/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231227.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, December 27, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 259
Headlines
1730 WALT WHITMAN: Cruz et al. Allege Labor Law Breaches
3M COMPANY: Fox Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
3M COMPANY: Gordon Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
ADMIRAL THEATRE: Villafane Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Faces Shareholder Suits Over SEC Disclosures
ALDERFER FAMILY: Spindel Files Suit in S.D. New York
ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT: Zendejas Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN THREADS: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ARIETIS HEALTH: Frankeberger Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
ARIETIS HEALTH: Schafer Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
ARQIT QUANTUM: Faces Securities Suit in New York
ARQIT QUANTUM: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
ART OF THE GENTLEMAN: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blakeney Alleges
ASTRA SPACE INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
BDO USA: Agrees to Tentatively Settle 401(k) Class Suit for $1.2MM
BECTON DICKINSON: To Settle Kabak Shareholder Suit Over Alaris
BELLRING BRANDS: False Advertising Suits Ongoing
BELLRING BRANDS: False Advertising Suits Over Lead Content Ongoing
BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit
BLOOMSY BOX.COM: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
CANADA: Motion to Appeal Class Suit Over Assault Dismissed
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $4MM
CENTERPLATE INC: Dismissal of Employee's Class Suit Affirmed
COMCAST CABLE: Hasson Balks at Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Flores Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to E.D.N.Y.
CRISPIN'S LLC: Gutierrez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: Newbern Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
DETROIT, MI: Stevenson Seeks to Compel Class Cert Discovery
EIGHT ORANGES: Mangahas Suit Seeks to Certify Tipped Worker Class
EXTEND HEALTH: Pitts Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
FISHEL COMPANY: Clippard Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
FORD MOTOR: Davis MHRA Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Class Status Bid Held in Abeyance
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Court Denies Motion to Certify ADA Class Suit
INNASENSE DESIGNS: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
IRG RC HOTEL: Watson Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
JANUS INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Certification
JLP MANUFACTURING: Chavez Sues Over Unlawful Overtime Pay
JOHNSON CONTROLS: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Gumm Class Suit
KAISER FOUNDATION: Schmitt Seeks Certification of Settlement Class
KARTOON STUDIOS: Faces Shareholder Suit in California
KENTUCKY: Class Suit Over Abortion Laws Voluntarily Dropped
LG CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Refrigerator Compressors
LIDO DAO: Faces Class Suit Over Crypto Losses
LOANDEPOT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Lending Practices
LOVESAC COMPANY: Gutknecht Sues Over 2.95% Drop of Stock Price
MAXIMUS INC: Data Breach Suit Consolidated
MAXIMUS INC: Faces Garcia Data Breach Suit in Indiana Court
MCPHERSON OIL: Class Certification Sched Order Entered in Johnston
MENARD INC: Extension of Deadline in Scheduling Order Sought
MID-FLORIDA PATHOLOGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campbell Says
MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS: Hineses Seek to Amend Conditional Cert Bid
MOL EUROPE: Tribunal Approves Car Shipping Collective Settlement
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Bid to File Docs Under Seal OK'd
MUSTANG FUEL: Filing for Class Certification Due May 29, 2024
N-ABLE INC: Stockholders' Agreement Hit in Del. Ch. Complaint
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Carter Alleges Price Fixing of Scholarships
NAVY FEDERAL: Discriminates Black, Latino Lending Applicants
NEWARK, NJ: Class Action Settlement in Aziz FLSA Suit Discussed
NISSAN NORTH: Carper Sues Over Defective Vehicle's Paint
ONTRAK INC: Faces Braun Securities Suit in California Court
ONTRAK INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in California Court
PAYSIGN INC: $3.75M Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Gets Prelim OK
PERDUE FARMS: Parker Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
PERFECT DEALER: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PIONEER BANCORP: Bid to Dismiss Brandes Class Suit Remains Pending
PIONEER BANCORP: Bid to Junk O'Malley Class Suit Remains Pending
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Settles Labor Suit in California Court for $1.2M
ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 29, 2024
RUMBLE INC: Faces Video Piracy Suit in M.D. Fla.
RXO LAST MILE: Seeks to Decertify Class in Gonzalez Suit
SANMINA CORP: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
SELENE FINANCE: England Seeks More Time for Class Cert Filing
SENTRY COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Hamilton FLSA/NYLL Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SHELTER GENERAL: Dismissal of Bell Insurance Class Suit Reversed
SIG SAUER: Class Cert Discovery Due April 26, 2024
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Class Cert Hearing Continued to Jan. 11, 2024
UNITED STATES: B. L. R. Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Hartley Class Suit Over Tracker in Email
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Beard Sues Over Veterans Illegal Fees
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dack Suit Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Holland Says
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Pounds Sues Over Data Breach
ZOOM VIDEO: Dismissal Move Lodged in Delaware Court
*********
1730 WALT WHITMAN: Cruz et al. Allege Labor Law Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Cruz, Rigoberto Flores, Mauricio Lopez, Elvis Hernandez,
Vasil Yanes, and Adolfo Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons, Plaintiffs v. 1730 Walt Whitman Road Corp. d/b/a
News Stand Deli, Warren Daniele and Gino Daniele, Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-08992 (E.D.N.Y., December 7, 2023) alleges Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
One of the Plaintiffs, Mr. Pablo Cruz, was employed at News Stand
Deli as a food preparer from approximately November 2021 through
September 2023. However, he only received a fixed weekly salary of
$770 for all hours worked, regardless of the exact number of hours
he worked in a given week, says the suit.
Based in Boca Raton, FL, Defendant 1730 Walt Whitman Road Corp.
owned and operated an American restaurant named News Stand Deli,
located at 1730 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, NY 11747, until its
closing in approximately September 2023. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Fox Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT FOX, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No.
01-CV-2023-904160, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth
Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama on December 19, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01716-NAD to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs generally allege that the Defendants, including 3M,
have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) products and/or fluorinated
surfactants used therein, which contain polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid (PFOS), and/or their precursors. The Plaintiffs claim
that they suffered injury as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF or firefighter turnout gear products.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in
the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer
goods, headquartered in Minnesota. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Gordon Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Ala.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ELIOT GORDON, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No.
01-CV-2023-904176, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth
Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama on December 19, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01717-JHE to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs generally allege that the Defendants, including 3M,
have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold
aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) products and/or fluorinated
surfactants used therein, which contain polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid (PFOS), and/or their precursors. The Plaintiffs claim
that they suffered injury as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF or firefighter turnout gear (TOG) products.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in
the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer
goods, headquartered in Minnesota. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
ADMIRAL THEATRE: Villafane Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Villafane, Victoria Villafane, Latasha Carter, and Ana
Lagunas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated v. ADMIRAL THEATRE, INC. d/b/a THE ADMIRAL
THEATRE, SAM A. CECOLA, and NICK CECOLA, Case No. 1:23-cv-16595
(N.D. Ill., Dec. 7, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for
not paying minimum wage as required by the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), the
Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave
Ordinance ("Ordinance") by failing to pay dancers the required
minimum wage; the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
("IWPCA") and for taking a portion of the dancers' tips and
allowing and requiring dancers to share their tips with individuals
not eligible to share in a tip pool.
The Defendants did not pay the exotic dancers who have worked at
the Admiral the prevailing federal, state or Chicago minimum wage
rate. The exotic dancers who have worked at the Admiral receive
compensation only in the form of gratuities from patrons. In order
to perform their job, the dancers have been required to pay "house
fees" to the Admiral in an amount between $40 to $100 for every
shift. The parties had an implied agreement that dancers would
perform exotic dancing services for the club and would receive
their gratuities as compensation, but the Defendants required
dancers to pay these fees out of that compensation so that the
house fees operated as a deduction from the dancers' wages. In
fact, during some shifts, dancers would leave the club having lost
money because of these deductions from their pay.
The dancers have also been required to share their tips with
non-service employees or agents of the Admiral, such as "house
moms," "disc jockeys," and "valets." The Admiral has also taken ten
percent of dancers' tips whenever they are tipped by customers
using the club's proprietary "funny money", which the club sells to
customers for use tipping dancers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers.
Admiral Theatre, Inc. d/b/a The Admiral Theatre is an Illinois
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
Northbrook, IL 60062
Phone: (617) 994-5800
Fax: (617 994-5801
Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com
- and -
Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
Maria Cedeno, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 994-5800
Fax: (617) 994-5801
Email: apagano@llrlaw.com
mjcedeno@llrlaw.com
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Faces Shareholder Suits Over SEC Disclosures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, 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 20, 2023, that on
October 9, 2023 and October 27, 2023, respectively, two putative
class actions on behalf of purchasers of its securities who
purchased or otherwise acquired their securities between November
16, 2022 and May 30, 2023, were commenced against the company and
certain of its former officers in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made certain false and
materially misleading statements during the alleged Class Period in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. These cases are still in
preliminary stages and we expect that they will be consolidated.
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and subsidiaries is an automotive
aftermarket parts provider in North America, serving both
professional installers and do-it-yourself customers. As of October
7, 2023, it operated a total of 4,785 stores and 320 branches
primarily within the United States, with additional locations in
Canada, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
ALDERFER FAMILY: Spindel Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alderfer Family Farm
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jeffrey Spindel, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Alderfer Family Farm
LLC, Alderfer Poultry Farm, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-10710-PMH
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Alderfer Family Farm LLC -- https://alderfereggs.com/ -- produce
the most nutritious, purest, natural, organic egg they possibly
can.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brooke Allison Dekolf, Esq.
Kim Eleazer Richman, Esq.
RICHMAN LAW & POLICY
1 Bridge Street, Suite 83
Irvington, NY 10533
Phone: (914) 693-2018
Email: bdekolf@richmanlawpolicy.com
krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com
ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT: Zendejas Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mario Zendejas, an individual, and Miguel
Miramontes, an individual, solely as aggrieved employee
representatives on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former aggrieved employees v. ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV26390
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Dec. 7, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 2:23-cv-10357-PA-AGR.
The Complaint alleges one cause of action against All American
Asphalt under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). Here,
Plaintiffs base their PAGA claim on six alleged Labor Code
violations: Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide
Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements;
Failure to Indemnify; Failure to Pay All Wages; and Failure to Pay
All Wages Due at Termination. Plaintiffs also allege that they were
not paid overtime, although they do not cite statutory support for
this claim.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark J. Payne, Esq.
Megan A. Mackie, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400
Irvine, CA 92614-2545
Phone: 949.622.2700
Facsimile: 949.622.27
Email: mark.payne@troutman.com
megan.mackie@troutman.com
AMERICAN THREADS: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Threads,
Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. American Threads, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-10682 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Threads -- https://www.shopamericanthreads.com/ -- is an
apparel & fashion company that offers bohemian apparel and handmade
gifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
ARIETIS HEALTH: Frankeberger Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Eliot Frankeberger, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arietis Health, LLC,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00875 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13015-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Arietis Health, LLC -- https://www.arietishealth.com/ -- specialize
in patient-centric, data-driven revenue cycle solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 300
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Phone: (914) 934-9200
Email: seth@klafterlesser.com
Christopher.Timmel@klafterolsen.com
jak@klafterlesser.com
- and -
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
VARNELL AND WARWICK PA
400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (352) 753-8600
Fax: (352) 504-3301
Email: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 735-8600
Fax: (215) 940-8000
Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Diana Marie Fassbender, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 339-8533
Email: dszego@orrick.com
ARIETIS HEALTH: Schafer Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Danielle Schafer, on behalf of herself
individually and all others similarly situated v. Arietis Health,
LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00845 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13015-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Arietis Health, LLC -- https://www.arietishealth.com/ -- specialize
in patient-centric, data-driven revenue cycle solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Cohen, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Diana Marie Fassbender, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 339-8533
Email: dszego@orrick.com
ARQIT QUANTUM: Faces Securities Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
Arqit Quantum 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 20, 2023, that on
April 18, 2023, a putative class action was filed against Arqit and
certain of its directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York (Index No. 153555/2023) and asserts claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.
On October 2, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
asserting the same causes of action as in the original state court
complaint. On November 1, 2023, defendants filed a motion to stay
the State Court Action pending resolution of the federal action.
The plaintiff's response to the motion to stay was due on December
1, 2023.
Arqit Quantum Inc. provides cybersecurity services via terrestrial
platforms.
ARQIT QUANTUM: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------
Arqit Quantum 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 20, 2023, that it is
facing a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Arqit and
certain of Arqit's directors in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:22-cv-02604) on or
around May 6, 2022, a asserting violations of federal securities
laws under the Exchange Act. The Federal Complaint generally
alleges that Arqit and individual defendants made materially false
and misleading statements relating to Arqit's business prospects
and projections.
On September 8, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended version
of the complaint, which alleges the same general theory as the
original complaint and asserts claims under the Securities Act of
1933. On November 15, 2023, the court set a briefing schedule which
requires the defendants to file their motion to dismiss by January
12, 2024. The lead plaintiffs' response to the motion to dismiss is
due on March 12, 2024, and defendants' reply is due on April 26,
2024.
Arqit Quantum Inc. provides cybersecurity services via terrestrial
platforms.
ART OF THE GENTLEMAN: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Art of the Gentleman,
LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Liz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Art of the Gentleman, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-10675-DEH-RFT (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Art of the Gentleman -- https://www.artofthegent.com/ -- is home to
the Gentleman Set suits that was curated by resident
gentlemen.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (954) 745-0588
Email: klein@nklegal.com
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blakeney Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH BLAKENEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-16624 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 8, 2023 seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Blakeney was employed by the Defendant as a client
services associate.
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO. and its subsidiaries provide insurance
brokerage, risk management, employee benefit, and other related
services to clients in the United States and abroad. The Company's
principal activity is the negotiation and placement of insurance
for its clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Gregg Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo Meireles, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
ASTRA SPACE INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Astra Space, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 16, 2023, that in an order filed
August 2, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the motion to dismiss on the merits
of the defendants in a consolidated securities suit captioned "In
re Astra Space Inc. (formerly Holicity Inc.) Securities
Litigation". Plaintiffs had 21 days from the date of the order to
file an amended complaint but declined to do so. As a result, the
Company considers this matter closed.
On February 9, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
styled "Artery v. Astra Space, Inc. et al.," Case No.
1:22-cv-00737. On November 14, 2022, this was consolidated into a
single action. On December 14, 2022, this was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California under Case No. 3:22-cv-08875. On December 28, 2022, lead
plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. The amended complaint
alleges that the company and several of its current and former
officers and directors violated provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to certain statements concerning
the company's projected launch cadence and payload capacity goals.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's securities between
February 2, 2021 and December 29, 2021. Defendants moved to dismiss
on December 28, 2022.
Astra Space, Inc. designs, tests, manufactures and operates the
next generation of launch services and space products and services
to enable a new generation of global communications, earth
observation, precision weather monitoring, navigation, and
surveillance capabilities.
BDO USA: Agrees to Tentatively Settle 401(k) Class Suit for $1.2MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that BDO USA LLP agreed to a
tentative settlement with a proposed class of employees who said
the accounting firm mismanaged their $1.2 billion 401(k) plan.
The parties reached an agreement in principle and have until Jan.
30, 2024, to file details of the deal for court approval, Judge
Matthew F. Kennelly said in a Dec. 15 docket entry.
The lawsuit, filed in 2022 on behalf of a proposed class of more
than 11,000 retirement investors, says BDO filled its 401(k) plan
with expensive and poorly performing funds and forced workers to
pay annual recordkeeping fees of nearly $86. [GN]
BECTON DICKINSON: To Settle Kabak Shareholder Suit Over Alaris
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that in, that in October 2023, an agreement in
principle was reached to resolve a putative class action captioned
"Kabak v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al.," Civ. No.
2:20-cv-02155 (SRC) (CLW), now captioned Industriens
Pensionsforsikring v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al., filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on
February 27, 2020 against the company and certain of its officers.
The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's common stock from November 5, 2019 through February
5, 2020, asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10 and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks,
among other things, damages and costs.
The complaint alleges that defendants concealed certain material
information regarding Alaris (TM) infusion pumps, allegedly
rendering certain public statements about the company's business,
operations and prospects false or misleading, thereby allegedly
causing investors to purchase stock at an inflated price. After an
initial without prejudice dismissal, the plaintiff filed amended
pleadings, which the company in turn moved to dismiss. Ultimately,
the court permitted certain aspects of the case to proceed. An
answer with affirmative defenses was thereafter filed on October 3,
2022. The court has also permitted claims to be asserted on behalf
of option holders. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff's motion
for class certification was filed on January 17, 2023.
Becton, Dickinson and Company, also known as BD, is a multinational
medical technology company that manufactures and sells medical
devices, instrument systems and reagents.
BELLRING BRANDS: False Advertising Suits Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
BellRing Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 20, 2023, that it is facing various
false advertising complaints with regards to its "Joint Juice"
line.
In March 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative,
nationwide class of consumers against its subsidiary Premier
Nutrition Company, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief. The case asserted that some of Premier Nutrition's
advertising claims regarding its "Joint Juice" line of glucosamine
and chondroitin dietary supplement beverages, which it discontinued
in the first quarter of fiscal 2023, were false and misleading.
In April 2016, the district court certified a California-only class
of consumers in this lawsuit. In 2016 and 2017, the lead
plaintiff's counsel in the California Federal Class Lawsuit filed
ten additional class action complaints in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of putative
classes of consumers under the laws of Connecticut, Florida,
Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
These complaints contain factual allegations similar to the
California Federal Class Lawsuit, also seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief. The action on behalf of New Jersey consumers was
voluntarily dismissed. Trial in the action on behalf of New York
consumers was held beginning in May 2022, and the jury delivered
its verdict in favor of plaintiff in June 2022. In August 2022, the
court entered a judgment in that case in favor of plaintiff in the
amount of $12.9, which includes statutory damages and prejudgment
interest. In October 2022, each plaintiff and Premier Nutrition
filed Notices of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which appeals are
pending. The other eight Related Federal Actions remain pending,
and the court has certified individual state classes in each of
those cases (except New Mexico).
In April 2018, the district court dismissed the California Federal
Class Lawsuit with prejudice. This dismissal was upheld on appeal
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2020, and
plaintiff’s petition for an en banc rehearing by the Ninth
Circuit was denied. In September 2020, the same lead counsel
re-filed the California Federal Class Lawsuit against Premier
Nutrition in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda,
alleging identical claims and seeking restitution and injunctive
relief on behalf of the same putative class of California consumers
as the California Federal Class Lawsuit. Following the federal
district court’s denial of Premier Nutrition’s motion to
permanently enjoin the Alameda action under the doctrine of res
judicata, Premier Nutrition appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which
affirmed the district court decision.
In March 2023, the Alameda Superior Court granted in part and
denied in part Premier Nutrition's motion for judgment based on res
judicata and in May 2023, the court reaffirmed its ruling. In July
2023, Premier Nutrition filed a petition for writ of mandamus in
the California Court of Appeal, which writ is pending. In July
2023, Plaintiff moved to certify the case as a class action, which
remains pending. This case was previously set for trial in
September 2023, together with Alameda County case set forth in the
immediately succeeding paragraph, but the court separated them.
Trial is anticipated in calendar year 2024.
In January 2019, the same lead counsel filed an additional class
action complaint against Premier Nutrition in California Superior
Court for the County of Alameda, alleging claims similar to the
above actions and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of a putative class of California consumers, beginning after
the California Federal Class Lawsuit class period. In July 2020,
the court issued an order certifying a statewide class. Premier
Nutrition moved for summary judgment on July 7, 2023, which motion
remains pending. This case was set for trial in September 2023, but
has been rescheduled last December 15, 2023.
BellRing Brands, Inc. is a consumer products holding company
operating in the global convenient nutrition category and is a
provider of ready-to-drink protein shakes, other beverages and
powders. Its primary brands are "Premier Protein" and "Dymatize."
BELLRING BRANDS: False Advertising Suits Over Lead Content Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
BellRing Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 20, 2023, that in June 2023, a
complaint was filed on behalf of a putative, nationwide class of
consumers against the company and it subsidiary Premier Nutrition
LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The complaint alleges that Premier Nutrition engages in fraud and
false advertising (via alleged affirmative representations and
omissions) regarding its ready-to-drink (RTD) protein shakes and
protein powders by marketing the products as good sources of
nutrition and protein when the products contain (or have a material
risk of containing) high levels of undisclosed lead.
Plaintiffs seek monetary remedies for economic injury (products are
allegedly worth less than what was paid for them), as well as
injunctive relief. It alleges that high levels of lead pose serious
safety risks, but does not allege that any plaintiff or putative
class member suffered personal injuries and does not seek any
remedies for personal injuries.
The company filed its motion to dismiss this case in August 2023.
The court has set a hearing last December 1, 2023 on this motion.
BellRing Brands, Inc. is a consumer products holding company
operating in the global convenient nutrition category and is a
provider of ready-to-drink protein shakes, other beverages and
powders. Its primary brands are "Premier Protein" and "Dymatize."
BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
BioXcel 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 14, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Martin class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
On July 7, 2023, plaintiff Katelyn Martin filed a class action
complaint against the Company and certain executives in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, captioned
Martin v. BioXcel Therapeutics, et al., 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn).
The complaints generally allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on certain public
statements related to the development of BXCL501, TRANQUILITY II
and TRANQUILITY III between December 15, 2021 and June 28, 2023.
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, seven
other investors moved to serve as lead plaintiff and pursue these
claims on behalf of a putative class of investors.
On October 4, 2023, the court appointed two co-lead plaintiffs and
approved of co-lead counsel.
At this time, the Company does not believe the claims have merit,
but the potential costs and liabilities associated with this
litigation are uncertain.
BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
utilizing
artificial intelligence approaches to develop transformative
medicines in neuroscience and immuno-oncology, focused on reducing
therapeutic development costs and potentially accelerate
timelines.
BLOOMSY BOX.COM: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bloomsy Box.com, LLC.
The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Bloomsy Box.com, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-10688-PAE-JLC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bloomsy Box.com, LLC -- https://www.bloomsybox.com/ -- is an online
flower subscription and plant delivery service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT
CO., Case No. 1:23-cv-03360-TJK (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order extending the deadline for Plaintiff to
file her motion for class certification until a time determined by
the Court after evaluation of the parties' proposed schedule(s) in
their Joint Meet
and Confer Report, or at the Initial Scheduling Conference.
Bozzuto was founded in 1988. The company's line of business
includes renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate.
A copy of the Plaintiff's consent motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RlVKe0 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Matthew A. Smith, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
msmith@classlawdc.com
CANADA: Motion to Appeal Class Suit Over Assault Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
April Hudson of CBC News reports that a decision by the Supreme
Court of Canada has cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit
against the federal government for the behaviour of RCMP officers
in the Yukon, N.W.T. and Nunavut.
The lawsuit, started by lead plaintiff Joe David Nasogaluak of
Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., alleges Indigenous people are regularly
assaulted by RCMP officers because of their racial origin, and the
federal Crown has historically turned a blind eye.
It claims RCMP are responsible "for the epidemic of police assaults
that take place in the Territories," and that the federal Crown has
been "systemically negligent" in funding, oversight, operation,
supervision, control and support of RCMP detachments and officers.
On December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a
request from the Attorney General of Canada to appeal the class
action.
Class action certified in June 2021
Nasogaluak claims he was assaulted by RCMP and subjected to racial
slurs during an arrest when he was 15 years old. The class action
seeks $500 million in damages and $100 million in punitive damages
from the federal government.
Justice Glennys McVeigh certified the class action in June 2021,
and the Federal Court of Appeal upheld that decision in May 2022,
with some modifications to the scope of the class action.
Steven Cooper, one of the lawyers involved in the class action,
said on December 15, 2023 that the Supreme Court's decision is an
important step in what is inevitably a long process.
"Now we litigate," he said.
"As far as a timeline, it's hard to tell, but class actions by
their very nature tend to be measured in years, not months."
Cooper said pursuing a class action allows the court to look beyond
individual cases at larger issues in the RCMP, potentially leading
to meaningful reform and behavioural change among officers.
"This isn't about wrongful convictions. It isn't about the whole
justice system and all of the inequities and things like that. It's
about how the RCMP interact with the Indigenous population across
the country," he said.
"We're hoping to be the spark. We're hoping to be a factor in the
ultimate reform of the RCMP, and welcome them into our century and
our decade, away from the last century and the 1960s and 1970s,
which is where it seems that this particular police force is
stuck." [GN]
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Suit for $4MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maginnis Howard reports that Verizon Wireless settled a class
action lawsuit for $4 million for purported violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Verizon class action
lawsuit alleged that Verizon Wireless hired Collecto, a debt
collector, unlawfully used an automatic dialing system to robocall
consumers. Further, some class members claim Verizon Wireless made
unwanted robocalls to individuals who were not even customers of
Verizon.
There were two separate classes; one for California residents
alone, and one national TCPA class. Individuals across the country
received checks averaging $500 for Verizon's alleged violation.
Verizon Wireless class members who pursued claims individually
likely received much smaller awards than if they pursued their
claims within the class settlement.
The TCPA was enacted in 1991 to safeguard consumers from unwanted
phone calls and text messages. The primary objective of this act is
to restrict telemarketers from making unsolicited calls, especially
those using automated dialing systems and pre-recorded voice
messages. It also mandates them to maintain a "do-not-call" list
and to respect the requests of individuals who do not wish to be
contacted. Violations of this act can result in significant fines,
which act as a strong deterrent against intrusive marketing
practices. The TCPA can award consumers can between $500 and $1,500
per telephone call.
Our experienced TCPA attorneys will review your case to determine
the most beneficial option on an individualized basis. In order to
properly asses your claim, contact our attorneys on December 19,
202. You can reach our consumer intake team by phone at (919)
526-0450. You may also utilize our confidential contact page to
send an online inquiry. [GN]
CENTERPLATE INC: Dismissal of Employee's Class Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Weiner of Certum Group reports that Dougan v. Centerplate,
Inc., et al.,1 began as a wage-and-hour class action filed in state
court. Defendants removed the case to the Southern District of
California. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a separate -- but
similar -- action in state court pursuant to California's Private
Attorneys General Act. Defendants were unable to remove the second
state court action to federal court.
Fast forward a year. Following mediation (but long before any class
certification briefing had begun), the parties negotiated an
agreement that called for the "global settlement approval process
to proceed in [state court]," with the parties agreeing to dismiss
the federal case once the state court matter was finally resolved.
The Southern District of California asked the parties to address
what level of scrutiny, if any, it should apply to such a pre-class
certification dismissal stipulation. In response, the parties
argued that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), dismissal should be
automatic. To make a long matter short, the court agreed,
concluding that "the 2003 amendment to Rule 23(e) was intended to
take courts out of the business of reviewing pre-certification
voluntary dismissals."2
A brief overview of the federal rules will help explain this.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii) permits a plaintiff to “dismiss an action
without a court order by filing … a stipulation of dismissal
signed by all parties who have appeared.” This, according to the
Ninth Circuit, confers an "absolute right" to dismiss an action.3
Indeed, such a stipulation of dismissal causes the district court
in which the action is pending to lose jurisdiction over the case.4
But Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 is not the end of the matter, as it is
"subject to Rule[] 23(e)."5
Before 2003, the Ninth Circuit interpreted then-Rule 23(e) to
mandate court review of pre-certification voluntary dismissals in
class actions. In Diaz v. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,6
the Ninth Circuit found that a district court must hold a hearing
and "inquire into the terms and circumstances of any dismissal or
compromise to ensure that it is not collusive or prejudicial"
before accepting the parties' dismissal stipulation.
But the 2003 amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) changed this, as
the Rule now reads: " [t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a
certified class -- or a class proposed to be certified for purposes
of settlement -- may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or
compromised only with the court's approval."7 Despite this
unambiguous language, courts in the Ninth Circuit have split on
whether to substantively review pre-certification dismissals.8 In
Centerplate, Judge Sammartino tries to slam the door on the notion
that the district court has any role in assessing pre-certification
voluntary dismissals, writing: "The legislative history of the 2003
amendment to Rule 23(e) is inconsistent with the approach" taken by
courts mandating a review.9
And how does Judge Sammartino know this? Because the Rule's
drafters initially proposed for public comment a version of Rule
23(e) that would have required courts to "approve a voluntary
dismissal, withdrawal, or settlement made before a determination
whether to certify a class."10 In other words, a rule that would
have followed Diaz. But after public comment, the drafters revised
the proposed rule to "delete the requirement that the parties must
win court approval for a precertification dismissal or
settlement."11 According to Judge Sammartino, the "Advisory
Committee Report demonstrates that the Rules' drafters made the
express decision to reject the Diaz approach."12 And lest there be
any doubt, Judge Sammartino notes that the fact that the parties
were looking to certify a class (for settlement purposes) in state
court does not trigger any review obligations in the district
court.13
Accordingly, Judge Sammartino approved the stipulation and
dismissed the case.
1. 22-cv-1496 (S.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 15 (Order Dismissing Entire
Action Without Prejudice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) (the "Order").
2. Id. at p.3.
3. Am. Soccer Co. v. Score First Enters., 187 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th
Cir. 1999).
4. Black Rock City, LLC v. Pershing Cnty. Bd. Of Comm'rs, 637 F.
App'x 488, 488 (9th Cir. 2016).
5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A).
6. 876 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1989).
7. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (emphasis added).
8. See Order at pp. 5-6 (listing cases).
9. Id. at p.6 (emphasis added).
10. Id.
11. Id. at p.7.
12. Id.
13. Id. at p.8.[GN]
COMCAST CABLE: Hasson Balks at Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH HASSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05039-JMY (E.D. Pa., December 19, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated customers stored within its systems following a
data breach between October 16 and October 19, 2023. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Comcast Cable Communications LLC is a telecommunications company,
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
Connor P. Hayes, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
patrick@lcllp.com
connorh@lcllp.com
- and -
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: MGibson@TheFinleyFirm.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Flores Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDUARDO FLORES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No.
4:23-cv-05367, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on December 19, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-09263-BMC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising
Law, and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act by making
false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and
marketing of its nasal decongestant product called Kirkland
Multi-Symptom Cold & Flu Severe.
Costco Wholesale Corporation is a retail company, with its
headquarters in Issaquah, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
CRISPIN'S LLC: Gutierrez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO GUTIERREZ ARCOS and ANGEL DE JESUS LOPEZ GUTIERREZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CRISPIN'S LLC (D/B/A SESAMO), NIKITA LEVITAN, SABRINA
SHUANG GAO, and TIAN YIP,, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10933
(S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours wage, failure
to provide wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements.
Plaintiffs Gutierrez and Lopez were employed as food preparers, a
kitchen porter, and a cleaner at the Defendants' Sesamo restaurant
located at 764 10th Ave, New York, New York from November 2021
until on or about August 18, 2023 and from March 18, 2023 until on
or about July 8, 2023, respectively.
Crispin's LLC is an owner and operator of an Italian restaurant
under the name Sesamo, located at 764 10th Ave, New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: catalina@csmlegal.com
CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: Newbern Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Steven Newbern, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Customized Distribution Services,
Inc., Case No. 2023LA001485 was removed from the Third Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois on Dec. 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03871-RJD to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Customized Distribution Services, Inc. (CDS) --
https://cdslogistics.com/ -- provides advanced logistics
capabilities, processes, and solutions via a national network of
modern distribution centers managed to precise safety and
operational standards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Email: aheldut@mcgpc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin R. Marble, Esq.
Rebecca Murphy Christensen, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. - ST. LOUIS
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 659-2000
Fax: (314) 659-2099
Email: bmarble@littler.com
bchristensen@littler.com
DETROIT, MI: Stevenson Seeks to Compel Class Cert Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH HOWARD, et. al.,
v. THE CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10382-NGE-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff Jeffery Stevenson files motion to
compel class certification discovery from Wayne County.
The case alleges that late and deficient notices of residential
property tax assessments in 2017 violated Detroit homeowners'
due-process rights, denying hundreds of thousands of homeowners any
practical opportunity to appeal their assessments that year. Some
homeowners, including Plaintiff Jeffery Stevenson, later fell
delinquent on those taxes they could not appeal, and were then
subjected to fines, fees, and the initiation of foreclosure
proceedings by Defendant Wayne County. Mr. Stevenson seeks to
represent a class of homeowners like him who claim that Wayne
County was unjustly enriched as a result.
The Court permitted Mr. Stevenson to pursue discovery from Wayne
County to support class certification. But Wayne County objects to
producing certain relevant, non-privileged documents that are
directly pertinent to the certification inquiry—namely, documents
concerning the fines, fees, penalties, interest, and other charges
Wayne County charged and received from Detroit homeowners for
delinquent 2017 taxes.
Detroit, the largest city in Michigan, is a financial and cultural
powerhouse, serving as a major transportation center.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46OHhgp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rami N. Fakhouri, Esq.
Betsy Farrington, Esq.
Samuel E. Schoenburg, Esq.
Caleb A. Kennedy, Esq.
GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI BRENNAN & BAUM LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 22nd Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 681-6000
E-mail: rfakhouri@goldmanismail.com
bfarrington@goldmanismail.com
sschoenburg@goldmanismail.com
ckennedy@goldmanismail.com
- and -
Cynthia Heenan, Esq.
CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
220 Bagley, Ste. 740
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 961-2255
E-mail: Heenan@ConLitPC.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Nasseem S. Ramin, Esq.
Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
400 Renaissance Center
Detroit, MI 48243
Telephone: (313) 568-6800
E-mail: nramin@dykema.com
tseitz@dykema.com
- and -
James D. Noseda, Esq.
Charles N. Raimi, Esq.
CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT
Two Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 237-3057/5037
E-mail: nosej@detroitmi.gov
raimic@detroitmi.gov
EIGHT ORANGES: Mangahas Suit Seeks to Certify Tipped Worker Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSY MANGAHAS, and
PITHCHAYA WOHLFAHRT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. EIGHT ORANGES INC. DBA THE BAO; CHIBAOLA,
INC. DBA ULUH; JOANNE HONG BAO, individually, and RICHARD LAM,
individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-04150-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) Certifying a class defined as all "Tipped Workers such as
servers, runners, and bussers who worked at The Bao and Uluh
from October 5, 2015 through the present;"
(2) Appointing Jessy Mangahas and Pithchaya Wohlfahrt as Class
Representatives;
(3) Appointing Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP as Class Counsel;
(4) Directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs a
Microsoft
Excel list, in electronic format, of all the NYLL Class
members’ names, last known address, email addresses, all
known
telephone numbers, dates of employment, and job titles;
(5) Authorizing notice to all Class Members; and
(6) Any other relief the Court deems just and warranted.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RgUpVS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
Katherine K. Bonilla, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
EXTEND HEALTH: Pitts Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE PITTS,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EXTEND
HEALTH, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No.
2:23-cv-00742-HCN-DBP (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
(1) Conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
Act
(FLSA) Collective:
(2) Requiring the Defendant to identify all putative collective
members by providing a list of their names, last known
addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers,
and
email addresses in electronic and importable format within
10
days of the entry of the order;
(3) Authorizing Plaintiff's proposed form of notice and
implementing a procedure whereby the notice of Plaintiff's
FLSA
claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to:
"All current and former customer service representatives
who
worked for Defendant at any time in the past three years
(the
"FLSA Collective").
(4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA
Collective; and
(5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective sixty (60) days to
join
this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized
notice
is sent, with one reminder email and text message sent 30
days
thereafter to anyone who did not respond.
The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Extend Health challenging
its willful violations of the FLSA. More specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by
knowingly suffering or permitting her and Defendant's other
customer
service representatives ("CSRs") to perform unpaid work before and
after their scheduled shifts and failing to pay them the federally
mandated overtime compensation.
Extend Health provides health benefits management services
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41gjjt6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Alana Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
- and -
April L. Hollingsworth, Esq.
HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC
1881 South 1100 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Telephone: (801) 541-6600
E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com
FISHEL COMPANY: Clippard Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER CLIPPARD, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE FISHEL COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-02798 (M.D. Fla., December 7, 2023)
seeks to recover damages in the amount of 60 days' compensation and
benefits for each of the aggrieved employees by reason of the
Defendant's violation of their rights under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.
On May 10, 2023, and thereafter, the Plaintiff Clippard and
approximately 146 other employees of the Defendant were terminated
without cause on their part as part of or as the reasonably
expected consequence of a mass layoff or plant closing, which was
effectuated by Defendant on or about that date. However, the
Defendant to provide Plaintiffs with the 60 days advance written
notice that is required by the WARN Act, says the suit.
Based in Columbus, OH, The Fishel Company is a foreign for-profit
corporation that provides utility engineering, construction,
installation and maintenance services since 1936. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
(813) 379-2565
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
gdesane@wfclaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Davis MHRA Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled CIERRA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC. and TEAM
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 23CY-CV11757, was removed from
the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri on December 18, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:23-cv-00921-JAM to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff filed claims of race and gender discrimination and
retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act.
Ford Motor Company, Inc. is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.
Team Industrial Services, Inc. is an industrial services company
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kathleen M. Nemechek, Esq.
Megan D. Costello, Esq.
BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 561-7007
Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
E-mail: knemechek@berkowitzoliver.com
mcostello@berkowitzoliver.com
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Class Status Bid Held in Abeyance
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAFFER v. GEORGE
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01145 (D.D.C., Filed May 1,
2020), the Hon. Judge Richard J. Leon entered an order that the
Plaintiffs' redacted motion for class certification and appointment
of class counsel and sealed motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel are held in abeyance pending the
court's resolution of the pending motion for preliminary approval
of class settlement.
The Court recognizes that resolution of the Motion for preliminary
approval of class settlement and subsequent settlement proceedings
may moot the original motion, while also recognizing that
defendants reserve the right to oppose class certification in the
event the settlement is not finally approved or otherwise
terminated.
Accordingly, the original motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel will be held in abeyance while the
motion for preliminary approval of class settlement and subsequent
related settlement proceedings, if applicable, are addressed.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
George Washington is a private federally chartered research
university in Washington, D.C.[CC]
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Court Denies Motion to Certify ADA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Nick Baltaxe, and Nathan K. Norimoto of
DuaneMorris.com report that in O'Hailpin v. Hawaiian Airlines Inc.,
No. 22-CV-00532, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220734 (D. Haw. Dec. 12,
2023), Judge Jill Otake of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii denied a motion for class certification brought by
current and former employees of Hawaiian Airlines alleging
discrimination under Title VII and the ADA against individuals who
requested medical or religious accommodations from their employers'
COVID-19 vaccination policy. The decision is pro-defendant and well
worth a read in terms of strategies to oppose and prevent class
certification of employment discrimination claims.
Case Background
Riki O'Hailpin, along with eight other named plaintiffs
("Plaintiffs"), brought a putative class action against Defendant
Hawaiian Airlines Inc. ("Hawaiian"), alleging that Hawaiian
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII")
and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by discriminating
against employees who requested medical or religious accommodations
from Hawaiian's Covid-19 vaccination policy. In response to the
Covid-19 pandemic, President Biden issued Executive Order No.
14042, a Federal Contractor Mandate that required certain employers
to implement a mandatory vaccination policy. Under the Federal
Contractor Mandate and related guidelines, Hawaiian was required to
have its unvaccinated employees masked and socially distanced in
the workplace; thus, any exemptions to the vaccine policy would
need to comply with those masking and distancing requirements. Id.
at *3. Plaintiffs challenged Hawaiian's policy that required all
employees "to be vaccinated November 1, 2021 unless they had a
reasonable accommodation for a disability as defined under the ADA
or a sincerely held religious belief that conflicted with their
ability to receive a Covid-19 vaccine." Id. at *3-4.
Hawaiian received 568 reasonable accommodation requests related to
the vaccine policy, including 496 for religious accommodations and
72 for medical exemptions. Id. at *3. Hawaiian subsequently
examined every work position and every work location to determine
whether masking and distancing were feasible and concluded that,
for a majority of the positions, they were not. Hawaiian also
implemented a "Transition Period Testing Program" that provided a
deadline for unvaccinated employees to test and a 12-month unpaid
leave of absence for those who did not get vaccinated and were not
granted an accommodation. Id. at *6. The complaint alleged Hawaiian
engaged in a "pattern and practice of discrimination" under Title
VII and the ADA by denying medical and religious accommodation
requests and that the Transition Period Testing Program was a
pretext for denying accommodation requests. Id. at *17. Plaintiffs
sought to represent all current and former Hawaiian employees whose
religious and medical vaccine accommodation requests were denied
under Hawaiian's vaccination policy, and proposed a primary class
of the approximately 500 employees whose accommodation requests
were denied as well as sub-classes, broken down by medical and
religious requests, of individuals whose requests were either
denied or rescinded by Hawaiian. Id. at *9. Plaintiffs moved for
class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Id.
Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification
The Court evaluated Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
under Rule 23's requirements of numerosity, adequacy, predominance,
typicality, and commonality. First, it expressed skepticism that
one of Plaintiffs' proposed sub-classes satisfied the numerosity
requirement. Id. at *12-13. The Court concluded that certification
of a sub-class of 14 individuals "whose medical exemption requests
were rescinded, such that no final decision was reached … could
likely be denied based on numerosity grounds alone." Id. at *13. At
the same time, the Court determined that Plaintiffs satisfied Rule
23's adequacy of counsel requirement. Id. at *13-14. Hawaiian did
not contest the requirement with respect to the named Plaintiffs
and their counsel. Id. at *14.
The Court further evaluated whether Plaintiffs' "pattern and
practice" theory of liability met Rule 23's commonality,
typicality, and predominance requirements, with a specific focus on
issues susceptible to "generalized proof" versus "individualized
proof." Id. at *20-21. The Court found that Plaintiffs could not
satisfy the remaining Rule 23 requirements due to the
individualized assessments into each medical and religious
accommodation request to determine whether Hawaiian's treatment of
each request constituted actionable discrimination under Title VII
and the ADA. Id. at *23-57.
With respect to the sub-classes of individuals who were denied
religious accommodation requests, the Court noted that the
inquiries into each employee's "sincerely held religious belief and
secular preference" and/or whether the accommodation would cause an
"undue hardship" to Hawaiian would require too many individualized
assessments to satisfy predominance under Rule 23. Id. at
*27–*42. For example, the Court noted the analysis of whether the
accommodation would impose an undue hardship on Hawaiian would
include an individualized review of each position, location, union
status, and the ability to mask and social distance. Id. at
*37-39.
For the medical accommodation sub-classes, the Court noted that the
ADA extends "only to qualified individuals … who, with or without
reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of
the employment position that such individual holds or desires." Id.
at *44 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)). For this reason, the Court
opined that the reasonableness of the accommodation "is necessarily
individualized, based on the person's position and location, and
the extent to which an accommodation would amount to an undue
hardship on Hawaiian." Id. at *52. In light of the individualized
inquiries to determine the reasonableness of each accommodation
(masking, social distancing, or testing) for each qualified
individual, the Court determined that Plaintiffs did not meet their
"burden to explain why commonality, typicality, and predominance
are met" for the ADA subclasses. Id. at *55-56.
Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and held that a class action was not "the superior
way" for Plaintiffs' claims to proceed. Id. at *56.
Implications For Employers
This decision represents a helpful roadmap for employers to defend
not only against potential Covid-19 vaccine-related class action
complaints, but also against putative class actions brought under
Title VII and the ADA. The Court's ruling underscores the
importance of individualized inquiries for religious and medical
accommodation requests under Title VII and the ADA, and offers
tools to defend against the plaintiff's burden of demonstrating
predominance, typicality, and commonality at the class
certification stage of the litigation. [GN]
INNASENSE DESIGNS: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Innasense Designs,
Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Innasense Designs, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-09002-ARR-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Innasense Designs, Inc. is a jewelry company owned by sisters
AAnyuta & Inna Belarus.[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
IRG RC HOTEL: Watson Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Norenda Watson and De'Asha Hooks, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. IRG RC HOTEL I,
LLC,, Case No. CV-2023-11-4186 was removed from the Court of Common
Pleas, Summit County, Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on Dec. 8, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-02342.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts a claim under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), a federal statute, for the alleged
nonpayment of the minimum wage.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam Primm, Esq.
Thomas D. Jackson, Esq.
Lyndsay M. Flagg, Esq.
BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 2300
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: 216-363-4451
Facsimile: 216-363-4588
Email: aprimm@beneschlaw.com
tjackson@beneschlaw.com
lflagg@beneschlaw.com
JANUS INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Seek Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD LOPEZ, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JANUS INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-01671-MSN-JFA (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for conditional certification
of a collective action, identification of potential collective
action members, and approval of notice to potential collective
action members.
The Plaintiffs include Richard Lopez, Alvaro Blanco, Jesus
Domoromo, and Enzzo Lopez.
Janus produces building products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nkcf96 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Hanna, Esq.
Nicole Rubin, Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1401 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 223-2620
E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com
nrubin@murphypllc.com
- and -
Rachel Nadas, Esq.
Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
1201 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200K
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 899-2991
E-mail: rnadas@hfajustice.com
mhandley@hfajustice.com
- and -
Jason B. Yarashes, Esq.
Kristin F. Donovan, Esq.
Rachel C. McFarland, Esq.
LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
6402 Arlington Blvd. Suite 1130
Falls Church, VA 22042
Telephone: (571) 620-5261
E-mail: jasony@justice4all.org
kristin@justice4all.org
rmcfarland@justice4all.org
JLP MANUFACTURING: Chavez Sues Over Unlawful Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
CRUZ CHAVEZ, Plaintiff v. JLP MANUFACTURING CORP, GEORGE PENNY and
JOHN PENNY, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09010
(E.D.N.Y., December 7, 2023) is a class action arising out of the
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and the related provisions from Title 12 of New
York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.
Plaintiff Chavez was employed by JLP Manufacturing Corp, a New York
Corporation, at its offices at 775 Long Island Ave Medford, NY
11763, from approximately January 2004 until February 2023, where
his primary work duty was as a carpenter. However, despite the
mandatory pay obligations under the federal and state laws,
Defendants compensated Plaintiff at a straight rate of $15.83,
$18.33, $20, $23 and $25 per hour and failed to pay Plaintiff his
lawful overtime pay for that period from the relevant time period
of January 2017 until February 2023, where he worked well in excess
of 40 hours per workweek.
Based in Montclair, CA, JLP Manufacturing supplies high quality
sheet metal fabrications and precision welded assemblies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
JOHNSON CONTROLS: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Gumm Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2023,
that the Seventh Circuit affirmed the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin's decision to dismiss the
Gumm class suit amended complaint.
On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v.
Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming
Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of
directors at the time of the merger with the Company's merger
subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and the
Company's merger subsidiary as defendants.
The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal
securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights,
including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their
fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring
the merger among the Company, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a
manner that would result in a United States federal income tax
realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson
Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain
benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding
alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed
to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach
of contract.
The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the
Company and the Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the
individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment.
The complaint seeks, among other things, disgorgement of profits
and damages.
On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing of
the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion
seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to
make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will
impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the
merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to
the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by
this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger.
The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on
January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the
plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
February 15, 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on
April 3, 2017.
On October 17, 2019, the court heard oral arguments on the motion
to dismiss and took the matter under advisement.
On November 3, 2021, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.
On November 6, 2023, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of
the district court.
Johnson Controls International PLC is into engineering,
manufacturing and commissioning building products and systems
based
in Cork, Ireland.
KAISER FOUNDATION: Schmitt Seeks Certification of Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA SCHMITT; ELIZABETH
MOHUNDRO; and O.L. by and through her parents, J.L. and K.L., each
on their own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON; KAISER
FOUNDATION
HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON OPTIONS, INC.; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST; and KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01611-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying the proposed settlement class,
appointing Plaintiffs Schmitt, Mohundro and O.L., by and through
her parents, as the settlement class representatives, and
appointing Ms. Hamburger, Mr. Spoonemore, and Mr. Gross of Sirianni
Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger as settlement class counsel.
-- Proposed Settlement Class Definition
The Plaintiffs move for the certification of the following
settlement class:
"All individuals who:
(1) were insured at any time during the Settlement Class Period
under a Washington health insurance plan that has been, is
or
will be delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed by
Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan of Washington and Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan of Washington Options, excluding Medicare
Advantage plans and plans governed by Federal Employee
Health
Benefits Act, that did not cover Hearing Aids and
Associated
Services and
(2) have required, require or will require treatment for
hearing
loss other than treatment associated with cochlear
implants,
or with Bone Anchored Hearing Aids (BAHAs).
The Settlement Class Period is defined as October 30, 2014,
through December 31, 2023, inclusive.
The parties have executed a proposed Settlement Agreement.
That
Agreement, if approved, would create a $3,000,000.00 fund to
reimburse settlement class members for out-of-pocket costs
associated with hearing aids and related services during the
class
period, and to pay attorney fees, costs, claims administration
costs, and case contribution awards.
Kaiser operates as a non-profit health care organization.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41fzMO6 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
Daniel S. Gross, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com
rspoonemore@sylaw.com
dgross@sylaw.com
KARTOON STUDIOS: Faces Shareholder Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Kartoon Studios, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that it is currently facing
a case captioned "In re Genius Brands International, Inc.
Securities Litigation," Master File No. 2:20-cv-07457 DSF (RAOx) in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Lead plaintiffs alleged generally that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing allegedly false or misleading statements about the company,
initially over an alleged class period running from March into
early July 2020. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of
the alleged class of persons who invested in the company's common
stock during the alleged class period. Defendants moved to dismiss
lead plaintiffs' amended complaint, and in a decision issued on
August 30, 2021, the court dismissed the amended complaint but
granted lead plaintiffs a further opportunity to plead a claim.
On September 27, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, naming the same defendants. The new complaint alleged
again that the company made numerous false or misleading statements
about the company's business and business prospects, this time over
an expanded alleged class period that extended into March 2021;
they again alleged that these misstatements violated Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead plaintiffs again sought
unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons who
invested in the company's common stock during the expanded alleged
class period.
In November 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On July 15, 2022, the court issued a decision
dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety and with
prejudice. On August 12, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Briefing of the appeal has concluded, and calendar inquiries from
the Court of Appeals suggest that it may entertain a hearing on the
appeal in either November or December 2023. After full briefing of
the appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals held oral argument on
the appeal on November 6, 2023
Kartoon Studios, Inc. is a global content and brand management
company that creates, produces, licenses, and broadcasts timeless
and educational, multimedia animated content for children.
KENTUCKY: Class Suit Over Abortion Laws Voluntarily Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aprile Rickert of Louisville Public Media reports that the lawsuit
was filed in early December by a pregnant woman, listed as Jane
Doe, and Planned Parenthood, who argued the state's trigger ban on
abortion and six week ban violated her constitutional rights. The
ACLU and the ACLU of Kentucky represented the plaintiffs in court.
It was the first such lawsuit filed since Kentucky's abortion
restrictions went into effect last year following the United States
Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade.
This week's notice of voluntary dismissal comes after the ACLU
reported that the woman, who was around eight weeks pregnant when
she challenged the laws, learned that the embryo "no longer had any
cardiac activity," according to a news release.
At that time, ACLU spokespeople did not say whether Doe had been
confirmed to have had a miscarriage, and welcomed others to join
the class-action suit.
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, a Republican, issued an
advisory last October saying the state's near-total abortion ban
does not apply in cases of miscarriage.
The lawsuit came after a similar case brought by the state's two
abortion providers was dismissed earlier this year, when the state
Supreme Court ruled they lacked the standing to bring the case. The
court left open the possibility for a resident to challenge the
law, which is what Jane Doe did in the lawsuit before it was
dropped.
In a joint statement on December 18, 2023, the ACLU, ACLU Kentucky,
regional Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood Federation of
America encouraged others who are currently pregnant and interested
in bringing a case to reach out.
"The Kentucky Supreme Court's decision earlier this year to take
away health care providers' ability to raise the rights of their
patients has backed Kentuckians into a corner," the statement read,
in part. "The court's decision has forced Kentuckians seeking [an]
abortion to bring a lawsuit while in the middle of seeking
time-sensitive health care, a daunting feat, and one that should
not be necessary to reclaim the fundamental right to control their
own bodies. But we won't stop fighting." [GN]
LG CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Refrigerator Compressors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Roher and Carolyn Johnson of NBC Los Angeles report that
it's touted as the latest technology in refrigerators. A compressor
that keeps food fresh longer, lowers electricity costs, is quieter,
and durable.
LG says its new linear compressor is tested to last 20 years. But
some refrigerator owners, like Janet Moser, say that's not what's
happening.
"It's sort of like a ticking time bomb," she said.
Moser's Kenmore refrigerator stopped cooling after five years. A
repair technician told her the pricey compressor, which is made by
LG, failed.
"If I'm going to have to spend $1,500 to repair a refrigerator, and
refrigerators are $2,000, what am I going to do?" said Moser.
Attorney Azar Mouzari said others are asking that same question.
"Thousands, if not tens of thousands. We have been inundated with
calls," she said.
I-Team Investigations
NBCLA I-Team investigative reporters break local news on stories
that affect our community directly. Here are the latest
investigations out of LA and SoCal.
Mouzari is suing LG, along with the parent company of Kenmore and
multiple retailers that sell refrigerators with LG linear
compressors. She said the compressors are defective and conk out
within a few years, sometimes even just months. And when the
compressors are replaced, she says they often fail again.
Even worse, Mouzari said the companies know the compressors are
duds. In fact, LG has been sued over this issue before.
"We are alleging fraud. Because we're saying it's no longer a
question of these retailers and LG not knowing what the issue is.
They've known for over a decade now. And they've had multiple
chances to remedy the issue," she said.
Through her class action lawsuit, Mouzari hopes to extend the
warranty of the compressors, possibly up to 20 years, which is LG's
promised lifetime of the compressor. She also wants to secure
refunds for those who paid to replace their compressor.
"If it does want to sell the linear compressor, it needs to remedy
it. To come up with a way the linear compressor can do its job for
the state of 20 years," Mouzari said.
The I-Team reached out to LG and the parent company of Kenmore.
They both said they don't comment on pending litigation. The parent
company of Kenmore added that it's currently not selling
refrigerators with LG compressors.
As for Moser, Kenmore ended up replacing her compressor for free.
"I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the fix I got will last
hopefully another 10 years," she said.
But if it doesn't, she'll likely buy a new refrigerator, but a
different brand.
If you have problems with your LG or Kenmore refrigerator, you can
reach out to Azar Mouzari's team. [GN]
LIDO DAO: Faces Class Suit Over Crypto Losses
---------------------------------------------
Tom Blackstone of Cointelegraph reports that a LDO holder initiated
a class-action lawsuit against the governing body for liquid
staking protocol Lido, according to a complaint filed in a San
Francisco United States District Court on Dec. 17. The lawsuit
alleges that Lido's LDO token is an unregistered security and that
the Lido decentralized autonomous organization (Lido DAO) is liable
for plaintiffs' losses from the token's price decline.
Lido is a liquid staking protocol that allows users to delegate
their Ether ETH tickers down $2,228 to a network of validators and
earn staking rewards while also holding a derivative token called
stETH that can be used in other applications. It is governed by
holders of LDO, which collectively form Lido DAO.
The lawsuit was filed by Andrew Samuels, who resides in Solano
County, California, the document states. The defendants are Lido
DAO, as well as venture capital firms Paradigm, AH Capital
Management, Dragonfly Digital Management and investment management
company Robot Ventures. The document alleges that 64% of LDO tokens
"are dedicated to the founders and early investors like [these
defendants]," and therefore, "ordinary investors like Plaintiffs
are unable to exert any meaningful influence on governance
issues."
According to the filing, Lido DAO began as a "general partnership"
made up of institutional investors. But later, it decided to have
"a potential 'exit' opportunity." To facilitate this opportunity,
it decided to sell LDO tokens to the public by convincing
centralized exchanges to make them available on their platforms.
Once the tokens were listed, plaintiff Samuels and "thousands of
other investors" purchased them. The price then fell, causing
losses for these investors, the document alleges. It claims that
these firms are liable for the losses as a result.
Quoting U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler,
the document claimed that LDO is a security because there allegedly
is "a group in the middle [between the tokens and investors], and
the public is anticipating profits based on that group."
Cointelegraph contacted Lido DAO representatives but did not
receive a response by the time of publication.
According to data from blockchain analytics platform DefiLlama,
Lido has the largest total value locked of any liquid staking
derivative, with more than $19 billion worth of cryptocurrency
locked within its contracts. The Lido governance token reached an
all-time high during the last bull market, when it sold for $6.41
per coin on Aug. 20, 2021. It currently sits at $2.08 per coin.
[GN]
LOANDEPOT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Lending Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Next reports that homeowners in Dallas County have filed two
separate class-action lawsuits against mortgage lenders loanDepot
and Cardinal Financial, according to several reports. They are
accusing each of deceptive practices, negligent misrepresentation,
and gross negligence.
The homeowners allege that the companies' employees advised them to
miss mortgage payments on recently refinanced or modified
mortgages. However, they failed to disclose the impact or negative
effects of skipping or delaying certain payments. As a result, the
homeowners say they ended up paying additional interest on their
loans, while the lenders gained tens of millions of dollars.
The lawsuits claim the companies violated the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.
Both companies have rejected attempts to settle outside of court.
The homeowners believe the class action lawsuit could include
hundreds of thousands of people. [GN]
LOVESAC COMPANY: Gutknecht Sues Over 2.95% Drop of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT GUTKNECHT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE LOVESAC COMPANY, SHAWN NELSON,
and DONNA DELLOMO, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01640 (D. Conn.,
December 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Lovesac's business, operations,
and compliance policies in order to trade Lovesac securities at
artificially inflated prices between March 30, 2023 and August 16,
2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) Lovesac did not properly account for last mile shipping
and freight expenses; (ii) accordingly, Lovesac's disclosure
controls and procedures and internal control over financial
reporting were ineffective and deficient; (iii) as a result of all
the foregoing, Lovesac overstated its gross profit and operating
and net income, as well as understated its shipping and handling
costs and accrued freight and shipping expenses, in its previously
issued financial statements; (iv) accordingly, Lovesac was likely
to restate one or more of its previously issued financial
statements; and (v) as a result, the company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, Lovesac's stock price fell $0.70 per share,
or 2.95 percent, to close at $23.06 per share on August 17, 2023,
the suit alleges.
The Lovesac Company is a furniture manufacturer, with principal
executive offices located at Two Landmark Square, Suite 300,
Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily C. Finestone, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: efinestone@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
MAXIMUS INC: Data Breach Suit Consolidated
-------------------------------------------
Maximus, 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 16, 2023, that on October 4, 2023,
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
granted a Motion to Transfer that created a Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL) in the District of Massachusetts for all cases in
federal court related to a cybersecurity incident involving the app
"MOVEit,", including cases filed against Maximus and other
defendants.
On August 1, 2023, a purported class action was filed against
Maximus Federal Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Maximus, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia arising out the MOVEit breach captioned "Bishop v.
Maximus Federal Services," Case No. 1:23-cv-01019.
The plaintiff, who purports to represent a nationwide class of
individuals, alleges, among other things, that the company's
negligence resulted in the compromise of the plaintiff's personally
identifiable information and protected health information.
All of the cases against Maximus, Inc. and its subsidiaries in
federal courts outside of the District of Massachusetts that are
related to the MOVEit cybersecurity incident have now been
transferred to the MDL under the caption "In re: MOVEit Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation."
The plaintiffs in Bishop and the other cases against the company in
the MDL seek damages to be proved at trial.
Maximus covers a broad array of services, including the operation
of large health insurance eligibility and enrollment programs,
clinical services, including assessments, appeals, and independent
medical reviews and technology services.
MAXIMUS INC: Faces Garcia Data Breach Suit in Indiana Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maximus, 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 16, 2023, that on October 27, 2023,
a purported class action was filed in state court in Marion
Superior Court in Marion County, Indiana, against Maximus Health
Services, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Maximus, Inc.)
captioned "Solis Garcia v. Maximus Health Services, Inc.," Case No.
49D12-2310-CT-042115, related to a cybersecurity incident involving
the app "MOVEit."
The plaintiff, who purports to represent a class comprised of
Indiana residents, alleges, among other things that the company's
negligence resulted in the compromise of the plaintiff's personally
identifiable information and protected health information. The
plaintiff seeks damages to be proved at trial.
Maximus covers a broad array of services, including the operation
of large health insurance eligibility and enrollment programs,
clinical services, including assessments, appeals, and independent
medical reviews and technology services.
MCPHERSON OIL: Class Certification Sched Order Entered in Johnston
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECIL JOHNSTON, on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated, v. MCPHERSON OIL
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01023-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Christopher D. Baker entered a class certification scheduling
order as follows:
-- Fact Discovery Cut-off: June 14, 2024
-- Mid-Discovery Status Conference: April 11,
2024
-- Expert Disclosures: June 29, 2024
-- Rebuttal Disclosures: July 14, 2024
-- Expert Discovery Cut-off: Aug. 13, 2024
-- Motion Deadlines:
Filing: Sept. 6, 2024
Opposition: Oct. 6, 2024
Reply: Oct. 20, 2024
Hearing: Nov. 13, 2024
McPherson Oil is a provider of all fuel products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NjMkyc at no extra charge.[CC]
MENARD INC: Extension of Deadline in Scheduling Order Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glenn Shoemaker, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Menard, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04089-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order extending the deadlines in the Scheduling
Order:
1. This is a putative consumer class action involving
Defendants'
alleged deceptive acts relating to the sale of bonded
abrasive
wheels. This action was originally filed on June 10, 2022.
Doc.
2. The parties have engaged in active litigation and conducted a
second round of mediation on November 2, 2023, with mediator
Scott Hecht.
3. The mediation was productive, although no settlement was
reached.
4. Since that time, the parties have continued to engage in
litigation, including the disclosure of expert reports, and
negotiations are making progress.
5. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is due on December
11, 2023.
6. To preserve the parties' resources and so that they can
continue
to attempt to negotiate a resolution, the parties
respectfully
seek a 45-day extension to file Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification or, alternatively, submit a joint status report
notifying the Court of a settlement, whichever occurs first.
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the class
certification deadlines be extended as follows:
a. All pre-trial discovery as to class certification shall be
completed by January 25, 2024.
b. Plaintiff shall file all motions seeking class certification
by
January 25, 2024.
c. Defendants shall file any responsive motions objecting to
class
certification by February 26, 2024.
Menard is an American home improvement retail company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4880GtF at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul D. Anderson, Esq.
Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, P.C.
221 W. Lexington, Suite 400
Independence, MO 64050
Telephone: (816) 836-5050
Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
pda@hfmlegal.com
jms@hfmlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Theodore A. Kardis, Esq.
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
7777 Bonhomme Ave Suite 1900
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (618) 307-4516
Facsimile: (618) 307.0221
E-mail: theodore.kardis@wilsonelser.com
MID-FLORIDA PATHOLOGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campbell Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHERICIA CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MID-FLORIDA PATHOLOGY, LLC;
STRATEGIC BUSINESS OUTSOURCING, LLC.; and OLEKSANDR ONUSHKO,
Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-02362 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 8, 2023) is an
action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
Plaintiff Campbell was employed by the Defendants as a lab
assistant.
MID-FLORIDA PATHOLOGY, LLC specializes in providing personalized
customer service plans, pathologist consultations, and gynecologic
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS: Hineses Seek to Amend Conditional Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARQUIS HINES and RONALD
HINES on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC formerly known as LogistiCare Solutions,
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-HEH (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting motion to supplement and/or amend
their motion for conditional certification and notice to putative
collective members in light of the discovery provided by the
Defendant attendant to the resolution of the Plaintiffs' motion to
compel.
ModivCare provides non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT),
personal and home care, and nutritional meal delivery.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4ajPoVd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
Thomas E. Strelka, Esq.
STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW
4227 Colonial Avenue
Roanoke, VA 24018
Telephone: (540) 283-0802
E-mail: brittany@strelkalaw.com
thomas@strelkalaw.com
- and -
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
MOL EUROPE: Tribunal Approves Car Shipping Collective Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MacFarlanes reports that last week, the Competition Appeal Tribunal
(the Tribunal) published the first judgment approving a collective
settlement since the UK class action regime came into force.
This follows a joint application for a collective settlement
approval order (CSAO) made by the class representative, Mark
McLaren, and Compania Sudamericana De Vapores S.A. (CSAV), one of
the twelve defendants in a follow-on competition damages claim
arising out of the European Commission's decision on maritime
shipping of motor vehicles.
Pursuant to section 49A of the Competition Act 1998 and Rule 94 of
the Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules 2015, opt-out collective
proceedings can only be settled with approval from the Tribunal. To
approve a collective settlement, which binds all persons falling
within the defined class, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the
settlement terms are "just and reasonable" (applying factors set
out in the Competition Appeal Tribunal Guide 2015 (the Guide)).
Substantial evidence was filed by the class representative and CSAV
in support of their application, including witness statements from
the parties, their legal advisers, the claims administrators, the
class representative's economic expert and an independent lawyer
addressing the merits of the proposed settlement. Notice of the
application for a CSAO was also given to the class members,
although no submissions were received by the Tribunal. Considering
the factors in Rule 94 and the Guide, the Tribunal commented:
"Litigation is expensive and uncertain; we cannot determine now, on
an application like the present, the precise value of the claims,
and what is subjectively speaking the amount that would be likely
to be awarded by a Tribunal against this Defendant at the end of
the day. However we are satisfied that both the damages sum and the
cost sums are fair and reasonable." The settlement was therefore
approved during the hearing on 6 December 2023. Given the size of
the settlement as a proportion of the overall claimed damages, the
Tribunal held that any distribution of the settlement sum to the
class should be deferred until later.
An interesting feature of this settlement agreement is that it
includes a "reverter" mechanism, whereby CSAV will receive its
settlement monies back on a "first in last out" basis in the event
that any money is left after distribution to class members. The
Tribunal considered that the reverter mechanism was "reasonable"
but deferred any decision on this for a later date.
Although this settlement is notable for being the first collective
settlement that has been considered and approved by the Tribunal
since the regime came into force, the amount of the settlement at
GBP1.5m is a small proportion of the overall claim. By way of
context, the economic expert advising the class representative
valued the claims at GBP147m, but CSAV is the smallest defendant in
these proceedings with only 1.7% market share. It remains to be
seen the extent to which collective settlements of much higher
value raise additional issues or call for further scrutiny.
One notable feature of the collective action regime that this
judgment has brought into focus is the potential lack of
confidentiality surrounding settlements. Typically, settlement
negotiations between parties and any subsequent agreements are
highly confidential. However, in this case, extensive details about
the settlement amounts, the reasoning and to some extent the terms
in the agreement itself are set out in the judgment and were made
available in advance of the hearing. Whilst this is perhaps
unsurprising given the need for a Tribunal application and
transparency for class members, it will certainly provide parties
with further considerations to bear in mind when entering into
settlement discussions in similar cases. [GN]
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Bid to File Docs Under Seal OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
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, SHERRI LINDBO, JENNIFER
MCNULTY, JANE DOE 2, VIDA WILKINSON, 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 Hon.
Judge Brian Morris entered an order granting the Defendants' motion
to file under seal:
-- The Defendants may file an unredacted copy of Exhibit A to
Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Deny Class
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 Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48eazpx at no extra charge.[CC]
MUSTANG FUEL: Filing for Class Certification Due May 29, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wake Energy LLC, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Mustang Fuel
Corporation and Mustang Gas Products, LLC, Case No.
6:22-cv-00364-RAW-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gerald L.
Jackson entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
Plaintiff's expert reports in support of February 22, 2024
class certification due
Defendant's expert reports in opposition March 27, 2024
to class certification due
Expert depositions to be completed by April 30, 2024
Plaintiff's deadline to file class May 29, 2024
certification motion and briefing
Defendants' deadline to file response 28 days after
to class certification motion Plaintiff files
class
certification
motion
and briefing
Evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's Sept. 25, 2024
Motion for Class Certification.
Mustang Fuel is an oil & energy company specializing in processing
and natural gas marketing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NlOe1u at no extra charge.[CC]
N-ABLE INC: Stockholders' Agreement Hit in Del. Ch. Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
N-able, 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 13, 2023, that oral arguments have
been set for February 6, 2024 with regards to a Complaint for
Declaratory Relief in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the company seeking, among other relief, class
action certification and a declaratory judgement that certain
provisions in the Stockholders' Agreement are unenforceable,
including, among others, provisions relating to the election and
removal of directors, the composition of committees and the hiring,
or termination of the employment, of the company's chief executive
officer.
The company is party to a stockholders' agreement dated as of July
19, 2021, by and among N-able, Inc. and the stockholders named
therein, as amended December 13, 2021. On March 16, 2023, a
stockholder who is not party to the agreement filed.
N-able, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with its
subsidiaries is a leading global provider of cloud-based software
solutions for managed service providers, enabling them to support
digital transformation and growth for small and medium-sized
enterprises.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Carter Alleges Price Fixing of Scholarships
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEWAYNE CARTER, NYA HARRISON, and SEDONA PRINCE, on behalf of
themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; PAC-12 CONFERENCE; THE BIG TEN
CONFERENCE, INC.; THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE, INC.; SOUTHEASTERN
CONFERENCE; and ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-06325 (N.D. Cal., December 7, 2023) challenges the
Defendants' anticompetitive "pay-for-play" rules and seeks damages
and an injunction so that the college athletes can finally be
compensated in a fair and just manner for their extraordinary
athletic talents. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated
the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, without any pro-competitive
justification under the antitrust laws, or basic fairness,
Defendants National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Power
Five Conferences, and their member schools, have exercised their
monopsonistic power in the labor markets for Division I college
sports by fixing the price of scholarships for college athletes. To
effectuate this restraint among horizontal competitors, the
Defendants have passed a byzantine set of rules prohibiting the
extremely talented young men and women who generate billions of
dollars for the Division I sports business from receiving any
compensation for their athletic services beyond an athletic
scholarship and certain types of education-related benefits, the
suit says.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, IN, NCAA describes itself as an
unincorporated not-for-profit educational organization founded in
1906. It is composed of more than 1,100 colleges, universities, and
athletic conferences located throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: bens@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
David G. Feher, Esq.
David L. Greenspan, Esq.
Adam I. Dale, Esq.
Sarah L. Viebrock, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-4193
Telephone: (212) 294-4698
Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
E-mail: jkessler@winston.com
dfeher@winston.com
dgreenspan@winston.com
aidale@winston.com
sviebrock@winston.com
- and -
Jeanifer E. Parsigian, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-1000
Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
E-mail: jparsigian@winston.com
NAVY FEDERAL: Discriminates Black, Latino Lending Applicants
------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Marsh, Casey Tolan and Audrey Ash of CNN report that the
largest credit union in the US is facing new scrutiny over racial
disparities in its mortgage lending following a CNN investigative
report, with a class-action lawsuit filed on December 18, 2023
alleging the lender discriminated against Black and Latino
applicants, and a senior congressional Democrat demanding answers
about its practices.
The complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union, filed in federal
court in Virginia on December 17, 2023, comes on the heels of CNN's
story, which found the credit union had the widest disparity in
conventional mortgage approval rates between White and Black
borrowers of any major lender last year.
"When describing its corporate values, Navy Federal claims that it
'champions community,' and that it is 'dedicated…to embracing and
celebrating diversity and inclusion in all the communities' it
serves," the complaint, which cites CNN's reporting, states. "But
Navy Federal's claims of community support are meaningless in the
face of its actions: systematic discrimination in housing, in
violation of federal law."
While CNN's analysis did not prove Navy Federal is discriminating
against borrowers, it did find significant racial gaps in the
credit union's mortgage approval rates.
The credit union didn't respond to CNN’s requests for comment
this week. On December 12, 2023, it announced that it had hired
Debo P. Adegbile, a leading civil rights attorney and former
commissioner of the US Commission on Civil Rights, to "assess our
mortgage lending policies and practices and make recommendations to
drive further access to home ownership."
Navy Federal, which lends to military servicemembers, defense
personnel, veterans, and their families approved more than 75% of
the White borrowers who applied for a new conventional home
purchase mortgage in 2022, according to the most recent data
available from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But less
than 50% of Black borrowers who applied for the same type of loan
were approved.
The nearly 29-percentage-point gap in Navy Federal's approval rates
was the widest of any of the 50 lenders that originated the most
mortgage loans last year. The disparity remained even after
accounting for variables such as applicants' income, debt-to-income
ratio, property value, and down payment percentage, CNN's review
found.
In total, the credit union rejected about 3,700 Black applicants
for home purchase mortgages last year, potentially blocking them
from homeownership just as interest rates spiked. And Navy Federal
also approved Latino borrowers at significantly lower rates than
White borrowers.
US Rep. Maxine Waters, the ranking Democratic member of the House
Financial Services Committee, said in a statement on December 18,
2023 that she was "appalled" by CNN's findings.
"Navy Federal must explain both to Congress and their members how
such practices took place, what immediate steps are being taken to
correct the harm done, and who in management will be held
responsible," Waters said. She also urged the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and National Credit Union Administration, two
federal regulators that oversee Navy Federal, to "promptly
investigate this matter."
"While this type of discrimination may be par for the course for a
profit-driven megabank, a member-driven credit union should know
better," Waters added.
The lawsuit – filed by multiple law firms, including that of
civil rights attorney Ben Crump – details the stories of two
named plaintiffs whose mortgage applications were denied by Navy
Federal:
Cherelle Jacob, a 40-year-old Black resident of Washington state,
and her husband, who is in the armed services, together "make
approximately $200,000 in salary, have no debt, have ample savings,
and both have 'exceptional' credit scores above 800," according to
the complaint. The suit says Jacob and her husband sought a
mortgage from Navy Federal in October 2023 "to support the purchase
of a modest family home" and were denied, before being approved by
another lender.
Laquita Oliver, a 44-year-old Black resident of Miami Dade County,
Florida, works as a capital improvement project analyst and had
previously co-owned a small business. According to the complaint,
"she makes approximately $100,000 per year in salary, has good
credit, a history of home ownership, and very little debt." After a
month-long process, her mortgage application was denied.
The lawsuit accuses Navy Federal of violating the Fair Housing Act
of 1968 and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibit
lending discrimination based on race.
The suit seeks to represent a broad class of potential plaintiffs:
all Navy Federal minority residential loan applicants from 2018
through the present whose applications were denied, approved at
higher interest rates or subject to less favorable terms compared
to similar non-minority applicants, as well as those whose
applications were processed more slowly than typical.
"Our goal in filing this lawsuit is to obtain economic justice for
Black and Latino borrowers, who, we allege, Navy Federal denied
their piece of the American Dream," attorney Adam Levitt, who is
representing one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
In a statement last week, Navy Federal spokesperson Bill Pearson
defended the credit union's lending practices.
"Navy Federal Credit Union is committed to equal and equitable
lending practices and strict adherence to all fair lending laws,"
Pearson said. "Employee training, fair lending statistical testing,
third-party evaluations, and compliance reviews are embedded in our
lending practices to ensure fairness across the board."
Pearson said that CNN's analysis “does not accurately reflect our
practices” because it did not account for "major criteria
required by any financial institution to approve a mortgage loan."
Those factors included "credit score, available cash deposits and
relationship history with lender," he said.
But that information is not available in the public mortgage data.
Navy Federal declined to release additional data about its loans to
CNN that included borrowers’ credit scores or other
variables. In addition, most of the Navy Federal applications
that were denied are listed as being rejected for reasons other
than "credit history."
Editor's Note: This story has been updated with Navy Federal Credit
Union's announcement that it hired a civil rights attorney to
review its mortgage lending policies. [GN]
NEWARK, NJ: Class Action Settlement in Aziz FLSA Suit Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman of JD Supra reports that the FLSA regulations on
training time are very specific and, often, hard for an employer to
comply with. There are four conditions precedent for such time to
be non-compensable and they must all be satisfied or else the time
is working time. A recent case involving Newark, New Jersey police
officers illustrates these principles. The case is entitled Aziz et
al. v. City of Newark and was filed in federal court in the
District of New Jersey.
The conditions precedent to establish the non-compensability of
training time are: 1) the training must be outside of regular
working hours; 2) it must be voluntarily attended; 3) the training
cannot be related to the employee's current job; and 4) the
employee cannot perform any productive work during the training.
The plaintiffs have asked the court to approve the settlement
reached. The City would put $2.7 million into a fund, from which
185 employees who opted into the action will share. These officers
all attended training at the Sea Girt Police Academy in 2017 and
2018. The named plaintiffs will each get $10,000 payments; the
lawyers will receive more than one million dollars in fees. Almost
one third of the original class members were eliminated as their
claims were submitted in an untimely manner.
The plaintiffs alleged they were not paid for training time when
they worked almost eighty hours per week at the Sea Girt Police
Academy in 2017-2018. Many officers had missed the deadline to opt
in; the plaintiffs urged that the statute of limitations should be
tolled because the defendants had supposedly sought to deceive the
officers about their right to overtime with "false" waivers for
overtime claims. The Judge ruled that the officers who missed the
time deadlines had not alleged they were actually misled by the
waivers so their efforts to join the suit were denied.
The Judge also ruled that the existence of the COVID-19 pandemic
did not hamper their ability to sign the single piece of paper to
join the lawsuit. They were unable to specify the manner in which
the pandemic adversely impacted their ability to become members of
the class. The Judge also refused to issue injunctive relief
because the plaintiffs could not prove they would suffer future
harm.
The Takeaway
There was an element of compulsion here as the officer candidates
were clearly obligated to undergo the training. The training time
can be paid at the minimum wage (State or federal, whichever is
higher) but something must be paid for this time. Employers need be
aware that all four conditions must be complied with/met in order
for employers to assert that such training time is not working
time.
Sometimes, this is a hard lesson to learn . . .[GN]
NISSAN NORTH: Carper Sues Over Defective Vehicle's Paint
--------------------------------------------------------
MELODY CARPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-01293 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action suit
by the Plaintiff and the class of other individuals who purchased
Nissan brand vehicles manufactured and sold by Defendant, to obtain
relief from the Defendant regarding the serious defect in the
vehicles' paint.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the defect has resulted
in unsightly discoloration, delamination, and peeling, and as a
result has caused a substantial decline in the resale value of the
vehicles. Despite knowledge of this defect and previous litigation
regarding this issue in the past, the Defendant has failed to
disclose the existence of the defect to purchasers of its vehicles
and has also refused to provide repairs that it otherwise promises
under its new vehicle warranty, says the Plaintiff.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. operates in the automotive industry. The
Company designs, develops, and manufactures Nissan vehicles and
distributes them through dealers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin E. Wallis III, Esq.
GLASSMAN, WYATT, TUTTLE & COX, P.C.
26 North Second Street
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 527-4673
Email: ewallis@gwtclaw.com
ONTRAK INC: Faces Braun Securities Suit in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ontrak, 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 20, 2023, that the parties in a
purported securities class action filed in the Superior Court of
California for Los Angeles County, entitled "Braun v. Ontrak, Inc.,
et al." (Case No. 22STCV07174) are engaged in early stages of
discovery where on November 3, 2023, the United States Attorneys'
Office filed an application for leave to intervene and stay
discovery pending resolution of a federal criminal case. On
November 8, 2023, the court set the government's motion for hearing
last December 14, 2023 and issued an order temporarily staying all
discovery in the action pending resolution of the motion.
On February 28, 2022, this securities class action was filed on
behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Series A
Preferred Stock pursuant to Registration Statements and
Prospectuses issued in connection with Ontrak's August 21, 2020
initial public stock offering, its September 2020 through December
2020 "at market" offering, and its December 16, 2020 follow-on
stock offering. The plaintiff brings this action against the
company, its officers Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne, and
Christopher Shirley, its board members Richard A. Berman, Sharon
Gabrielson, Gustavo Giraldo, Katherine B. Quinn, Robert Rebak,
Diane Seloff, Michael Sherman, and Edward Zecchini and the
investment banking firms that acted as underwriters for the
Preferred Stock Offerings: B. Riley Securities, Inc., Ladenburg
Thalmann & Co., Inc., William Blair & Company, LLC, Aegis Capital
Corp., Insperex LLC (f/k/a Incapital LLC), The Benchmark Company,
LLC, Boenning & Scatteredgood, Inc., Colliers Securities, LLC,
Kingswood Capital Markets, and ThinkEquity.
The plaintiff asserts three causes of action alleging that Ontrak
violated the Securities Act of 1933 by failing to disclose facts
required to be disclosed under SEC Regulation S-K items 105 and
303, that Aetna had turned off the data feed of customer records to
Ontrak citing dissatisfaction with the company's value proposition
and billing practices and thereafter submitted a CAP to which
Ontrak's senior executives were unable to effectively respond and
by issuing allegedly false or misleading statements in its
Registration Statements and Prospectuses regarding Ontrak's growing
customer base, regarding its ability to scale its operations, that
revenue from a limited number of its customers would continue, that
its services are provided to customers continuously, that revenue
increases were attributable to continued expansion of the Ontrak
program and regarding the healthcare experience of its executives.
The plaintiff seeks damages in an indeterminate amount.
On July 7, 2022, the defendants filed demurrers to the complaint.
On October 4, 2022, the court issued its ruling, allowing the case
to proceed but with a narrowed scope. Specifically, of the six
alleged misleading statements, only two remain. The court sustained
the company's demurrer to the second cause of action, for violation
of Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, with leave to amend.
On November 18, 2022, plaintiff filed his Motion for Class
Certification. On February 17, 2023, the company filed its
opposition and joined in the opposition of its underwriters. On
April 17, 2023, plaintiffs filed their reply. On May 26, 2023, the
defendants filed an omnibus sur-reply. The hearing on plaintiff's
motion was held on June 16, 2023. In advance of the hearing, the
court issued a tentative ruling certifying the Section 11 and 15
aspects of the class but denying certification of the Section 12
aspect of the class at this time, with leave for plaintiff to find
a new class representative for the Section 12 subclass. Following
oral argument, the court took the motion under submission and
thereafter issued its "final ruling" on class certification on June
30, 2023. In its ruling, the court largely adopted its tentative
ruling and found the class is ascertainable as to all causes of
action but that plaintiff's Section 12 claims were not typical of
the class. The court set an interim status conference last August
31, 2023 and continued the hearing on plaintiff's motion for class
certification last October 10, 2023.
Ontrak, Inc. is an artificial intelligence powered and
telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company with a platform
that provides claim-based analytics and predictive modeling to
provide analytic insights throughout the delivery of personalized
treatment program.
ONTRAK INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ontrak, 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 20, 2023, that it is facing a
consolidated securities class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
On March 3, 2021, a purported securities class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, entitled "Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc.," Case No.
2:21-cv-01987.
On July 14, 2021, the court consolidated it under "Farhar v.
Ontrak, Inc.," appointed Ibinabo Dick as lead plaintiff, and the
Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel. On August 13, 2021, lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint where lead plaintiff,
purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Ontrak
securities from August 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021, alleged
that the company and Terren S. Peizer, Brandon H. LaVerne and
Curtis Medeiros, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by intentionally or recklessly
making false and misleading statements and omissions in various
press releases, SEC filings and conference calls with investors on
August 5, 2020 and November 5, 2020. It alleged that the company
was inappropriately billing its largest customer, Aetna, causing
Aetna to, in May 2020, shut off its data feed to Ontrak, and, in
July 2020, require Ontrak to complete a Corrective Action Plan
(CAP). Lead plaintiff alleged that defendants misrepresented to
investors that the data feed was shut off in July 2020, and that it
was part of Aetna's standard compliance review of all of its
vendors, failed to disclose to investors that Aetna had issued the
CAP and failed to disclose to investors that Ontrak was engaging in
inappropriate billing practices. Lead plaintiff seeks certification
of a class and monetary damages in an indeterminate amount.
On September 13, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The motion was taken
under submission, with no oral argument.
Prior to any ruling being issued on the motion to dismiss, on March
29, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. The
Second Amended Complaint added Jonathan Mayhew as a defendant,
expands the purported class period to August 5, 2020 through August
19, 2021 and now includes allegations that the defendants
additionally intentionally or recklessly made false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the company's relationship with
its then-second largest customer, Cigna, in various press releases,
SEC filings and conference calls with investors on May 6, 2021 and
August 5, 2021.
On May 15, 2023, the company filed its motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. That motion is now fully-briefed, and has been
taken under submission by the court.
Ontrak, Inc. is an artificial intelligence powered and
telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company with a platform
that provides claim-based analytics and predictive modeling to
provide analytic insights throughout the delivery of personalized
treatment program.
PAYSIGN INC: $3.75M Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Gets Prelim OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash of Bloomberg Law reports that Paysign Inc.'s
proposed $3.75 million settlement with shareholders over the
payment technology company's alleged employment of a suspended
accountant merits preliminary approval, the parties told a federal
court.
The amount represents "almost 10% of the roughly $37.7 million of
Plaintiffs' estimated aggregate damages," Paysign and the investors
said in a Dec. 15 filing with the US District Court for the
District of Nevada.
Result would be well above typical for a securities class action
settlement, the parties said.
Judge Gloria M. Navarro ruled in February that the investors could
proceed with allegations that Paysign employed suspended accountant
Arthur De Joya. [GN]
PERDUE FARMS: Parker Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER PARKER, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PERDUE
FARMS, INC. and PERDUE FOODS, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00268-TES (M.D.
Ga.), the Plaintiffs file a motion for conditional certification
and
to facilitate notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b).
Thus, Plaintiffs' Motion to Facilitate Notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) should be granted and the Court should:
(1) order Perdue to produce a list of individuals in the
collective, and
(2) authorize the attached Notice and Opt-in Form to be
distributed
to the potential collective members as soon as practicable.
Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
Plaintiff Parker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, request that the Court conditionally certify the
following collective:
"All individuals who currently or formerly grew chickens for
Perdue
under a Perdue Poultry Producer Agreement from [insert date
three
years prior to the date that the Court issues an Order granting
Conditional Certification] and the present (the "FLSA
Collective").
Perdue Farms produces poultry products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46UPoIj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie Crooks, Esq.
FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP
1825 7th St NW, 821
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (617) 721-3587
E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com
- and -
T. Brandon Waddell, Esq.
Jarred A. Klorfein, Esq.
CAPLAN COBB LLC
75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2700
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 596-5600
Facsimile: (404) 596-5604
E-mail: bwadell@caplancobb.com
jklorfein@caplancobb.com
PERFECT DEALER: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Perfect Dealer,
Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Liz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. A Perfect Dealer, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-10670-JLR (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A Perfect Dealer, Inc. -- https://www.aperfectdealer.com/ -- is a
family owned and operated shoes and apparel store, online since
1998 and located in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
PIONEER BANCORP: Bid to Dismiss Brandes Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Form for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2023, that the
motion to dismiss the Brandes class suit remains pending before
Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County.
On September 2, 2022, a putative class action complaint wase filed
against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York for Albany County.
The complaint was filed by Brandes & Yancy PLLC and Ricardo's
Restaurant, Inc., two alleged clients of Southwestern which seek to
assert claims on behalf of all current or former Southwestern
clients based on the same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite
Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes
sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints.
The complaint asserst claims against the Pioneer Parties for
conversion, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting
fraud, and a declaratory judgment.
It also seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus
pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and
reasonable attorneys’ fees.
The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaint as of
December 30, 2022.
On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed motions to dismiss
the complaint.
On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended complaint that
assert the same causes of action but include additional
allegations.
On April 27, 2023, the Pioneer Parties elected to withdraw their
pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.
The Pioneer Parties filed renewed motions to dismiss on June 26,
2023.
On August 25, 2023, plaintiffs in the class action filed their
responses to the renewed motions to dismiss filed by the Pioneer
Parties.
On October 6, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed their reply to the
response of the plaintiffs.
The motion remains pending before the Court.
Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. is a mid-tier stock holding company whose
wholly owned subsidiary is Pioneer Bank. The Bank is a New York
State chartered savings bank whose wholly owned subsidiaries are
Pioneer Commercial Bank, Anchor Agency, Inc. and Pioneer Financial
Services, Inc. It provides diversified financial services through
the Bank and its subsidiaries, with 22 offices in the Capital
Region of New York State.
PIONEER BANCORP: Bid to Junk O'Malley Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Bancorp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Form for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2023, that the
motion to dismiss the O'Malley Oven class suit remains pending
before Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County.
On September 2, 2022, a putative class action complaints were filed
against the Pioneer Parties in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York for Albany County.
The complaint was filed by O'Malley's Oven LLC and Legat
Architects, Inc., two alleged clients of MyPayrollHR.Com, LLC and
ProData Payroll Services, Inc., affiliates of Cloud Payroll, LLC
(collectively, "Cloud Payroll").
The two named plaintiffs in the complaint and seeks to assert
claims on behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll clients
based on the same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite
Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes
sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints.
It asserts claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross
negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious
interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a
declaratory judgment.
It also seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus
pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and
reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaint as of
December 30, 2022.
On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed motions to dismiss
the complaint.
On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended complaint that
assert the same causes of action but include additional
allegations.
On April 27, 2023, the Pioneer Parties elected to withdraw their
pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints.
The Pioneer Parties filed renewed motions to dismiss on June 26,
2023.
On August 25, 2023, plaintiffs filed their responses to the renewed
motions to dismiss filed by the Pioneer Parties.
On October 6, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed their reply to the
response of the plaintiffs.
The motion remains pending before the Court.
Pioneer Bancorp, Inc. is a mid-tier stock holding company whose
wholly owned subsidiary is Pioneer Bank. The Bank is a New York
State chartered savings bank whose wholly owned subsidiaries are
Pioneer Commercial Bank, Anchor Agency, Inc. and Pioneer Financial
Services, Inc. It provides diversified financial services through
the Bank and its subsidiaries, with 22 offices in the Capital
Region of New York State.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY YAGHYAZARIAN and
ELENA THORMAHLEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY and
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Ohio corporations, Case No.
2:22-cv-01339-CDS-VCF (D. Nev.), the Parties file a joint
stipulation for extension of time for class certification briefing,
expert disclosures, and to amend the case management order:
Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures Dec. 7, 2023 Jan. 31,
2024
Plaintiffs' Motion for Dec. 7, 2023 Jan. 31,
2024
Class Certification
Defendants' Expert Disclosures Feb. 12, 2024 Apr. 8,
2024
Defendants' Opposition Feb. 12, 2024 Apr. 8,
2024
to Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support Mar. 26, 2024 May 20,
202
of Class Certification
Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty
insurance.
A copy of the Parties' dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48ciDY1 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Christopher Gold, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 673-2405
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
chris@edelsberglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison Hill White, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
- and -
James E. Whitmire, Esq.
SANTORO WHITMIRE
10100 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 250
PSYCHEMEDICS CORP: Settles Labor Suit in California Court for $1.2M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychemedics Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in November 13, 2023, that on
November 2, 2023, the company paid $1.2M as settlement of a
purported class action lawsuit related to certain California wage
and hour laws.
On December 6, 2021, the company entered into a binding Memorandum
of Understanding to settle case captioned "Enma Sagastume v.
Psychemedics Corporation," Case No. 2:20-CV-06624-DSF, pending in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
Psychemedics Corporation provides patented, FDA-cleared, CAP
certified clinical laboratory services for the detection of drugs
of abuse.
ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 29, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY MEEHAN and CESAR
E. CIRVERA SANTAMARIA, on behalf of themselves and those similar
situated, v. ROADMASTER DRIVERS SCHOOL, INC., Case No.
5:22-cv-04299-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher
entered an fourth amended scheduling order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class
certification shall be February 29, 2024, Defendants'
deadline
to respond shall be March 14, 2024, and Plaintiffs’
deadline to
file a reply brief in further support of the motion shall be
March 21, 2024.
2. Motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions, if any,
shall
be filed by May 22, 2024.
3. No later than August 28, 2024, counsel for each party shall
serve upon counsel for every other party a copy of each
exhibit
the party expects to offer at trial.
Roadmaster is a Class A CDL Truck Driving School with multiple
campuses located across the USA.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47Srheo at no extra charge.[CC]
RUMBLE INC: Faces Video Piracy Suit in M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------
Rumble 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 13 2023, that it is currently
facing a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Video Privacy Protection Act in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida as of September 30, 2023.
Rumble Inc. is a full-service video technology provider offering
customizable video players, original content videos, and a library
of advertisements for use with its video players.
RXO LAST MILE: Seeks to Decertify Class in Gonzalez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON GONZALEZ, VICTOR
RODRIGUEZ ORTIZ, and ADDELYN MARTE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. RXO LAST MILE, INC., d/b/a RXO
LOGISTICS, Case No. 1:19-cv-10290-TSH (D. Mass.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order vacating its January 10, 2022
Order and decertifying the certified class.
RXO is a last mile provider.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41i9Pxr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Douglas J. Hoffman, Esq.
Adam L. Lounsbury, Esq.
D. Paul Holdsworth, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 367-0025
Facsimile: (617) 367-2155
E-mail: Douglas.Hoffman@jacksonlewis.com
Adam.Lounsbury@jacksonlewis.com
Paul.Holdsworth@jacksonlewis.com
SANMINA CORP: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
--------------------------------------------------
Sanmina Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 16, 2023, that on
November 14, 2023, Gerardo Ramirez, an employee at the company's
Newark, California plant, filed a lawsuit against the company in
the Alameda County Superior Court. The putative class action,
alleges violations of various California Labor Code and Wage Order
requirements, including provisions governing overtime, meal and
rest periods, minimum wage requirements, payment of wages during
employment and final wages, wage statements, payroll records, and
reimbursement of business expenses.
The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of all
current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Company
within the State of California at any time between November 14,
2019 and final judgment, as well as unspecified damages, penalties,
restitution, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and costs of
suit.
Sanmina Corporation is a global provider of integrated
manufacturing solutions, components, products and repair, logistics
and after-market services for industrial, medical, defense and
aerospace, automotive, communications networks and cloud
infrastructure.
SELENE FINANCE: England Seeks More Time for Class Cert Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTEL ENGLAND, KAREN
MEYERS, and ANGELA JOYNERPERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Case No.
1:23-cv-00847-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs request relief
from the 90 day deadline for filing motion for class certification
and the Court set deadline after receipt of Joint Rule 26(f)
report.
1. The Plaintiffs commenced action against Defendant Selene
Finance
in this Court under the FDCPA and NCDCA and N.C.G.S.
2. The Defendant has not yet filed an answer or a responsive
pleading.
3. Local Rule 23.1(b) states "plaintiff shall file a separate
motion for determination under Rule 23(c)(1), unless this
period
is extended by court order" within 90 days of filing a
complaint.
4. The current class certification deadline is January 2, 2024.
5. On November 29, 2023, Counsel for Plaintiff contacted
Counsel
for Defendant for consent to the Court modifying the 90-day
period in LR 23.1(b); counsel for Defendant does not object
to
an extension of the deadline for Plaintiff to move for class
certification and reserves all objections as to the propriety
of
certification.
Selene Finance operates as a residential mortgage company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GyKXrX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Michael Dunn, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
michael.dunn@milberg.com
- and -
Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
E-mail: kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com
emaginnis@maginnislaw.com
SENTRY COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Hamilton FLSA/NYLL Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SENTRY COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, STEVEN SPINNER,
and BRIAN SPINNER, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09345 (E.D.N.Y.,
December 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay
wages, and failure to provide wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an alarm and
security system technician from in or about June 2023 through in or
about September 2023.
Sentry Communications, LLC is a company that install, maintain, and
repair alarm and security systems, with a principal place of
business located in Hicksville, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
SHELTER GENERAL: Dismissal of Bell Insurance Class Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Report of Missouri Lawyers Media reports that Plaintiff
appealed the dismissal of her class action lawsuit alleging that
defendant breached its contractual duties under its insurance
policies by failing to include sales tax and fees in its loss
claims payments for the loss of insured vehicles. Plaintiff argued
that the policy should be interpreted to require payment of sales
taxes and fees where defendant elected to pay the "comparable
value" of the vehicle; plaintiff contended that she did not need to
acquire a replacement vehicle to receive sales taxes and fees.
Where the broadest interpretation of the policy did not foreclose
plaintiff's claim to sales taxes and fees even though she did not
acquire a replacement vehicle, the trial court erred in dismissing
the case.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
Bell v. Shelter General Insurance Company (MLW No. 80871/Case No.
WD85804) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Sutton, J.)
Appealed from circuit court, Jackson County, Torrence, J. (Martin
Daesch, St. Louis, for appellant) (Robert Adams, Kansas City; Holly
Smith, Kansas City; Sarah Baltzell, Kansas City; Taylor Markway,
Jefferson City; and William Northrip, Kansas City, for respondent).
[GN]
SIG SAUER: Class Cert Discovery Due April 26, 2024
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasscock v. Sig Sauer,
Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095 (W.D. Mo., Filed April 18, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting joint motion
to modify scheduling order:
(1) Discovery shall close for class April 26, 2024
certification on:
(2) Plaintiff shall designate class June 7, 2024
certification experts and file his
motion for class certification on
or before:
(3) Defendant shall designate class July 12, 2024
certification experts and file its
opposition brief to Plaintiff's
motion for class certification on
or before:
(4) Plaintiff shall file his reply to Aug. 9, 2024
his motion for class certification
on or before:
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Product Liability.
Sig Sauer designs and manufactures firearms for military, law
enforcement, and commercial markets.[CC]
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Class Cert Hearing Continued to Jan. 11, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Avery, et al., v.
TEKsystems, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-02733 (N.D. Cal., Filed May 6,
2022), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order
granting stipulation for extension of time to file reply in support
of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
-- Reply is due by: Dec. 14, 2023
-- The hearing on the Motion for Jan. 11, 2024
Class Certification is
continued to:
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
TEKsystems provides information technology services.[CC]
UNITED STATES: B. L. R. Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), et al. The case is styled as B.L.R.,
C.M.G., A.A.R., G.C.R., A.M.P., R.Z.M., Felipe Emmanuel Dzib Cohuo,
B.B., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary
of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS); Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Director, USCIS; Case No.
2:23-cv-13230-SDK-EAS (E.D. Mich., Dec. 19, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Administrative
Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.
The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) --
http://www.dhs.gov/-- is the U.S. federal executive department
responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior
or home ministries of other countries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kurt A. Mathas, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN/CHICAGO
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 558-8329
Email: kmathas@winston.com
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Hartley Class Suit Over Tracker in Email
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf of Top Class Actions reports that Urban Outfitters is
facing a class action lawsuit claiming the company broke an Arizona
law by embedding trackers in marketing emails.
Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act
was violated because Urban Outfitters did not receive permission
from customers before it embedded the tracker and received
information from users' email, the lawsuit claims.
Many companies don't follow the law, with a 2018 Princeton study on
email tracking of more than 12,000 emails from 900 senders related
to mailing list subscriptions found that 70% contained trackers,
the Urban Outfitters email lawsuit says.
Urban Outfitters uses Inbox Monster, an email tracking system,
which operates with Salesforce, another email tracking system, the
lawsuit claims.
"Defendant embedded spy tracking pixels in marketing emails
defendant sent to plaintiff and defendant utilized the tracking
system provided by Inbox Monster and Salesforce to track when the
time and place of where the email was opened," the Urban Outfitters
class action says.
Class is asking for $1,000 per tracked email and damages, lawsuit
says
Lead plaintiff Tomi Hartley, an Arizona resident, frequently opened
emails from Urban Outfitters between August 2022 and November 2023
and information from the tracker was sent to the company, the
lawsuit claims.
The class is asking for actual damages, compensation for profits
made by Urban Outfitters from the emails, $1,000 for each email
that was tracked without permission, reasonable attorneys' fees and
other litigation costs, the lawsuit says.
Urban Outfitters underpays its servers and bartenders at its home
and garden restaurants and claims a tip credit for work that is
ineligible to be tipped, a 2021 class action lawsuit alleges.
Have you received marketing emails from Urban Outfitters? Let us
know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Kenneth J. Grunfeld of Kopelowitz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert and Yitzchak Kopel of Bursor and
Fisher PA.
The Urban Outfitters class action lawsuit is Hartley v. Urban
Outfitters Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-04891, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN]
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Beard Sues Over Veterans Illegal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
ERIC BEARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01080 (M.D.N.C., Dec. 8, 2023) alleges
violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, regarding illegal fees charged to disabled United
States Military veterans by an unaccredited North Carolina-based
company, Veterans Guardian.
According to the complaint, the fees are extracted from victims'
Disability Compensation benefits paid through the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs (the "VA"). Contrary to its name,
Veterans Guardian preys on disabled veterans by unfairly taking
tens of millions of dollars of their disability benefits.
The Defendant allegedly violated federal regulations in four ways:
(1) its representatives are unaccredited; (2) it charges fees to
assist veterans in connection with an initial claim; (3) it does
not comply with the power of attorney requirements established by
the VA; and (4) it does not comply with the fee agreement
requirements established by the VA.
VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC is a pre-filing
consulting firm helping position veterans to achieve the disability
rating they are eligible for when they file their claim. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Osterwise, Esq.
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Berger Montague PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-4642
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: josterwise@bm.net
scarson@bm.net
- and -
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
Varnell & Warwick, P.A.
400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Dack Suit Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY DACK, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey corporation, a/k/a
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC; and VOLKSWAGEN, AG, a/k/a VOLKSWAGEN
GROUP, a foreign corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-00615-RK (w.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) granting preliminary approval of the Settlement;
(2) conditionally certifying the Settlement Class for
settlement
purposes only;
(3) preliminarily appointing Plaintiffs Emily Dack, Kim
Hensley-
Hauser, Matthew May, Neeraj Sharma, Omar Oweis, Marcos
Pieras,
Linda Christian and Stephan Moonesar as Settlement Class
Representatives;
(4) preliminarily appointing the law firms of Bursor & Fisher,
Walsh PLLC, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, Law Office of Adam R.
Gonnelli, L.L.C., Berger Montague, PC, and Capstone Law APC
as
Settlement Class Counsel;
(5) preliminarily appointing Rust Consulting, Inc. as the
Settlement’s Claim Administrator;
(6) directing the dissemination of the Class Notice, in the form
proposed, to the Settlement Class in accordance with the
parties' Notice Plan; and
(7) setting a schedule for further proceedings including the
deadline to object to or request exclusion from the
Settlement,
further submissions by the Parties including the motion for
final approval, responses to any objections or requests for
exclusion, any submissions in further support of final
approval, and the date, place and time of the final fairness
hearing.
If approved, the settlement will provide the following substantial
benefits to the following Settlement Class:
"All persons and entities who purchased or leased a Settlement
Class Vehicle, as defined in Section I.X. of [the Settlement]
Agreement, in the United States of America and Puerto Rico."
Volkswagen Group is the North American operational headquarters,
and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of
Germany.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41mqro2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH PLLC
1561 Long Haul Road
Grangeville, ID 83530
Telephone: (541) 359-2827
Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com
- and -
Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
DOLLAR BURNS & BECKER, L.C.
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 876-2600
Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com
- and -
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
555 Lancaster Ave.
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (610) 200-0581
Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
- and -
Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADAM R. GONNELLI LLC
707 Alexander Road
Bldg. 2, Suite 208
Princeton, NJ, 08540
Telephone: (917) 541-7110
Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
E-mail: adam@arglawoffice.com
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
apark@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
- and -
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com
laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Alec Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELODY T. BRANTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; and
DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01161 (M.D.
Fla., Dec. 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
their failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information of the Plaintiff and the Class.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite learning of the
Data Breach as early as August 8, 2023, Zeroed-In failed to
announce the Data Breach publicly until almost four months later on
or around November 27, 2023, and did not begin sending out Data
Breach notification letters to affected individuals until around
that time.
Zeroed-In's Notice failed to disclose how it discovered the
encrypted files on its computer systems were impacted, the means
and mechanisms of the cyberattack, the reason for the delay in
notifying the Plaintiff and the class of the Data Breach, how
Zeroed-In determined that the PII had been "accessed" by an
unauthorized party, and importantly, what specific steps Zeroed-In
took following the Data Breach to secure its systems and prevent
future cyberattacks, says the suit.
The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect PII from the foreseeable threat of a
cyberattack, the suit added.
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC was founded in 2004. The company's line
of business includes providing computer programming services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francesca Kester
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 Franklin Street 6th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 424-5618
Email: fburne@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
STERLINGTON, PLLC
One World Trade Center 85th Floor
New York, New York 10007
Telephone: (212) 433-2993
Email: jen.czeisler@sterlingtonlaw.com
- and -
Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
STERLINGTON, PLLC
One World Trade Center 85th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 433-2993
Email: edward.ciolko@sterlingtonlaw.com
- and -
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road Suit 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
Facsimile: (404) 205-8395
Email: jim@ewlawllc.com
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Holland Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA HOLLAND, WILLIAM HOLLAND, and CHEALESA PARSHA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03416-BAH
(D. Md., December 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant
for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, violation of South Carolina Data Breach
Notification Law, and intrusion upon seclusion.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its
system following a data breach determined between August 7, 2023
and August 8, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and
Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Zeroed-In Technologies, LLC is a technologies company based in
Linthicum, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (212) 946-9305
E-mail: tpacheco@milberg.com
- and -
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
Alex Lee, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
alee@caffertyclobes.com
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Pounds Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Phillis Pounds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and DOLLAR TREE STORES,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01151 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 7, 2023), is brought
involving the Data Breach that the Defendant announced on November
27, 2023, wherein—from August 7, 2023 to August 8, 2023--the
personal identifying information ("PII") of millions of individuals
was exposed due to a flaw in Defendant Zeroed-In's information
technology systems, which allowed hackers and other bad actors to
obtain individuals' PII for unsavory and illegal purposes.
The FTC has brought enforcement actions against companies for
failing to adequately and reasonably protect consumer data,
treating the failure to do so as an unfair act or practice barred
by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTCA"). The
Defendant's failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures
to protect against unauthorized access to confidential consumer
data constitutes an unfair act or practice prohibited by Section 5
of the FTCA. The Defendant's failure to verify that the Defendant,
a third-party service provider, had implemented reasonable security
measures constitutes an unfair act or practice prohibited by
Section 5 of the FTCA. The Plaintiff and Class Members gave their
PII to the Defendant with the reasonable expectation and
understanding that the Defendant would comply with its duty to keep
such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access.
The Defendants have been on notice for years that Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII was a target for bad actors because of, among
other motives, the high value of the PII created, collected and
maintained by Defendants. Despite such awareness, Defendants failed
to impose and maintain reasonable and appropriate data security
controls to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from
unauthorized access that Defendants should have anticipated and
guarded against. Despite understanding the consequences of
insufficient data security, Defendants failed to adequately protect
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, permitting bad actors to access
and misuse it, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant and was informed
that there had been a data breach affecting her PII on December 1,
2023.
The Defendant is a data management company which provides human
resources data analytics software products to businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francesca Kester Burne, Esq.
Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 Franklin Street, 6th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 424-5618
Email: fburne@forthepeople.com
ararzola@forthepeople.com
ZOOM VIDEO: Dismissal Move Lodged in Delaware Court
---------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2023, that on
October 18, 2023, defendants in a consolidated case filed their
motion to dismiss the amended complaint after they filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated case and the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on June 12, 2023 and August 11, 2023,
respectively.
Beginning on March 30, 2020, multiple putative class actions were
filed against the company in various U.S. federal district courts
and state courts relating to its alleged privacy and security
practices, including alleged data sharing with third parties.
The plaintiffs claim violations of a variety of state consumer
protection and privacy laws, and also assert state constitutional
and common law claims, such as negligence and unjust enrichment.
The U.S. Privacy Class Actions seek to certify both nationwide and
state-specific classes of individuals using the company's services
in certain time periods.
The plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary
relief, including restitution, statutory and actual damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The federal cases have been
transferred to and consolidated in the NDCA with the company's
consent; lead plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed; and
plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated class action
complaint on October 28, 2020.
On March 11, 2021, the court granted in part, and denied in part,
the company's motion to dismiss, and gave plaintiffs leave to
amend. On July 30, 2021, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with plaintiffs to settle the action on a class-wide
basis, and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement with the court on July 31, 2021.
In October 21, 2021, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the company have
paid $85.0 million into an escrow account that will be used to pay
claims filed by settlement class members, attorneys' fees and
expenses, administrative costs, and service payments to plaintiffs.
On April 22, 2022, the court granted final approval of the
settlement. On May 19, 2022, two objectors to the settlement
appealed the court's final approval order. On May 20, 2022, a third
objector appealed the court's final approval order. On October 17,
2022, the company, plaintiffs, and all three objector-appellants
agreed to settle the appeals, and on December 16, 2022, the court
approved the settlements. On January 13, 2023, an appeal of the
order approving the objector-appellant settlements was filed.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. is a software company based in
California
*********
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 ***