission and other services to
third-party pay-TV providers.
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Data Breach Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS 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 9, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Owen-Brooks data breach
class suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.
On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a
putative class action complaint against DISH Network in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.
She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in
the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a
result of the February 23, 2023 Cyber-security Incident (and a
North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals).
On behalf of the nationwide class, she alleges claims for
contractual breaches, negligence and unjust enrichment (and, on
behalf of the North Carolina subclass only, violation of the North
Carolina Deceptive Trade Practices Act), and seeks monetary
damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment.
Since that filing, ten additional putative class action complaints
have been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide
class of people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint.
On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the
first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed).
DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case.
DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the
outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential
liability or damages.
DISH DBS Corporation is a holding company and an indirect,
wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. It offers
pay-TV services under the "DISH" brand and the "SLING" brand. It
also design, develop and distribute receiver systems and provide
digital broadcast operations, including satellite
uplinking/downlinking, transmission and other services to
third-party pay-TV providers.
DUTCH BROTHERS: Continues to Defend Rein Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dutch Brothers 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 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Rein class suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On March 1, 2023, plaintiff Jerry Peacock filed a putative class
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Dutch Bros Inc. and certain of its executive
officers for alleged violations of U.S. federal securities laws.
On August 3, 2023, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
re-captioned the case Douglas Rein, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Dutch Bros, Inc. et al.
On August 31, 2023 an amended complaint was filed (the Amended
Complaint) which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act),
on behalf of a proposed class consisting of those who acquired
Dutch Bros Inc.'s securities between November 10, 2021 and May 11,
2022.
The Amended Complaint generally alleges that the defendants made
false or misleading statements about the impact of commodity
inflation on the Company's financial results for the first quarter
of 2022.
The Amended Complaint primarily seeks compensatory damages for all
affected members of the purported class.
On September 28, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, and the lead plaintiff filed a response on
October 26, 2023.
The Company has until November 9, 2023 to file a reply.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Dutch Bros is in the business of operating and franchising
drive-thru coffee shops as well as the wholesale and distribution
of coffee, coffee-related products, and accessories. As of June
30,
2023, there were 754 shops in operation in 14 U.S. states, of
which
473 were company-operated and 281 were franchised.
DYCK O'NEAL: Saunders TCPA Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN SAUNDERS, v. DYCK
O'NEAL, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00335-JTN-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court to certify the following Rule 23(b)(3)
class in this action:
"All persons to whom one or more VoApps messages was
successfully
delivered to their cellular telephone number from Dyck O'Neal,
where Dyck O'Neal's records contain no reference to the consumer
providing such number to the creditor or Dyck O'Neal before such
direct drop."
The Plaintiff further asks that the Court appoint Plaintiff as
class representative and appoint her counsel as class counsel.
The Plaintiff also requests that the Court apply its earlier
summary judgment ruling finding that VoApps messages are covered by
the TCPA to Defendant Dyck O'Neal, Inc.'s outbound VoApps calls to
Plaintiff and the class, find that DONI did not have consent for
calls
made before the consumer provided their cellular number to the
creditor or DONI (or in the absence of any such provision), and
enter judgment as to Plaintiff and the class for successfully
delivered VoApps messages made without consent. Plaintiff further
requests that the Court direct DONI to produce the remainder of the
class call and consent-related records, so that Plaintiff may
proceed with the administrative task of identifying and providing
notice to class members.
The Plaintiff believes that DONI has waived any one-way
intervention protection by virtue of previously moving for summary
judgment and not opposing the briefing of this motion.
Dyck O'Neal operates as a debt collection law firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ubKWXH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
909 Davis St., Ste. 500
Evanston, IL 60201
Telephone: (312) 729-5288
E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
- and -
Larry P. Smith, Esq.
David M. Marco, Esq.
SMITHMARCO, P.C.
5250 Old Orchard Rd., Ste. 300
Skokie, IL 60077
Telephone: (844) 424-7135
E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com
dmarco@smithmarco.com
EDGIO INC: Frouws' Bid to Consolidate Actions in Esfandiari OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mehran Esfandiari, v.
Edgio Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01170-DJH (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order granting Movant
Peter Frouws' Motion for consolidation of related actions,
appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of selection of co-lead
counsel.
Movant is appointed as the Lead Plaintiff in this Action and the
law firms of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and the Schall Law
Firm are appointed as Co-Lead Counsel.
The Clerk of Court shall consolidate Marinelli v. Edgio, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01170-SMM & Esfandiari v. Edgio, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00691-DJH under the lower case number,
Esfandiari v. Edgio, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00691-DJH.
The Court finally ordered that the other Motions seeking
appointment as Lead Plaintiff by other class members are denied as
moot.
Each new case arising out of the subject matter of this Action that
is filed in this Court or transferred to this Court shall be
consolidated with the Action and this Order shall apply thereto,
unless a party objecting to this Order or any provision of this
Order shall, within 10 days after the date upon which a copy of
this Order is served on counsel for such party, file an application
for relief from this Order or any provision herein and this Court
deems it appropriate to grant such application.
Edgio is a provider of content delivery network services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FNAU1x at no extra charge.[CC]
EDGIO INC: Settlement in Suit Over Merger Initially OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
Edgio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K report as of October 23,
2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
27, 2023, that on October 23, 2023, the Delaware court of Chancery
issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of
a consolidated case captioned "In re Edgio, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation," Case No. 2022-0624-MTZ. Pursuant to the Delaware court
of Chancery's order granting preliminary approval, the company is
filing the notice of proposed settlement and the stipulation.
On July 18, 2022, two stockholders filed verified class actions in
the Delaware court of Chancery, which were subsequently
consolidated. The operative complaint alleges that the Edgio board
of directors violated its fiduciary duties in entering into a
stockholders' agreement as part of the company's acquisition of
100% of the equity interests of Edgecast, Inc., a California
corporation and certain Edgecast-related businesses and assets from
College Parent LP.
The plaintiffs challenge certain provisions of the stockholders'
agreement, alleging that those provisions constituted defensive
measures designed to entrench the board of directors and protect it
from stockholder activism. The complaint seeks injunctive relief in
the form of an injunction enjoining the enforcement of the
challenged provisions. Edgio filed a motion to dismiss and the
matter was heard on October 12, 2022 in the Delaware court of
Chancery.
On May 2, 2023, the Delaware court of Chancery issued a memorandum
opinion denying the company's motion to dismiss. On May 12, 2023,
the parties entered into an interim arrangement to avoid the costs
and burdens of expedited litigation where the company agreed not to
enforce the provisions of the stockholders' agreement that the
plaintiffs challenged in the suit in connection with the company's
2023 annual meeting.
On September 29, 2023, the parties executed and filed with the
Delaware court of Chancery a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, Compromise, and Release. In the Stipulation, the
company agreed, among other things, to amend the stockholders
agreement to conform to the following terms: (1) with respect to
all matters other than director elections, College Parent LP shall
vote 25% of its Edgio shares pro rata with all other Edgio
stockholders and may vote 75% of its Edgio shares, at its
discretion, either in favor of the board's recommendation or pro
rata with all other Edgio stockholders; (2) with respect to
director elections, College Parent LP may vote its Edgio shares at
its discretion and (3) certain transfer restrictions applicable to
College Parent LP are limited to Competitors, as defined in the
amended Stockholders Agreement.
The full terms of the proposed settlement are set forth in said
stipulation and is subject to final consideration at a hearing to
be held in person before the Delaware court of Chancery on January
3, 2024 at 11:00 am.
On October 23, 2023, the Delaware court of Chancery issued an order
preliminarily approving the proposed settlement. Pursuant to the
Delaware court of Chancery's order granting preliminary approval,
the company is filing the notice of proposed settlement and the
stipulation.
Edgio, Inc. provides content delivery network services and is based
in Arizona.
EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTH: Stein Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ARNOLD STEIN and DIANE
MILLER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTH, Case No. 2023CH07633, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division to the District Court of the Northern District of Illinois
on Oct. 4, 2023.
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-14515 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges a privacy violation under Illinois law by
embedding certain third-party source codes -- most prominently the
Meta Pixel -- onto Edward-Elmhurst Health's publicly available
website and its web-based portal called "Mychart."
The Plaintiffs allege that Edward-Elmhurst Health "installed its
Pixel and CAPI to disclosed and to transmit to third parties the
Plaintiffs' and other Class Members' communications with the
Defendant including Private Information and the contents of such
information, including most predominantly Facebook.
The Plaintiffs' complaint contains eight counts against
Edward-Elmhurst Health under Illinois law:
(1) alleged violation of Illinois Eavesdropping Statute;
(2) alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
(3) the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and common law
claims for
(4) breach of confidence,
(5) invasion of privacy,
(6) invasion of privacy intrusion upon seclusion; and
(7) breach of implied contract, and
(8) negligence.
Edward-Elmhurst is an integrated health system comprised of three
hospitals.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David A. Carney, Esq.
Bonnie K. DelGobbo, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 861-7634
E-mail: dcarney@bakerlaw.com
bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
EEA LIFE SETTLEMENTS: Ainsworth Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EEA Life Settlements,
Inc. The case is styled as Michael Ainsworth, on behalf of himself
and on behalf of other investors similarly situated v. EEA Life
Settlements, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09693-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
EEA Life Settlements --
https://www.eeafmg.com/eea-life-settlements-fund/ -- is an open-end
investment fund incorporated in Guernsey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Howard Blinderman, Esq.
622 Third Avenue, Ste. 3801
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (646) 325-9624
Email: eric.blinderman@gmail.com
EL CAMINO FORT: Edwards Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DYLAN EDWARDS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EL CAMINO FORT
LAUDERDALE, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-60720-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), to conditionally
certify this FLSA collective action:
Assuming the Court orders Defendant to produce the Class Member
contact list within 10 calendar days, Plaintiffs request a total of
110 calendar days from the date the Court grants conditional
certification for collective members to submit their Consents to
Join to Plaintiffs' Counsel (to allow 10 days for Defendants to
furnish a comprehensive list of putative class information, 10 days
for Plaintiffs’ Counsel to prepare the notices to be sent, and an
additional 90 days for class members to submit their Consents to
Join). See Flete v. All American Facility Maintenance Inc., 2020 WL
5534270 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (allowing 90-days to opt-in from the date
Notice was sent).
The Plaintiffs contend there are several non-public spaces at the
restaurant accessible by FOH Employees where Defendant could
display notice of this lawsuit.
The Defendantoperates a popular restaurant called "El Camino" in
the heart of the historic Las Olas Boulevard located in downtown
Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The Defendant has employed dozens of Front-of-the-House Employees
(FOH Employees) who have performed similar job duties and were
subject to the same pay policies.
The Plaintiff moves to conditionally certify the following
collectives of similarly situated FOH Employees:
Tip Notice Collective: All Front-of-the-House employees who
worked for Defendant during the three (3) years preceding this
lawsuit who did not receive proper notice from Defendant that
they
would be taking a tip credit toward the required federal minimum
wage.
Unlawful Tip Share Collective: All Front-of-the-House employees
who
were required to share any of their tips with Supervisors or
Managers during the previous three (3) years.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40rQ06C at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael V. Miller, Esq.
Jordan Richards, Esq.
JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC – USA
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllsc.com
michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
ELKAY PLUMBING: Oshaughnessy Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHAWN OSHAUGHNESSY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ELKAY PLUMBING PRODUCTS
COMPANY, Case No. 2023CH08034, was removed from the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
November 14, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-15948 to the proceeding.
The nature of the suit is stated as 360 Torts - Personal Injury -
Other Personal Injury.
Elkay Plumbing Products Company is a manufacturer of plumbing and
sinkware products, headquartered in Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael D. Hayes, Esq.
Anne Marie Mayette, Esq.
Jillian Marie Molz, Esq.
Michael James Hopkins, Esq.
Sarah K. Quinn, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 655-1500
E-mail: michael.hayes@huschblackwell.com
anne.mayette@huschblackwell.com
jillian.molz@huschblackwell.com
michael.hopkins@huschblackwell.com
sarah.quinn@huschblackwell.com
ENVIROTECH VEHICLES: Mollik Shareholder Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Envirotech Vehicles, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in September 2023, that on September 30, 2023,
the court dismissed with prejudice a purported class action lawsuit
captioned "M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al.," Case No.
RIC 1817493, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside on August 23, 2018 against
the company's predecessor, ADOMANI, Inc, certain of its company's
executive officers, Edward R. Monfort, the former Chief Technology
Officer and a former director of ADOMANI, Inc., and the two
underwriters of the company's offering of common stock under
Regulation A in June 2017. The matter is completely resolved.
Said complaint alleged that documents related to the company's
offering of common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained
materially false and misleading statements and that all defendants
violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that the
individual defendants violated Section 15 of the Securities Act, in
connection therewith. The plaintiff sought on behalf of himself and
all class members: (i) certification of a class under California
substantive law and procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and
interest in an amount to be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and
expert fees; (iv) awarding of rescission or rescissionary damages;
and (v) equitable relief at the discretion of the court.
Plaintiff's counsel subsequently filed a first amended complaint, a
second amended complaint, a third amended complaint, and a fourth
amended complaint. Plaintiff Mollik was replaced by putative class
representatives Alan K. Brooks and Electric Drivetrains, LLC. Alan
K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a putative class
representative. On October 27, 2020, the company answered the
fourth amended complaint, generally denying the allegations and
asserting affirmative defenses.
On July 13, 2021, Electric Drivetrains' counsel moved to be
relieved as counsel and on August 23, 2021, the court granted this
motion. On August 23, 2021, the Clerk of Court issued an order to
show cause why the complaint should not be stricken and matter
dismissed for failure to retain new counsel to Electric
Drivetrains. On October 28, 2021, Electric Drivetrains filed a
substitution of attorney, substituting J. Ryan Gustafson of Good
Gustafson Aumais LLP as its new counsel. On December 10, 2021, the
Court vacated the order to show cause. Over the tenure of the
action, Electric Drivetrain has dismissed all defendants in the
action except for the company and two former company executives.
Any and all pending cross claims between or among defendants have
been resolved and dismissed.
On August 31, 2022, Electric Drivetrains filed its Fifth Amended
Complaint, which drops certain class allegations, adds certain
state law claims and drops certain factual allegations but leaves
the remaining claims against defendants intact. On October 6, 2022,
the company and remaining defendants filed their respective answer
denying the allegations and asserting counterclaims. On the same
day, the company cross claimed against Electric Drivetrains and its
managing member.
On June 19, 2023, counsel for Electric Drivetrains and counsel for
the company participated in a mediation before mediator Mark
LeHockey, Esq. At that mediation, Electric Drivetrains and the
company executed a binding term sheet to completely resolve this
matter. On July 18, 2023, Electric Drivetrains and all defendants
executed a Settlement Agreement for complete resolution of the case
and dismissal against all Defendants with prejudice. No Company
proceeds will be used to resolve this matter. Based on the
settlement agreement, Electric Drivetrains will dismiss this case,
with prejudice, on or about August 23, 2023.
Envirotech Vehicles, Inc. is a provider of purpose-built
zero-emission electric vehicles focused on fleet operators serving
commercial and last-mile fleets, school districts, public and
private transportation service companies and colleges. Its vehicles
are manufactured by original equipment manufacturer partners
located in China, Malaysia and the Philippines that can be
marketed, sold, warrantied and serviced through the company's
developing distribution and service network.
ERSKINE COLLEGE: Young Sues Over Violation of Disabled's Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ERSKINE COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-10038-JMF-JLC (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The nature of the suit is stated as 446 Civil Rights – Americans
with Disabilities - Other.
Erskine College is a private Christian college in Due West, South
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite 10003
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: michael@gottlieb.legal
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Kraft
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA KRAFT,
individually and as parent of minors L.K., S.K., and O.K.; SHELLI
SCHNEIDER, individually and as parent of minors A.S. and W.S.; ANNE
BAILEY, individually and as parent of minor D.B; AMY LAVELLE,
individual and as parent of minors Em.L. and El.L.; ELIZABETH
BEATON, individually and as parent of minor M.B.; AMANDA AND TYRELL
FAUSKE, individually and as parents of minors C.R.F. and C.J.F;
JENNIFER REIN, individually; and JESSICA BERG, individually and as
parent of minors A.B. and S.B, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. ESSENTIA HEALTH, INNOVIS HEALTH, LLC
d/b/a ESSENTIA HEALTH, DAKOTA CLINIC PHARMACY, LLC, JOHN DOE
MANUFACTURERS, and JOHN DOE DISTRIBUTOR, Case No.
3:20-cv-00121-PDW-ARS (D.N.D.), the Hon. Judge Alice R. Senechal
entered an order appointing special master and amending scheduling
order as follows:
The Court ordered that Retired Magistrate Judge Karen K. Klein, who
the parties represent has agreed to review documents consistent
with the Court's Special Master Orders and is willing and able to
accept the appointment under the terms of this order and the
Special Master Orders, is appointed as Discovery Special Master for
the purpose of reviewing documents and making recommendations on
whether defendants Essentia Health and Innovis Health LLC d/b/a
Essentia Health have met their burden of establishing one or more
privileges as to each document over which Essentia maintains a
claim of privilege.
The Defendants' deadline to submit documents to the special master
as to which, after reviewing the standards outlined in the
Court’s Special Master Orders, they maintain their claims of
privilege shall be January 5, 2024.
The Defendants shall produce documents to Plaintiffs as to which,
after reviewing the rulings and standards outlined in the Court’s
Special Master Orders, they no longer assert claims of privilege,
on a rolling basis, with the first production occurring on December
15, 2023, and with completion no later than January 5, 2024.
1. Substantial completion of document production will be
completed
by July 30, 2024.
2. The parties shall have until September 30, 2024, to amend
pleadings or file motions to join additional parties.
3. The parties shall have until September 30, 2024, to move to
add
claims for punitive damages.
4. Fact discovery shall be completed by November 18, 2024.
5. The parties shall have until December 5, 2024, to file
discovery motions.
6. Plaintiffs' class certification expert disclosures and
reports
and motion for class certification are due by January 23,
2025.
7. Defendants' class certification expert disclosures and
reports
and response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
are
due by March 8, 2025.
8. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class
certification and rebuttal class certification experts are
due
by April 22, 2025.
Essentia Health is an integrated healthcare system with facilities
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QCs5wz at no extra charge.[CC]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 1, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose Pena v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order
setting the following deadlines regarding Plaintiff's anticipated
motion for class certification.
The Court will schedule a case management conference to set all
remaining deadlines after ruling on that motion.
Event Deadline
Deadline to Complete Class Dec. 1, 2023
Certification Discovery
Deadline to File Motion for Class Mar. 1, 2024
Certification
Deadline to File Opposition to Mar. 29, 2024
Motion for Class Certification
Deadline to File Reply to Motion Apr. 26, 2024
for Class Certification
Class Certification Hearing May 24, 2024
Experian operates as an information services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47wXOWP at no extra charge.[CC]
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Modified Scheduling Order Entered in Aboah
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aboah v. Fairfield
Healthcare Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00763 (D. Conn.,
Filed June 2, 2020), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered a
modified operative scheduling order to allow time for filing a
renewed motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Fairfield is a Home Health Agency (organization) practicing in
Norwalk, Connecticut.[CC]
FANNIE MAE: Court Awards Interest on Damages to Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) disclosed in its
Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2023, that on October 24, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia awarded shareholders prejudgment interest on
the damage award, to be determined as simple interest, accruing
from August 17, 2012 until the date on which judgment is entered at
a fixed rate of 5% over the Federal Reserve discount rate as of
August 17, 2012. The company has determined the prejudgment
interest through September 30, 2023 is $192 million.
Fannie Mae is a defendant in two cases in, including a consolidated
class action. The cases were consolidated for trial, and on August
14, 2023, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs and
awarded damages of $299.4 million to Fannie Mae preferred
shareholders.
Fannie Mae is a leading source of financing for mortgages in the
United States. Organized as a government-sponsored enterprise,
Fannie Mae is a shareholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress
to provide liquidity and stability to the residential mortgage
market and to promote access to mortgage credit.
FATE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Hadian Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Fate Therapeutics 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 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Hadian class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
On January 20, 2023, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
securities class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of
its officers captioned Hadian v. Fate Therapeutics, Inc. et al. in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(the Securities Action).
On May 4, 2023, the court appointed a different purported
stockholder of the Company to serve as lead plaintiff in the
Securities Action.
On July 24, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint alleges that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements and/or omissions in its public disclosures dating back
to August 2020 relating to the Company's collaboration agreement
with Janssen Biotech, Inc. (the Janssen Agreement), potential
product candidates subject to the Janssen Agreement, and the
termination of the Janssen Agreement.
On September 22, 2023, it filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety.
Under the current schedule, briefing on its motion to dismiss will
be completed on December 6, 2023, after which the court will rule
on the motion.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
action.
Fate Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company dedicated to bringing off-the-shelf,
multiplexed-engineered, iPSC-derived natural killer and T-cell
product candidates to patients for the treatment of cancer and
autoimmune disease.
FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kaplan Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN KAPLAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
231101024 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., November 7, 2023) seeks
all available relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act for
the Defendant's failure to pay wages for time associated with
various pre-shift and post-shift work activities.
From approximately January 2020 until approximately September 2023,
the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a package handler at the
Lewisberry facility, which is located at 501 Industrial Drive,
Lewisberry, PA. The Plaintiff, like many other package handlers,
sometimes worked over 40 hours per week, says the suit.
Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. provides delivery services
throughout the United States. Many of its sortation and
distribution facilities are located in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
FINANCIAL GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 27, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re IMA Financial Group Data Security
Incident Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02223-HLT-ADM (D. Kan.), the
Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered a class certification stage
scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline/Setting
Jointly proposed protective order Dec. 1, 2023
submitted to court
Motion and brief in support of Dec. 1, 2023
proposed protective order (only
if parties disagree about need for
and/or scope of order)
Plaintiff's settlement proposal Dec. 15, 2023
Defendant's settlement counter-proposal Jan. 8, 2024
Jointly filed mediation notice, or Jan. 31, 2024
confidential settlement reports to
magistrate judge
Motions to amend Feb. 23, 2024
Plaintiffs' motion for class Sept. 27, 2024
certification and class-certification
expert disclosures
Defendant's response to motion for Nov. 26, 2024
class certification and class-
certification expert disclosures
Class-certification discovery completed Jan. 10, 2025
Plaintiffs' reply to motion for class Jan. 10, 2025
certification
Mediation completed Mar. 30, 2025
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46hlcXg at no extra charge.[CC]
FLIGHT CLUB NEW YORK: McGuire Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Travion McGuire, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. FLIGHT CLUB NEW YORK LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV25840
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought
pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004 as a result of the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff
proper compensations.
The Defendants failed to provide employment records in violation of
Labor Code; failed to pay overtime and double time in violation of
Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to provide rest
and meal periods in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage
Orders; failed to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code and
the applicable Wage Orders; failed to keep accurate payroll records
and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code,
and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to pay reporting time wages
in violation of California Code of Regulations Title 8; failed to
pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of
Regulations; failed to pay all wages earned on time in violation of
Labor Code; failed to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation in violation of Labor Code; failed to reimburse
necessary, business related expenses in violation of Labor Code;
failed to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in violation
of Labor Code; employers, and individuals acting on behalf of
employers, violating or causing to be violated a section of the
Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of Labor Code, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from May 01, 2018 until
August 23, 2023.
FLIGHT CLUB NEW YORK LLC is a footwear retailer and consignment
store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Melissa Robinson, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 1-818-696-2306
Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
melissa@hbklawyers.com
FLOCCO INC: Gomberg Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flocco, Inc. The case
is styled as Matthew Gomberg, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Flocco, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-04247-NIQA
(E.D. Pa., Nov. 1, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Flocco, Inc. -- https://floccos.com/ -- is a distributor of men's &
women's leather shoes, clothing, uniforms, scrubs & safety
boots.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GLANZBERG
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Phone: (215) 981-5400
Fax: (267) 319-1993
Email: david.glanzberg@gtlawpc.com
FLORIDA SOUTHERN: Violates Disabled's Civil Rights, Young Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA SOUTHERN COLLEGE, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-10039 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The nature of the suit is stated as 446 Civil Rights – American
w/Disabilities - Other.
Florida Southern College is a private college in Lakeland, Florida.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite 10003
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
E-mail: michael@gottlieb.legal
FORD MOTOR: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed in Scriber Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SCRIBER, et al.,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-01716-MMA-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Michael M. Anello entered an order denying Ford motor's
motion to compel arbitration.
The Court finds that Ford has not met its burden of showing that
there is a mandatory arbitration agreement that encompasses the
dispute here under Michigan law.
Accordingly, the Court denies its motion to compel arbitration
based upon the Connected Services Agreements.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Ford Motor
Company. On June 29, 2023, Ford filed a motion to compel
arbitration.
The Plaintiffs filed an opposition, to which Ford replied. See Doc.
Nos. 25, 26. The Court found the matter suitable for determination
on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40Bpesw at no extra charge.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: McGautha Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company.
The case is styled as Tammie McGautha, Walter McGautha, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor
Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00799-JAM (W.D. Mo, Nov. 2, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American
multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn,
Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Lee Dameron, Esq.
Michael Anthony Williams
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Phone: (816) 945-7110
Fax: (816) 945-7118
Email: matt@williamsdirks.com
mwilliams@williamsdirks.com
FORD MOTOR: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Antonyan Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VAHRAM ANTONYAN, an
individual, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-00945-DMG-RAO (C.D. Cal.), Ford Motor asks the Court to
enter an order granting its motion to strike class allegations or,
alternatively, deny class Certification, based on the following
grounds:
(1) The Plaintiff's class allegations should be stricken because
Plaintiff failed to timely move for class certification.
(2) In the alternative, the Court should deny class
certification
because Plaintiff’s failure to timely file his motion for
class
certification renders him an inadequate representative for
the
class, and because Plaintiff's failure to timely submit
expert
evidence means he cannot establish the commonality and
predominance requirements.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46jQH3i at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Amir M. Nassihi, Esq.
Joan R. Camagong, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
E-mail: anassihi@shb.com
jcamagong@shb.com
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to May 3, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rainford v. Freedom
Financial Network LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02014 (D. Ariz., Filed Nov.
29, 2022), the Hon. Judge Dominic W. Lanza entered an order
granting the parties' motion to amend case deadlines:
-- The deadline for fact discovery May 3, 2024
is extended to:
-- The deadline for expert disclosures Feb. 16, 2024
for the party with the burden of
proof is extended to:
for the responding party to: March 22, 2024
for rebuttal experts to: April 12, 2024
-- The deadline for expert depositions May 3, 2024
is extended to:
-- The deadline for Rule 23 class June 28, 2024
certification for Defendant to file
a motion for decertification is
extended to:
-- Dispositive motions are to be July 26, 2024
filed within 30 days of the Court's
ruling on the Rule 23 class
certification and decertification
motions, but if no such motions
are filed, the dispositive motions
deadline is extended to:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Freedom provides consumer credit and financial advocacy
services.[CC]
FUTURE MOTION: Ogan Sues Over Defective Skateboard-Like Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Ogan, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FUTURE MOTION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:23-cv-01479-BO (E.D.N.C., Nov. 2, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of
the North Carolina Consumer Protection Statute.
The Defendant is a company that manufactures skateboard-like
devices, which operate like a unicycle, and these devices are
referred to as OneWheels.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's marketing and promotion
of these devices promotes the ease of use. The Defendant's
homepage, in big white letters, states: "STOP THINKING START
RIDING." Further, Defendant's website states the top speeds of its
devices, with a top speed of 16-20 miles per hour. A user does not
need to push off the ground or pedal, as the device is
self-propelled and self-balancing. However, the Defendant's devices
have several methods of failure, of particular note is the nosedive
style of failure, in which the device suddenly nose dives,
launching the user forward. The devices will sporadically lose
balance in many different settings, and thus, are extremely
dangerous, says the suit.
The Plaintiff, a purchaser of Defendant's devices, suffered
personal injuries and economic loss because of Defendant's devices.
The Plaintiff has suffered severe cuts and scrapes from his
incident and has spent significant time and resources in dealing
with his injuries, the suit alleges.
Future Motion, Inc. provides electric vehicles. The Company offers
electric skateboard such as onewheel, and other related
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Vita, FXR Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS VITA and FXR
CONSTRUCTION, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-01032-NJC-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
-- Certifying the proposed Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All current and former purchasers of a 2011-2014 Chevrolet
Avalanche, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2011-2014 Chevrolet
Suburban, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2011-2014 GMC Sierra,
2011-
2014 GMC Yukon, and 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XL manufactured on or
after February 10, 2011 that was equipped with a Generation IV
5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engine that was purchased or
leased
in the State of New York;"
-- Appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and
-- Appointing DiCello Levitt LLP and Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin,
Portis & Miles, P.C. as Class Counsel, pursuant to Rule 23(g)
of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 9, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3su727D at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter B. Katzman, Esq.
MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM
FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP
444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 695-8050
E-mail: pkatzman@msbllp.com
- and -
Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Blake Stubbs, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
bstubbs@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
Mitch.Williams@BeasleyAllen.com
GILEAD SCIENCES: Seeks to Exclude Fincham Rebuttal Report in Searcy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN SEARCY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, and ERVIN KIRK, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GILEAD
SCIENCES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01523-MTS (E.D. Mo.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its Amended
Motion and exclude or strike the Fincham Rebuttal Report pursuant
to Rules 6, 16, and 37.
On November 1, 2023, Gilead Sciences, Inc. filed a motion to
exclude or strike the October 9, 2023, rebuttal report of
Plaintiffs' expert witness Jack Fincham in opposition to class
certification, file a sur-reply in opposition to class
certification, and file a new Rule 702 motion to exclude the
Fincham Rebuttal Report.
The Plaintiffs, however, have taken the position that the Motion is
subject to the meet-and-confer requirement under Local Rule 3.04.
Gilead disagrees.
Gilead is a research-based biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative
medicines.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QTKvue at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas J. Magee, Esq.
Charles N. Insler, Esq.
HEPLERBROOM, LLC
701 Market Street, Suite 1400
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 241-6160
Facsimile: (314) 241-6116
E-mail: tjm@heplerbroom.com
cni@heplerbroom.com
- and -
Joshua E. Anderson, Esq.
David R. Carpenter, Esq.
Sean A. Commons, Esq.
Michelle A. Ramirez, Esq.
Michael L. Lisak, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 896-6000
Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
E-mail: janderson@sidley.com
drcarpenter@sidley.com
scommons@sidley.com
michelle.ramirez@sidley.com
mlisak@sidley.com
- and –
Susan Gutierrez, Esq.
Lisa B. Markofsky, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010
Telephone: (310) 557-2900
E-mail: sgutierrez@proskauer.com
lmarkofsky@proskauer.com
GILEAD SCIENCES: Staley Bid for Entry of Set-Aside Order Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Staley, et al., v. Gilead
Sciences, Inc., et al., (HIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No.
3:19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of
set-aside order:
-- The Court finds that the Retailer Plaintiffs have adequately
established that the EPPs' delay was prejudicial. Had the
Retailer
Plaintiffs known that the EPPs would seek a set aside from them
(8% of any recovery), that clearly would have informed the
Retailer Plaintiffs' position in settlement discussions with
Defendants. In other words, had the Retailer Plaintiffs known
differently, they might have negotiated for a different
result.
-- Accordingly, the Court concludes that laches bars the EPPs
from
seeking relief.
This antitrust suit began in 2019, with a complaint filed by
indirect purchasers of HIV drugs manufactured by, inter alia,
Gilead. As the case progressed, other indirect purchasers filed
suit as did direct purchasers.
By the time of the trial of the reverse payment claims in 2023,1
there were five groups of plaintiffs: the EPPs (representing the
indirect purchaser classes), the IHPPs (essentially, indirect
purchaser opt-outs), United (also an indirect purchaser opt-out),
the DPPs (representing the direct purchaser classes), and the
Retailer Plaintiffs (essentially, direct purchaser opt-outs). Some
of these plaintiffs asserted claims against Gilead alone (e.g., the
EPPs), and some asserted claims against both Gilead and Teva (e.g.,
the Retailer Plaintiffs).
A brief timeline of the relevant events.
-- The first suit was filed: May 14, 2019
-- The Court appointed interim lead Sept. 9, 2019
counsel for the EPPs:
-- The Court granted in part and denied March 3, 2020
in part Defendants' 12(b)(6) motions
to dismiss the EPPs' operative
complaint:
-- The Court granted in part and denied July 29, 2020
in part Defendants' second 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss the EPPs'
operative complaint.
Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company, that
focuses on researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the
treatment of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and
COVID-19, including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and sofosbuvir.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3spFzUF at no extra charge.[CC]
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER: Bid to File Docs Under Seal in Moore OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC; PFIZER INC.,
Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S.
White entered an order granting the Defendants' administrative
motion to file under seal documents related to the Parties' motions
to exclude class certification experts:
Document Portions to Be Filed
Under Seal
Anton Toutov Deposition Entire Document
Transcript (Excerpted)
(Sarchio Decl. Ex. A)
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff's Page 4: lines 4-9
Motion to Exclude Defendants' Expert Page 6: lines 22-23
Steven Dentali, Ph.D. Page 7: lines 7-8
Page 8: lines 8-9
Defendants' Reply in Support of Page 2: lines 23-24
Their Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Page 3: lines 1-2, 6-7
Experts Anton Toutov, Ph.D. Page 8: lines 1-2, 25-26,
27
Glaxosmithkline is a British multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 9, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MIoDQ8 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew F. Williams, Esq.
Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq.
Jacqueline Harrington, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
One Bush Street
San Francisco, CA 94104-4446
Telephone: (415) 262-4500
Facsimile: (415) 262-4555
E-mail: matthew.williams@dechert.com
christina.sarchio@dechert.com
jacqueline.harrington@dechert.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Settlement in Chen-Oster Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as H. CRISTINA CHEN-OSTER;
SHANNA ORLICH; ALLISON GAMBA; and MARY DE LUIS, v. GOLDMAN SACHS &
CO. and THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., Case No.
1:10-cv-06950-AT-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres
entered an order granting final approval of settlement, approval of
service awards, and approval of class counsel's fees and costs:
-- Approval of Settlement Agreement
The Court hereby finally approves the Settlement as set forth
in
the Settlement Agreement. The Court has reviewed the terms of
the
proposed Settlement Agreement along with its exhibits,
including
specifically the programmatic and monetary relief, and
Plaintiffs'
Motions for Final Approval.
-- Award Of Attorneys' Fees and Costs
The Court awards 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 the
litigation.
-- Service Award to Named Plaintiffs
The Court finds that service awards of $250,000 each to Named
Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Representatives Chen-Oster,
Orlich, Gamba and De Luis is reasonable.
-- Final Approval of Settlement
Without affecting the finality of this Final Approval Order and
Final Judgment, the Court shall 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.
Goldman Sachs is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SEOVq0 at no extra charge.[CC]
GOTHAM PROCESS: Burks Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKIE BURKS; BRUNILDA
PAGAN CRUZ; VENUS CUADRADO and RHONDA DRYE; individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. GOTHAM PROCESS, INC.;
MULLOOLY, JEFFERY, ROONEY & FLYNN, LLP; BASSEM ELASHRAFI; and CARL
BOUTON, Case No. 1:20-cv-01001-NRM-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
-- Certifying the case as a class action for settlement purposes
pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules
of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a Class defined as:
"All natural persons who have been sued by MJRF, on behalf of
a
Civil Action Plaintiff, in New York City Civil Court in
Actions
commenced on or after January 1, 2016, in which an affidavit
of
service has been filed, stating that Bassem Elashrafi or Carl
Bouton, on behalf of Gotham Process, effectuated service by
delivering the papers to a person identified as a Relative of
the
person to be served";
-- Granting Final Approval to the Settlement Agreements of this
class action; and
-- Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QW6S26 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Danielle Tarantolo, Esq.
Jessica Ranucci, Esq.
Lisa Eivera, Esq.
NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
100 Pearl Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 613-5000
E-mail: dtarantolo@nylag.org
GUARDIAN ANALYTICS: Holden Seeks Initial Nod of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK S. HOLDEN, RICHARD
ANDISIO, EDWARD MARSHALL, ANN MARIE MARSHALL, ARTHUR CHRISTIANI,
JOHNIELLE DWYER, PAWEL KRZYKOWSKI, MARIOLA KRZYNOWEK, JAMES HOWE,
and CINDY A. PEREIRA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. GUARDIAN ANALYTICS, INC., ACTIMIZE INC., and
WEBSTER BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-02115-WJM-LDW (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for preliminary approval of a proposed
class action settlement, preliminary certification of a settlement
class, and approval of a notice plan.
Guardian Analytics offers online fraud protection solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QMdwbd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam Pollock, Esq.
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
111 Broadway, Suite 1804
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 337-5361
E-mail: adam@pollockcohen.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
H.I.S. GUAM: Parties in Igarashi Suit Must File Supplemental Brief
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSAMU IGARASHI, v. H.I.S.
GUAM INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025 (D. Guam), the Hon. Judge Frances
M. Tydingco-Gatewood entered an order directing each party to file
a supplemental brief on whether the court must engage in evaluating
the merits of the WARN Act before it decides the class
certification motion, if the number of employees might fall below
what is required under the WARN Act.
The Parties must provide legal authority to support their
positions. Defendant shall file its supplemental brief no later
than November 13, 2023, and Plaintiff to file a response no later
than November 20, 2023, the Court adds.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3slGgOM at no extra charge.[CC]
HARRIS BAY AREA: Norman Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alvin Norman, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. HARRIS
BAY AREA, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-23-609051 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on Nov. 3, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-05692.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following claims on a
class-wide basis: unpaid overtime wages; failure to provide meal
period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages;
final wages not timely paid; wages not timely paid during
employment; non-compliant wage statements; failure to keep
requisite payroll records; unreimbursed business expenses;
violation of California Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
Yousaf M. Jafri, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: 858-652-3100
Facsimile: 858-652-3101
Email: jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
yousaf.jafri@ogletree.com
HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Faces ECERS Suit Over SEC Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------------
Hayward Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that on
August 2, 2023, on September 28, 2023, a securities class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its
current directors and officers (Kevin Holleran and Eifion Jones)
and MSD Partners and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP on behalf of a
putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of its common
stock between October 27, 2021 and July 28, 2022.
Action is captioned "Erie County Employees' Retirement System vs.
Hayward Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-ESK. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and certain
of its current directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other
things, making materially false or misleading statements regarding
growth and demand trends following its initial public offering in
March 2021. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages on
behalf of the putative classes and an award of costs and expenses,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.
Hayward Holdings, Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of
pool and outdoor living technology with seven manufacturing
facilities worldwide, which are located in North Carolina,
Tennessee, Rhode Island, Spain (three) and China, and other
facilities in the United States, Canada, France and Australia.
HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Faces SFPRS Suit Over SEC Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------------
Hayward Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that on
August 2, 2023, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company and certain of its current directors and
officers (Kevin Holleran and Eifion Jones) and MSD Partners and
CCMP Capital Advisors, LP on behalf of a putative class of
stockholders who acquired shares of its common stock between March
2, 2022 and July 27, 2022.
Action is captioned "City of Southfield Fire and Police Retirement
System vs. Hayward Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No.
2:23-cv-04146-WJM-ESK.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and
certain of its current directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among
other things, making materially false or misleading statements
regarding growth and demand trends following its initial public
offering in March 2021. The complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative classes and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
Hayward Holdings, Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of
pool and outdoor living technology with seven manufacturing
facilities worldwide, which are located in North Carolina,
Tennessee, Rhode Island, Spain (three) and China, and other
facilities in the United States, Canada, France and Australia.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Joint Bid for Scheduling Order OK'd in Story
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Story v. Heartland Payment
Systems, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00724 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 17,
2019), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an endorsed order
granting the joint motion for scheduling order.
By separate order, the Court will enter a Fourth Amended Phase One
Case Management and Scheduling Order continuing all remaining
deadlines approximately as requested and rescheduling the class
certification hearing.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract.
Heartland is a U.S.-based payment processing and technology
provider.[CC]
HEARTS TO HOME: Jones Sues Over Nursing Assistants' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROZEDA JONES, individually and for others similarly situated v.
HEARTS TO HOME, LLC, Case No. 23-CV-1460 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 2, 2023)
is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff to
recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin law.
According to the complaint, Defendant's uniform straight time for
overtime pay scheme violates the federal and state law by depriving
Jones and the other straight time employees of the "time and a
half" overtime pay they are owed for all hours worked after 40 in a
workweek. In addition to depriving Jones and the other straight
time employees of premium overtime wages, the Defendant also
uniformly failed to pay these employees for all the hours they
work, says the suit.
Plaintiff Jones worked for the Defendant as a certified nursing
assistant from approximately October 2020 until August 2021.
Hearts to Home, LLC provides in-home health services to seniors
across Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, SC
5150 North Port Washington Road, Suite 243
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 207-6079
E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
cclegg@hq-law.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11
Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
HENDERSON, NE: Court Extends Discovery Deadlines in Woodburn
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY WOODBURN and THOMAS
WOODBURN, and JOSHUA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF HENDERSON; DOES I through V,
inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through V, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-01488-CDS-VCF (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order extending discovery deadlines as follows:
The Plaintiffs stipulate and agree to amend the Stipulated Amended
Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order, first entered July 27, 2022,
and subsequently amended by minute order on May 9, 2023.
The parties seek to extend all current discovery deadlines for an
additional 180 days from entry of this order.
This is the parties' fourth request for an extension to the
Stipulated Amended Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order in this
matter.1
The parties submit this stipulation in advance of the upcoming
deadline to submit initial expert reports, which is currently
scheduled on December 18, 2023, and to clarify the remaining
discovery period in light of Plaintiff’s counsel's pending
withdrawal.
-- The Phase I Discovery cut-off deadline shall be extended from
February 14, 2024, to August 12, 2024
-- The parties agree to and propose a deadline to disclose experts
for Phase I sixty (60) days prior to the close of Phase I
Discovery: June 13, 2024 (60 days prior to the proposed close
of
Phase I Discovery).
-- The parties further propose a deadline to disclose any rebuttal
experts thirty (30) days after the initial disclosure of
experts:
July 15, 2024.
The following is the discovery completed to date:
-- On November 12, 2020, the Plaintiffs served their First
Request
for Production of Documents.
-- On November 12, 2020, Plaintiffs served their Second Request
for
Production of Documents.
-- On November 24, 2020, Defendant served its Initial
Disclosures.
-- On November 30, 2020, Defendant served its Interrogatories and
First Set of Requests for Production to Thomas Woodburn. On the
same say, Defendant also served its Interrogatories and First
Set
of Requests for Production to Kelly Woodburn.
-- On December 17, 2020, Plaintiffs served their Initial
Disclosures.
Henderson is located in sunny Southern Nevada along the
southeastern portion of Clark County.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47zFRqW at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Blakenship, Esq.
Sean K. Claggett, Esq.
Scott E. Lundy, esq.
CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM
4101 Meadows Ln 100
Las Vegas, NV 89107
Telephone: (702) 903-1353
The Defendant is represented by:
Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq.
Ethan D. Thomas., Esq.
Andrew S. Clark, Esq.
Michael D. Dissinger, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
Telephone: (702) 862-8800
Facsimile: (702) 862-8811
E-mail: mpaek@littler.com
edthomas@littler.com
asclark@littler.com
mdissinger@littler.com
HOLLEY INC: Continues to Defend Tomlinson Class Suit in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holley Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending October 1, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from Tomlinson class suit in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
A putative securities class action was filed on November 6, 2023,
against the Company, Tom Tomlinson (the Company's former Director,
President, and Chief Executive Officer), and Dominic Bardos (the
Company's former Chief Financial Officer) in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (the
"Complaint").
The complaint, which is captioned City of Fort Lauderdale General
Employees' Retirement System v. Holley, Inc., f/k/a Empower LTD.,
Tom Tomlinson, and Dominic Bardos, Civil Action No.
1:23-cv-148-GNS, alleges that the Company violated various
securities laws and seeks class certification, damages, interest,
attorneys’ fees, and other relief.
Due to the early stage of this proceeding, it cannot reasonably
estimate the potential range of loss, if any.
The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously
defend against them.
Holley Inc. operates as an automobile company. The Company
designs,
manufactures, and distributes carburetors, fuel pumps, fuel
injection and nitrous oxide injection systems, superchargers,
exhaust headers, mufflers, ignition components, engine tuners, and
automotive performance plumbing products for car and truck
enthusiasts.
HONEST COMPANY: Continues to Defend Sida Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honest Company Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending in September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Sida class suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
On August 10, 2022, Catrice Sida and Kris Yerby filed a putative
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment related to
plant-based claims on certain of the Company's wipes products and
seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages,
punitive damages and statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Company filed its motion to dismiss on October 17, 2022. On
December 6, 2022, the Company's motion to dismiss was denied.
The Company's motion to stay pending the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals' review of the Central District of California's decision in
Whiteside v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 5:22-cv-1988 JGB (SPx), 2023
WL 4328175 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2023) was denied on September 5,
2023.
The Company believes this complaint is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself in this matter.
HYPEBEAST INC: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK SELIGER, v.
HYPEBEAST, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00983-CM-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
pretrial management:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this
Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe
that
an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for
a
motion or narrow the issues.
-- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
(including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
deadline
must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of
Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for
adjournments or extensions will not be entertained.
Hypebeast operates a men's contemporary fashion and streetwear
shop.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46f9UTD at no extra charge.[CC]
ILLINOIS DOC: Kucinsky Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Kucinsky (on
behalf of all prisoners), v. IDOC et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00342-RJD (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying class of prisoners.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ufqN3d at no extra
charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se[CC]
INSIGHT GLOBAL: Floyd Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alexander Floyd, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 23-2-19335-1 SEA
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for
King County, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on Nov. 2, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-01680.
On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff Alexander Floyd, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, filed a Class Action Complaint
for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Declaratory Relief
("Complaint").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Todd S. Fairchild, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100
Seattle, WA 98104-7043
Phone: (206) 903-8800
Email: fairchild.todd@dorsey.com
- and -
Chris Marquardt, Esq.
Leigh Shapiro, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 881-7000
Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
Email: chris.marquardt@alston.com
leigh.shapiro@alston.com
INTEL CORP: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 30, 2023, that in March 2023, the
court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated
complaint and in April 2023 entered judgment with regards to
multiple securities class action lawsuits filed in the US District
Court for the Northern District of California against the company
and certain officers following the company's July 2020 announcement
of 7nm processors product delays. Plaintiffs have appealed said
decision.
The court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed lead plaintiffs
in October 2020, and in January 2021 plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs purport to represent all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock from
October 25, 2019 through October 23, 2020, and they generally
allege that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making false or misleading statements about the timeline for 7nm
products.
Given the procedural posture and the nature of the case, including
that it is in the early stages, that alleged damages have not been
specified, that uncertainty exists as to the likelihood of a class
being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and
that there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved,
the company are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
potential loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from
the matter.
Intel Corporation is a semiconductor company based in Santa Clara,
California. In July 2021, the company introduced a new process node
naming structure, and the 7nm process is now called Intel 4.
INTEL CORP: Faces Consumer Class Actions in Various Countries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 30, 2023, that as of October 25,
2023, consumer class action lawsuits against the company were
pending in the US, Canada, and Argentina.
The plaintiffs, who purport to represent various classes of
purchasers of the company's products, generally claim to have been
harmed by the company's actions and/or omissions in connection with
the security vulnerabilities and assert a variety of common law and
statutory claims seeking monetary damages and equitable relief.
In the US, class action suits filed in various jurisdictions were
consolidated for all pretrial proceedings in the US District court
for the District of Oregon, which entered final judgment in favor
of Intel in July 2022 based on plaintiffs' failure to plead a
viable claim. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Canada, an initial status conference has not yet been scheduled
in one case pending in the Superior court of Justice of Ontario,
and a stay of a second case pending in the Superior court of
Justice of Quebec is in effect.
In Argentina, Intel Argentina was served with, and responded to, a
class action complaint in June 2022. The Argentinian court
dismissed plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing in May 2023, and
plaintiffs have appealed. Additional lawsuits and claims may be
asserted seeking monetary damages or other related relief.
Intel Corporation is a semiconductor company based in Santa Clara,
California.
INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY: Faces Bromberg Suit Over Collection Letters
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Recovery Associates, Inc. The case is captioned as Bromberg v.
International Recovery Associates, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-07386-PKC-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2023).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen.
The Plaintiff alleges Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act involving consumer credit. The Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant provided her with "two separate initial collection
communications" for the same account that "were misleading,
confusing, contradictory, and unfair collection communications."
The Plaintiff further alleges that she "suffered various emotional
harms including, but not limited to, increased heartrate,
difficulty with sleep, anxiety, and stress associated with the fear
of a debt collector attempting to collect more than the legally
authorized amount."
International Recovery offers debt recovery, medical billing,
credit reporting, medical collection and skip-tracing
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
INTIGRAL INC: Lewis Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN LEWIS, on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated employees, v. INTIGRAL, INC.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02118-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the
Court, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), for an order conditionally certifying this case as a
collective action and implementing a procedure.
Intigral manufacture and delivers insulated glass to its
customers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 9, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SKaPYU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2023, that a
class action complaint was filed by King County Public Hospital
District No. 1 on July 6, 2021 in the Northern District of
California Court alleging anti-trust allegations relating to the
service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the
company. This was consolidated and is now captioned "In Re: da
Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation," and a consolidated
amended class action complaint has been filed on behalf of each
plaintiff named in the individually-filed cases.
On January 18, 2022, the company filed an answer against the
plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced. The parties
have filed summary judgment and the court held a hearing on these
motions last September 7, 2023.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures and markets "da
Vinci(R)" surgical systems and the "Ion(R)" endoluminal system that
enable physicians and healthcare providers to improve the quality
of and access to minimally invasive care.
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Kaleida Health Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2023, that a
class action complaint filed by Kaleida Health on July 8, 2021 was
dismissed on January 14, 2022 when Kaleida Health voluntarily
dismissed itself as a party to this case.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures and markets "da
Vinci(R)" surgical systems and the "Ion(R)" endoluminal system that
enable physicians and healthcare providers to improve the quality
of and access to minimally invasive care.
JAJ ROOFING: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JAJ ROOFING, et al.
The case is styled as Alexander Davis, on behalf of others
similarly situated v. JAJ ROOFING, et al., Case No. 23CV011004
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 2, 2023).
JAJ ROOFING specialize in installation of new roofs, re-roofing
projects, as well as repairing leaks.[BN]
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Ticket Purchase
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jetblue Airways Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in October 31, 2023, that in
December 2022 and February 2023, four putative class actions
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, respectively, alleging
violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
Among other things, plaintiffs seek monetary damages on behalf of a
putative class of direct purchasers of airline tickets from JetBlue
and American and, depending on the specific case, other airlines on
flights to or from four airports (JFK, LaGuardia Airport, Newark
Liberty International Airport, and Boston Logan International
Airport) from July 16, 2020 through the present.
JetBlue Airways Corporation provides air transportation services
across the United States, the Caribbean, Latin America, Canada, and
Europe.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Files Dismissal Bid of Edley Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2023, that an argument on
motions to dismiss and to deny certification of a class in the New
Jersey District Court is scheduled within November 2023.
A class action captioned Edley et al v. Johnson & Johnson advancing
claims relating to industrial talc was filed against the company
and others in New Jersey state court in May 2022. It asserts, among
other things, that the company fraudulently defended past asbestos
personal injury lawsuits arising from exposure to industrial talc
mined, milled, and manufactured before January 6, 1989 by the
company's then wholly-owned subsidiary, Windsor Minerals, Inc.
The company removed the Edley class action to federal court in the
District of New Jersey. In October 2022, the company filed motions
to dismiss and to deny certification of a class to pursue the Edley
class action in the New Jersey District Court.
Johnson & Johnson is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey.
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Toss Securities Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies 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 8, 2023, that the
Company's motion to dismiss the securities class suit remains
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.
In December 2020, a putative securities class action was filed
against Kandi and certain of its current officers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The complaint generally alleges violations of the federal
securities laws based on claims made in a report issued by
Hindenburg Research in November 2020, and seeks damages on behalf
of a putative class of shareholders who purchased or acquired
Kandi’s securities prior to March 15, 2019.
Kandi moved to dismiss in February 2022, and that motion remains
pending.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is a producer and manufacturer of
electric vehicle products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles for
sale
in the Chinese and the global markets. It is headquartered in
Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China and
conducts its primary business operations through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Zhejiang Kandi Vehicles Co., Ltd. and SC Autosports,
LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kandi America Investment,
LLC.
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suit Discovery Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies 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 8, 2023, that a
shareholder class suit discovery is ongoing.
Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were
filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. ("Kandi") and certain
of its current and former directors and officers in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California and
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
The complaints generally alleged violations of the federal
securities laws based on Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its
financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three
quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and sought damages on
behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or
acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017. Kandi moved to
dismiss the remaining cases, all of which were pending in the New
York federal court, that motion was granted in September 2019, and
the time to appeal has run.
In June 2020, a similar but separate putative securities class
action was filed against Kandi and certain of its current and
former directors and officers in California federal court.
This action was transferred to the New York federal court in
September 2020, Kandi moved to dismiss in March 2021, and that
motion was granted in October 2021.
The plaintiff in this case subsequently filed an amended complaint,
Kandi moved to dismiss that complaint in January 2022, and the
motion was granted in part and denied in part in September 2022.
Discovery is ongoing as to the remaining claims and defendants.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. is a producer and manufacturer of
electric vehicle products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles for
sale
in the Chinese and the global markets. It is headquartered in
Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China and
conducts its primary business operations through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, Zhejiang Kandi Vehicles Co., Ltd. and SC Autosports,
LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kandi America Investment,
LLC.
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Court OK's Fine Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT R. FINE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-02071-SSS-PD
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order
certifying the following class:
"All persons who own or owned a Better Life Plan, Better Life
Plan
Qualified, LifeTrack, AGP, MGP, PGP, Chapter One, Classic,
Rightrack (89), Performer (88), Performer (91), Prime Performer,
Competitor (88), Competitor (91), Executive (88), Executive
(91),
Protector 50, LewerMax, Ultra 20 (93), Competitor II, Executive
II,
Performer II, Ultra 20 (96), or Century II VUL life insurance
policy issued in California, that was issued or administered by
Defendant, or its predecessors in interest, and that was active
on
or after January 1, 2002."
Additionally, Fine is appointed as the class representative, and
the
law firms of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Miller Shirger, LLC are
designated as class counsel.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer to discuss the issue of
notice by November 24, 2023. Following that conference, Fine's
counsel is ordered to prepare a notice to the class and submit the
proposed notice and a distribution plan to the Court by December 8,
2023.
This putative class action is about universal life and variable
universal life insurance policies issued by KCL in California, and
its alleged use of undisclosed, non-mortality factors to calculate
cost of insurance rates. Since June 1982, KCL has issued 9,381
Class Policies in California.
Kansas City Life underwrites, sells, and administers a range of
life insurance and annuity products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47cK1oI at no extra charge.[CC]
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend McIntosh Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Katapult Holdings 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 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the McIntosh class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On August 27, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned
McIntosh v. Katapult Holdings, Inc., et al, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The operative second amended complaint was filed on November 4,
2022 against against Katapult Holdings, Inc., three current and
former Company officers, and two FinServ officers.
The second amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b),
14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks
an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons and entities
that (a) beneficially owned and/or held FinServ common stock as of
the close of business on May 11, 2021 and were eligible to vote at
FinServ's June 7, 2021 special meeting (the "FinServ Putative
Class"); or (b) purchased or otherwise acquired Katapult securities
between June 15, 2021 and August 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Katapult
Putative Class").
On May 26, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff, but on
August 8, 2023, the court dismissed the Katapult Putative Class'
claims which were under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and dismissed two
current and former Company officers from the case.
The Court declined to dismiss certain of the FinServ Putative
Class's claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a).
The Company and the remaining defendants intend to vigorously
defend against the claims in this action.
Katapult Holdings, Inc. is an e-commerce focused financial
technology company, provides e-commerce point-of-sale
lease-purchase options for nonprime consumers in the United
States.
The company's technology platform provides nonprime consumers
with a lease purchase option to enable them to obtain durable
goods
from its network of e-commerce merchants. The company was formerly
known as Cognical Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Katapult
Holdings, Inc. in February 2020. The company is headquartered in
Plano, Texas.
KEVIN LU INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Dou Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Guofang Dou, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEVIN LU, INC. d/b/a Jade Garden
Chinese Restaurant, and Jin Wu Lu, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-12676 (D. Mass., November 7, 2023) alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Massachusetts Wage Act, and the
Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act.
From on or around July 28, 2016 to on or around September 5, 2023,
the Plaintiff worked as a frying cook for Defendants' restaurant.
Throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked more than 70 hours a
week. However, he was only paid by fixed monthly cash rate
regardless of the actual hours he worked. In addition, he also did
not receive wages on a timely basis.
Kevin Lu Inc. owns and operates a Chinese restaurant named Jade
Garden Chinese Restaurant located at 113 Main Street, Upton, MA,
which provides both dine-in and take-out services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Howard M. Brown, Esq.
BOSTON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC
202 Washington Street, Suite 128
Brookline MA 02445
Telephone: (617) 566-8090
E-mail: hmb@bostonemploymentlaw.com
- and -
Jian Hang, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Sued Over SEC Disclosures of Singapore Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVSC) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in October 20, 2023, that it is
currently facing a class action complaint filed on October 22,
2020, by The Daniels Family 2001 Revocable Trust, a putative
purchaser of the company's shares, in the U.S. District Court of
Nevada against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and Patrick Dumont.
The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that LVSC made
materially false or misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material facts, from February 27, 2016 through September 15, 2020,
with respect to its operations at Marina Bay Sands, its compliance
with Singapore laws and regulations, and its disclosure controls
and procedures.
On January 5, 2021, the U.S. District Court entered an order
appointing Carl S. Ciaccio and Donald M. DeSalvo as lead
plaintiffs. On March 8, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a purported
class action amended complaint against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson,
Patrick Dumont, and Robert G. Goldstein, alleging similar
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act over the
same time period of February 27, 2016 through September 15, 2020.
On March 22, 2021, the U.S. District Court granted lead plaintiffs'
motion to substitute Dr. Miriam Adelson, in her capacity as the
Special Administrator for the estate of Sheldon G. Adelson, for
Sheldon G. Adelson as a defendant in this action.
On May 7, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which on March 28, 2022, the U.S. District Court
granted in its entirety. The U.S. District Court dismissed certain
claims with prejudice, but granted lead plaintiffs leave to amend
the complaint with respect to the other claims by April 18, 2022.
On April 8, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration and to extend time to file an Amended Complaint.
The defendants filed an opposition to the motion on April 22,
2022.
On April 18, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. On May 18, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, and briefing was completed on
July 8, 2022. On August 8, 2023, the U.S. District Court denied
lead plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, and granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The U.S. District Court dismissed lead
plaintiffs' allegations pertaining to challenged statements that
were made in 2016, 2017 and 2018, but allowed the challenged
statements from 2019 and 2020 to proceed. On August 22, 2023, the
defendants filed a motion for partial reconsideration, requesting
that the U.S. District Court reconsider its denial of the motion to
dismiss with respect to the challenged statements from 2019 and
2020.
The defendants simultaneously filed a motion for a stay pending
adjudication of the motion for reconsideration, which requests a
stay of all discovery and case deadlines. lead plaintiffs filed
oppositions to both motions on September 5, 2023, and the
defendants filed their replies on September 12, 2023. These motions
are pending before the district court.
Las Vegas Sands Corporation is a casino and resort company with
corporate headquarters in Paradise, Nevada, that features a
combination of gambling, accommodation, retail, and meeting space.
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Houser Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumen Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that the
case captioned "Houser et al. v. CenturyLink, et al." is currently
on appeal after the court granted the company's motion to dismiss.
Lumen and certain Lumen Board of Directors members and officers
were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit filed on June 12, 2018 in the Boulder County District Court
of the state of Colorado, captioned "Houser et al. v. CenturyLink,
et al." The complaint asserted claims on behalf of a putative class
of former Level 3 shareholders who became CenturyLink, Inc.
shareholders as a result of the company's acquisition of Level 3.
It alleged that the proxy statement provided to the Level 3
shareholders failed to disclose various material information of
several kinds, including information about strategic revenue,
customer loss rates, and customer account issues, among other
items. The complaint seeks damages, costs and fees, rescission,
rescissory damages, and other equitable relief.
In May 2020, the court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed
that decision, and in March 2022, the appellate court affirmed the
district court's order in part and reversed it in part. It then
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the company filed a
motion to dismiss. The court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and the plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal.
Lumen is an international facilities-based technology and
communications company focused on providing mass markets customers
with a broad array of integrated products and services necessary to
fully participate in our ever-evolving digital world.
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces McLemore Suit Over SEC Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------
Lumen Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that on
September 15, 2023, a purported shareholder of Lumen filed a
putative class action complaint captioned "McLemore v. Lumen
Technologies, Inc., et al.," Case 3:23-cv-01290, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
The complaint alleges that Lumen and certain of its current or
former officers violated the federal securities laws by omitting or
misstating material information related to Lumen's responsibility
for environmental degradation allegedly caused by the lead
sheathing of certain telecommunications cables. The complaint seeks
money damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief.
Lumen is an international facilities-based technology and
communications company focused on providing mass markets customers
with a broad array of integrated products and services necessary to
fully participate in our ever-evolving digital world.
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voigt Suit Over SEC Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumen Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that on
March 3, 2023, a purported shareholder of Lumen filed a putative
class action complaint captioned "Voigt v. Lumen Technologies,
Inc., et al.," Case 3:23-cv-00286-TAD-KDM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
The complaint alleges that Lumen and certain of its current or
former officers violated the federal securities laws by omitting or
misstating material information related to Lumen's expansion of its
Quantum Fiber business. The complaint seeks money damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.
Lumen is an international facilities-based technology and
communications company focused on providing mass markets customers
with a broad array of integrated products and services necessary to
fully participate in our ever-evolving digital world.
MAGNUM HUNTER: Court OK's Bid to Certify Class in Sagacity Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAGACITY, INC., on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, v. MAGNUM HUNTER
PRODUCTION, INC.; PRIZE ENERGY RESOURCES, LP; CIMAREX ENERGY
COMPANY OF COLORADO, Case No. 6:17-cv-00101-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the
Hon. Judge Gerald L. Jackson entered an order granting motion to
certify class:
Furthermore, Defendants' motion to strike class allegations and
brief in support thereof is denied as moot.
The Defendants' motion to strike inadmissible class certification
evidence and brief in support, and the Defendants' motion to strike
the Plaintiff's Newly Disclosed Experts M. Phyllis Bourque and
William G. Foster and Brief in Support are denied.
In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff satisfied its burden under
Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) establishing this case as a class action.
Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be granted, and
the following class is certified, with the modifications to the
applicable lease list as discussed above:
"All last successors in interest to royalty owners in Oklahoma
wells operated by Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado, Inc. and
leased
by Magnum Hunter Production, Inc. and/or Prize Energy Resources,
L.P. that have produced gas or gas constituents (such as residue
gas or natural gas liquids) from January 1, 2013 to present."
Excluded from the Class are: (1) agencies, departments, or
instrumentalities of the United States of America; (2)
Defendants,
their affiliates, and employees, officers and directors; (3) Any
NYSE or NASDAQ listed company (and its subsidiaries) engaged in
oil
and gas exploration, gathering, processing, or marketing; (4)
all
royalty owners to the extent they have sued any of the
Defendants
for underpayment of royalties from January 1, 2013 to the
present
before this suit was filed; (5) all royalty owners that
expressly
authorized in their leases the deduction of process costs from
royalties; and (6) all royalty owners to whom Defendants
remitted
pass-through payments on behalf of non-operating working
interest
owners.
The Plaintiff filed a class action petition in Oklahoma State Court
in Marshall County, Case No. 17-CJ-18, on February 23, 2017, and
Defendants removed it to this Court on March 21, 2017.
Sagacity is an Oklahoma Corporation that owns oil and/or gas wells
in Marshall County, Oklahoma, which is within the Eastern District
of Oklahoma. The Defendants are Texas corporations with their
principal place of business in Colorado.
Magnum Hunter is an oil & energy company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ulJ9zo at no extra charge.[CC]
MARATHON DIGITAL: No Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Digital Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ending in September 30, 2023 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada hasn't
appointed lead plaintiff for the Securities Exchange Act class suit
to date.
On March 30, 2023, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada,
against the Company and present and former senior management,
alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") arising out of the
Company's announcement of accounting restatements on February 28,
2023.
The defendants' time to respond has been extended until after the
appointment of a lead plaintiff.
To date, no lead plaintiff has been appointed.
Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries is a digital
asset
technology company that produces or "mines" digital assets with a
focus on the blockchain ecosystem and the generation of digital
assets.
MARIANI PACKING: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Diesel
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY DIESEL, v.
MARIANI PACKING CO., Case No. 4:22-cv-01368-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order amending the Case
Management Order as follows:
1. Any motion for class certification must Nov. 13,
2023
be filed no later than:
2. Responses shall be filed no later than: Dec. 18,
2023
3. Any reply may be filed no later than: Jan. 16,
2024
Mariani is a food production company that offers dried fruits
packaging services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47vDN38 at no extra charge.[CC]
MARIANI PACKING: Extension to File Class Cert Response Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimberly Diesel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Mariani Packing Company, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-01368-AGF (E.D.
Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an
extension of:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file her Nov. 13, 2023
motion for class Certification due
on November 6, 2023, to:
-- The Defendant's deadline to file a Dec. 18, 2023
response due on December 11, 2023,
to:
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a Jan. 15, 2024
reply due on January 8, 2024, to:
Mariani is an independent producer of own-brand and private-label
dried fruit in the US.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QV1hsL at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC
75 W Lockwood Ave Ste 1
Webster Groves MO 63119
Telephone: (314) 550-3717
E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com
- and –
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Chelsea Baran, Esq.
James C. Morris, Esq.
Chelsea M. Baran, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
211 North Broadway, Suite 2150
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 961-6686
Facsimile: (314) 338-3076
E-mail: jmorris@grsm.com
cbetcher@grsm.com
MARQETA INC: Continues to Defend Smith Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marqeta Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending in September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Smith class suit in the Court of Chancery
for the State of Delaware.
On August 24, 2023, a putative class action and shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in the case captioned Stephanie Smith
v. Jason Gardner, et al. (Case No. 2023-0872-MTZ) in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware against each of the members of
our board of directors and naming Marqeta as a nominal defendant.
The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached
fiduciary duties in approving the 2023 Share Repurchase Program by
failing to implement measures to prevent Marqeta founder Jason
Gardner from acquiring control of the Company or ensure that
unaffiliated stockholders receive a control premium.
The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief in the case,
among other relief.
The plaintiff also filed a motion to expedite proceedings to obtain
expedited discovery to support a contemplated preliminary
injunction motion to enjoin purchases under the 2023 Share
Repurchase Program.
The Company and the individual defendants opposed the motion and
the motion was heard and denied on September 15, 2023.
The Company and the individual defendants have filed motions to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, but the parties have not yet
agreed on a briefing schedule for those motions and no hearing on
the motions has been set.
The Company is prepared to vigorously defend this litigation.
Marqeta, Inc. is a provider of modern card issuing and payment
processing platform, with its principal place of business located
in Oakland, California. [BN]
MASIMO CORP: Continues to Defend Vasquez Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Vasquez class suit.
On August 22, 2023, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Sergio Vazquez against the Company and members of its management
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
The complaint alleges that the Company and members of its
management disseminated materially false and misleading statements
and/or concealed material adverse facts relating to its second
quarter 2023 revenue and sales and expected full-year 2023 revenue.
The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the
claims in the complaint, but there is no guarantee that the Company
will be successful in these efforts.
The Company is unable to determine whether any loss ultimately will
occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount
of loss has been accrued by the Company in the accompanying
condensed consolidated financial statements.
MASONITE CORP: Approval Hearing on Settlement Not Yet Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Masonite 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 8, 2023, that the
Federal Court of Canada has not set date for the antitrust class
suit settlement approval hearing.
On May 19, 2020, an intended class proceeding was commenced in the
Province of Québec, Canada naming as defendants Masonite
Corporation, Corporation Internationale Masonite, JELD-WEN, Inc.,
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. and JELD-WEN of Canada, Ltd. The plaintiff
alleges that the Masonite and JELD-WEN defendants engaged in
anticompetitive conduct, including price-fixing involving interior
molded doors.
The intended class proceeding seeks damages, punitive damages, and
other relief.
On December 22, 2020, the parties filed a motion with the court
seeking to stay the proceeding.
On October 2, 2020, an intended class proceeding was commenced in
the Federal Court of Canada naming as defendants Masonite
International Corporation, Masonite Corporation, JELD-WEN, Inc.,
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. and JELD-WEN of Canada, Ltd.
The plaintiff alleges that the Masonite and JELD-WEN defendants
engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including price-fixing
involving interior molded doors.
The intended class proceeding seeks damages, punitive damages, and
other relief.
The plaintiff served its certification record on March 31, 2021.
On November 3, 2023, the Company entered into a preliminary
settlement agreement with the plaintiff class that would result in
the resolution of all the plaintiffs' underlying claims and
lawsuits in exchange for a payment by the Company of approximately
$0.9 million.
As a result, for the three and nine months ended October 1, 2023,
the Company accrued approximately $0.9 million in selling, general
and administrative expense in the condensed consolidated statement
of income and comprehensive income in connection with this matter.
The preliminary settlement agreement is subject to court approval.
A settlement approval hearing date has not yet been set.
Masonite International Corporation is a global designer,
manufacturer, marketer and distributor of interior and exterior
doors, door system components and door systems for the new
construction and repair, renovation and remodeling sectors of the
residential and non-residential building construction markets.
Masonite operates 63 manufacturing locations in seven countries
and
sells doors to customers throughout the world with our largest
markets being the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.
MAUI ELECTRIC: Eder Personal Property Suit Removed to D. Hawaii
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MONICA I. EDER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MAUI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIMITED, et
al., Case No. 1CCV-23-0001045, was removed from the Circuit Court
of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Hawaii on November 14, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Hawaii assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-00459-JAO-WRP to the proceeding.
The case type is stated as 380 Personal Property.
Maui Electric Company, Limited is an electric company based in
Hawaii.
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. is an electric company based in
Hawaii.
Hawaiian Telcom Inc. is a local telephone company based in Hawaii.
Hawaiian Telecommunications, Inc. is a telecommunications company
in Hawaii.
Spectrum Oceanic, LLC is a telecommunications company doing
business in Hawaii.
Hope Builders Holding LLC is a housing development and management
company in Hawaii.
Hope Builders Inc. is a housing development and management company
in Hawaii.
Hope Builders LLC is a housing development and management company
in Hawaii.
Kauaula Land Company LLC is a limited liability company in Hawaii.
Kipa Centennial LLC is a property development company in Hawaii.
Wainee Land & Homes, LLC is a housing development and management
company in Hawaii.
West Maui Land Company, Inc. is a housing development and
management company in Hawaii.
Makila Ranches Inc. is a real estate company based in Hawaii.
Makila Land Co., LLC is a housing development and management
company in Hawaii.
Makila Ranches Homeowners Association, Inc. is non-profit
organization in Hawaii.
JV Enterprises, LLC is a limited liability company in Hawaii.
Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation is a housing
finance and development agency in Hawaii.
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources is a state
government in Hawaii. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joachim P. Cox, Esq.
Randall C. Whattoff, Esq.
COX FRICKE LLP
800 Bethel Street, Suite 600
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 585-9440
E-mail: jcox@cfhawaii.com
rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com
- and -
David J. Minkin, Esq.
Jordan K. Inafuku, Esq.
Kamrie Koi, Esq.
Sara M. K. Y. Hayden, Esq.
MCCORRISTON MILLER MUKAI MACKINNON LLP
500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 5
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 529-7300
(808) 529-7355
E-mail: minkin@m4law.com
jinafuku@m4law.com
kjk@m4law.com
smh@m4law.com
- and -
Alan K. Lau, Esq.
Tedson H. Koja, Esq.
TSUGAWA LAU MUZZI LLLC
55 Merchant Street, Suite 3000
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 531-0490
E-mail: alau@hilaw.us
tkoja@hilaw.us
- and -
Christine Y. Wong, Esq.
Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
E-mail: christinewong@mofo.com
tcheung@mofo.com
- and -
Eric H. Tsugawa, Esq.
TSUGAWA LAU & MUZZI LLLC
1132 Bishop Street Suite 2400
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 531-0490
E-mail: etsugawa@hilaw.us
- and -
Julie Y. Park, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
12531 High Bluff Dr., #100
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 720-5100
Facsimile: (858) 720-5125
E-mail: juliepark@mofo.com
- and -
Bronwyn F. Pollock, Esq.
Jillian C. Joseph, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
333 S. Grand Ave., 47th Floor, Ste. 4700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-5194
Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
E-mail: bpollock@mayerbrown.com
jjoseph@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Gregory K. Markham, Esq.
Keith K. Kato, Esq.
CHEE MARKHAM & FELDMAN
American Savings Bank Tower
1001 Bishop St., Suite 2700
American Savings Bank Tower
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 523-0111
Facsimile: (808) 523-0115
E-mail: gmarkham@cheemarkham.com
kkato@cheemarkham.com
- and -
Mark R. Ter Molen, Esq.
Matthew C. Sostrin, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 701-7307
(312) 782-0600
E-mail: mtermolen@mayerbrown.com
msostrin@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Nathan P. Shimodoi, Esq.
Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Esq.
Paul Alston, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 524-1800
Facsimile: (808) 524-4591
E-mail: nathan.shimodoi@dentons.com
nick.kacprowski@dentons.com
paul.alston@dentons.com
- and -
Dara Sayuri Nakagawa, Esq.
Sheree A. Kon-Herrera, Esq.
Wesley H.H. Ching, Esq.
FUKUNAGA MATAYOSHI CHING & KON-HERRERA, LLP
841 Bishop St., Ste. 1200
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 533-4300
Facsimile: (808) 531-7585
E-mail: dsn@fmhc-law.com
skh@fmhc-law.com
whc@fmhc-law.com
- and -
Matthew A. Hemme, Esq.
Ralph J. O'Neill, Esq.
MACDONALD RUDY O'NEILL & YAMAUCHI
Pacific Tower
1001 Bishop St., Ste. 2350
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 523-3080
Facsimile: (808) 523-0759
E-mail: matthemme@macdonaldrudy.com
ralphoneill@macdonaldrudy.com
- and -
Rodney L. Umberger, Jr., Esq.
William R. Kincaid, Esq.
WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC
601 Union Street, Suite 4100
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 628-2421
Facsimile: (206) 628-6611
E-mail: rumberger@williamskastner.com
wkincaid@williamskastner.com
- and -
Joseph F. Kotowski, III, Esq.
MACDONALD RUDY O'NEILL & YAMAUCHI
2444 Dole Street
Bachman 110
Honolulu, HI 96822
Telephone: (808) 956-2211
E-mail: jkotowski@macdonaldrudy.com
- and -
Michael L. Lam, Esq.
Steven E. Tom, Esq.
CASE LOMBARDI
737 Bishop Street, Suite 2600
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 547-5400
E-mail: mlam@caselombardi.com
st@caselombardi.com
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Gibson Seeks Licensed Practical Nurses' OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE STAFFING
SERVICES, INC., TOWNE STAFFING LLC, MEADOWS AT GETTYSBURG FOR
NURSING AND REHABILITATION LLC d/b/a THE GARDENS AT GETTYSBURG,
Case No. Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01855-CCC (M.D. Pa., November
8, 2023) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Plaintiff Crystal Gibson first began her employment with Defendants
on or around December 18, 2022, when she was hired through
Defendant Maxim for employment as an Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)
with Defendant Meadows. She was and is typically scheduled to work
between 56 and 72 hours per week.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Gibson contends that the Defendants have
unlawfully failed to pay her and other individuals employed in the
position of LPN or in positions with substantially similar job
duties, overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of FLSA
and PMWA. She also asserts that the Defendants maintained an
unlawful policy and practice of deducting 30 minutes of time for an
"unpaid meal break" each single shift, or one hour of time for a
double shift, despite the fact that Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs
rarely, if ever, actually received a full, uninterrupted break,
resulting in the non-payment of overtime compensation in violation
of the FLSA and PMWA.
Maxim Healthcare Staffing Services, Inc. provides healthcare
staffing and workforce management services to hospitals, schools,
government programs, correctional facilities, and managed care
organizations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Murphy, Esq.
Michael Groh, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-021
E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Faces Santanelli Personal Injury Suit in E.D. Va.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maximus Federal
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Santanelli v. Maximus
Federal Services, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01355-RDA-JFA (E.D. Va.,
Oct. 4, 2023).
The nature of suit states Diversity-Personal Injury. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr.
Maximus provides health and human care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared Robert Butcher, Esq.
BERLINER CORCORAN & ROWE LLP
1101 Seventeenth Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 293-5555
E-mail: jbutcher@bcrlaw.com
MCLEOD EXPRESS: Lohmoeller Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McLeod Express LLC.
The case is styled as Caitlin Lohmoeller, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. McLeod Express LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-02244-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., Nov. 1, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Mcleod Express, LLC -- https://mcleodexpress.com/ -- offers
transportation services. The Company provides repair services
center for trucks such as on-site truck, freight-liner parts, and
off-site tire center, as well as warehousing, distribution, and
package solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Email: raina@turkestrauss.com
MCMENAMINS INC: Kirby Judicial Notice Bid Denied
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZANE J. KIRBY, et al., v.
MCMENAMINS INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05168-BHS-MLP (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Michelle L. Peterson entered an order
recommending that Plaintiffs' motion be denied.
-- The Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice,
and
grants the Plaintiffs' request to strike.
-- Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be
filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit
within 14 days of the date on which this Report and
Recommendation
is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time
may affect your right to appeal.
-- The Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that common
issues
of law or fact predominate to make class certification
appropriate.
The Plaintiffs, former employees of McMenamins, allege McMenamins
engages in a "systematic scheme of wage and hour violations" by
failing to provide employees statutory ten-minute rest periods and
30-minute meal periods or to compensate employees for missed
breaks.
The Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant to RCW 49.12 for failure to
compensate for missed meal and rest periods, and pursuant to RCW
49.52.050, .070, for willful and intentional withholding of such
compensation.
In the instant motion, Plaintiffs seek certification of a class
defined as:
"All individuals who resided in Washington State and who worked
for
McMenamins, Inc. in Washington State, who were employed in the
position of bartender or server (or any similar "front-of-the-
house" position) at any time from February 9, 2019, to the date
of
the Order granting class certification."
The Plaintiffs seek to be designated class representatives, and
that Brian Denlinger, Craig Ackermann, and Tatiana Hernandez be
appointed class counsel.
McMenamins is a family-owned chain of brewpubs, breweries, music
venues, historic hotels, and theater pubs.
A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Nov. 8, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sBnove at no
extra charge.[CC]
MCPZ FOODS: Solis Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Fausto Solis and Leonardo Flores, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated employees v. MCPZ FOODS CORP (DBA VERDES ITALIAN
EATERY), SEBASTIAN BONGIOVANI and DANIELLE LIGUORI, individually,
Case No. 1:23-cv-08204 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2023), is brought against
the Defendant for unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently amended by the Wage Theft
Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12 of
New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR").
The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
pay and compensate Plaintiffs at a minimum rate of $15.00 per hour
(the "minimum wage"); however, one of the Plaintiffs was only
compensated at a rate of $14.49 and $14.65 per hour for 40 hours
workweek. The Defendants were required, under relevant New York
State law, to compensate Plaintiffs with overtime pay at one and
one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work
week. However, despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants
only compensated one of the Plaintiffs at a rate of $14.49 and
$14.65 per hour and failed to pay Plaintiffs their lawful overtime
pay for that period from August 2022 until September 12, 2023, and
February 2022 until September 2023, when they worked well in excess
of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed to work as cooks.
The Defendants owned and operated MCPZ Foods Corp (d/b/a Verdes
Italian Eatery), a corporate entity principally engaged in Staten
Island, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: 212-203-2417
Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
MENARD INC: Court Narrows Claims in Shoemaker SAC
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN SHOEMAKER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MENARD, INC.,
DISSTON COMPANY, and GINO DEVELOPMENT, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-04089-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Douglas Harpool
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim.
The Plaintiff's allegations in Counts Two and Three are dismissed
with prejudice to the extent those allegations are brought under
any perceived federal common law. Otherwise, the Defendants' motion
is denied.
The Plaintiff filed his first complaint June 10, 2022, eight days
before giving notice to Defendant Menard’s. Nonetheless, this
Court agrees with Plaintiff that notice is not strictly required
where a plaintiff sufficiently alleges that a defendant had actual
knowledge of the alleged defect.
The Second Amended Complaint specifically alleges that "Defendants
knew of, or should have known of, their defects."
The Plaintiff also supports this allegation with additional
specific factual allegations. Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged
sufficient facts as to Count Three's breach of implied warranty
allegations.
The instant matter involves a dispute about bonded abrasive wheels
that attach to power tools used to cut and grind materials like
metal and concrete. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, in
violation of industry standards, Defendants manufactured and/or
sold abrasive wheels whose packaging lacked clear and identifiable
expiration dates and/or warnings.
Menard owns and operates home improvement stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SKnzyP at no extra charge.[CC]
MERIT ENERGY: Court Refuses to Remand Cooper-Clark Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit
titled THE COOPER-CLARK FOUNDATION, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERIT ENERGY COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01097-JAR-GEB (D. Kan.).
Plaintiff The Cooper-Clark Foundation filed a putative class action
in state court alleging that Defendant Merit Energy Company, LLC,
underpaid royalties for natural gas wells it operated in Kansas.
The Plaintiff pleaded in the First Amended Class Action Petition
("FACAP") that the underpayment to the entire class of royalty
owners is less than $5 million, excluding prejudgment interest.
On May 22, 2023, the Defendant removed the action under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), pleading that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million, at least one member of the putative
class is from a state different from any other defendant, and the
number of putative class members exceeds 100.
Judge Robinson notes that the Defendant's Notice of Removal
contains a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal,
including an allegation that the $5 million jurisdictional
threshold under CAFA is met based on the putative class definition
and the claims alleged in the FACAP.
The Plaintiff moved to remand on the basis that the Defendant's
amount-in-controversy allegation was not plausible given its own
statement in the FACAP that its damages would not exceed $5
million. The Defendant responded, attaching an expert report to
support its amount-in-controversy allegation.
The Court granted Plaintiff's request in the reply brief for
limited jurisdictional discovery. The Court permitted the Plaintiff
to depose the Defendant's expert, Angela Paslay, and allowed the
Plaintiff to supplement its reply brief and the Defendant to file a
surreply.
The Plaintiff argues, among other things, that Paslay incorrectly
included wells in her report that are not part of the class
definition.
The class definition in the FACAP is:
All persons who were royalty owners in Kansas wells from
May 1, 2014, to the date Class Notice is given, where
Defendant was the operator (or a working interest owner who
marketed its share of gas and directly paid royalties to the
royalty owners) and whose gas was moved over the Ulysses Gas
Gathering System (UGGS) and originally dedicated under the
June 15, 1998 Amoco Gas Processing Agreement.
Excluded from the Class are: (1) the Office of Natural Resources
Revenue, formerly known as the Mineral Management Service (Indian
tribes and the United States); (2) all presiding judges together
with their immediate family members; (3) Defendant, its affiliates,
and employees, officers, and directors; (4) any publicly traded
company or its affiliated entity that produces, gathers, processes,
or markets gas; (5) overriding royalty owners and others whose
interest was carved out from the lessee's interest; and (6) royalty
owners whose leases expressly authorize the deduction of costs
incurred to process the gas or otherwise place the gas or its
constituents in marketable condition.
In the supplemental reply brief, Judge Robinson notes that the
Plaintiff appears to concede that the Defendant plausibly alleges
that the amount-in-controversy is met, but disputes the Defendant's
expert's calculations and submits its own expert report. The
Plaintiff's expert, Daniel T. Reineke, submitted a declaration.
The Court agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff's evidence
falls short of demonstrating that the Defendant's
amount-in-controversy figures are legally impossible.
In sum, the Court does not have sufficient evidence before it to
accept as true Reineke's assertion in his declaration that the
class definition in this case is limited to 170 wells, such that
the Court can make a finding that Paslay's calculations and well
assumptions are legally impossible. There is a question of fact
about how many wells are covered by the Plaintiff's class
definition, which depends on how many wells' gas both moved over
the UGGS and were originally dedicated under the Amoco Agreement.
Even if it is highly improbable that all of the wells used by
Paslay in her calculations will ultimately fit within the class
definition, Judge Robinson finds that the Defendant's evidence
falls short of demonstrating that Paslay's calculations are legally
impossible.
The Plaintiff's second point of error with Paslay's calculations is
that the amount in controversy must be measured as of the date the
FACAP was filed in state court--May 15, 2023, Judge Robinson
opines. The Plaintiff argues that the time period for the class to
recover cannot extend beyond the date the FACAP was filed, despite
the fact that the class definition in the FACAP explicitly seeks to
recover between May 1, 2014, and "the date Class Notice is given."
The Court need not determine whether the Table 1 or Table 2
calculation in Palsay's report is correct, because in Table 2,
Paslay calculated that the minimum amount in controversy exceeds $7
million if measured between May 1, 2014, and April 2023, just
before the FACAP was filed.
Therefore, even if the amount in controversy is measured between
May 1, 2014, and the date the FACAP was filed, Judge Robinson
points out that the Defendant has met its burden of demonstrating
by a preponderance of the evidence that CAFA's
amount-in-controversy threshold is met, and the Plaintiff has
failed to show that the Defendant's allegation is legally
impossible.
Therefore, the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Oct. 30,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwa6ekn3 from
PacerMonitor.com.
META PLATFORMS: Obtains Personal Info Without Consent, Wright Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GRETCHEN WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-05566-DCN (D.S.C., Nov. 2, 2023) is a class action against
Defendant for obtaining Plaintiff's personal identifying
information from the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles
website without her consent -- information expressly protected
under the federal Drivers' Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, when users visit facebook.com, Meta
surreptitiously installs a tracking code called the Meta Pixel,
onto their web browsers. This tracking code, operating in the
background, stays on Facebook users' browsers for up to 90 days and
allows Defendant to collect information about what those users do
when they are browsing other websites separate from the Facebook
platform. This includes tracking the actions Facebook users take
while using the SCDMV website, https://scdmvonline.com/.
On behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff seeks: (1) injunctive
and equitable relief as necessary to protect the interests of
Plaintiff and the Class by requiring Defendant to comply with the
DPPA; (2) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of
$2,500 for each violation of the DPPA; and (3) reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and other litigation expenses.
Meta Platforms, Inc. doing business as Meta, and formerly named
Facebook, Inc., and The Facebook, Inc., is an American
multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
825 Low Country Blvd, Suite 101
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
MGM RESORTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Modified to July 24, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: MGM Resorts International Data
Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00376-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the
Hon. Judge Nancy J. Koppe entered an order regarding modification
of discovery schedule:
-- Fact discovery: March 19, 2024
-- Initial class certification experts: April 18, 2024
-- Rebuttal class certification experts: June 4, 2024
-- Class certification expert discovery: July 3, 2024
-- Motion for class certification: July 24, 2024
-- Motion(s) to exclude class certification: July 24, 2024
-- Private mediation deadline: Oct. 17, 2024
-- Joint Status report regarding private Oct. 24, 2024
Mediation:
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QGziM8 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Don Springmeyer, Esq.
KEMP JONES, LLP
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169
- and -
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC
5510 S. Fort Apache Rd., Suite 30
Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Reginald Streater, Esq.
Mark DeSanto, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
Karina G. Puttieva, Esq.
Claire L. Torchiana, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Ave., 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
- and -
David M. Berger, Esq.
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP, LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Marcio Valladares, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, Esq.
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
The Defendant is represented by:
Anne Marie Mortimer, Esq.
Jason J. Kim, Esq.
Neil K. Gilman, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
- and -
Todd L. Bice, Esq.
Brianna Smith, Esq.
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89101
MGM RESORTS: Manson Sues Over Data Security Failure
---------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01826 (D. Nev., November 6, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information (PII) for past and current customers of
Defendant of its loyalty program database, information that
includes, but is not limited to, their names, mailing addresses,
telephone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, driver's
license numbers, and passport numbers, for a significant number of
its more than millions of members of its loyalty program.
In a Notice of Data Breach sent to the Plaintiff on October 19,
2023, the Defendant stated it launched an ongoing investigation,
engaged leading cybersecurity firms to assist. According to the
Notice Letter, the Defendant believes that the Data Breach occurred
on September 11, 2023.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (1)
adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and the class members; (ii)
warn Plaintiff and the class members of Defendant's inadequate
information security practices; (iii) effectively secure hardware
containing protected PII using reasonable and adequate security
procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents; (iv) timely
notify Plaintiff and and the class members of the data breach.
MGM is incorporated in the State of Delaware, with a principal
place of business in Las Vegas, NV. The company is engaged in the
hospitality and entertainment business. It operates several
destination resorts in Las Vegas, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Maryland, Ohio, and New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan R. Ring, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (725) 235-9750
E-mail: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, PC
1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, PC
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settlement of Shareholder Suit for Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in October 27, 2023, that the
parties in a putative state securities class action lawsuit filed
in the Superior court of the State of Delaware on January 30, 2020,
reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit in exchange
for the dismissal and a release of all claims against the
defendants.
The company and certain of its present and former executive
officers were named as defendants in said complaint that alleged
that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act
of 1933. The complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders who
purchased shares of the company's common stock in Mohawk Industries
Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 2 between
April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019.
On March 27, 2020, the court granted a temporary stay of the
litigation. The stay may be lifted according to the terms set forth
in the court's order to stay litigation.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. manufactures, sources and markets a broad
line of ceramic tile, porcelain tile, natural stone tile and other
products including natural stone, porcelain slabs and quartz
countertops, which it distributes primarily in North America,
Europe, Brazil and Russia through various selling channels, which
include company-owned stores, independent distributors, residential
and commercial contractors and home centers.
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Water Contamination in Alabama Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in October 27, 2023, that in
April 2023, Shelby County, Alabama and Talladega County, Alabama
filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Talladega County, Alabama
against certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals
containing specific perfluorinated compounds, including Aladdin
Manufacturing Corporation, Aladdin Manufacturing Corporation of
Alabama, LLC, Mohawk Carpet, LLC, and Mohawk Industries, Inc.
The Counties both seek monetary damages and injunctive relief,
claiming that their water supplies contain excessive amounts of
perfluorinated compounds.
The defendants removed this case to federal court on May 12, 2023,
and the case remains pending.
Mohawk Industries, Inc. manufactures, sources and markets a broad
line of ceramic tile, porcelain tile, natural stone tile and other
products including natural stone, porcelain slabs and quartz
countertops, which it distributes primarily in North America,
Europe, Brazil and Russia through various selling channels, which
include company-owned stores, independent distributors, residential
and commercial contractors and home centers.
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Cole Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Catherine Cole, Barbara
Koostra, Mary-Ann Sontag Bowman, Rhondie Voorhees, Courtney
Babcock, Laura Berkhouse, Ruth Ann Burgad, Jane Doe 1, Jennifer
Cooper, Cindy Ferguson, Frieda Houser, Sherrie Lindbo, Jennifer
McNulty, Jane Doe 2, Vida Wilkinson, and Vandi Theriot,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Montana University System, University of Montana-Missoula, and John
Doe Defendants 1-50, Case No. 9:21-cv-00088-BMM (D. Mont.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class
action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Montana University is the state's system of public colleges and
universities, which together serve more than 40,000 students
statewide.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QPLH1R at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hillary P. Carls, Esq.
CARLS LAW, PLLC
322 West Mendenhall, P.O. Box 85
Bozeman, MT 59771
Telephone: (406) 577-2145
Facsimile: (406) 219-0256
E-mail: hillary@carlslaw.com
- and -
Veronica A. Procter, Esq.
PROCTER LAW, PLLC
2718 Montana Avenue, Suite 200
Billings, MT 59101
Telephone: (406) 294-8915
Facsimile: (406) 302-0504
E-mail: vp@procterlawfirm.com
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Seeks Denial of Cole Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE COLE, BARBARA
KOOSTRA, MARY-ANN SONTAG BOWMAN, RHONDIE VOORHEES, RUTH ANN BURGAD,
JANE DOE 1, JENNIFER COOPER, CINDY FERGUSON, FRIEDA HOUSER, SHERRIE
LINDBO, JENNIFER MCNULTY, JANE DOE 2, VIDA WILKINSON, and VANDI
THERIOT individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, UNIVERSITY OF
MONTANA–MISSOULA, and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-50, Case No.
9:21-cv-00088-BMM (D. Mont.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order granting their renewed motion to deny class
certification.
The Defendants move the Court to deny class certification in this
matter, for a second time. As set forth in the accompanying brief
in support, nothing has changed since the prior briefing on class
certification, which this Court ultimately denied.
The Defendants are entitled to request an order to deny
certification.
Montana University is the state's system of public colleges and
universities, which together serve more than 40,000 students
statewide.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qm3nR6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Susan Moriarity Miltko, Esq.
James David Johnson, Esq.
Hannah I. Higgins, Esq.
WILLIAMS LAW FIRM, P.C.
235 E. Pine
Missoula, MT 59807-9440
Telephone: (406) 721-4350
E-mail: susan@wmslaw.com
james@wmslaw.com
hannah@wmslaw.com
MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Elevated Radiation-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the elevated
radiation-related class suit in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida.
On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in
Hillsborough County, Florida against the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc., and two unrelated
co-defendants.
The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of
radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on
reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly
due to phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring
decades ago.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages,
injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a
medical monitoring program funded by the defendants.
On October 14, 2021, the court substantially granted a motion to
dismiss that it filed late in 2020, with leave for the plaintiffs
to amend their complaint.
On November 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and, in
response, Mosaic filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with
prejudice on November 15, 2021.
On December 23, 2021, plaintiffs opposed that motion and Mosaic
replied to that opposition on January 26, 2022.
On April 6, 2022, the court heard argument on the motions to
dismiss filed by Mosaic and each other co-defendant.
In late March 2023, the court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this matter.
NAPLES BOTANICAL: Wright Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Angela M. Wright, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Naples Botanical Garden, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00987 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2023) is a class action to
recover money damages for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
full-time, hourly employee from approximately September 1, 2020 to
October 6, 2023, or more than three years. During her employment
with Defendant, the Plaintiff was misclassified as a building
service manager. The Plaintiff worked at the premises more than 40
hours, but she was not paid for overtime at the correct rate, says
the suit.
Naples Botanical Garden is a 170-acre botanical garden located in
Naples, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
NCAA: Court Excludes Osborne's Cass Cert Opinions
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as House, et al., v. National
Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Claudia Wilken entered an order
granting Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions of Barbara
Osborne from the class certification proceedings.
The Court finds that the opinion at issue lacks sufficient support
and, accordingly, grants Plaintiffs' motion to exclude it as
unreliable.
The Defendants have not pointed to any support for Osborne’s
opinion that any additional payments to female student-athletes
beyond those contemplated in Dr. Rascher's BNIL model would amount
to prohibited pay-for-play. See Osborne Rep. at 53. Because the
opinion at issue lacks a sufficient foundation, the Court grants
Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude it as unreliable.
C. Whether Osborne's opinions are pertinent to class certification
Plaintiffs move to exclude Osborne’s opinions on the alternative
ground that they are not relevant to the resolution of their motion
for certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Docket No. 293 at
12-13.
The Defendants respond that Osborne's opinions are relevant to the
class certification inquiry because they "relate to predominance"
and thus "bear directly on class certification" under Rule
23(b)(3).
Barbara Osborne is Defendants' expert on Title IX. Osborne is a
professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with a
joint appointment in the Department of Exercise and Sport Science
and the School of Law.
Osborne directs the graduate program in Sport Administration at the
Department of Exercise and Sport Science, and she teaches courses
on college athletics, NCAA governance and compliance, and sports
law.
National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates
student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States,
and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47oZL7E at no extra charge.[CC]
NCAA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 2, 2024
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUBA HUBBARD and KEIRA
MCCARRELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; ATLANTIC
COAST CONFERENCE; THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC.; THE BIG 12
CONFERENCE, INC.; PAC-12 CONFERENCE; and SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01593-CW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Claudia
Wilken entered an order granting the parties' stipulation for
revising the case deadlines:
Event Date
Class Certification Motion and Feb. 2, 2024
Supporting Expert Reports
Class Certification Opposition and March 15, 2024
Supporting Expert Reports, as well as
deadline for Daubert motions as to
Plaintiffs' class experts
Hearing on Class Certification and any May 2, 2024
related Daubert motion(s)
Plaintiffs' dispositive motion/ July 12, 2024
Plaintiffs' Daubert motion(s) as to
Defendants' merits experts
(single brief of 50 pages or less)
Motions in Limine (single brief of Oct. 25, 2024
25 pages or less)
Oppositions to Motions in Limine Nov. 1, 2024
(single brief of 25 pages or less)
Pretrial Conference Nov. 14, 2024
Trial Date Dec. 2, 2024
National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates
student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States,
and Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40rAyHo at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW JERSEY: Lovaglio Sues Over Unfair Newborn Blood Testing Program
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH LOVAGLIO, J.L. and B.L., by next friend, Hannah Lovaglio,
ERICA JEDYNAK, JEREMIAH JEDYNAK, C.J., by next friends, Erica and
Jeremiah Jedynak, Plaintiffs v. KAITLAN BASTON, Acting Commissioner
of the New Jersey Department of Health, sued in her official
capacity, NANCY SCOTTO-ROSATO, Assistant Commissioner for the
Division of Family Health Services, sued in her official capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-21803 (D.N.J., Nov. 2, 2023) is a
class action seeking declaratory, injunctive, and class action
relief against Defendants for the deprivation of Plaintiffs'
rights, and the rights of those similarly situated, under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
According to the complaint, New Jersey does not obtain informed
consent from the parents before taking blood from their newborn to
be screened for diseases. Instead, parents are simply given a
handout about the testing process. The handout says that New Jersey
law requires the blood draw, that early diagnosis of "rare and
serious illnesses" is important, and that parents should "KNOW YOUR
RESULTS!" New Jersey then keeps that blood from every baby born in
the state for 23 years, all without parents' knowledge or consent.
The practice got even worse since not only does New Jersey secretly
hold onto the blood for decades, it can use the blood however it
wants. There is simply no limit to what New Jersey can do with the
blood. The retention of the blood from the newborn screening
program absent a warrant or informed consent violates the Fourth
Amendment rights of Plaintiffs' children, says the complaint.
New Jersey is a state situated within both the Mid-Atlantic and
Northeastern regions of the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
CJ Griffin, Esq.
PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN, P.C.
21 Main Street, Suite 200
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 270-4930
E-mail: cgriffin@pashmanstein.com
- and -
Robert Frommer, Esq.
Brian A. Morris, Esq.
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
Telephone: (703) 682-9320
E-mail: rfrommer@ij.org
bmorris@ij.org
- and -
Christen Mason Hebert, Esq.
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
816 Congress Ave., Suite 970
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (703) 682-9320
E-mail: chebert@ij.org
NEW ORIENTAL EDUCATION: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. disclosed in its
Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2023., filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 25, 2023,
that it is currently facing a consolidated shareholder suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
Beginning in February 2022, the company and certain of its officers
and directors were named as defendants in two related securities
class actions filed in said court. In June 2022, these actions were
consolidated under the caption "In re New Oriental Education &
Technology Group Inc. Securities Litigation," No. 1:22-CV-01014. On
September 2, 2022, lead plaintiff filed its amended consolidated
complaint purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
or acquired the company's American Depository Shares (ADS) between
October 23, 2018 and July 25, 2021, alleging that defendants'
statements contained alleged misstatements and omissions regarding
the its business and compliance practices in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint on December 9, 2022. Briefing on defendants' Motion to
Dismiss was completed on June 26, 2023.
The court's decision on the motion remains pending. This action
remains in its preliminary stage.
New Oriental Education & Technology Group Co., Inc. is a Cayman
Islands holding company that conducts operations in China through
subsidiaries, variable interest entities (VIE) namely Beijing
Xuncheng and New Oriental China, and its subsidiaries and/or
schools, mainly provision of educational and value-added
telecommunication services.
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Rynasko
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA RYNASKO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEW
YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order regarding general
pretrial management, including scheduling discovery,
non-dispositive
pretrial motions, and settlement.
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
relating
to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss
or
for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for
summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her
Individual Practices, available on the Court's website at
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.
-- An in-person conference is scheduled for Thursday, November
16,
2023 at 10:00 am in Courtroom 18A, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York, to discuss Defendant’s request for "bifurcated
discovery and expedited class certification briefing to
determine
whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
case"
-- By November 8, 2023, the parties shall order a transcript of
the
November 7, 2023 status conference before the Honorable George
B.
Daniels, and shall select the "3 Day" option for delivery.
New York University is a private research university spread
throughout the world.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ufUwsS at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Seeks Expedited Class Certification Briefing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rynasko v. New York
University, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendant files a request for Bifurcated Discovery and Expedited
Class Certification Briefing:
Subject to the Court's decision on bifurcation, which will impact
the dates for the close of fact and expert discovery, the parties
agree to the following schedule, subject to change if there are
unforeseen developments:
-- Close of fact class certification discovery if May 31,
2024
discovery is bifurcated:
-- Close of fact discovery if discovery is Aug. 30,
2024
bifurcated
-- Plaintiff to designate any class certification experts: Two
weeks
following the close of fact discovery
-- NYU to designate any class certification experts: Six weeks
following the plaintiff’s designation of experts
-- Close of expert class certification discovery: One month
following
NYU's designation of experts
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification due: Two weeks
following the close of expert discovery
-- NYU's opposition to class certification due: Six weeks
following
the plaintiff's motion for class certification
-- Rule 702 motions due: Two weeks following NYU's opposition to
class certification
-- Plaintiff's reply brief regarding class certification due: Four
weeks following NYU's opposition to class certification
-- Oppositions to Rule 702 motions due: Four weeks following the
parties' Rule 702 motions
-- Reply briefs on Rule 702 motions due: Three weeks following the
Parties' oppositions to Rule 702 motions
Casey Hall-Landers alleges they had a contract with NYU for
in-person educational instruction and that NYU breached that
contract when it was forced to transition to remote instruction
during the Spring 2020 semester as a result of the Covid-19
pandemic.
They assert claims for breach of contract, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and money had and received and seek a
partial refund of the tuition paid for the Spring 2020 semester on
behalf of a putative "Tuition Class" consisting of "all students
who paid NYU Spring Semester 2020 for in-person educational
services that NYU failed to provide, and whose tuition has not been
refunded" and a putative "Fees Class" for those students "whose
fees have not been refunded."
New York University is a private research university originally
founded in New York City but now with campuses and locations
throughout the world.
A copy of Defendant's motion dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40xU19z at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Keara M. Gordon, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10020-1104
Telephone: (212) 335-4632
Facsimile: (212) 884-8632
E-mail: keara.gordon@us.dlapiper.com
NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN ZARKOWER, an
individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. CITY OF NEW YORK, PETER FORTUNE, Individually, SALVATORE
DIMAGGIO, Individually, ANDREW CHIN, Individually, PABLO DEJESUS,
Individually, and JOHN and JANE DOE 1 through 50, Individually,
(the names John and Jane Doe being fictitious, as the true names
are presently unknown), Case No. 1:19-cv-03843-ARR-JRC (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
(1) granting preliminary approval of the settlement
stipulation;
(2) conditionally certifying the proposed settlement class under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);
(3) appointing plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; and
(4) appointing KCC, LLC as Administrator.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SMfmud at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett H. Klein, Esq.
Lissa Green-Stark, Esq.
BRETT H. KLEIN, ESQ., PLLC
305 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 335-0132
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Kennedy Seeks to File Docs Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kennedy v. New-Indy
Catawba LLC et al., Case No. 0:21-CV-01704-SAL (D.S.C.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.03 to seal
the following documents:
-- Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class
Certification, specifically, the portions citing or discussing
the
following documents which have been designated as
"CONFIDENTIAL"
or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" by the Defendants;
-- Proposed Exhibit 3- NI_0125184-85, an October 14, 2019, e-mail
chain between Bob Tourville of New-Indy and Philip Pagoria, Jim
Palumbo, Paul Wiegand, and Amanda Mattingly of the National
Council for Air and Stream Improvement ("NCASI");
-- Proposed Exhibit 4 - NI_0125254-0125300, Powerhouse Operations
Environmental Training, 11/26/2019 Revision, at NI_0125268;
-- Proposed Exhibit 5 - October 4, 2023 Deposition Testimony of
James
Kirlin, at 130:1-5, designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" by the
Defendants
pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Confidentiality Order; and
-- Proposed Exhibit 6 - July 19, 2023 Deposition Testimony of Pete
Cleveland at 214-253, designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" by the
Defendants.
New-Indy is an integrated virgin linerboard and market pulp
manufacturing mill.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47eflU1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
Fred Thompson, III, Esq.
T. David Hoyle, Esq.
W. Taylor Lacy, Esq.
Meredith Clark, Esq.
Lee M. Heath, Esq.
Rebecca Fonseca, Esq.
Kayla Lattimore, Esq.
Meredith Clark, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
fthompson@motleyrice.com
dhoyle@motleyrice.com
wlacy@motleyrice.com
mclark@motleyrice.com
lheath@motleyrice.com
rfonseca@motleyrice.com
klattimore@motleyrice.com
mkclark@motleyrice.com
- and -
Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
Phillip D. Barber, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN P.A.
1410 Laurel Street
Columbia, SC 29202
E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
pdb@harpootlianlaw.com
- and -
Philip C. Federico, Esq.
Brent P. Ceryes, Esq.
Matthew P. Legg, Esq.
Chase T. Brockstedt, Esq.
Catherine M. Cramer, Esq.
Brian V. DeMott, Esq.
BAIRD MANDALAS BROCKSTEDT & FEDERICO LLC
2850 Quarry Lake Drive, Suite 220
Baltimore, MD 21209
Telephone: (410) 421-7777
E-mail: pfederico@bmbfclaw.com
bcereyes@bmbfclaw.com
mlegg@bmbfclaw.com
chase@bmbde.com
ccramer@bmbfclaw.com
brian@bmbde.com
- and -
Thomas E Pope, Esq.
Ben P. Leader, Esq.
ELROD POPE LAW FIRM
Rock Hill, SC 29731
Telephone: (803) 324-7574
E-mail: tpope@elrodpope.com
bleader@elrodpope.com
- and –
Leonidas E. Stavrinakis, Esq.
STAVRINAKIS LAW FIRM
1 Cool Blow Street, Suite 201
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 724-1060
E-mail: leon@lawleon.com
- and -
Gary V. Mauney, Esq.
MAUNEY PLLC
6135 Park South Dr, Suite 510
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone: (704) 945-7185
E-mail: garymauney@mauneypllc.com
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: White Seeks to File Documents Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as White v. New-Indy Catawba
LLC (New Indy Emissions Litigation), Case No. 0:21-cv-01480-SAL
(D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Local Civil
Rule 5.03 to seal the following documents:
-- Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class
Certification, specifically, the portions citing or discussing
the
following documents which have been designated as
"CONFIDENTIAL"
or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" by the Defendants;
-- Proposed Exhibit 3- NI_0125184-85, an October 14, 2019, e-mail
chain between Bob Tourville of New-Indy and Philip Pagoria, Jim
Palumbo, Paul Wiegand, and Amanda Mattingly of the National
Council for Air and Stream Improvement ("NCASI");
-- Proposed Exhibit 4 - NI_0125254-0125300, Powerhouse Operations
Environmental Training, 11/26/2019 Revision, at NI_0125268;
-- Proposed Exhibit 5 - October 4, 2023 Deposition Testimony of
James
Kirlin, at 130:1-5, designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" by the
Defendants
pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Confidentiality Order; and
-- Proposed Exhibit 6 - July 19, 2023 Deposition Testimony of Pete
Cleveland at 214-253, designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" by the
Defendants.
New-Indy is an integrated virgin linerboard and market pulp
manufacturing mill.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ucZIxv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
Fred Thompson, III, Esq.
T. David Hoyle, Esq.
W. Taylor Lacy, Esq.
Meredith Clark, Esq.
Lee M. Heath, Esq.
Rebecca Fonseca, Esq.
Kayla Lattimore, Esq.
Meredith Clark, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
fthompson@motleyrice.com
dhoyle@motleyrice.com
wlacy@motleyrice.com
mclark@motleyrice.com
lheath@motleyrice.com
rfonseca@motleyrice.com
klattimore@motleyrice.com
mkclark@motleyrice.com
- and -
Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
Phillip D. Barber, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN P.A.
1410 Laurel Street
Columbia, SC 29202
E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
pdb@harpootlianlaw.com
- and -
Philip C. Federico, Esq.
Brent P. Ceryes, Esq.
Matthew P. Legg, Esq.
Chase T. Brockstedt, Esq.
Catherine M. Cramer, Esq.
Brian V. DeMott, Esq.
BAIRD MANDALAS BROCKSTEDT & FEDERICO LLC
2850 Quarry Lake Drive, Suite 220
Baltimore, MD 21209
Telephone: (410) 421-7777
E-mail: pfederico@bmbfclaw.com
bcereyes@bmbfclaw.com
mlegg@bmbfclaw.com
chase@bmbde.com
ccramer@bmbfclaw.com
brian@bmbde.com
- and -
Thomas E Pope, Esq.
Ben P. Leader, Esq.
ELROD POPE LAW FIRM
Rock Hill, SC 29731
Telephone: (803) 324-7574
E-mail: tpope@elrodpope.com
bleader@elrodpope.com
- and –
Leonidas E. Stavrinakis, Esq.
STAVRINAKIS LAW FIRM
1 Cool Blow Street, Suite 201
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 724-1060
E-mail: leon@lawleon.com
- and -
Gary V. Mauney, Esq.
MAUNEY PLLC
6135 Park South Dr, Suite 510
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone: (704) 945-7185
E-mail: garymauney@mauneypllc.com
NEW-INDY CATAWBA: White Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as White v. New-Indy Catawba
LLC (NEW INDY EMISSIONS LITIGATION), Case No. 0:21-cv-01480-SAL
(D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- Certifying the Property Damage Class under Rule 23(b)(3);
-- Certifying the Personal Injury Health Effects Class under Rule
23(c)(4);
-- Appointing Plaintiffs Kenny N. White, Candice Cherrybone, Shane
Nickell, Tracie Nickell, Amanda Swager, Shara Swager, Terri
Kennedy, Marty Kennedy, Enrique Lizano, Sansanee Lizano, Melda
Gain, and Orrin Gain as Class Representatives of the Property
Damage Class;
-- Appointing Kenny N. White, Candice Cherrybone, Amanda Swager,
Shara Swager, Terri Kennedy, Marty Kennedy, Enrique Lizano, and
Melda Gain as Class Representatives of the Personal Injury
Health
Effects Classes; and
-- Appointing the interim class counsel, T. David Hoyle of Motley
Rice, LLC, Richard A. Harpootlian of Richard Harpootlian, P.A.,
and Philip C. Federico and Chase T. Brockstedt, both of Baird
Mandalas Brockstedt, Federico, LLC, as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs have filed this putative class action arising out of
the Defendant'wrongful and negligent course of conduct in their
operation of the New-Indy Catawba paper mill, causing emissions of
hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl disulfide, dimethyl
sulfide (collectively,"total reduced sulfur" or "TRS") and other
noxious chemical contaminants to be released from its wastewater
treatment facility into surrounding communities.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of two classes: a Property Damage
Class, and a Personal Injury Health Effects Class. Plaintiffs will
present class-wide proof on behalf of these two Classes to
establish wrongful conduct on the part of the Defendants;
class-wide exposure to harmful emissions from the Mill over defined
periods of time and within defined geographic areas, using United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") modeling techniques
and other scientific evidence; and prove certain class-wide
elements of damages.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following two classes:
-- The Property Damage Class, for which Plaintiffs seek
certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P.
includes
all individuals who own(ed) a single-family home as of January
31, 2021 and for any period of time thereafter, located within
the Property Damage Class Area.
-- The Property Damage Class Area represents a geographic area in
which there was a persistence of odor reports to DHEC during
the
period from at least January 31, 2021, until September 1,
2021,
and for which air dispersion modeling has confirmed ambient
concentrations in excess of recognized thresholds for odor
perception."
The Plaintiffs, on their own behalf, and on behalf of the Property
Damage Class, seek damages for lost rental value to their property
from January 31, 2021, to the present, and injunctive relief to
abate the continuing impacts of New Indy's emissions.
The Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Personal
Injury Health Effects Class, seeks damage for personal injuries
caused by emissions and odors from the New Indy facility from
January 31, 2021, to the present, and injunctive relief to abate
the continuing impacts of New Indy's emissions.
New-Indy is an integrated virgin linerboard and market pulp
manufacturing mill.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N6iFZB at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip C. Federico, Esq.
Brent P. Ceryes, Esq.
A. Wray Fitch, Esq.
Matthew P. Legg, Esq.
Chase T. Brockstedt, Esq.
Catherine M. Cramer, Esq.
Brian V. DeMott, Esq.
BAIRD MANDALAS BROCKSTEDT & FEDERICO LLC
2850 Quarry Lake Drive, Suite 220
Baltimore, MD 21209
Telephone: (410) 421-7777
E-mail: pfederico@bmbfclaw.com
bcereyes@bmbfclaw.com
wfitch@bmbfclaw.com
mlegg@bmbfclaw.com
chase@bmbde.com
ccramer@bmbfclaw.com
brian@bmbde.com
- and -
Thomas E Pope, Esq.
Ben P. Leader, Esq.
ELROD POPE LAW FIRM
Rock Hill, SC 29731
Telephone: (803) 324-7574
E-mail: tpope@elrodpope.com
bleader@elrodpope.com
- and -
Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
Fred Thompson, III, Esq.
T. David Hoyle, Esq.
W. Taylor Lacy, Esq.
Meredith Clark, Esq.
Lee M. Heath, Esq.
Rebecca Fonseca, Esq.
Kayla Lattimore, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
fthompson@motleyrice.com
dhoyle@motleyrice.com
wlacy@motleyrice.com
mclark@motleyrice.com
lheath@motleyrice.com
rfonseca@motleyrice.com
klattimore@motleyrice.com
- and -
Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
Phillip D. Barber, Esq.
RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN P.A.
1410 Laurel Street
Columbia, SC 29202
E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com
pdb@harpootlianlaw.com
- and -
Leonidas E. Stavrinakis, Esq.
STAVRINAKIS LAW FIRM
1 Cool Blow Street, Suite 201
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 724-1060
E-mail: leon@lawleon.com
- and -
Gary V. Mauney, Esq.
MAUNEY PLLC
6135 Park South Dr, Suite 510
Charlotte, NC 28210
Telephone: (704) 945-7185
NEWELL BRANDS: NJ Court OKs Settlement of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in October 27, 2023, that on
February 10, 2023, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted the
plaintiff's motion for final approval of settlement. The deadline
to appeal the order granting final approval of the settlement has
expired and the settlement is final with regards to case captioned
"Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al.," Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18 filed on
September 6, 2018.
The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors were named as defendants in said securities class action
lawsuit filed in said court on behalf of all persons who acquired
Company common stock pursuant to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of
Jarden Corporation.
In October 2022, the company entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the claims asserted in this lawsuit. Under the settlement,
the company agreed to create a settlement fund of approximately
$103 million for the benefit of the class, subject to certain
exclusions, which was predominantly funded by insurance proceeds.
In the fourth quarter of 2022, the court granted the plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, and the company
and its insurers paid the required amount into the settlement
fund.
Newell Brands is a global consumer goods company with a portfolio
of well-known brands, including Rubbermaid, Sharpie, Graco,
Coleman, Rubbermaid Commercial Products, Yankee Candle, Paper Mate,
FoodSaver, Dymo, EXPO, Elmer's, Oster, NUK, Spontex and Campingaz.
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Advertising Antitrust Class Suit Trial Date Not Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nexstar Media 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 8, 2023, that the
District Court for the Northern District has not set trial date for
advertising antitrust class suit.
Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Defendants and others alleging that
they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby
harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising
time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1,
2014.
The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money
damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations.
On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation").
On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed
plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel.
The MDL Litigation is ongoing.
The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019;
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019.
Before the Court ruled on that motion, the Plaintiffs filed their
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019.
This complaint added additional defendants and allegations.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8,
2019. The Court denied that motion on November 6, 2020.
On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended
Complaint.
The Third Amended Complaint adds two additional plaintiffs and an
additional defendant, but does not make material changes to the
allegations.
The parties are in the discovery phase of litigation.
The Court has not yet set a trial date.
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. is an American publicly traded media
company with headquarters in Irving, Texas, Midtown Manhattan, and
Chicago.[BN]
NEXTFOODS INC: Settlement in Andrade-Heymsfield Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVLYN ANDRADE-HEYMSFIELD,
on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the
general public, v. NEXTFOODS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01446-BTM-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz entered an order:
1. Granting motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement;
2. Conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only, a
Settlement Class defined as:
"All persons who, between August 13, 2017, and the Settlement
Notice Date (the "Class Period"), purchased in the United
States, for household use and not for resale or distribution,
any flavor of GoodBelly Probiotic JuiceDrink sold in a 1
Quart
(32 oz.) container during the Class Period;"
3. Appointing Evlyn Andrade-Heymsfield and Valerie Gates as
Class
Representatives;
4. Appointing Fitzgerald Joseph LLP as Class Counsel;
5. Approving Postlethwaite & Netterville (P&N), APAC to act as
Class Administrator. P&N shall be required to perform all the
duties of the Class Administrator as set forth in the
Agreement
and the Order; and
6. Authorizing P&N to establish the Settlement Fund under 26
C.F.R.
sections 1.468B-1(c) and (e)(1), to act as the
"administrator"
of the Settlement Fund pursuant to 26 C.F.R. section 1.468B-
2(k)(3), and to undertake all duties as administrator in
accordance with the Treasury Regulations promulgated under
section 1.468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
-- Objection and Exclusion Deadline:
Settlement Class Members who wish either to object to the
Settlement or to exclude themselves from the Settlement must do
so
by the Objection Deadline and Exclusion Deadline of January 8,
2024.
-- Submission of Claims:
To receive a Cash Award, Settlement Class Members must follow
the
directions in the Notice and file a claim with the Class
Administrator by the Claims Deadline of January 8, 2024.
Settlement Class Members who do not submit a claim will not
receive a Cash Award but will be bound by the Settlement.
NextFoods produces and distributes dairy-free, soy-free, and vegan
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MIgafD at no extra charge.[CC]
OKLAHOMA WINDOWS: Seeks More Class Cert Response Time in Parisi
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN PARISI, v. OKLAHOMA
WINDOWS AND DOORS, LLC d/b/a RENEWAL BY ANDERSON OF OKLAHOMA AND
BMO HARRIS BANK, NA d/b/a GREENSKY, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00115-R
(W.D. Okla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
extending its time to file a response to Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint and Motion to Certify through and including December 7,
2023, and for such other relief as the Court deems advisable.
The Parisi Case was removed to this Court from the District Court
for Oklahoma County, Oklahoma on February 2, 2023. The Plaintiff
filed her Amended Complaint and Motion to Certify on August 21,
2023, wherein she named RBA as a Defendant.
As of October 17, 2023, the date that Plaintiff served RBA's
registered agent, 52 documents had been filed in this matter. On
October 31, 2023. undersigned counsel was retained as local counsel
for RBA. Undersigned counsel immediately emailed Plaintiff’s
counsel to request a 30-day extension of time within which to
respond to the Amended Complaint and Motion to Certify.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47rTM20 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sheila D. Sayne, Esq.
SAYNE LAW PLLC
Tulsa, OK 74153-3309
Telephone: (918) 740-3013
E-mail: sheila.sayne@outlook.com
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
OVERSTOCK.COM, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that an
appeal was filed with the Tenth Circuit on October 18, 2021 with
regards to a ruling by the United States District Court of Utah on
September 20, 2021 entering judgment in the company's favor.
Parties are still awaiting a ruling from the circuit that heard
oral argument on the appeal on February 9, 2023.
On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and the company's former Chief
Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer in the United
States District court of Utah, alleging violations under Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 31, 2019, and
November 20, 2019, four similar lawsuits were filed in the same
court also naming the company and the above referenced former
executives as defendants, bringing similar claims under the
Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief. These cases were
consolidated into a single lawsuit in December 2019. The court
appointed The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. as lead plaintiff
in January 2020. In March 2020, an amended consolidated complaint
was filed against the company, the company's President, the
company's former Chief Executive Officer, and the company's former
Chief Financial Officer.
The company filed a motion to dismiss and, on September 28, 2020,
the court granted the company's motion and entered judgment in the
company's favor. The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their
complaint on October 23, 2020. The United States District court of
Utah granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint on
January 6, 2021. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on
January 11, 2021.
The company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended
complaint, and on September 20, 2021, the court granted the
company's motion and entered judgment in the company's favor. On
October 18, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal,
appealing the ruling of the district court to the United States
court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Overstock.com, Inc. is a technology-focused innovator based in
Midvale, Utah and owner of the Bed Bath & Beyond brand and other
intellectual property related to the brand. Bed Bath & Beyond is an
online home furnishings and furniture retailer in the United States
and Canada.
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Suit Over Tax Dispute Ongoing in Missouri Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
OVERSTOCK.COM, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that it is
facing a putative class action lawsuit filed against the company in
the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, on
March 1, 2021, alleging that the company over-collected taxes on
products sold into the state of Missouri.
The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied
on October 13, 2021. The company filed a motion to dismiss, which
was denied on March 16, 2022.
Overstock.com, Inc. is a technology-focused innovator based in
Midvale, Utah and owner of the Bed Bath & Beyond brand and other
intellectual property related to the brand. Bed Bath & Beyond is an
online home furnishings and furniture retailer in the United States
and Canada.
PAC HOUSING: Faces Hills Personal Injury Suit in E.D. La.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PAC Housing Group,
LLC et al. The case is captioned as Hills v. PAC Housing Group, LLC
et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D. La., Oct. 3, 2023).
The nature of suit states diversity -- personal injury. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Barry W Ashe.
PAC Housing provides high-quality housing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Casey Czajka DeReus, Esq.
BRAGAR, EAGEL & SQUIRE
New Orleans, LA 70185
Telephone: (212) 308-5858
E-mail: dereus@bespc.com
- and -
DeVonn Harry-Joseph Jarrett, Esq.
JARRETT LAW GROUP
643 Magazine Street, Suite 301A
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 491-6806
E-mail: djarrett@jarrettlawgroup.com
Defendant Richard Hamlet is represented by:
Ernest Paul Gieger, Jr., Esq.
Emily E. Eagan, Esq.
Nicholas Stephen Bergeron, Esq.
GIEGER, LABORDE & LAPEROUSE, LLC
One Shell Square
701 Poydras St., Suite 4800
New Orleans, LA 70139-4800
Telephone: (504) 561-0400
Facsimile: (504) 561-1011
E-mail: egieger@glllaw.com
eeagan@glllaw.com
nbergeron@glllaw.com
PARKWAY FAMILY: Courts Denies Bid to Strike Siringi's Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, denies the Defendant's motion
to dismiss or strike class allegations in the lawsuit styled COSBY
SIRINGI, Plaintiff v. PARKWAY FAMILY MAZDA/KIA, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-01499 (S.D. Tex.).
The Plaintiff, Cosby Siringi, alleges that he received prerecorded
telemarketing calls and text messages to his residential phone from
Parkway Family Mazda/Kia even though his phone number was on the
National Do Not Call Registry and he had not consented to receive
the calls and texts. Siringi sues Parkway on behalf of himself and
similarly situated individuals, seeking class certification. He
alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., and its implementing regulations, and
the Texas Business & Commerce Code.
In June 2023, Parkway moved to dismiss Siringi's first amended
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and separately moved to dismiss or strike the class
allegations under Rule 12(f).
Before ruling on the motions, the Court granted Siringi leave to
file his second amended complaint, which moots Parkway's Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Judge Rosenthal says Parkway's motion
to dismiss or strike is ripe for consideration because Siringi's
pleading amendment left the class allegations unchanged.
Mr. Siringi brings this action on behalf of four proposed classes,
which he defines as follows:
(1) TCPA 227(b) Class -- Since May 18, 2019, through the date
of certification, Plaintiff and all persons within the
United States to whose cellular telephone number Defendant
placed or authorized Coastal to place on Defendant's
behalf a prerecorded or artificial voice telemarketing
call;
(2) TCPA 227(c) Class -- Since May 18, 2019, through the date
of certification, all persons within the United States to
whose telephone number Defendant directed a third-party
software company to placed two or more telemarketing calls
in a 12-month period when the telephone number to which
the telephone calls were made was on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry at the time of the calls;
(3) Texas Section 302.101 Class -- Since May 18, 2019, through
the date of certification, Plaintiff and all residents of
the State of Texas to whose telephone number Defendant
placed (or had placed on its behalf) a telephone
solicitation when Defendant did not hold a registration
certificate as required by Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Section
302.101; and
(4) Texas Section 305.053 Class -- Since May 18, 2019, through
the date of certification, Plaintiff and all residents of
the State of Texas to whose telephone number Defendant
placed or authorized Coastal or third=party software
companies to place on Defendant's behalf a call in
violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 227 or regulation
promulgated thereunder.
Parkway moves to dismiss or strike the class allegations on the
grounds that the proposed classes: (1) fail to meet the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b); and (2) are improper "fail-safe
classes."
Because Parkway challenges the proposed classes on the pleadings,
Judge Rosenthal says it must demonstrate that the proposed classes
are flawed on the face of the complaint.
The Court finds that the viability of the proposed classes turns on
factual matters that must be developed in discovery, and
accordingly, denies Parkway's motion to dismiss at this stage.
Although class certification must be determined as early as
practicable, Judge Rosenthal points out that some targeted
discovery appears to be necessary to determine whether Siringi's
allegations do, or do not, satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) or (3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Rosenthal finds that Parkway's arguments do not establish
that it is "facially apparent" from the complaint that Siringi's
proposed classes are uncertifiable. Judge Rosenthal holds that
Parkway may have valid affirmative defenses against some unknown
number of class members but it does not defeat certification.
Parkway also argues that Siringi's proposed classes are fail-safe
because they comprise only persons, who received calls from Parkway
without consent.
The Court finds that Siringi's proposed classes are not fail-safe.
The proposed classes are not limited to persons, who did not
consent to be called by Parkway. Judge Rosenthal explains that
Siringi's proposed classes are not defined to include only
plaintiffs without an "established business relationship" with
Parkway, who received calls from Parkway on a residential telephone
number. Accordingly, Judge Rosenthal holds that it is not true that
the putative class members either win or, by virtue of losing, are
not in the class, citing In re Nexium Antitrust Litig., 777 F.3d 9,
22 n.19 (1st Cir. 2015).
Finally, even if Siringi's proposed classes are fail-safe, Judge
Rosenthal opines that this would not preclude certification because
the classes are "linked" by a "common complaint"--unwanted
telephone calls from Parkway.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion dated Oct.
30, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfk5xej from
PacerMonitor.com.
PERRIGO NEW: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Johns
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONTE JOHNS, v. PERRIGO
NEW YORK, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-06473-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
Pretrial management:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- Judge Moses will conduct a status conference on January 11,
2024,
at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007. No later than January 4, 2024, the parties shall submit
a
joint status letter outlining the progress of discovery to
date,
as well as any settlement efforts. If no discovery
controversies
exist at that time, the parties may request that the conference
be
held telephonically.
-- All discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the
close of discovery set by the Court.
Perrigo manufactures and supplies drug products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u31b9E at no extra charge.[CC]
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Fayad Seeks to Certify PMWA Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARYBELLE FAYAD, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00032-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) class:
"All persons presently or formerly by Defendant in the position
of
Paralegal within the Philadelphia District Attorney's (D.A.)
Office, or in positions with substantially similar job duties,
who
worked for Defendant at any point in the past three (3) years
who
were denied overtime compensation at their regular rate of pay
for
all hours worked over 40 in a workweek due to their
misclassification as "exempt" under the PMWA and who were paid
on a
salary basis."
The Plaintiff further seeks to be appointed as Class Representative
and that her undersigned attorneys be appointed as Class Counsel.
Philadelphia is the largest city in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, the fifth-most-populous city in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/475iAgw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary Kramer, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
E-mail: mkramer@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael D. Jones, Esq.
Laura A. Cottington, Esq.
ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 851-8461
E-mail: mdjones@eckertseamans.com
lcottington@eckertseamans.com
PICKLEBALL TOPCO: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PICKLEBALL TOPCO LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-09689-AS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2023) is a civil
rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://pickleballcentral.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last one occurring on
July 14, 2023, in an attempt to purchase the Tyrol Drive V Court
Shoes from the Defendant, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access
barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to
that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and
services offered to the public and made available to the public.
The 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.
Pickleball Topco LLC is a sports company that operates an online
sports equipment store.[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
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Starkgraf's Bid to Hire Counsel Under Advisement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, has taken under advisement
the Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel in the lawsuit
captioned KRISTOPHER STARKGRAF, Plaintiff v. PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-05390-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.).
The lawsuit is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. Plaintiff Kristopher Starkgraf is currently confined
at the Pierce County Jail. He has submitted to the Court for
consideration a request for appointment of counsel and a document,
which he identifies as an "Opposition to Answer of Defendants
Pierce County/Motion to Add Defendant and Show Cause." The
Defendants object to the Plaintiff's requests for relief.
The Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is taken under
advisement and is stricken from the Court's calendar at this time,
Judge Vaughan holds.
The Plaintiff seeks an Order directing that counsel be appointed in
this matter based upon extraordinary circumstances and the
likelihood that his case will succeed on the merits. The Plaintiff
notes in his motion that the issues raised in this case are similar
to those that were successfully litigated in a case filed by
another Jail inmate, Justin Davey (Davey v. Pierce County Council,
C21-5068-LK). He also appears to reference the fact that counsel
was appointed to represent Mr. Davey in his previous case given the
complexity of the legal issues and the potential complexities in
the litigation process.
Finally, the Plaintiff notes that he currently has a number of
other actions pending in this Court concerning the conditions of
his confinement at the Jail and that the conditions at the Jail
have exacerbated his mental illness which, in turn, has interfered
with his ability to litigate his claims.
The instant action is one of a number of cases recently filed by
Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing
and sewage system at the Jail. The Court is currently attempting to
locate counsel to provide representation in one such case that was
filed as a purported class action. Mr. Davey, a/k/a Echota
Wolfclan, is the lead Plaintiff in that case and Mr. Starkgraf
signed on to the proposed class action complaint as a purported
class member (Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS,
C23-5399-TSZ-SKV).
The Court deems it appropriate to defer its ruling on the request
for appointment of counsel submitted in this case until it has
determined whether counsel can be located to provide representation
in the other case in which the Plaintiff has indicated he is a
participant. The Court notes that the Plaintiff included in his
reply brief in support of his request for counsel a request that
his claims be joined with those asserted in Case No.
C23-5399-TSZ-SKV.
Any request for joinder is properly filed in the action, which the
Plaintiff seeks to join. Moreover, given that the Plaintiff is a
proposed class member in that case already, Judge Vaughan opines
that it would be prudent for the Plaintiff to await resolution of
the counsel issue in that case before seeking further relief
therein.
Judge Vaughan also holds that the Plaintiff's opposition to the
Defendants' answer is stricken. A response to an answer to a civil
complaint is not a proper pleading and is only permitted when
specifically ordered by the Court. The Court sees no need for a
response to be filed by the Plaintiff in this case. The Plaintiff
will have an opportunity to litigate the substance of his claims at
a later time.
To the extent the Plaintiff seeks to add a Defendant to this action
by way of his proposed opposition to the Defendants' answer, Judge
Vaughan advised the Plaintiff that the proper way to add a
Defendant is to seek leave to amend in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15 and Local Civil Rule 15, which requires that a proposed
amended pleading be submitted with any motion seeking leave to
amend.
Judge Vaughan directs the Clerk to send copies of this Order to the
Plaintiff, to counsel for the Defendants, and to the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3w4xjf2w from PacerMonitor.com.
POSTMEDS INC: Faces Garcia Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE GARCIA, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POSTMEDS, INC.; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-05726 (N.D. Cal., November 7, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent failure to implement
and maintain reasonable cybersecurity procedures that resulted in a
data breach of its systems on or around August 30, 2023 through
September 2, 2023.
On or around September 29, 2023, PostMeds, Inc. mailed data breach
notices to impacted parties. According to notice mailed to impacted
individuals, the breach resulted in individuals' name, prescription
information, mediation types, demographic information, and/or
prescribing physician, among other personal, sensitive and
confidential information, was compromised and acquired by unknown
third parties. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks, among other things,
compensatory damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, and costs of suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint to redress
injuries related to the data breach and asserts claims on behalf of
a nationwide class for negligence, negligence per se, declaratory
judgment, and common law invasion of privacy. He also brings claims
on behalf of a California subclass for violation of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Customer
Records Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and for
invasion of privacy based on the California Constitution.
Headquartered in Hayward, CA, PostMeds, Inc. operates a nationwide
network of Utilization Review Accreditation Commission-accredited
mail order and specialty pharmacies, and operates in all 50 states.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
dimitri@wukolaw.com
PRECIGEN INC: Class Settlement in Abadilla Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN JOSEPH ABADILLA, et
al., v. PRECIGEN, INC., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06936-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order that:
1. Mr. Shah's Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plan
of
Allocation is granted.
2. Mr. Shah's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
Service
Award is granted.
3. Mr. Dean's and Mr. Dvores's objections are overruled.
In this putative class action, Lead Plaintiff Raju Shah alleges
that Precigen, Randal J. Kirk, and Robert F. Walsh committed
securities fraud by publicly touting Precigen's methane
bioconversion platform ("MBP"), which sought to convert cheap
natural gas into valuable industrial products.
Lead Plaintiff brings two claims:
(1) a claim for violation of section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against all Defendants, and
(2) a claim against Mr. Kirk and Mr. Walsh for violation of
section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The written Settlement Agreement contemplates the certification of
an opt-out settlement class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, defined as:
"All Persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded shares of the common stock of Precigen between
May 10, 2017 and September 25, 2020, inclusive, and were
damaged
thereby, provided, however, that the following are excluded
from
the Class: (i) Defendants; (ii) the past and current officers,
directors, partners and managing partners of Precigen (and any
of
Precigen's subsidiaries or affiliates, including but not
limited
to MBP Titan LLC); (iii) the immediate family members, legal
representatives, heirs, parents, subsidiaries, successors,
successors and assigns of any excluded Person; and any entity
in
which any excluded Person(s) have or had a majority ownership
interest, or that is or was controlled by any excluded
Person(s).
Also excluded from the Settlement Class will be those Persons who
file valid and timely requests for exclusion in accordance with the
Court's Preliminary
Precigen is a Virginia corporation with its headquarters in
Maryland.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SzHr7T at no extra
charge.[CC]
PRESTIGE COMMUNITY: Wins Summary Judgment v. Tu Le
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tu Le, et al., v. Prestige
Community Credit Union et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00259-JVS-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered an order:
-- Granting Prestige's motion for summary judgment; and
-- Denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as
moot.
The Court says, "The Plaintiffs have failed to show one of the key
elements of financial elder abuse, which is that Prestige knew or
should have known that Plaintiffs would be elders. Nor have
Plaintiffs shown that Prestige should have known of the Church's
alleged Ponzi scheme. As previously mentioned, it is undisputed
that Prestige conducts business solely in Texas."
While Prestige is part of a shared branch agreement, Prestige is
not provided with individual checks and deposit details that take
place at a shared branch location. Neither Gugino nor Shanafelt
were aware that most of the Church’s transactions were conducted
at shared branches, the Court adds.
The following facts are undisputed and come from Prestige's Reply
to Plaintiffs' Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Facts.
The case arises out of a multi-million-dollar Ponzi scheme that was
"perpetrated by third parties Kent R.E. Whitney and the Church for
the Healthy Self also known as the CHS Trust."
Prestige is a Texas community credit union organized in and
conducting business solely in Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MEh4K9 at no extra charge.[CC]
PROG LEASING: Fails to Protect Customers' Private Info, Guzman Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PROG LEASING, LLC d/b/a PROGRESSIVE
LEASING, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00813-CMR (D. Utah, November
7, 2023), arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure
and safeguard personally identifiable information of Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated customers from hackers. Plaintiff
Guzman asserts claims for negligence, breach of confidence, breach
of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
On or around September 9, 2023, the Defendant experienced a
cybersecurity incident, during which an unauthorized third party
gained access to its network and to certain files containing
personal information of some customers and employees. Accordingly,
Plaintiff brings this action to address Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of his and Class Members' PII that it collected and
maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information
accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized
access by cybercriminals.
Headquartered in Draper, UT, Prog Leasing, LLC provides alternative
lease-purchase options to consumers with less than perfect credit.
The company leases merchandise for personal, family, and household
use, including appliances, furniture, jewelry, electronics,
mattresses, mobile devices and accessories, and musical
instruments. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel L. Sykes, Esq.
PEARSON | BUTLER
1802 South Jordan Parkway, Suite 200
South Jordan, UT 84095
Telephone: (801) 981-4438
E-mail: rachel@pearsonbutler.com
- and -
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St. NE, Ste. 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
PROG LEASING: Hawes Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN HAWES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROG LEASING, LLC dba PROGRESSIVE LEASING,
and NPRTO WEST, LLC dba PROGRESSIVE LEASING, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00821-JCB (D. Utah, November 8, 2023) arises out of
Defendant's failure to protect the personally identifiable
information that it receives from its customers, culminating in a
September 2023 data breach that exposed the PII of Plaintiff and
more than 193,000 other individuals.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to take
reasonable steps to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members
and warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant’s inadequate
information security practices.
Headquartered in Draper, UT, PROG Leasing, LLC and NPRTO West, LLC
provide lease-to-own programs through various retailers throughout
the country pursuant to which customers can enter into lease
programs to pay for products over time. These products include
merchandise for personal, family, and household use, including
appliances, furniture, jewelry, electronics, mattresses, mobile
devices and accessories, and musical instruments. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashton J. Hyde, Esq.
YOUNKER HYDE MACFARLANE, PLLC
250 East 200 South, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 335-6467
Facsimile: (801) 335-6478
E-mail: ashton@yhmlaw.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Faces Boyle Class Action in C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prospect Medical
Holdings, Inc. et al. The case is captioned as Yolanda Boyle v.
Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No.
8:23-cv-01869-SB-SSC (C.D. Cal., Oct. 4, 2023).
The nature of suit states Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
Prospect operates as a holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO ARNOLD APC
6200 Canoga Avenue Suite 375
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (747) 777-7748
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
- and -
Paul Michael De Marco, Esq.
MARKOVITS STOCK AND DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: pdemarco@msdlegal.com
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Faces Doverspike Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prospect Medical
Holdings, Inc. The case is captioned as Laura Doverspike v.
Pro-spect Medical Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-08325-SB-SSC
(C.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2023).
The nature of suit states diversity -- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
Prospect operates as a holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO ARNOLD, APC
6200 Canoga Avenue Suite 375
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (747) 777-7748
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Faces Robles Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prospect Medical
Holdings, Inc. The case is captioned as Mario Robles v. Prospect
Medical Holdings, Inc., Case No. (C.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2023),
The suit alleges violation of the Diversity – Citizenship related
violations. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stanley
Blumenfeld, Jr.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Citizenship demanding
$5,000,000.
Prospect operates as a holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE AND VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com
sec@colevannote.com
RAZOR OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lafleur Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shaphan Lafleur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Razor Oilfield Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:23-cv-01010-PRW (W.D. Okla., November 7, 2023) seeks all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act in connection with the Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 during each seven day workweek while working
for Defendant paid on a day rate basis.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on or about January 2022
as an operator/helper and stopped working on or about October 2022.
However, Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and many other similarly
situated employees as independent contractors. While employed by
Defendant, the Plaintiff was at all times issued an IRS Tax Form
1099 for his work, and Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime
premium pay when he worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, which
was common. At material times, the Defendant paid Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers only their respective daily rates of pay
irrespective of whether they had already worked 40 hours in a
workweek., says the suit.
Razor Oilfield Services, LLC is organized under the laws of the
State of Oklahoma and engaged in oilfield operations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
RB HEALTH: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in DiGiacinto Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California denies the Defendant's motion
for judgment on the pleadings in the lawsuit styled JOSEPH
DIGIACINTO, Plaintiff v. RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-04690-DMR (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Joseph DiGiacinto filed this putative class action
against Defendant RB Health (US) LLC alleging false, misleading,
and deceptive marketing practices with respect to the labeling of
its "Children's Delsym Cough Relief" product. RB Health moves
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on
the pleadings.
The Court incorporates by reference its summary of the allegations
in DiGiacinto's amended complaint from the April 11, 2023 Order
denying RB Health's motion to dismiss and assumes familiarity with
those allegations here (see DiGiacinto v. RB Health (US) LLC, No.
22-CV-04690-DMR, 2023 WL 2918745, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11,
2023)).
RB Health now moves for judgment on the pleadings based on its
second affirmative defense: that DiGiacinto's claims are expressly
preempted by federal law. It also argues that DiGiacinto asserts
"deceptive by implication" claims that are not viable under
California law.
With respect to preemption, RB Health argues that DiGiacinto's
state law claims challenging the labels of the Children's Delsym
Cough Relief product (the "children's product") are expressly
preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"). It
contends that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the
labels on the children's product and the Delsym Cough Relief
product (the "adults' product") pursuant to a New Drug Application
("NDA") and Supplemental New Drug Applications ("sNDA"), and that
the "FDA-approved labels have been changed" only "in minor ways
since 2014."
RB Health filed a request for judicial notice ("RJN") with its
opening brief in which it asks the Court to take judicial notice of
11 documents pertaining to its preemption argument, two of which
are FDA guidance materials. The remaining documents are records
from the FDA related to the NDA and sNDAs for the products at issue
in this case. RB Health generally argues that the Court may take
"judicial notice of records and reports of administrative bodies"
and cites district court cases in which courts have taken judicial
notice of FDA materials.
RB Health's RJN includes a basic description of each exhibit in
chart form and brief argument regarding the relevance of the
materials. However, Judge Ryu notes, it does not address the
relevance of each individual exhibit. More importantly, it does not
identify precisely what fact or facts in each exhibit it asks the
Court to judicially notice, or whether it asks the Court to simply
take notice of the existence of the Exhibits.
Judge Ryu opines that RB Health's failure to provide a clear
explanation of which facts in Exhibits 7-11 it contends are
judicially noticeable precludes the Court's ability to evaluate
DiGiacinto's objections and ultimately to determine whether the
unspecified facts are subject to judicial notice.
RB Health also submitted a supplemental RJN with its reply in which
it asks the Court to take judicial notice of four additional
exhibits, Exhibits 12-15. While it explains the relevance of each
exhibit, Judge Ryu finds that RB Health again failed to identify
which facts in the materials it contends are judicially
noticeable.
RB Health later submitted a third RJN more than five weeks after it
filed its reply, to which DiGiacinto objected. It asks the Court to
take judicial notice of a December 2013 letter that appears to
respond to DiGiacinto's argument that Exhibit 10 is incomplete
and/or lacking complete context.
Judge Ryu notes that RB Health's preemption argument relies
entirely on materials outside the complaint that it contends are
judicially noticeable. However, Judge Ryu opines that its original
RJN was deficient as it did not identify the specific facts it
contends are judicially noticeable in the documents. It is not the
Court's responsibility to comb through its submissions to try to
determine what facts in its documents are at issue.
RB Health also improperly filed an RJN with its reply, as well as
another RJN weeks after the briefing was complete, seeking to
introduce a document that appears to be key in assessing its
preemption argument without leave of Court and without showing good
cause, Judge Ryu points out.
Given the identified problems with RB Health's RJNs, as well as the
parties' disputes about the meaning and relevance of the materials,
the Court declines to take judicial notice of any of the documents
submitted by the parties. Moreover, given the nature of the
disputes identified by the parties in their briefing and RJN
submissions, the Court concludes that the preemption issue is more
appropriate for a motion for summary judgment, on a full record
that walks through the relevant evidence regarding the history of
the products' packaging and any FDA approvals thereof.
Accordingly, Judge Ryu holds that that portion of the motion for
judgment on the pleadings is denied without prejudice to RB Health
raising this issue at summary judgment.
RB Health also moves for judgment on the pleadings on the ground
that California law does not allow "deceptive by implication"
claims like those at issue here. It argues that DiGiacinto's claims
"seek to impose liability based on an entirely true representation
by virtue of what it 'implies' about other products not referenced
on the label and that may or may not be sold in proximity or even
in the same store." According to RB Health, such claims are not
actionable under Shaeffer v. Califia Farms, LLC, 44 Cal. App. 5th
1125, 1139 (2020).
The Court concludes that the first amended complaint adequately
alleges how RB Health's labeling has the capacity, likelihood or
tendency to deceive or confuse the public. This portion of the
motion for judgment on the pleadings is, accordingly, denied.
For these reasons, the Court denies the motion for judgment on the
pleadings without prejudice to RB Health raising the issue of
preemption in its motion for summary judgment. The motion for
judgment on the pleadings is denied as to RB Health's argument that
DiGiacinto brings "deceptive by implication" claims that are not
actionable.
Additionally, DiGiacinto filed an administrative motion to file the
exhibits to his RJN under seal and seeks to redact portions of his
opposition referring to those materials on the ground that RB
Health designated the exhibits as confidential pursuant to the
parties' stipulated protective order.
RB Health filed a corresponding motion to strike or seal portions
of the exhibits attached to DiGiacinto's RJN. The parties'
administrative motions to seal are denied as moot, as the Court did
not rely on the sealed materials in deciding this motion.
Finally, the parties filed a joint discovery letter on Oct. 20,
2023, regarding their dispute about whether discovery should be
stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Given the Court's ruling on the motion, the joint
discovery letter is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n79az2w from PacerMonitor.com.
REAL ESTATE BOARD: March Sues Over Inflated Commission Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
MONTY MARCH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-mc-00428 (S.D.N.Y., November 8, 2023)
alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and New York
state antitrust and unjust enrichment laws.
Plaintiff March brings this action on behalf of himself, and all
other similarly situated sellers, who sold residential real estate
in Manhattan and were forced to pay an artificially inflated Buyer
Broker's commission fee in accordance with the Real Estate Board
of New York Listing Service rules.
Headquartered at 570 Lexington Avenue, 2nd Floor, New York, NY,
Real Estate Board of New York is a private, not-for-profit
corporate trade association comprised of a vast majority of New
York's real estate agents and brokerages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael M. Buchman
MOTLEY RICE LLC
777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 577-0050
E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
- and -
Patrick Coughlin, Esq.
Carmen Medici, Esq.
Jonathan Smallwood, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
cmedici@scott-scott.com
jsmallwood@scott-scott.com
- and -
Patrick McGahan, Esq.
Isabella De Lisi, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
E-mail: pmcghan@scott-scott.com
idelisi@scott-scott.com
S&S DONUTS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Moise Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
TASHA MOISE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. S&S DONUTS LLC, COUTO MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC,
JOSE S. COUTO, & SALVI C. COUTO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-12688
(N.D. Mass., November 7, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed as a manager for Defendants from
January 2022 to October 2023. Her duties included opening the
Dunkin Donuts store owned by the Defendants at 1886 Revere Beach
Parkway in Everett, MA, checking the accuracy of payroll, ordering
supplies, and directly serving customers food and beverages. She
regularly worked over 40 hours a week but she did not receive the
required one and a half times her normal compensation when she
worked overtime hours, says the suit.
S&S Donuts, LLC operates franchises of Dunkin Donuts in
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph T. Moen, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH T. MOEN
45 Prospect Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
Telephone: (617) 575-9240
Facsimile: (617) 607-7587
E-mail: joe@jtmoenlaw.com
- and -
Ananda Chaudhuri, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ANANDA CHAUDHURI
57 W. 57th Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (267) 226-6734
E-mail: ananda@ac-pllc.com
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Joint Bid for Class Certification OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE
ANDRADE, ERNEST ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ANTHONY EDWARDS, LISA
LANDERS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, CHRISTOPHER
NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and
LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order granting joint motion
for class certification and approval of proposed class action
notice plan.
The Court hereby:
1. Grants the Parties' joint motion for class certification. The
Court certifies a class consisting of:
"All adults who are now, or will be in the future,
incarcerated
in any of the San Diego County Jail facilities."
The Court also certifies the following three subclasses:
-- Incarcerated People with Disabilities Subclass
"All adults who have a disability, as that term is defined
in
42 U.S.C. section 12102, 29 U.S.C. section 705(9)(B), and
California Government Code § 12926(j) and (m), and who
are
now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in any of the
San
Diego County Jail facilities;"
-- Incarcerated People with Private Counsel or Pro Per
Claims
Subclass
"All adults who are now, or will be in the future,
incarcerated in any of the San Diego County Jail
facilities
and have private counsel or are pursuing state or federal
claims on a pro per basis;" and
-- Incarcerated Black and Latinx Persons Subclass
"All Black and Latinx adults who are now, or will be in
the
future, incarcerated in any of the San Diego County Jail
facilities;"
2. Grants the Parties' request to appoint Named Plaintiffs as
class
representatives;
3. Grants the Parties' request to appoint Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld LLP, the Law Office of Aaron J. Fischer, and DLA
Piper
LLP (US) as class counsel; and
4. Grants the Parties' request for approval of the proposed
class
notice plan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FMRsHh at no extra charge.[CC]
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Gallagher Appeals Case Dismissal to 8th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ROBERT J. GALLAGHER filed an appeal from rulings entered
in his lawsuit styled ROBERT J. GALLAGHER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANTANDER
CONSUMER USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01083-SEP, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District Of Missouri.
The Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant in state court,
asserting a claim under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 301.640(1) & (4) for
failure to timely release his lien and to timely certify the
release of his lien. Under Section 301.640(1), a lienholder must,
in the time prescribed by the statute, release the lien on the
certificate of title or a separate document and mail or deliver
these documents to the person satisfying the lien. Failure to
comply permits a remedy of damages that are scaled according to the
length of non-compliance, starting at $500 for failure to comply
within five business days and increasing to $2,500 if
non-compliance extends to twenty business days.
In the Complaint, Mr. Gallagher alleged that Santander's violations
were a "widespread, uniform practice." With a Notice of Removal,
Santander submitted an affidavit from Randy Bockenstedt, Senior
Director of Collections for Santander, stating that Santander
released more than 44,000 liens relating to vehicle loan accounts
in Missouri between 2015 and 2020.
On July 1, 2021, the Eastern District of Missouri denied the
Plaintiff's September 11, 2020 motion for remand.
On June 27, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asked the Court on July 28, 2022 to enter an order certifying a
class.
On September 30, 2023, District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an
Order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying
Plaintiff's motion to certify class. Judgment was entered in favor
of Defendant Santander Consumer. It was further ordered that the
case be dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Gallagher v. Santander Consumer
USA Inc., Case No. 23-3387, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 27, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT J. GALLAGHER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
E-mail: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee Santander Consumer USA Inc. is represented by:
Eric D. Martin, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2324
E-mail: eric.martin@bclplaw.com
SATOP HOTEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Mayberry Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
GAIL MAYBERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SATOP HOTEL LLC d/b/a LA QUINTA INN BY
WYNDHAM SAN ANTONIO I-35 NORTH AT TOEPPERWEIN HOTEL, and THE K&K
HOTEL GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-01384 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 2,
2023) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff challenging acts
committed by Defendants against Plaintiff and those similarly
situated, which amount to violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and
all those similarly situated as hourly non-exempt employees within
its hotels throughout Texas. They failed to properly pay the hourly
employees overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 hours
per week, in violation of the FLSA, says the suit.
The Plaintiff began her employment for Defendants as an hourly
worker at the front desk of Defendant Satop's location on November
27, 2021. Sometime around January 2023, Defendants made Plaintiff
an hourly employee on the housekeeping and maintenance staff at
Defendant Satop's location. She remained in that position until her
resignation on August 26, 2023.
Satop Hotel LLC is a hotel, doing business as the La Quinta Inn by
Wyndam San Antonio I-35 North at Toepperwein Hotel in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan D. Pope, Esq.
Larry F. Taylor, Esq.
THE COCHRAN FIRM-DALLAS, PLLC
1825 Market Center Blvd., Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75207
Telephone: (214) 651-4260
Facsimile: (214) 651-4261
E-mail: bpope@cochrantexas.com
Ltaylor@CochranTexas.com
- and -
Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
Alexander M. White, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7180
E-mail: rvalli@vkvlawyers.com
awhite@vkvlawyers.com
SCOTT SEMPLE: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response in Vega Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY VEGA, et al., v.
SCOTT SEMPLE, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00107-MEG (D. Conn.), the
Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting its consent
motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' second
motion for class certification.
The Court should grant their motion and allow them until and
including December 11, 2023, to respond to the plaintiffs' Second
Motion to Certify Classes.
The defendants move for an extension of time of 31 days from the
current November 10, 2023, due date -- seeking until and including
December 11, 2023 -- to respond to the plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Certify Classes.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sFcHYl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen R. Finucane, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Telephone: (860) 808-5450
Facsimile: (860) 808-5591
E-mail: stephen.finucane@ct.gov
SCYNEXIS INC: Feldman Sues Over Misleading Business Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FELDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCYNEXIS, INC, DAVID ANGULO, AND IVOR
MACLEOD, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-22082 (D.N.J., November 7,
2023) asserts claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiff Feldman brings the class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Scynexis securities
between March 31, 2023 and September 22, 2023, inclusive. The
Plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses
and damages as a result of result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Among other things, the Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the equipment used to
manufacture ibrexafungerp was also used to manufacture a
non-antibacterial beta-lactam drug substance, presenting a risk of
cross-contamination; (2) that the Company did not have effective
internal controls and procedures, as well as adequate internal
oversight policies to ensure that its vendor complied with current
Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP); (3) that, due to the
substantial risk of cross-contamination, Scynexis was reasonably
likely to recall its ibrexafungerp tablets and halt its clinical
studies, says the suit.
Headquartered in Jersey City, NJ, Scynexis is a biotechnology
company which is primarily engaged in the development of
ibrexafungerp, a broad-spectrum, intravenous/oral agent for fungal
indications. The company trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the
symbol "SCYX." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: decklund@carellabyrne.com
kcooper@carellabyrne.com
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Seagate Technology Holdings Public Limited Company disclosed in its
Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2023,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27,
2023, that it is facing consolidated case captioned "In re Seagate
Technology Holdings PLC Securities Litigation."
A putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal
securities laws, "UA Local 38 Defined Contribution Pension Plan, et
al. v. Seagate Technology Holdings PLC, et al.," was filed on July
10, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against Seagate Technology Holdings plc, Dr. William D.
Mosley, and Gianluca Romano.
The complaint alleges that it is a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Seagate common stock between September
15, 2020 and October 25, 2022, inclusive, and asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b5-1. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.
The case was consolidated with another case on September 25, 2023.
An amended complaint was filed on October 19, 2023.
Seagate Technology Holdings PLC and its subsidiaries is a provider
of data storage technology and infrastructure solutions. Its
principal products are hard disk drives, commonly referred to as
disk drives, hard drives or HDDs.
SENIOR VILLAGE: S.D. Ohio Consolidates Markle and Williams Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief United States District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of S.D. Ohio, Eastern
Division, consolidates two lawsuits: Heather Markle and Theresa
Wheeler, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SENIOR VILLAGE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-02520-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), and Jerei Williams, Plaintiff v.
SENIOR VILLAGE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-03420
(S.D. Ohio).
The matter is before the Court on the Parties' Joint Motion to
Consolidate. Specifically, the Motion moves to consolidate this
matter with the lawsuit captioned Williams v. Senior Village
Management, Case No. 2:22-cv-3420 (S.D. Ohio) ("the Williams
lawsuit"). The Williams lawsuit is also pending before the Court.
On June 20, 2023, Plaintiffs Heather Markle and Teresa Wheeler
filed a Complaint against Defendant Senior Village Management, LLC,
alleging failure to pay employees overtime wages, in violation of
the Federal Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs
bring their FLSA overtime claims as a representative action on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees of
the opt-in collective.
This matter was originally filed in the Eastern District of
Michigan, but later transferred to the Southern District of Ohio by
joint request of the Parties.
The Williams Complaint was filed on Sept. 14, 2022. In the Williams
lawsuit, the plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs Markle and Wheeler
here, brought a collective and class action against defendants
Senior Village Management LLC, Storypoint Holdings, LLC, and Senior
Living Capital Management Company, LLC, for alleged failure to pay
employees overtime wages, in violation of the FLSA, the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Before the named plaintiff in Williams filed any request to send a
court-authorized notice to the potential opt-in plaintiffs in that
case, the parties agreed to mediate. Mediation, however, ultimately
failed.
The Parties now move for consolidation of this action with the
Williams lawsuit.
The lawsuit sub judice and the Williams case involve some of the
same parties. The Plaintiffs in the case sub judice, Ms. Heather
Markle and Ms. Theresa Wheeler, are also plaintiffs in the Williams
lawsuit. The Defendant in the case sub judice is also a defendant
in the Williams lawsuit. In addition, both cases involve failure to
pay employees overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.
Overall, the Court finds there is significant overlap in law and
fact between the lawsuit sub judice and the Williams lawsuit, which
strongly supports consolidation.
The Court finds that consolidation of the lawsuit sub judice with
the Williams lawsuit will be the most efficient method of
adjudicating these related matters and will not unfairly prejudice
any parties or cause any significant confusion.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Parties' Joint Motion to
Consolidate. Accordingly, the lawsuit sub judice is consolidated
with the lawsuit captioned Williams v. Senior Village Management,
Case No. 2:22-cv-3420 (S.D. Ohio).
All future filings should be made in the lawsuit sub judice,
Markle, et al. v. Senior Village Management, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-02520 (S.D. Ohio).
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Oct. 30,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4t9zj7mx from
PacerMonitor.com.
SKYLER ZHANG: Bid for Clarification OK'd in Fields Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fields v. Skyler Zhang,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03002 (D. Colo., Filed Nov 18, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order granting
unopposed motion for clarification.
-- The Court entered an order on August 9, 2023, which noted that
the Court would revisit the discovery schedule in this matter
after resolving the pending partial motion to dismiss.
-- For clarity, the Court intended to stay both discovery
and-because
class certification motions necessarily depend on discovery-
Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification.
-- Consistent with this Order and the 40 Order, the Court will
re-
visit the class discovery and motions deadlines after ruling on
the Partial Motion to Dismiss.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
SLEEPING BABY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carrero v. Sleeping Baby,
Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-02142 (M.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 6, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to
confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class
certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their
case management report.
-- The deadlines should include a deadline for
(1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, Plaintiff and
Defendant;
(2) discovery - class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights Violation.
Sleeping Baby is an e-commerce platform that offers baby
products.[CC]
SPACE EXPLORATION: Keopimpha Sues Over Underpayment of Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Keopimpha, on behalf of the State of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved v. SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES
CORP., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV26766 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 1, 2023), is
brought to recover civil penalties for the Defendants' violations
of the California Labor Code and pursuant to California's Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as a result of the Defendants'
underpayment of minimum and overtime wages earned and owed.
The Defendants failed to compensate Aggrieved Employees for all
hours worked because not all hours were recorded, which resulted in
the underpayment of minimum and overtime wages earned and owed. The
Defendants knew or should have known that Aggrieved Employees were
subject to Defendants' control during purported meal periods and/or
were otherwise not afforded full and complete duty-free meal
periods. The Defendants' failure to compensate Aggrieved Employees
for all hours worked was the result of such DEFENDANTS' uniform
timekeeping policies and practices, and the underpayment included
not only minimum wages, but also overtime wages when Aggrieved
Employees worked more than 8 hours in a day and/or more than 40
hours in a week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
Structures Technician from March 13, 2023, through August 4, 2023.
The Defendants own, operate, manage, and/or staff warehouses,
manufacturing centers, offices, and/or other location(s) in
California, including facility in Hawthorne, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie K. Serb, Esq.
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (866) 276-7637
Fax: (310) 510-6429
Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com
bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
SPINNAKER INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 27, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MORRISON AND DALLAS
MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SPINNAKER INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
4:23-cv-00324-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos L. Mazzant
entered a scheduling order as follows:
Jan. 8, 2024 Deadline to seek leave to amend pleadings or
join parties.
Jan. 8, 2024 Deadline to file the Joint ADR Report.
May 30, 2024 Plaintiffs will designate experts (if any)
and
provide reports and disclosures required
under
Federal Rule 26(a)(2) and Local Rule
CV-26(b).
July 1, 2024 Spinnaker will take and complete depositions
of
experts disclosed by Plaintiff (if any).
July 16, 2024 Spinnaker will designate response experts (if
any) providing reports and disclosures
required
under Federal Rule 26(a)(2) and Local Rule
CV-
26(b).
Aug. 15, 2024 Plaintiffs will take and complete depositions
of
response experts disclosed by Spinnaker (if
any).
July 16, 2024 All discovery procedures (excluding
Spinnaker's
Phase I Expert Witnesses) must be initiated
in
time to be completed by this date, with the
understanding that discovery requests are not
timely if they are served so close to this
deadline that under the Federal Rules of
Civil
Procedure the response would not be due until
after the deadline.
Sept. 27, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion
for
class certification.
Nov. 25, 2024 Deadline to complete mediation.
Spinnaker operates as a property and casualty insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SENAiW at no extra charge.[CC]
SPOT EDGE: McCorvey Sues Over Illegal Wage Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------
TERRY MCCORVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPOT EDGE TRUCKING, INC., SPOTTER LEASING,
LLC, and KORA FREIGHT, INC., Defendants, Case No.1:23-cv-15791
(N.D. Ill., November 8, 2023) challenges Defendants' unlawful
practice of making deductions from delivery drivers' wages and
failing to pay drivers all wages due. Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Terry McCorvey provided delivery services for Spot Edge
Trucking as a delivery driver from approximately September 2023 to
October 2023. During this time, McCorvey was classified as an
independent contractor. However, Plaintiff did not receive minimum
wage compensation for all hours worked as required by FLSA. In
addition, Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff for
out-of-pocket expenses he incurred in order to perform his duties,
including cell phone payments and GPS, among others, says the
Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Woodridge, IL, Spot Edge Trucking, Inc. is a
registred trucking company running freight hauling business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com
- and -
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
STABILITY AI: Wins Bids to Dismiss Andersen Suit w/ Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants, with leave to amend, the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the lawsuit captioned SARAH ANDERSEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. STABILITY AI LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Cal.).
Artists Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz filed this
putative class action on behalf of themselves and other artists to
challenge the Defendants' creation or use of Stable Diffusion, an
artificial intelligence software product. The Plaintiffs allege
that Stable Diffusion was "trained" on the Plaintiffs' works of art
to be able to produce Output Images "in the style" of particular
artists.
The three sets of Defendants ((i) Stability AI Ltd. and Stability
AI, Inc. ("Stability"); (ii) DeviantArt, Inc.; and (iii)
Midjourney, Inc., have each filed separate motions to dismiss and
DeviantArt has filed a special motion to strike under California
Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
Finding that the Complaint is defective in numerous respects, Judge
Orrick largely grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss and defer
the special motion to strike. The Plaintiffs are given leave to
amend to provide clarity regarding their theories of how each
Defendant separately violated their copyrights, removed or altered
their copyright management information, or violated their rights of
publicity and plausible facts in support.
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Stability created
and released in August 2022 a "general-purpose" software program
called Stable Diffusion under a "permission open-source license."
Stability is alleged to have "downloaded of otherwise acquired
copies of billions of copyrighted images without permission to
create Stable Diffusion," known as "training images."
Over five billion images were scraped (and thereby copied) from the
internet for training purposes for Stable Diffusion through the
services of an organization (LAION, Large-Scale Artificial
Intelligence Open Network) paid by Stability ("Training Images").
Stability's founder and CEO "publicly acknowledged the importance
of using licensed training images, saying that future versions of
Stable Diffusion would be based on 'fully licensed' training
images. But for the current version, he took no steps to obtain or
negotiate suitable licenses."
Stable Diffusion is alleged to be a "software library" providing
"image-generating services" to products produced and maintained by
the Defendants, including "DreamStudio, DreamUp, and on information
and belief, the Midjourney Product." Consumers use these products
by entering text prompts into the programs to create images "in the
style" of artists. The new images are created "through a
mathematical process" that are based entirely on the training
images and are "derivative" of the training images.
The Plaintiffs admit that in general, none of the Stable Diffusion
output images provided in response to a particular
Text Prompt is likely to be a close match for any specific image in
training data. This stands to reason: the use of conditioning data
to interpolate multiple latent images means that the resulting
hybrid image will not look exactly like any of the Training Images
that have been copied into these latent images.
The Plaintiffs also allege that every output image from the system
is derived exclusive from the latent images, which are copies of
copyrighted images. For these reasons, every hybrid image is
necessarily a derivative work.
DreamStudio is Stability's product, also released in August 2002;
it functions as an "user interface" accessing "a trained version of
Stable Diffusion." Use of DreamStudio is billed in packages of
credits that can be used to create images.
Defendant DeviantArt was founded in 2000 and has primarily been
known as an "online community" where digital artists post and share
their work. Deviant Art released its "DreamUp" product in November
2022. DreamUp is a commercial product that relies on Stable
Diffusion to produce images and is only available to customers, who
pay DeviantArt.
The Plaintiffs allege that at least one LAION dataset that was
incorporated into Stable Diffusion for training images (the
"aesthetic dataset") was procured by scraping primarily 100
websites, including DeviantArt's site. As a result, the Plaintiffs
allege that Stability copied thousands and possible millions of
training images from DeviantArt created by artists and other
DeviantArt subscribers without licensing their works of art.
By incorporating DreamUp and, therefore, Stable Diffusion into its
website, the Plaintiffs allege that DeviantArt is violating its own
terms of service against using content for "commercial" purposes
and without consent, as well as its privacy policy. This conduct,
according to the Plaintiffs, represents "unfair competition
against" DeviantArt's artist customers.
Defendant Midjourney, based in San Francisco, created and
distributes the "Midjourney Product." The Midjourney Product was
launched in beta form in July 2022, and is alleged to be a
commercial product that produces images in response to text prompts
in the same manner as DreamStudio and DreamUp. The Plaintiffs
allege that the Midjourney product uses Stable Diffusion but also
that it was "trained on a subset of the images used to train Stable
Diffusion."
The Midjourney Product is offered to online users of the
internet-chat system Discord, as well as through an app, for a
service fee. Midjourney's CEO has stated that Midjourney used large
open data sets, thereby "implying" that Midjourney used the LAION
datasets for training. In August 2022, Midjourney released a beta
version using Stable Diffusion.
Plaintiff Andersen resides in Oregon and is a full-time cartoonist
and illustrator. The Plaintiffs allege that Andersen has created
and owns a copyright interest in over two hundred Works included in
the Training Data, and has registered or applied for an owns
copyright registrations for sixteen collections that include Works
used as Training Images.
Plaintiff McKernan resides in Tennessee and is a full-time artist.
McKernan is alleged to have created and owns a copyright interest
in over thirty Works used as Training Images. Plaintiff Ortiz
resides in California and is a full-time artist. Ortiz is alleged
to have created and owns a copyright interest in at least twelve
Works that were used as Training Images.
The Plaintiffs assert the following claims against all three sets
of Defendants: (1) Direct Copyright Infringement; (2) Vicarious
Copyright Infringement; (3) violation of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act; (4) violation of the Right to Publicity; (5)
violation of the Common Law Right of Publicity; (6) Unfair
Competition; and (7) Declaratory Relief. The Plaintiffs also assert
a breach of contract claim against DeviantArt only.
Each defendant separately moves to dismiss, and DeviantArt also
moves to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16.
Judge Orrick grants the motions to dismiss in full, except for the
direct copyright infringement claim asserted by Plaintiff Andersen
against Stability. The Plaintiffs are given leave to amend and
attempt to cure the deficiencies identified in the Order. The
amended complaint, if any, must be filed within 30 days of the date
of this Order.
Judge Orrick denies the motion to strike the class allegations.
Whether or not the types of claims that remain after the pleadings
are settled are certifiable -- in whole or in part, for damages
under Rule 23(b)(3) or for resolution of common issues under Rule
23(b)(1) or (b)(2) -- is better determined at the class
certification stage and not at the motion to dismiss stage, Judge
Orrick explains. At this juncture, precluding the possibility of
resolution of issues or claims through a class action is
premature.
The Court defers ruling on DeviantArt's special motion to strike.
When the Plaintiffs reallege the right to publicity claim, then
DeviantArt may renew its special motion to strike, and the Court
will consider that motion on the merits at that juncture.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/6nzj5xed from PacerMonitor.com.
STANDARD INSURANCE: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in ELM Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELM One Call Locators,
Inc. v Standard Insurance, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01281 (C.D.
Ill., Filed Aug 26, 2022), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered
an order setting scheduling conference.
-- If the complaint makes allegations on behalf of a class, the
proposed discovery plan should include a deadline for filing a
motion to certify class at a stage early in the case.
-- The Discovery Plan event may be found in the CM/ECF system
within
the other Documents category.
-- All counsel must read and be familiar with the standing order
attached to this text order prior to their Rule 26(f) planning
meeting.
The suit alleges violation of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) involving employee benefits.
Standard Insurance offers auto and home insurance.[CC]
STINGRAY MUSIC: Messner Sues Over Disclosure of Private Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH MESSNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STINGRAY MUSIC USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:23-cv-06636 (W.D.N.Y., November 6, 2023) alleges violations of
the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Defendant violated the VPPA by knowingly disclosing Plaintiff's
and Class Members' personally identifiable information, including
information which identifies a person as having requested or
obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape
provider, without their express consent to the disclosures in a
standalone consent form. Through the use of analytics tools,
Stingray tracks and discloses to third-party business partners the
digital subscribers' viewed video history and, most notably, unique
identifying information along with requested or obtained video
content.
Headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Stingray owns and operates
Qello, a membership-based digital concert streaming service that
sells access to video content, such as on-demand concerts and music
documentaries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
Britany A. Kabakov, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
matt@almeidalawgroup.com
britany@almeidalawgroup.com
T-MOBILE USA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due June 21, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMAN BAYANI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. T-MOBILE USA,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00271-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John
H. Chun entered a case schedule order:
Event Proposed Deadline
Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion Nov. 16, 2023
for leave to amend and proposed amended
complaint:
Deadline for Defendant to file motion Dec. 7, 2023
to dismiss amended complaint:
Deadline to join additional parties Feb. 23, 2024
Deadline for discovery related to Feb. 23, 2024
numerosity. The parties agree to stay
discovery on other issues until numerosity
discovery is complete:
Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion for June 21, 2024
Class certification:
Deadline for Defendant to file response July 19, 2024
to motion for class certification:
Deadline for Plaintiff to file reply in Aug. 2, 2024
support of motion for class certification:
T-Mobile provides telecommunications services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R5NvUB at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
eadams@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
E-mail: jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer K. Chung, Esq.
Daniel H. Leigh, Esq.
James Moon, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, Washington 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: jenniferchung@dwt.com
danielleigh@dwt.com
jamesmoon@dwt.com
TALKSPACE INC: Attys.' Fees & Expenses Awarded in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the motion by Lead Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses, and awards to the Plaintiffs in
the lawsuit entitled IN RE TALKSPACE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00163-PGG (S.D.N.Y.).
Judge Gardephe notes that this Order incorporates by reference the
definitions in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 19, 2023
(the "Stipulation"), and all capitalized terms used, but not
defined herein, will have the same meanings as set forth in the
Stipulation.
Notice of Lead Counsel's Fee Motion was given to all Class Members,
who could be located with reasonable effort.
Judge Gardephe holds that the form and method of notifying the
Class of the Fee Motion met the requirements of Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(7)), due process, and any other
applicable law, constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all
persons and entities entitled thereto.
The Court awards Lead Counsel attorneys' fees of 30% of the
Settlement Amount, plus expenses in the amount of $20,891.65,
together with the interest earned on both amounts for the same time
period and at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund
until paid. The Court finds that the amount of fees awarded is
fair, reasonable, and appropriate under the
"percentage-of—recovery" method.
The awarded attorneys' fees and expenses, and interest earned
thereon, will be paid to Lead Counsel immediately upon execution of
the Final Judgment and this Order.
In making this award of fees and expenses to Lead Counsel, the
Court has considered and found that the Settlement has created a
fund of $8,500,000 in cash that is already on deposit, and numerous
Class Members who submit, or have submitted, valid Proof of Claim
and Release forms will benefit from the Settlement created by Lead
Counsel. The Court also found, among other things, that the
attorneys' fees and expenses awarded are fair and reasonable.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), the Court awards $5,000
to Lead Plaintiff Ivan M. Baron and $5,000 to Lead Plaintiff Steven
Jacob Greenblatt for the time they spent directly related to their
representation of the Class.
Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court's approval
regarding the Fee Motion will in no way disturb or affect the
finality of the Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement.
In the event that the Settlement is terminated or does not become
Final or the Effective Date does not occur in accordance with the
terms of the Stipulation, this Order will be rendered null and void
to the extent provided in the Stipulation and will be vacated in
accordance with the Stipulation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/48m5hdh6 from PacerMonitor.com.
TALKSPACE INC: Court Approves Plan of Allocation in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an order approving the Plan of
Allocation in the lawsuit titled IN RE TALKSPACE, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-00163-PGG (S.D.N.Y.).
Judge Gardephe notes that this Order incorporates by reference the
definitions in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 19, 2023,
and all capitalized terms used, but not defined here, will have
the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation.
Pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due
and adequate notice was directed to all persons, who are Class
Members, who could be identified with reasonable effort, advising
them of the Plan of Allocation and of their right to object
thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to all
persons and entities, who are Class Members to be heard with
respect to the Plan of Allocation.
The Court finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation
of the claims of Authorized Claimants, which is set forth in the
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Actions sent to
Class Members provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to
allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund established
pursuant to the Stipulation among the Class Members, with due
consideration having been given to administrative convenience and
necessity.
The Court also finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as
set forth in the Notice, is, in all respects, fair and reasonable
and the Court approves the Plan of Allocation.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3cedscdr from PacerMonitor.com.
TARGET CORPORATION: Davis Must Submit Expert Report by Jan. 5, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY DAVIS, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00089-JFM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John F.
Murphy entered an order extending class certification deadlines:
a. The Plaintiff shall submit any affirmative expert report no
later
than January 5, 2024.
b. Responsive expert reports, if any, shall be served no later
than
January 26, 2024(which coincides with the current fact
discovery
deadline in the case).
On March 28, 2023, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to
file his motion for class certification no later than August 4,
2023, and requiring disclosure of any affirmative expert reports to
be used in support of class certification no later than June 9,
2023 with any responsive reports due July 7, 2023; and affirmative
expert reports on any other issues no later than December 1, 2023
with any responsive reports served no later than December 22, 2023.
On July 20, 2023, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation to
extend the time for Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification to October 4, 2023 with any response due no later
than October 18, 2023.
On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff served a Request for Entry
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(2), requesting that Defendant
permit Plaintiff's counsel and their proposed expert, Robert G.
Radwin, Ph. D., to enter Defendant's Chambersburg facility so that
Dr. Radwin can conduct measurements for purposes of estimating the
amounts of time spent by putative class members in alleged pre- and
post-shift walking within the facility.
On October 13, 2023, Defendant served objections to Plaintiff's
Request for Entry. Plaintiff promptly requested to confer about
Defendant's objections, and the Parties subsequently conferred on
October 23, 2023.
Target Corporation is an American retail corporation that operates
a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47dhsaS at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
- and -
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacqueline R. Barrett, Esq.
Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
Jessica L. Barranco, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
1735 Market Street, Suite 3000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 995-2820
Facsimile: (215) 995-2801
E-mail: jacqueline.barrett@ogletree.com
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Uhrich Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHARINE UHRICH v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA (TIAA), Case No. 1:23-cv-08688-LAK (N.D. Ill., Oct. 3,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failing to
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and numerous other individuals from a data vulnerability and breach
incident.
The Plaintiff contends that TIAA failed to implement or maintain
adequate data security measures for personal information directly
and proximately caused injuries to the Plaintiff and the Class.
Despite numerous and high-profile data breaches, TIAA failed to
implement basic security measures to prevent unauthorized access to
this information.
On July 14, 2023, the Defendant announced that it had previously,
on May 31, 2023, suffered a data breach that impacted millions of
individual.
As a direct and proximate consequence of TIAA's negligence, a
massive amount of customer information was stolen from TIAA.
Victims of the Data Breach have had their Private Information
compromised, had their privacy rights violated, been exposed to the
increased risk of fraud and identify theft, lost control over their
personal and financial information, and otherwise been injured, the
lawsuit claims.
As a result of TIAA's failure to properly and timely notify their
customers of the full extent of the data breach, members of the
class have not had the opportunity to fully protect themselves and
take any specific precautions, says the lawsuit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address TIAA's inadequate safeguarding of
Class Members' Private Information that they collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had
been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party.
Ms. Uhrich was a resident and citizen of Illinois. She provided the
Defendant with her personal information in order to create and
maintain an account with Defendant.
TIAA is a New York based insurance and financial service company
that operates in all 50 states, including the state of
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100
Lisle, IL 60532
Telephone: (312) 858-3239
Facsimile: (312) 610-5646
E-mail: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
rob.harrer@cclc-law.com
TELADOC HEALTH: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2023, that on
July 5, 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss a
consolidated case captioned "In re Teladoc Health, Inc. Securities
Litigation."
On June 6, 2022, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned "Schneider v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et. al." was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the company and certain of the company's officers. The
complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of the company's common stock during the period October 28, 2021
through April 27, 2022.
The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder based on allegedly false or misleading statements and
omissions with respect to, among other things, the company's
business, operations, and prospects. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. The Schneider action was
eventually consolidated under "In re Teladoc Health, Inc.
Securities Litigation."
On August 23, 2022, the court appointed Leadersel Innotech ESG as
lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
September 30, 2022, on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of the company's common stock during the period February 24, 2021
to July 27, 2022, and filed a second amended complaint on December
6, 2022, on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the
company's common stock during the period February 11, 2021 to July
27, 2022.
Teladoc Health, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is into
virtual healthcare with principal executive office located in
Purchase, New York.
TELADOC HEALTH: Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2023, that on
August 23, 2023, the U.S. Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss a purported securities
class action complaint captioned "City of Hialeah Employees'
Retirement System v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.," filed in said
court on August 27, 2021, against the company and certain of the
company's current and former officers and directors.
The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons who acquired shares of Teladoc Health common stock
issued in the company's 2020 merger with Livongo Health, Inc.
The complaint asserted violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions with respect to the registration statement
and prospectus filed in connection with the Livongo merger. The
complaint sought certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees, rescission
or a rescissory measure of damages and equitable or other relief.
On January 18, 2022, the case was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice in the Circuit court of Cook County, Illinois and on
January 26, 2022, was refiled in the Supreme court of the State of
New York. The refiled case includes substantially the same
allegations.
Teladoc Health, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is into
virtual healthcare with principal executive office located in
Purchase, New York.
TK&K SERVICES: E.D. California Directs Clerk to Close Palma Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California directs the Clerk of Court
to close the lawsuit styled JOSUE PALMA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TK&K SERVICES,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00434-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.).
On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff Josue Palma filed the operative, first
amended complaint in which he asserts claims on behalf of himself
and a putative class against Defendant TK&K Services. The Defendant
filed an answer to the first amended complaint on Aug. 7, 2023.
Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's stipulation for
dismissal. The parties stipulate to dismiss the Plaintiff's
individual claims with prejudice and the putative class members'
claims without prejudice.
As the parties' stipulation of dismissal comports with the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), Judge Baker notes
that the Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss his individual claims (at
least) without court order. In a class action, however, court
approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the
class has been certified.
In this case, the parties jointly seek to dismiss the putative
class claims under Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice. No class has
been certified, the Plaintiff has not sought certification, nor has
certification been proposed for purposes of settlement.
Because no class has been certified in this case, and because any
dismissal would not affect putative class members' claims, Rule
23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not mandate
either Court approval of the parties' settlement or notice to
putative class members, Judge Baker opines.
In light of the parties' filing that is consistent with Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and the Court's finding that under the
circumstances, Rule 23(e) does not require Court approval of the
dismissal, Judge Baker holds that this action has been terminated
by operation of law without further order of the Court.
Accordingly, Judge Baker directs the Clerk of the Court to close
the file in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary
dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii).
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2c6bk6r9 from PacerMonitor.com.
TOSHIBA CORPORATION: Stoyas Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK STOYAS and NEW
ENGLAND TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, and AUTOMOTIVE
INDUSTRIES PENSION TRUST FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Case No.
2:15-cv-04194-DDP-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"All citizens and residents of the United States who
purchased
shares of Toshiba 6502 common stock between May 8, 2012 and
November 12, 2015 (the "Class Period") for Plaintiffs' claims
brought pursuant to the Financial Instruments and Exchange
Act
of Japan;"
2. appointing NETTIPF as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class
Counsel.
Toshiba is a Japanese multinational electronics company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46erWVQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dennis J. Herman, Esq.
Willow E. Radcliffe, Esq.
Hadiya K. Deshmukh, Esq.
Debra J. Wyman, Esq.
Patton L. Johnson, Esq.
John M. Kelley, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: dennish@rgrdlaw.com
willowr@rgrdlaw.com
hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com
debraw@rgrdlaw.com
pjohnson@rgrdlaw.com
jkelly@rgrdlaw.com
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Partial OK of Class Cert Bid Endorsed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE METCALF and HANNAH
LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-10104-ER-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine H. Parker
entered an order recommending that the motion for class
certification be granted in part and denied in part.
Specifically, Judge Parker recommends that the following class be
certified:
"All TransPerfect salaried employees in New York City who were
paid $1,125.00 per week or less during the Relevant Period who
did
not sign Arbitration Agreements."
Judge Parker further recommend that should the Court adopt this
recommendation, the parties be required to meet and confer about
the proposed Notice to the Class and submit it to the Court for
approval within fourteen days after any decision adopting this
recommendation.
The Plaintiffs Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson bring this
putative class action under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") on the
grounds that Defendant TransPerfect Translations International Inc.
failed to pay them and other similarly situated employees overtime
pay between December 31, 2018, and September 2019 and failed to
provide them with accurate wage statements.
They now move for certification of a class pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23. The proposed class would consist of all
TransPerfect salaried employees in New York City who were paid
$1,125.00 per week or less during the Relevant Period and were not
paid overtime for all hours worked over forty in a work week.
The Plaintiffs Metcalf and Lawson Metcalf worked for TransPerfect
in New York City as a Senior Client Services Executive in the
Production Department for a portion of the Relevant Period for a
salary of $1,076.92 per week, or $56,000 per year.
TransPerfect provides language services and technology solutions.
A copy of the Court's Recommendation dated Nov. 6, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uaVfeX at no
extra charge.[CC]
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Witriol Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
RIVKE WITRIOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, Case No.
532184/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Nov. 2, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of New York
consumers, seeking damages and declaratory relief under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
Some time prior to April 27, 2023, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred
an obligation to Boro Park OB GYN PC, the original creditor. The
subject obligation arose from alleged medical services provided by
Boro Park OB GYN PC in which money, property, insurance or
services, which are the subject of the transaction, were incurred
solely for personal purposes, specifically medical care for the
Plaintiff. Boro Park OB GYN PC contracted the Defendant for the
purpose of debt collection of defaulted debts associated with
Plaintiff's account.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by
deceptively and/or misleadingly providing multiple addresses and
not identifying which one to use for disputing a debt or sending a
payment.
Transworld Systems Inc. provides receivables collection and
management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami M. Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
TRC COMPANIES: Bandy Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bandy v. TRC Companies,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00144 (W.D. Tex., Filed Feb. 16, 2022), the
Hon. Judge David A. Ezra entered an order referring motion to
certify class to Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
TRC is a construction service provider that offers engineering,
consulting and construction management.[CC]
UCOR LLC: Speer Bid for Class Certification Tossed
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLTON SPEER, MALENA
DENNIS, and ZACHARIAH DUNCAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. UCOR LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00426-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis R.
McDonough entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs assert that a class action "would achieve economies
of time, effort, and expense, and promote uniformity."
However, Plaintiffs have presented no evidence to the Court as to
why this is the case. Given the number of individualized inquiries
necessary to resolve each Plaintiff's claim, a class action would
quickly devolve into a series of individual claims. Furthermore,
given that Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered serious
injuries and are seeking significant damages, it is certainly worth
a plaintiff's time and effort to bring suit on his own.
UCOR is a business that provides nuclear and environmental cleanup
services at the East Tennessee Technology Park, the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, and the Y12 National Security Complex.
On August 26, 2021, Defendant announced that it would require all
its employees and subcontracted employees to be fully vaccinated
against COVID-19 by November 1, 2021.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of:
"All employees, staff augmentation employees, and subcontractors
who (i) were subject to UCOR's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, (ii)
who
submitted an accommodation/exemption request based on their
sincerely held religious belief opposing the receipt of the
vaccine, (iii) whose request for an accommodation/exemption was
denied and (iv) who subsequently suffered an adverse employment
action for their refusal to receive and provide proof of having
received the vaccine."
UCOR is an environmental cleanup contractor providing support to
the Department of Energy Oak Ridge Office of Environmental
Management.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49vCfrF at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED ELECTRICAL: Bid to Decertify Heeg Collective Action Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS HEEG, et al., v.
UNITED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00796-HYJ-RSK
(W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered an order
denying UEC's motion to "decertify" the collective action.
The Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs' renewed
motion to amend or clarify the scope of the class. The Court will
allow Plaintiffs to send notice to individuals employed by UEC as
laborers, and who were deprived of overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours a week over the course of the three years before
Plaintiffs filed their complaint.
The Court will not expand the class to include events occurring
after the date of the complaint.
Finally, there is no genuine dispute of fact regarding the dates on
which Opt-In Plaintiffs were employed or when UEC worked on
particular job sites.
UEC argues that it will be prejudiced by allowing Plaintiffs to
bring laborers into the class at this late stage of the case.
However, UEC is responsible for much of that prejudice. Instead of
resolving a debatable issue through motion practice, it attempted
to foreclose the issue through discovery.
The Plaintiffs are electrical workers formerly employed by UEC,
based in Lansing, Michigan. They brought this action asserting
violations by UEC of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs assert five violations of the
FLSA:
(1) unpaid shop time and travel time;
(2) undercompensated overtime pay due to a "per diem" policy;
(3) unpaid training;
(4) unpaid print review; and
(5) unpaid apprenticeship training.
UEC, which has offices in Lansing and Livonia, Michigan, is an
electrical contractor that works on construction sites throughout
the State of Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SG5Vw6 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Settlement in Padilla v. ICE Has Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants preliminary
approval to the parties' class action settlement in the lawsuit
entitled YOLANY PADILLA, et al., Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 2:18-cv-00928-MJP (W.D. Wash.).
The Court finds that the Credible Fear Class Settlement Agreement
is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to allow
dissemination of notice of the Agreement to the Credible Fear Class
and to hold a Fairness Hearing; orders the Class Notice to be sent
to the Credible Fear Class in accordance with the Agreement and
this Order; and schedules a Fairness Hearing to determine whether
the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
The Court preliminarily approves the Agreement, provisionally
finding that the terms of the Agreement are fair, reasonable, and
adequate as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), and within the
range of possible approval and sufficient to warrant providing
notice to the Credible Fear Class.
The Court previously certified the Credible Fear Class as "All
detained asylum seekers in the United States subject to expedited
removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b) who are not
provided a credible fear determination within ten days of the later
of (1) requesting asylum or expressing a fear of persecution to a
DHS official or (2) the conclusion of any criminal proceeding
related to the circumstances of their entry, absent a request by
the asylum seeker for a delayed credible fear interview." This is
also the class for settlement purposes.
Judge Pechman finds that the proposed Credible Fear Class Notice
and the proposed plan of distribution of the Class Notice meet the
requirements of Rule 23(e)(1) and directs Class Counsel to proceed
with the notice distribution in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement. In so doing, the Court approves the procedures set forth
in Section XI.B of the Agreement and the Notice of Settlement of
Class Action for objections to the settlement.
Any Class Member, who wishes to object to the Agreement, must do so
within 67 days of this Order. Notice must be effectuated within
seven days of this order.
The Court directs that a hearing be scheduled on Jan. 5, 2024, at
10:00 a.m. (the "Fairness Hearing"). The Plaintiffs will file a
motion for final approval of the settlement no later than 14 days
before the Fairness Hearing.
The Agreement provides that the Defendants will pay the Plaintiffs
the amount of $100,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. The Court
preliminarily finds that the provisions for payment of attorneys'
fees and costs are reasonable.
Neither the settlement, nor any exhibit, document, or instrument
delivered thereunder will be construed as or deemed to be evidence
of an admission or concession by the Defendants or an
interpretation of any liability or wrongdoing by the Defendants, or
of the truth of any allegations asserted by the Plaintiffs, Class
Members, or any other person.
If the Agreement is not finally approved, or the Effective Date
does not occur, or the settlement is terminated under its terms,
then (a) all parties will proceed as if the Agreement (except those
provisions that, by their terms, expressly survive disapproval or
termination of the settlement) had not been executed and the
related orders and judgment had not been entered, preserving in
that event all of their respective claims and defenses in the
action; and (b) all releases given will be null and void. In such
an event, this Court's orders regarding the Agreement, including
this Preliminary Approval Order, will not be used or referred to in
litigation for any purpose.
Judge Pechman grants the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Class Settlement ("Motion"). The Court
preliminarily approves the proposed class-wide relief set forth in
the Agreement (attached to the Joint Motion), approves the proposed
form and plan of notice (addressed in the Agreement), and schedules
the Fairness Hearing.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 30, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mry5bhyf from PacerMonitor.com.
VALLEY NATIONAL: Allcock Breach Suit Removed to D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN ALLCOCK, on behalf of
herself and all those similarly situated v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP
and VALLEY NATIONAL BANK d/b/a VALLEY BANK, Case No.
MID-L-004895-23 (Filed Aug. 30, 2023) was removed from Superior
Court of the State of New Jersey to the District Court of New
Jersey on Oct. 4, 2023.
The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-20900-ES-ESK to the proceeding.
The suit alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class Members have been
damaged due to unauthorized access to their personally identifying
information held by the Defendants.
On behalf of herself and the Class Members, the Plaintiff purports
to bring "claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of an implied contract, unjust enrichment,
and declaratory judgment, seeking actual and punitive damages, with
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive
and declaratory relief."
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Maryland.
Valley National is a regional bank holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
1814 East Rt. 70, Suite 350
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Telephone: (856) 396-0600
E-mail: amilz@consumerslaw.com
jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
Jordan Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Jane Santoni, Esq.
SANTONI, VOCCI & ORTEGA, LLC
201 W. Padonia Road, Suite 101A
Timonium, MD 21093
Telephone: (443) 921-8161
The Defendants are represented by:
Scott S. Christie, Esq.
Matthew A. Sklar, Esq.
Omar A. Bareentto, Esq.
MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP
100 Mulberry Street
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 622-4444
Facsimile: (973) 624-7070
E-mail: schristie@mccarter.com
msklar@mccarter.com
obareentto@mccarter.com
VIRGIN AMERICA: Allocation Plan, Atty's Fees & Expenses OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA BERNSTEIN, et al.,
v. VIRGIN AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-02277-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion to approve the plan of allocation,
Attorney's fees and expenses, and service awards to class
representatives.
Similar considerations favor an award in excess of $5,000 for each
of the three Class Representatives. The Class Representatives have
expended substantial time and effort pursuing this litigation over
a span of nearly eight years. They worked with counsel to pull
documents, gather case-related information, respond to discovery,
attend phone and in-person meetings, discuss strategy, attend
mediation and other court proceedings, attend their depositions,
read case-related filings, and communicate with class members about
the status of the case.
In connection with the case, Bernstein spent approximately 150
hours, Garcia spent approximately 130 hours, and Smith spent over
500 hours. The Class Representatives' efforts have also benefitted
a class of approximately 1,869 members, and resulted in a sizable
judgment of $31,637,391.85, which represents 100% of the losses
incurred by class members as to the successful claims.
The average pro rata distribution of that judgment is approximately
$8,900, and 20% of the class will receive distributions that exceed
$15,000.
Accordingly, the Court approves service awards of $25,000 for
Smith, $12,000 for Bernstein, and $12,000 for Garcia.
Virgin America was a low-cost airline in the United States that
operated from 2004 until 2018 when it merged with Alaska Airlines.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Qu6uGP at no extra charge.[CC]
VISA INC: Bid for En Banc Rehearing on Access Fee Suit Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visa 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 15, 2023, that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia denied the petition of the
defendants for a rehearing en banc on the U.S. ATM access fee class
suit.
National ATM Council Class Action. In October 2011, the National
ATM Council and thirteen non-bank ATM operators filed a purported
class action lawsuit against Visa (Visa Inc., Visa International,
Visa U.S.A. and Plus System, Inc.) and Mastercard in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.
The complaint challenges Visa's rule (and a similar Mastercard
rule) that if an ATM operator chooses to charge consumers an access
fee for a Visa or Plus transaction, that fee cannot be greater than
the access fee charged for transactions on other networks.
Plaintiffs claim that the rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman
Act and seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.
On August 4, 2021, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
On July 25, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia affirmed the district court's class certification
decision, and on September 27, 2023, defendants' petition for
rehearing en banc was denied.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
VISA INC: Court Junks Plaintiffs' Bid to Remand Suit to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Visa 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 15, 2023, that the court granted
the motion of defendants on November 14, 2023 to dismiss the appeal
of plaintiffs to remand the consumer interchange class suit to
California state court.
On December 30, 2022, a putative class action was filed in
California state court against Visa, Mastercard, and certain
financial institutions on behalf of all Visa and Mastercard
cardholders in California who made a purchase using a Visa-branded
or Mastercard-branded payment card in California from January 1,
2004. Plaintiffs primarily allege a conspiracy to fix interchange
fees and seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and damages as
direct and indirect purchasers based on alleged violations of
California law.
On January 11, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting the same claims as asserted in the prior complaint.
On January 30, 2023, Visa removed the action to federal court, and
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation subsequently issued
an order transferring the case to MDL 1720.
On June 15, 2023, plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to
California state court was denied, and plaintiffs appealed.
On July 28, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss that appeal,
which was granted on November 14, 2023.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Bid to File Class Cert Sur-Reply Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA HERNANDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00166-FLA-KK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order denying
the Defendant's Motion for leave to file sur-reply in opposition to
class certification
Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood
markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40IcUqn at no extra charge.[CC]
WALT DISNEY: Court Narrows Claims in James Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMIN JAMES, et al., v. THE
WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-02500-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss:
-- The Court denies the motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
-- However, it dismisses or strikes the nationwide class, which
leaves Plaintiffs with a putative California class and a
putative
Pennsylvania class.
-- Finally, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion
to
dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief.
-- The Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled its statutory claims,
except
to the extent they seek to hold Disney liable for Oracle's
alleged
interception of information for the use of non-Disney clients.
-- Plaintiffs have leave to amend to cure this deficiency, if they
can do so in good faith. Because the Court is giving Plaintiffs
leave to amend here, it shall also permit Plaintiffs to provide
more information about the mouse clicks and keystrokes
allegedly
intercepted (i.e., to show that personal, non-record
information
was collected).
The Plaintiffs Amin James and David Sevesind have filed a class
action against the Walt Disney.
In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege as follows.
Disney is a company that owns and operates the website ESPN.com.
See Compl. Embedded on the ESPN.com website is Oracle software, in
particular, a tool known as Oracle BlueKai which is part of a line
of products known as Oracle CX.
BlueKai intercepts and collects website visitors' electronic
communications with the website. The data collected is used to
market to and attract new customers for Disney.
Disney is a company that owns and operates the website ESPN.com.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Gjde5L at no extra charge.[CC]
WARNER BROS: Continues to Defend Collinsville Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending in September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Collinsville Police
Pension class suit in United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
Between September 23, 2022 and October 24, 2022, two purported
class action lawsuits (Collinsville Police Pension Board v.
Discovery, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08171; Todorovski v.
Discovery, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-09125) were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaints named Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., Discovery, Inc.,
David Zaslav, and Gunnar Wiedenfels as defendants.
The complaints generally alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements in SEC filings and in certain public
statements relating to the Merger, in violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
sought damages and other relief.
On November 4, 2022, the court consolidated the Collinsville and
Todorovski complaints under case number 1:22-CV-8171, and on
December 12, 2022, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel.
On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding Advance/Newhouse Partnership and Advance/Newhouse
Programming Partnership (collectively, "Advance/Newhouse"), Steven
A. Miron, Robert J. Miron, and Steven O. Newhouse as defendants.
The amended complaint continues to assert violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
seeks damages and other relief.
On April 7, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
The Company intends to vigorously defend these litigations.
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. is a premier global media and
entertainment company that combines the WarnerMedia Business's
premium entertainment, sports and news assets with Discovery's
leading non-fiction and international entertainment and sports
businesses, thus offering audiences a differentiated portfolio of
content, brands and franchises across television, film, streaming
and gaming.
WELLS FARGO: Bid to Vacate Deadline to Move Class Cert. Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEB INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
AB, and WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY, CHARLES W. SCHARF, KLEBER R. SANTOS, and CARLY SANCHEZ,
Case No. 3:22-cv-03811-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an granting their administrative motion to vacate
the deadline to move for class certification:
Moreover, although the Court set a Further Case Management
Conference for February 22, 2024, to discuss the amended case
schedule proposed in the parties' Stipulation Modifying the
Scheduling Order, that conference will not take place until after
class certification briefing is fully completed and a hearing on
the class certification motion is held under the current deadlines
in the Scheduling Order.
The Plaintiffs thus request that the Court vacate the deadline for
Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification so that the
parties are not required to brief class certification while
discovery is stayed.
On March 13, 2023, the Court issued a Case Management and
Scheduling Order which set deadlines for the case, including a
deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification that was approximately three months after the
Court’s hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws.
In particular, the Court set a deadline of November 13, 2023, for
Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification, a deadline of
December 18, 2023, for an opposition, a deadline of January 8,
2024, for a reply, and a hearing on the class certification motion
for February 8, 2024.
On August 18, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to
dismiss without prejudice and provided Plaintiffs leave to amend
within 21 days of the Court’s order.
On October 23, 2023, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint. On November 1, 2023, the parties submitted a
Stipulation and Proposed Order Modifying Case Management Scheduling
Order, which proposed an amended schedule through trial
substantially similar to the amended schedule proposed as part of
the parties’ Case Management Statement.
On November 2, 2023, the Court set a Further Case Management
Conference for February 22, 2024, to discuss the parties’
Stipulation Modifying the Scheduling Order. ECF No. 125. The date
for that Further Case Management Conference, however, postdates the
current deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification.
Wells Fargo is a diversified financial service holding company that
offers retail and wholesale banking, and wealth management service
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46dDDMP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
Gregory Castaldo, Esq.
Evan Hoey, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
skaplan@ktmc.com
snirmul@ktmc.com
gcastaldo@ktmc.com
ehoey@ktmc.com
- and -
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
Dianne M. Pitre, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com
dpitre@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
Bonni S. Jensen, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
7080 Northwest 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
bonni@robertdklausner.com
WELLS FARGO: Court OK's $1B Settlement in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that on
September 8, 2023, the court granted final approval of an agreement
pursuant to which the company paid $1.0 billion to resolve this
action with regards to allegations related to the company's efforts
to comply with three consent orders that are subjects of
shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in California state and
federal court.
Wells Fargo shareholders brought a putative securities fraud class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that the company and certain of its
current and former executive officers and directors made false or
misleading statements regarding the company's efforts to comply
with the February 2018 consent order with the Federal Reserve Board
and the April 2018 consent orders with the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services company and is a
leading middle market banking provider in the U.S. It provides a
diversified set of banking, investment and mortgage products and
services, as well as consumer and commercial finance, through our
four reportable operating segments namely consumer banking and
lending, commercial banking, corporate and investment banking, and
wealth and investment management.
WELLS FARGO: Court OK's $300MM Settlement in Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that on
September 26, 2023, the court granted final approval of an
agreement pursuant to which the company paid $300 million to
resolve a putative securities fraud class action against the
company and its executive officers alleging material misstatements
and omissions of information related to collateral protection
insurance (CPI) in the company's public disclosures.
On April 20, 2018, the company entered into consent orders with the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to resolve, among other things,
investigations by the agencies into the company's compliance risk
management program and its past practices involving certain
automobile CPI policies and certain mortgage interest rate lock
extensions.
In January 2020, the court dismissed this action as to all
defendants except the company and a former executive officer and
limited the action to two alleged misstatements.
Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services company and is a
leading middle market banking provider in the U.S. It provides a
diversified set of banking, investment and mortgage products and
services, as well as consumer and commercial finance, through our
four reportable operating segments namely consumer banking and
lending, commercial banking, corporate and investment banking, and
wealth and investment management.
WESTERN FLYER: Class Settlement in Beissel Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW BEISSEL, an
individual, J&B ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado Corporation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WESTERN FLYER EXPRESS, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00903-R (W.D. Okla.),
the Hon. Judge David L. Russell entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class and collective
action settlement and motion for attorneys' fees and costs and
service award.
-- The Court finds that one Class Member has objected to the
Settlement and zero Class Members have requested exclusion from
the Settlement.
-- The Court grants final approval of the terms and conditions
contained in the Settlement as to the Oklahoma Class. The Court
finds that the terms of the Settlement are within the range of
approval, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
applicable law.
-- The Court makes final its certification of the Oklahoma Class,
in
accordance with the Settlement, for the purposes of this
Settlement only.
The Oklahoma Class is defined as all current and former
individuals who provide(d) transportation services for WFX
within
the United States, who entered into an Independent Contractor
Agreement, or a similarly styled agreement, with WFX from
December
7, 2017 to March 11, 2021.
-- The Court makes final its certification of the FLSA Collective,
in
accordance with the Settlement, for the purposes of this
Settlement only.
The FLSA Collective is defined as all current and former
individuals who provided transportation services for WFX within
the United States, between December 7, 2017 and March 11, 2021,
who (1) entered into an Independent Contractor agreement with
WFX
(2) were classified as independent contractors, and (3) sign or
cash the settlement check(s) they receive as a result of this
Settlement.
-- The Court finally appoints Plaintiffs Andrew Beissel and J&B
Enterprises, Inc. as the Class Representatives for the Oklahoma
Class and the FLSA Collective.
-- The Court finally appoints Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
LLP
and the Law Offices of Robert S. Boulter as Class Counsel for
the
Oklahoma Class and the FLSA Collective.
-- The Court finally approves Class Counsel's request for
attorneys'
fees of 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Amount, or $1,633,170.
-- The Court finally approves the Service Award of $25,000 for the
Class Representatives and finds that the award is fair and
reasonable for the work the Class Representatives provided to
the
Oklahoma Class and FLSA Collective and the broader release that
the Class Representatives executed than the Class Members.
-- The Court confirms the appointment of CPT Group as Settlement
Administrator, and approves its reasonable administration costs
of
$21,500.
Western Flyer provides transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SrZkW7 at no extra charge.[CC]
WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES: Dalton Sues Over Discrimination Under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams-Sonoma
Stores, Inc. The case is captioned as Dalton v. Williams-Sonoma
Stores, Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-03078-NEB-JFD (D. Minn., Oct. 4,
2023).
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
demanding $75,000 in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Nancy E. Brasel.
Williams-Sonoma retails and distributes home furnishings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason D Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET & MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 101
55376 St. Michael, MN 55330
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***