/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240101.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 1, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 1
Headlines
ABCM CORPORATION: Greenfield Wins Conditional Certification
ADTRAN INC: Cato Suit Removed to E.D. California
AETNA LIFE: Howard Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
AETNA LIFE: Howard Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits
ALLIANCE COAL: Class Certification Filing Due May 30
AMAZON.COM INC: Joyce Has Until Jan. 16 to File 2nd Amended Suit
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Chark Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
ARKANSAS: Court Allows Johnson to Amend Complaint for Review
ASA COLLEGE: Andrade-Barteldes' Bid for Class Certification OK'd
ATLANTA, GA: 700 Memorial Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
BOYNE USA: Must Produce Audited Financial Statements
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended
CAVA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Hamman's 2nd Amended Complaint Denied
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Seeks Evidentiary Hearing on Class Cert Bid
CINFED FEDERAL CREDIT: Burwick Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
CINTAS CORP: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 27, 2025
DOLLAR TREE: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for April 5
FEDEX GROUND: Ortiz-Dixon Bid to Remand Tossed
FINANCIAL ASSET: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Pena Claims
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION: Parker Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy
GEICO GENERAL: Porcu Files Suit in S.D. California
GLEN MILLS: Seeks to File Sur-reply in Opposition to Class Cert Bid
HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Factual Discovery in Metcalfe Due Dec. 13
ISM VUZEM: Hearing on Bid to Approve Proposed Class Notice Vacated
JACK IN THE BOX: Settles California Labor Suit
KIRKLAND'S INC: Court Junks Gennock Class Suit
KIRKLAND'S INC: Court Stays Miles Class Action
KOHL'S CORP: Faces Shanaphy Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing
LESLIE'S INC: Faces WPBPPF Suit Over SEC Disclosures
LOGAN'S SANCTUARY: Munteanu Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Faces Oliver-Banks Suit Over Unpaid Wages
MAPFRE USA: Sinha Alleges Compromised Personal Info in Data Breach
MDL 2445: Court Awards $14-Mil. in Fees & Costs in Suboxone Suit
MDL 2445: Court Finally Approves $30-Mil. End Payor Settlement
MDL 2741: Conditional Transfer Orders for 3 Hawaii Actions Vacated
MDL 2873: Kentucky v. EI. Dupont Transferred to D.S.C.
MDL 2873: Panel Denies Transfer of Rougeau v. Ahlstrom to D.S.C.
MDL 3014: Panel Vacates Order Transferring Lis Case
MDL 3047: Livingston Parish v. Meta Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 3072: Aprillia v. Boeing Consolidated in Java Sea Air Crash Row
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Overruled
MONSANTO CO: N.D. California Grants Bids to Dismiss Koller Suit
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: LW's Bid to Intervene in Woodard Suit Denied
NCINO INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit
NEW YORK: Court Approves Class Notice in Milburn/Beriquette Suit
NICK'S LIVE LOBSTERS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Carino Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI & PII
NSC HOLDINGS: Cartwright Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII
ON POINT GLOBAL: Must Respond to Walker-Schaut Complaint by Jan. 10
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Denies Habeas Petition in Minaya-Rodriguez Suit
PHH MORTGAGE: Dantzler Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
PHIL MURPHY: Jackson Files Suit in D. New Jersey
PROGRESSIVE GULF: Files Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits
PROGRESSIVE GULF: MII, JD Power Seek to Seal Certain Exhibits
PROPARK AMERICA: Benavides Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
Q3 CONTRACTING: Faces Rael Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
QUICK BOX: Tan Seeks to Certify Class Action
QUINOA CORP: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due August 8
RAB INC: Seley Sues Over Collection Agents' Unpaid Overtime
REDBUBBLE INC: Seeks Denial of Walllster Class Status Bid
REGIONAL FAMILY: Hicks Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
REGIONAL FAMILY: Luebke Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
REMEDIES HERB SHOP: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
RETAIL SERVICES: Cravens Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Tossed in Gilburd
SAINT AUGUSTINES UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SAM'S WEST: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Opposition Deadline
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Google, Suit Says
SEASONAL YARD WORK: Scutellaro Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTH CAROLINA PORTS: Brown Suit Removed to E.D. California
STATE FARM MUTUAL: King Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Connector Defect
TELEPERFORMANCE SE: Warren City Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
THERMO TECH: Scheduling Order Entered in Lopez Class Action
THOMAS J. MCADAM: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Mitchell
TWITTER INC: Yeh Suit Remanded to San Francisco Superior Court
UNITED STATES POLO: Binder Suit Moved From Illinois to New Jersey
UNITED STATES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Padilla v. ICE
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in A Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in A Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in C Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Chaney Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in DG Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in DS Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Gonzalez Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in MS Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in P Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in R Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in RR Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in S Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in V Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Z Suit Set for Jan. 3
UNITED STATES: Rubinstein Seeks to Certify Class Action
VALLEY NATIONAL: Allcock Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
VEOLIA WATER: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
VETERANS ALLIANCE: Mitchell Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VITAL FARMS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Responses
VITAL FARMS: Plaintiffs Seek to Unseal Unredacted Bid in Usler
VOLVO CAR: Dionysius Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WALGREEN CO: Faces Simpson Suit Over Mislabeled Cutlery Products
WALMART INC: Canseco Suit Removed to E.D. California
WALMART INC: Faces Securities Suit in Delaware Court
WATA INC: Knight Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
WAYFAIR LLC: Counts Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective
WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Bid Due May 1, 2024 in Droesch
WESTERN UNION: Must File Dispositive Bid by Jan. 8
WIRECARD AG: EY Germany's Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted
XYBION CORPORATION: Brumbaugh Sues Over Failure to Protect PII
YARDI SYSTEMS: Duffy Plaintiffs & Merrill Agree to Adopt Schedule
ZURU LLC: Court Enters Class Cert Order in Bui Lawsuit
*********
ABCM CORPORATION: Greenfield Wins Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY GREENFIELD AND
KATHLEEN BRUNS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ABCM CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-03006-LTS-MAR (N.D.
Iowa), the Hon. Judge Leonard T. Strand entered an order granting
the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification.
The Plaintiffs are authorized to send notice in the manner
described above. ABCM is directed to provide the plaintiffs'
counsel with the names, addresses, email addresses and phone
numbers of all putative class members within 21 days of this
order.
The Plaintiffs request that ABCM be required to produce names,
addresses, email addresses and phone numbers of the putative class
members "so notice may be issued adequately and efficiently."
The Plaintiff Tammy Greenfield commenced this action on February
14, 2023. On April 21, 2023, ABCM filed a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on grounds that Greenfield
failed to properly identify the "employer" pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the Iowa Wage Payment
Collection Law (IWPCL).
Greenfield then filed an amended complaint. On June 15, 2023, ABCM
filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 22, 2023, Greenfield
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in
order to add Kathleen Bruns as an additional plaintiff.
ABCM has a company-wide policy of automatically deducting 30
minutes from employees' recorded hours for meal breaks. Id. at 1.
ABCM requires plaintiffs and putative class members to work through
their meal breaks, despite losing 30 minutes of pay.
Thus, the plaintiffs seek to recover under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
"hourly, non-exempt workers who worked for, or on behalf of ABCM,
at any ABCM facility, and who received an automatic meal period
deduction at any time during the past 3 years."
ABCM operates several assisted living and long-term care facilities
providing healthcare services to patients throughout the state of
Iowa.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48b5TRo at no extra charge.[CC]
ADTRAN INC: Cato Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Johnathon Cato, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ADTRAN, INC., a foreign profit
corporation doing business as ADTRAN; and DOES 1-20, Case No.
23-2-03238-06 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for Clark County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington on Dec. 19, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 3:23-cv-06163.
The Complaint asserts claims for statutory damages, actual damages,
costs and expenses, and attorney's fees. Among other damages,
Plaintiff is seeking actual damages (such as lost earnings) and/or
a statutory penalty of five thousand dollars, plus attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses incurred—whichever is greater--pursuant to
RCW. The Complaint claims that Plaintiff Johnathon Cato lost
economic opportunities as a result of allegedly unlawful
restrictive covenants and restraint of trade.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
James M. Shore, Esq.
Christoper T. Wall, Esq.
Jacqueline Middleton, Esq.
Aaron R. Doyer, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206.624.0900
Facsimile: 206.386.7500
Email: jim.shore@stoel.com
christopher.wall@stoel.com
jacqueline.middleton@stoel.com
aaron.doyer@stoel.com
AETNA LIFE: Howard Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW HOWARD, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01505-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rules
23(a), (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
certifying the following Class:
"All persons covered under Aetna Plans, governed by ERISA,
self-
funded or fully insured, whose requests for lumbar artificial
disc
replacement surgery were denied at any time from March 4, 2019
to
February 8, 2023, on the ground that lumbar artificial disc
replacement surgery is experimental or investigational, and
whose
denials will be subject to de novo review by the district
court."
Aetna offers a broad range of traditional and consumer-directed
health insurance products and related services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NsARga at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
GIANELLI & MORRIS
550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-1600
Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com
AETNA LIFE: Howard Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW HOWARD, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01505-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his application
to seal plaintiff's exhibits 2-10, 29, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 43, and
44-46 filed in support of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
action.
Aetna offers a broad range of traditional and consumer-directed
health insurance products and related services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3to6Bfi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
GIANELLI & MORRIS
550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 489-1600
Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com
ALLIANCE COAL: Class Certification Filing Due May 30
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDDIE BREWER, et al., v.
ALLIANCE COAL, LLC, et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-00041-DLB-EBA (E.D.
Ky.), the Hon. Judge Edward B. Atkins entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion to extend and set deadlines as follows:
1. The parties shall complete fact discovery April 30,
2024
on the issue of final collective
certification no later than:
2. The Plaintiffs shall disclose the May 30, 2024
Identity of expert witnesses who may be
used at trial, no later than:
3. The Defendants shall disclose the identity July 31,
2024
of expert witnesses who may be used at
trial, accompanied by written reports
signed by the FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(B)
expert witness and/or written summaries
consistent with FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2)(C),
as applicable all-in compliance with
the rule, no later than:
4. The Plaintiffs shall file any rebuttal Aug. 30, 2024
expert reports no later than:
5. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion May 30, 2024
for Rule 23 Class Certification and
Defendants shall file their Motion for
Decertification no later than:
6. The parties shall file their Responses July 31, 2024
to the Motions for Class Certification
and Decertification no later than:
7. The parties shall file their Replies in Sept. 27,
2024
support of the Motions for Class
Certification and Decertification no
later than:
Alliance is a diversified coal producer and marketer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t9CvfL at no extra charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Joyce Has Until Jan. 16 to File 2nd Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John H. Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, dismisses the Plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint without prejudice, and grants them
leave until Jan. 16, 2024, to file a second consolidated amended
complaint in the lawsuit titled SONNY JOYCE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM,
INC., ANDREW R. JASSY, JEFFREY P. BEZOS, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY, DAVID
A. ZAPOLSKY, and NATE SUTTON, Defendants; ASBESTOS WORKERS
PHILADELPHIA WELFARE AND PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all
others similar situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R.
JASSY, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY, and DAVID FILDES, Defendants; DETECTIVES
ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION ANNUITY FUND, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
ANDREW R. JASSY, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY, and DAVID FILDES, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00617-JHC (W.D. Wash.).
The matter comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The motion
requests dismissal with prejudice. The Court grants the motion to
the extent it seeks dismissal. But it dismisses the complaint
without prejudice and grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend.
Lead Plaintiffs Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH,
Universal-Investment-Luxembourg S.A., Menora Mivtachim Insurance
Ltd., Menora Mivtachim Pensions and Gemel Ltd., The Phoenix
Insurance Company, Ltd., and The Phoenix Provident Pension Fund
Ltd., along with Named Plaintiffs Asbestos Workers Philadelphia
Welfare and Pension Fund and Detectives Endowment Association
Annuity Fund (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this consolidated
class action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") on behalf of persons and
entities, who acquired publicly traded common stock of Amazon.com,
Inc., between Feb. 1, 2019, and April 28, 2022 ("Class Period").
According to the Plaintiffs, Amazon is a multinational technology
company with multiple business lines, including e-commerce services
and distribution, website development and hosting, inventory and
supply chain management, and fulfillment and logistics. In
addition, third-party sellers may sell their goods through Amazon's
fulfillment service, called "Fulfilled by Amazon" ("FBA").
The Plaintiffs bring suit against Amazon and six of its corporate
executives, including: (1) Jeffrey Bezos, founder and Executive
Chair; (2) Andrew Jassy, Amazon President, CEO, and Director; (3)
Brian Olsavsky, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer;
(4) David Zapolsky, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and
Secretary; (5) Nate Sutton, Associate General Counsel; and (6)
David Fildes, Head of Investor Relations ("Individual
Defendants").
The Plaintiffs filed this action on May 6, 2022. On Aug. 17, 2022,
the Court consolidated the case with a parallel putative class
action. In the Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC"), filed on
Sept. 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants
committed two categories of securities violations: (1) that the
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the fact that
they exploited third-party sellers in an anticompetitive manner
("third-party allegations"); and (2) that the Defendants similarly
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose Amazon's infrastructure
and fulfillment capacity ("capacity allegations"). The Plaintiffs
bring two causes of action: (1) a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 78j
(Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5, promulgated by
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); and (2) a claim
under 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a) (Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act).
The Defendants move to dismiss the CAC, contending: (1) the
Defendants' statements related to the third-party allegations and
capacity claims were neither false nor misleading; (2) the
Plaintiffs fail to plead a strong inference of scienter; (3) the
Plaintiffs do not allege loss causation as it relates to the
third-party allegations; (4) the Plaintiffs' third-party
allegations are time-barred; and (5) the Plaintiffs fail to allege
control person liability.
The Defendants also seek judicial notice or, in the alternative,
incorporation by reference, of Exhibits 2–50. The exhibits
include (Exh. 1) Chart of the Plaintiffs' statements, (Exh. 2)
Excerpts from report of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial
and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary
Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets: Majority Staff
Report and Recommendations, (Exh. 3) Letter to investors from
Jeffrey Bezos (April 11, 2019)), and (Exh. 50) Document posted to
House Judiciary Committee's website with Bates number
AMAZON-HJC-00129156.
After consideration of the parties' briefing and the applicable
law, the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of Exhibits
2–50 for the limited purpose of recognizing that these documents
were within the public realm at the times alleged by the
Plaintiffs. The Court recognizes that (1) SEC filings, Metzler Inv.
GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1064 n.7 (9th
Cir. 2008), (2) publicly available news articles, Heliotrope Gen.,
Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 n.18 (9th Cir. 1999), and
(3) documents posted on government websites, City & County of San
Francisco v. Garland, 42 F.4th 1078, 1083 n.3 (9th Cir. 2022), are
generally matters of public record.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that none of the exhibits in
question are referenced "extensively" in the CAC. In this case, the
CAC is particularly long, consisting of 173 pages and 532
paragraphs. Although the remaining exhibits are referenced more
than once, Judge Chun observes that the most referenced exhibit is
mentioned in only thirteen out of the CAC's total 532 paragraphs
(2.4%).
Further, the Plaintiffs make many of these references in their
factual background section. The Court concludes that these
references fall short of the "extensive" requirement articulated in
Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir.
2018).
Next, the Defendants contend that Exhibits 2–50 should be
incorporated by reference because they form the basis of the
Plaintiffs' CAC. In response, the Plaintiffs contend that there is
no single document on which the CAC necessarily relies to form a
basis for the complaint.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs. Judge Chun opines that there
is no indication that any of the exhibits, on their own, form the
basis of the Plaintiffs' CAC so as to imply that a "claim
necessarily depended" on that document.
Because the truth of the statements in the SEC Filings and earnings
calls--despite plausibly serving as the basis for the claims
alleged in the CAC--are disputed by the parties, the Court declines
to incorporate these documents at this pleading stage.
The CAC's first cause of action alleges that the Defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.
The Defendants seek dismissal of this cause of action, contending
that: (1) their statements regarding the third-party allegations
and capacity claims were neither false nor misleading; (2) the CAC
does not allege a strong inference of scienter; (3) the CAC does
not allege loss causation as it relates to the third-party
allegations; and (4) the third-party allegations are time-barred.
Judge Chun holds, among other things, that whether Amazon was
charged with anticompetitive conduct or disclosed the possibility
of governmental inquiry is irrelevant to the Plaintiffs' claims.
The Court, thus, declines to entertain arguments that the lack of
governmental adjudication of a claim of anticompetitive conduct and
the company's broad cautionary language in its shareholder
disclosures should warrant dismissal.
The Court also concludes, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
sufficiently allege false or misleading statements regarding
Amazon's treatment of its own products, as well as products sold by
third-party sellers, who used FBA, compared to third-party sellers,
who did not use FBA. Lastly, the Court concludes that the
Plaintiffs describe their confidential witnesses with sufficient
particularity to support the probability that they knew about the
Defendants' alleged fraud.
In sum, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs sufficiently plead
the first element, material misrepresentations or omissions, of
their Section 10(b) claim.
Judge Chun finds that the Plaintiffs fail to establish a plausible
motive for why the Individual Defendants would lie to their
investors. They also fail to show that the Individual Defendants
had first-hand knowledge of the falsity of their statements when
they were made. Lastly, the Plaintiffs' allegations of
circumstantial evidence regarding the Individual Defendants' state
of mind do not support a strong inference of scienter. They,
therefore, fail to adequately plead the second element of their
Section 10(b) claim, Judge Chun holds.
The Court also concludes that the Plaintiffs' allegations suffice
to establish loss causation. In sum, Judge Chun finds the
Plaintiffs adequately plead loss causation, the third element of
their Section 10(b) claim, as to their third-party allegations.
Ultimately, the Court notes that the inquiry of what a reasonable
investor should have known or discovered is a fact-intensive
inquiry. For these reasons, at this juncture, the Court declines to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims as untimely.
The Court agrees with the Defendants that the CAC does not
adequately plead a primary violation because it fails to allege
scienter. Nevertheless, the Court concludes that, assuming a
primary violation is established, the Plaintiffs adequately plead
control person liability as to Sutton and Fields.
For these reasons, the Court concludes: (1) the Plaintiffs
adequately plead material misrepresentation or omission; (2) the
Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead scienter; (3) the Plaintiffs
adequately plead loss causation as to their third-party claims; (4)
the Plaintiffs' third-party claims are timely; and (5) the
Plaintiffs adequately plead control person liability.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Amended Complaint without prejudice. The Court grants the
Plaintiffs leave until Jan. 16, 2024, to file a second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/5567ubd5from PacerMonitor.com.
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Chark Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americold Logistics,
LLC. The case is styled as Timothy Chark, Michelle Bailey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Americold Logistics, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05808-MLB (N.D. Ga.,
Dec. 18, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
Americold Realty Trust, Inc. -- https://www.americold.com/ -- is an
American temperature controlled warehousing and transportation
company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
Building 14, Suite 230
3535 Piedmont Road
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (404) 320-9979 ext 202
Fax: (404) 320-9978
Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP-NY
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
ARKANSAS: Court Allows Johnson to Amend Complaint for Review
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JUSTIN A. W. JOHNSON #44511, PLAINTIFF v. BJ
CARTER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00225-DPM-JTK (E.D.
Ark.), Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Northern Division,
allows the Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint for the Court's
review.
Plaintiff Justin A. W. Johnson is in custody at the Poinsett
County, Arkansas, Detention Center (the "Detention Center"). He
filed a pro se Complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and paid the
$402 filing and administrative fee to commence this action.
Another inmate is listed as a plaintiff on the Complaint. The Clerk
of the Court opened a separate action for the additional plaintiff.
The related case is Williams v. Carter, et al.,
3:23-cv-00226-DPM-JTK (E.D. Ark.).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen
prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity,
officer, or employee, regardless of fee status.
The Plaintiff filed a Complaint, Notice, and Amended Complaint. In
his original Complaint, the Plaintiff sued Captain B.J. Carter,
Lieutenant Regina Hindman, Smart Communications, Inc. CEO James
Brown, and the unidentified CEO of Tiger Commissary.com
(collectively, "Defendants"). The Plaintiff sued the Defendants in
their official capacities only.
The Plaintiff "is a 100% service connected combat veteran awaiting
trial." He has a "ruptured L4 in his back." He also fractured both
knee caps in the army, his ankles are still "messed up" from a
collision, and he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder
("PTSD"), arthritis, and "loss of feeling bilaterally from Poinsett
County Sheriff Department locking hand cuffs as tight as possible,"
along with "nerve damage in the first three digits thumb, index, &
middle finger," also from the cuffs.
According to the Plaintiff, Detox 1 and Detox 2 were being used for
medical holds. The original floor drains in Detox 1 and Detox 2
rusted out and were replaced with iron grates. In Detox 2, the
replacement grate was secured only by a zip tie in one corner. In
Detox 1, the replacement grate was fully unsecured. He says he
stepped through the grate, jarring his hip. He tripped several
times in Detox 1 and Detox 2. Defendant Hindman had been previously
informed about the damage, and was told of the collapse.
The Plaintiff also complains that he is being denied access to the
law library and kiosk. The kiosk in his cell block had tipped over
and, thus, was not usable. He asked for paper grievances, but was
told there were no more official grievance forms. Defendants Duffel
and Hindman did not allow the Plaintiff to go to other cell blocks
to use the kiosk there.
The Plaintiff was "forced to suck it up to go to C-Block." C-Block
has a special cell for disabled persons but no kiosk for disabled
or reasonable access to the law library. C-Block inmates were
allowed access to the kiosk for only one hour per day and "allowed
out 8-12 for commissary." If he sat to wait for the kiosk, he would
lose his place in line. He asked for accommodation to sit or stand
as needed to work/write at own pace, but his requests have been
denied.
The Plaintiff complains of numerous other conditions in the
Detention Center, such as black mold, no sunlight or recreation
yard time, and being in his cell for 23 hours per day. He also
complains of receiving off brand products from the commissary when
photographs for the goods for sale show the goods to be name brand.
He does not make allegations against any Defendant in connection
with these claims. The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive
relief.
In the Plaintiff's Notice, he complains that Defendant Hindman is
not answering his grievances on the kiosk in retaliation for the
Plaintiff filing a Section 1983 form. Further, the law library is
not available on the new kiosk, and "the new one has no place to
write and is even higher with no sitting option."
In the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, he sued Administrative
Assistant Gunner Wilson and L.P.N. Susan Duffel in addition to
Defendants Hindman and Carter. He sued these Defendants in their
personal and official capacities. He says Defendant Wilson feigned
ignorance about the Detention Center lacking the ability to
transfer the money for the filing and administrative fees for this
lawsuit. He also says that his medical requests in connection with
his left ear and dental meloxicam refill have been ignored.
Judge Kearney notes that the Plaintiff may not represent the claims
of others. Further, pro se litigants are not authorized to
represent the rights, claims and interests of other parties in any
cause of action, including a class action lawsuit.
The Complaint in this case identifies another individual, Bryan
Williams, as a plaintiff. And the Complaint contains allegations
regarding Mr. Williams. But the Plaintiff may pursue only his own
claims in this case, Judge Kearney says. To the extent the
Plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of other inmates, those
claims fail.
According to the Plaintiff, he received off brand products at the
commissary despite photographs of the products offered featuring
brand name products. The Court notes that there is no
constitutional right to purchase goods from a commissary. To the
extent the Plaintiff complains that he did not receive the same
name brand items that appeared in the pictures, those allegations
do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, Judge
Kearney points out.
The Plaintiff sued Smart Communications CEO James Brown and the
unidentified CEO of TigerCommissary.com. The Plaintiff made no
allegations against either Defendant. Judge Kearney notes that both
CEOs are private actors. To be subject to a claim under Section
1983, a private actor must be a willful participant in joint
activity with the State in denying plaintiff's constitutional
rights.
Judge Kearney opines that the Plaintiff did not make such
allegations, so there is no basis for his Section 1983 claims
against the CEO Defendants.
Because liability under Section 1983 is based on an individual's
own acts or omissions, Judge Kearney holds that the Plaintiff's
conditions of confinement claims as currently pled fail to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.
The Plaintiff also complains, among other things, that he was
denied grievance forms and that his grievances went unanswered.
Judge Kearney holds that these claims do not rise to the level of a
violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The Plaintiff also sought injunctive relief. The Court needs
further information to properly screen these claims. The Plaintiff
identifies his ailments, but he does not describe how the ailments
affect him, Judge Kearney points out, among other things.
If the Plaintiff wishes to submit an Amended Complaint for the
Court's review, Judge Kearney says he must file the Amended
Complaint consistent with the instructions in this Order within
thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. If he does not submit
an Amended Complaint, Judge Kearney may recommend that his Original
Complaint be dismissed.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail the Plaintiff a blank 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 Complaint form.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y49usvw2from PacerMonitor.com.
ASA COLLEGE: Andrade-Barteldes' Bid for Class Certification OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled ERNEST ANDRADE-BARTELDES,
Plaintiff v. JOSE VALENCIA, ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00495-LJL (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Ernest Andrade-Barteldes moves, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for: (1) an
order granting conditional certification of this case as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA") and certification of this case as a class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, (2) an order approving the
Plaintiff's proposed class notice, (3) an order approving the
Plaintiff as the class representative, (4) an order approving
Levine & Blit, PLLC, as class counsel, (5) an order compelling the
production of a class list that includes the names and last known
addresses of putative class members, and (6) an order tolling the
running of the statute of limitations for absent class members.
For the reasons discussed, Judge Liman grants the Plaintiff's
motion as modified by this Memorandum and Order.
Defendant ASA College ("ASA") is a higher education institution for
thousands of students with locations in New York and Kings counties
in New York City. Defendant Alexander Shchegol is the founder and
sole owner of ASA, and served for many years as President of ASA
until he was removed in 2019. In October 2021, after the Board of
Directors of ASA refused to reinstate him to the position of
President, Shchegol obtained the position anyway by using his
ownership stake to remove members of the Board of Directors, who
did not support his reinstatement. He, then, resigned as President
on Dec. 31, 2021, but continued to maintain significant operational
and financial control over the institution.
After Shchegol's resignation, Defendant Jose Valencia ("Valencia"
and together with ASA and Shchegol, "Defendants") became President
of ASA. Shchegol and Valencia each had the power to hire or fire,
controlled the conditions of employment of employees of ASA,
determined the rate and method of payment of ASA employees, and
maintained employment records for ASA.
Beginning in approximately 2010, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants as an English as a Second Language ("ESL") professor at
its college in New York. He was paid on an hourly and not a salary
basis. In 2022, he worked approximately twenty-eight to thirty
hours per week, including three hours of administrative and
clerical work per week for which he was not paid.
In November 2022, ASA lost its accreditation effective March 1,
2023, in part due to its failure to timely pay its employees.
During a Nov. 14, 2022 Zoom meeting for ASA faculty regarding the
loss of accreditation and appeal options, Shchegol promised the
faculty they would be paid their wages owed plus a five percent
bonus.
On Jan. 3, 2023, Valencia wrote members of the faculty that
Shchegol had not been able to secure the funding needed for ASA to
pay its future payrolls, and that ASA would not be able secure such
funding in the near future, but that employees would not be working
for free because their wages would continue to accrue. On Jan. 16,
2023, Valencia wrote employees that he and Shchegol had been trying
hard to get funding to pay the Dec. 23, 2022 unpaid payroll and had
secured the funding to do so. Valencia also wrote that he and
Shchegol had been trying hard to secure funding for the coming Jan.
20, 2023 payroll.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and members of the class he purports
to represent were not paid any wages for work they performed for
the pay period ending Dec. 23, 2022, and the pay period ending Jan.
6, 2023. He further alleges that it was the Defendants' policy and
practice not to compensate its professors or instructors for
administrative or clerical work. He also alleges that although he
and members of the putative class were to be paid bi-weekly
pursuant to ASA's pay policies and practices, they were not paid in
a timely manner on numerous occasions in 2022.
The case was initiated by complaint filed on Jan. 20, 2023. The
complaint asserts claims on behalf of the Plaintiff individually,
on behalf of a FLSA collective comprised of all similarly situated
members of the ASA faculty, and on behalf of a Rule 23 class
comprised of all ASA faculty members since Jan. 19, 2017. On behalf
of himself and all members of the FLSA collective, the Plaintiff
asserts a claim for unpaid minimum wages under FLSA. On behalf of
himself and the putative Rule 23 class, the Plaintiff asserts the
following additional claims: unpaid minimum wages in violation of
the New York Labor Law, unpaid earned wages in violation of the New
York Labor Law, untimely wages in violation of the New York Labor
Law, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
Between Jan. 24, 2023, and April 10, 2023, notices of consent to
join the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) were filed for
twenty-eight different individuals, including the Plaintiff
himself. On Feb. 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of
Service reflecting that service had been effected on Shchegol.
On Feb. 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed proofs of service with
respect to ASA College and Valencia. On March 6, 2023, he filed a
letter with the Court, which he served on the Defendants,
indicating that all Defendants had been served with process, that
their time to respond to the complaint had expired, and that they
were, therefore, in default. The Plaintiff stated his intention to
file a motion for class and collective certification and then,
after the motion had been decided upon, to seek entry of default
and a default judgment.
On March 27, 2023, Valencia, appearing pro se, answered the
complaint. The Court held an initial pretrial conference on March
28, 2023, at which the Plaintiff appeared and Valencia appeared pro
se; no other Defendants appeared. On March 30, 2023, the Count
entered a Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, as well as an
Order directing the Plaintiff to make his motion for class
certification no later than April 4, 2023, the Defendants to
respond to the motion by April 21, 2023, and the Plaintiff to reply
by April 28, 2023.
On April 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this motion for certification
of the class and conditional certification of the collective along
with two supporting declarations and a memorandum of law. He served
the motion on the Defendants. No Defendant has opposed the motion.
On Nov. 22, 2023, the Court directed the parties to inform the
Court of the status of the case, and on Nov. 29, 2023, the
Plaintiff wrote the Court asking it to rule upon the pending motion
for certification of the class and conditional certification of the
collective and that, after such ruling, the Plaintiff would file a
motion for default judgment against all Defendants on behalf of the
class and collective simultaneously.
The Plaintiff argues that the Court should conditionally certify a
class of all faculty members employed by ASA since Jan. 19, 2017,
to pursue the NYLL claims alleged in the complaint, and should
conditionally certify a FLSA collective of all similarly situated
members of the ASA faculty to pursue the FLSA claim.
Judge Liman finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements
of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff
has satisfied the numerosity requirements. There also are common
issues applicable to all class members. The Plaintiff's claims are
typical of those of the members of the class he proposes to
represent.
The Plaintiff has also demonstrated that he is an adequate class
representative, Judge Liman holds. The Plaintiff has selected
qualified class counsel, Levine & Blit, PLLC, which the Court also
approves as class counsel. Having considered the factors identified
in Rule 23, the Court approves Levine & Blit, PLLC as class
counsel.
The "predominance" and "superiority" requirements have been
satisfied, Judge Liman also finds. There is no other mechanism for
collectively resolving the NYLL claims of the class members that is
superior to the class action vehicle. For all of the same reasons,
the FLSA collective is conditionally certified, Judge Liman holds.
The Plaintiff also asks that the Court approve its form of proposed
class notice and issue an order directing the Defendants to provide
a class list containing the names and last known addresses of all
putative class members within twenty-one days. The Court approves
the proposed form of notice, subject to certain alterations.
The Court will permit the submission of the consent forms directly
to the Plaintiff's counsel, and also directs the Plaintiff's
counsel to file the consent forms on the ECF docket on the day that
they are received. The Defendants are directed to provide a class
list containing the names and last known addresses of all putative
class members within twenty-one days.
Accordingly, Judge Liman grants the motion for certification of the
Rule 23 class and conditional certification of the FLSA collective.
The Plaintiff is appointed as class representative and Levine &
Blit, PLLC, is appointed as class counsel. The notice is approved
as modified by this Memorandum and Order and the request for
discovery is granted.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 49,
and to send a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se
Defendant Valencia.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 4,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/ya84cdxufrom
PacerMonitor.com.
ATLANTA, GA: 700 Memorial Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Atlanta,
Georgia, et al. The case is styled as 700 Memorial Drive, LLC, Anne
McKillips, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons
v. City of Atlanta, Georgia, Case No. 2023CV390328 (Ga. Super. Ct.,
Fulton Cty., Dec. 18, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Atlanta -- https://www.atlantaga.gov/ -- is the capital of the U.S.
state of Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William G. Leonard, Esq.
CONTINUUM LEGAL GROUP LLP
5605 Glenridge Dr., Suite 600
Atlanta, GA 30342
BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loretta Fosdick, on Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Berkeley County,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03375-RMG (D.S.C.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order extending the time for the Defendant to respond
to the plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification.
The case is a wage and hour case, including a claim for unpaid
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff also asserts a claim under the South Carolina Payment
of Wages Act. On Friday, November 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her
Motion for Conditional Class Certification.
On November 29, 2023, the Defendant filed a Consent Motion for
Extension of Time for Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion of
Conditional Class Certification.
A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rp84Kw at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bob J. Conley, Esq.
CLEVELAND & CONLEY, L.L.C.
One Seventy-One Church Street, Suite 310
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 577-9626
E-mail: bconley@clevelandlaborlaw.com
BOYNE USA: Must Produce Audited Financial Statements
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as
trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST; ROBERT AND NORA ERHART; and TJARDA CLAGETT,
v. BOYNE USA, INC.; BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC.; and SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris
entered an order granting in part and denying in part motions to
compel as follows:
a. Boyne must respond to Interrogatory No. 14 and disclose the
name
of the institution that maintains its corporate account and
the
account number.
b. Boyne must disclose the accounting records for Plaintiffs
and
every class member to the extent that such records exist. To
the
extent that such records do not exist, the Court directs
Boyne
to answer affirmatively and unequivocally that the excel
spreadsheet and monthly statements represent the only
accounting
and transaction records that Boyne possesses for the named
plaintiffs or the class members.
c. Boyne must produce any "audited" financial statements that
it
has in its possession that show the amount of revenue earned
by
Boyne through the rental management program, or alternatively
verify that the statements already produced are audited
statements.
d. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of financial
documents beyond those that show the amount of revenue earned
by
Boyne through the rental management program is denied.
The Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel the production of
certain documents. The Defendants Boyne USA, Inc., Boyne
Properties, Inc., and Summit Hotel, LLC move for an order from the
Court to compel the production of other certain documents.
The Court certified the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3):
"All persons and entities, other than Boyne, that: (i) own or
have
owned a unit in the Summit, the Shoshone, or the Village Center;
and (ii) [have] participated in the Boyne rental management
program."
Boyne owns and operates Big Sky Resort (“Big Sky”), as well as
three condominium-hotels at the base of Big Sky known as the
Summit, Shoshone, and Village Center.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GJaAq6 at no extra charge.[CC]
BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE v. BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03360 (D.D.C., Filed Nov. 8, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Timothy J. Kelly entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's consent motion for extension of time to file motion for
class certification.
The Court further entered an order that Plaintiff may move for
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1), if necessary,
following the Court's resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
by a date to be set by the Court at any Initial Scheduling
Conference.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes - Constitutionality of
State Statutes.
Bozzuto is a third-party manager of multifamily communities.[CC]
CAVA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Hamman's 2nd Amended Complaint Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss
second amended complaint in the lawsuit captioned NEIL HAMMAN and
MICHAEL STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CAVA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00593-MMA-MSB (S.D. Cal.).
In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant failed to disclose the presence of "heightened levels of
organic fluorine and unsafe per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances"
contained in the packaging of its grain and salad bowls. The Court
further detailed the Plaintiffs' factual allegations in its Feb. 8,
2023 Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC").
In its previous Order, the Court dismissed with leave to amend the
Plaintiffs' claims regarding biocides and their common law causes
of action for failure to identify the applicable state laws, which
included a claim for fraudulent omission. The Court further found
that as to their claim for fraudulent omission, the Plaintiffs
failed to assert a duty to disclose. In response to this Order, the
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"),
asserting their common law claims under California law and dropping
their biocide and fraudulent omission claims.
In the instant motion, the Defendant again moves to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' SAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), but only as to their claims for punitive damages, breach
of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The Defendant argues
that the Plaintiffs fail to allege grounds for their punitive
damages and implied warranty claims and that their claim for unjust
enrichment fails as a matter of law.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Court need not reach the merits of
the Defendant's arguments pursuant to Rule 12(g)(2). The Plaintiffs
contend that the Defendant could have made its arguments in its
previous motion to dismiss and, therefore, Rule 12(g) precludes it
from now asserting them. One of the cases they cite is In re
Packaged Seafood Prod. Antitrust Litig., 277 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (S.D.
Cal. 2017), in which U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino barred
the defendants from bringing a successive Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Here, Judge Anello notes, the factual footing has not substantively
changed between the FAC and SAC, both of which largely share the
same factual material. Indeed, the redline comparison submitted by
the Plaintiffs with their SAC demonstrates very minimal alterations
between the FAC and SAC, aside from the deletion of the Plaintiffs'
biocide and fraudulent omission claims that were dismissed in the
Court's previous Order.
Therefore, because the allegations are not substantively different
in the SAC, Judge Anello finds that the Defendant's arguments could
have been raised in its previous motion to dismiss and the instant
motion violates Rule 12(g)(2)'s ban on successive Rule 12(b)
motions. Further, the Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant's
argument in its reply that Rule 12(g)(2) has no application here
because this is the first motion directed to the operative
complaint, given that the Defendant relies on older cases from this
District that pre-date the Ninth Circuit's In re Apple iPhone
Antitrust Litig. case, which affirmed "that Rule 12(g)(2) facially
bars successive Rule 12(b)(6) motions," 846 F.3d at 318.
In sum, the court in In re Packaged Seafood Prod. Antitrust Litig.
declined to allow a successive 12(b)(6) motion even though the
factual footing changed. Here, the factual footing has not even
changed in a way that would give the Court some pause before using
its discretion to ban this successive 12(b)(6) motion.
Judge Anello holds that the Defendant could have raised its
arguments in its motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC. Therefore,
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the SAC is denied.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC. The Defendant will file an answer to
the Plaintiffs' SAC no later than Jan. 8, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/t8v9nbktfrom PacerMonitor.com.
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Seeks Evidentiary Hearing on Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL, as
Executrix of the Estate of LOUISE MCGRAW, deceased; LORETTA
HOLCOMB, as Executrix of the Estate of CHARLOTTE RODGERS, deceased;
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR
SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Defendant asks the Court to schedule an evidentiary hearing on the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs have a heavy evidentiary burden they must satisfy
because "Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard -- a
party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate
his compliance with the Rule—that is, he must be prepared to
prove there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common
questions of law or fact, etc."
The Parties disagree as to what the salient facts are for this
Court to make the determinations it must as to each of the seven
elements Plaintiffs must establish, with competent, admissible
evidence, to satisfy their burden of proof under Rule 23.
Chancellor is a dynamic company that develops, owns, and operates
properties that provide seniors with housing and health care
options.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47N7s8m at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
W. Michael Frazier, Esq.
FRAZIER & OXLEY, L.C.
Huntington, WV 25727
Telephone: (304) 697-4370
- and -
Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
Claire E. F. Eichmann, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT, LLP
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 285-5000
- and -
Avrum Levicoff, Esq.
Robert L. Hogan, Esq.
THE LEVICOFF LAW FIRM, P.C.
4 PPG Place, Suite 200
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 434-5200
CINFED FEDERAL CREDIT: Burwick Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cinfed Federal Credit
Union. The case is styled as Kendall Burwick, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cinfed Federal Credit
Union, Case No. 1:23-cv-00824-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 18, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Cinfed Federal Credit Union -- https://www.cinfed.com/ -- provides
banking and financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason Charles Kuhlman, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON C. KUHLMAN, PLLC
P.O.Box 17216
Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017-0216
Phone: (859) 801-2990
Email: jason@jckuhlmanlaw.com
CINTAS CORP: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 27, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BEARUP JR., et al.,
V. CINTAS CORP NO. 2, Case No. 1:21-cv-00151-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Matthew W. McFarland entered an order granting the
Parties' joint motion for extension of calendar order deadlines.
a. Fact Discovery Deadline: Aug. 27, 2024
b. Deadlines for Disclosure of
Expert Witnesses and Submission of
Reports:
i. Plaintiffs' Expert Report(s): Sept. 30, 2024
ii. Defendant's Expert Report(s): Dec. 2, 2024
iii. Disclosure and Report of Jan. 13, 2025
Rebuttal Experts:
c. Expert Discovery Deadline: March 25, 2025
d. Deadline for Motion for Class May 27, 2025
Certification:
e. Deadline for Opposition to Motion July 28, 2025
for Class Certification:
f. Deadline for Reply in Support of Aug. 27, 2025
Motion for Class Certification:
Cintas provides a range of products and services to businesses
including uniforms, mats, mops, cleaning and restroom supplies,
first aid and safety products, fire extinguishers and testing, and
safety courses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rze2cV at no extra charge.[CC]
DOLLAR TREE: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Set for April 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in October 31, 2023, that on
October 27, 2023, the court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement of 14 putative class action complaints primarily related
to issues associated with Family Dollar's West Memphis, Arkansas
distribution center and the related sale and distribution of
adulterated products since February 22, 2022.
Notice of the settlement and how to submit a claim was given
beginning November 10, 2023. A hearing on final approval of the
settlement has been scheduled for April 5, 2024.
The lawsuits were proceeding in federal court in Tennessee using
the federal court's multi-district litigation process, seek class
action status, and allege violations of the Mississippi, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama and Missouri consumer protection
laws, breach of warranty, negligence, misrepresentation, deception
and unjust enrichment related to the sale of products that may be
contaminated by virtue of rodent infestation and other unsanitary
conditions.
Plaintiffs sought damages, attorney fees and costs, punitive
damages and replacement or refund of money paid to purchase the
relevant products, and any other legal relief available for their
claims, including equitable and injunctive relief. As a result of a
mediation held in April 2023, the parties reached a claims made
settlement whereby one class member per household will receive a
$25 Family Dollar gift certificate.
Dollar Tree, Inc. is an American multi-price-point chain of
discount variety stores. Headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia, it
is a Fortune 500 company and operates 15,115 stores throughout the
48 contiguous U.S. states and Canada. Its stores are supported by a
nationwide logistics network of 24 distribution centers.
FEDEX GROUND: Ortiz-Dixon Bid to Remand Tossed
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLER ORTIZ-DIXON et al.,
v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. et al., Case No.
5:23-cv-01140-ODW-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
As the Court finds that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction,
it grants the Parties' Joint Stipulation, and stays this action
pending class certification in the prior-filed matter, Depina v.
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00156-TLT (N.D.
Cal.).
The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Status of Depina on August
19, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. Seven days before the Status Conference, the
parties must submit a Joint Report updating the Court as to the
status of Depina and whether the stay in this action should remain
in place.
Based on its employment records, FedEx determined that during
FedEx's Calculation Period it employed at least 30,585 putative
class members, and these employees worked 1,920,668 shifts over
three and a half hours. Although the average hourly wage of the
employees during the FedEx's Calculation Period was $19.25, FedEx
rests its amount in controversy calculations on the more
conservative minimum hourly wage of $15.00.
On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff Tayler Ortiz-Dixon filed this
putative Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Bernardino, against her employer,
Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. On June 14, 2023, FedEx
removed the instant action on the basis that this Court has
jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act.
Fedex provides package delivery services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RkCNYV at no extra charge.[CC]
FINANCIAL ASSET: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Pena Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH PENA, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05549-SEG (N.D. Ga.,
Dec. 4, 2023) is a class action arising out of the recent
cyberattack and data breach that was allegedly perpetrated against
Defendant.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal information -- which was entrusted to Defendant
-- was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach.
The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally
identifiable information of Plaintiff and approximately 164,000
putative Class Members who make (or made) loan payments to FAMS.
The personally identifying information compromised in the Data
Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and Social
Security numbers, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for
failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
other Class Members that their information had been subject to the
unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what
specific type of information was accessed.
Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. is an account recovery
solutions provider that provides products and services to
education, financial services, government, healthcare, and
telecommunications/media markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
E-mail: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: -78-dlietz@milberg.com
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION: Parker Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PARKER HOLDING GROUP INC., Plaintiff v. FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, THE KEYES COMPANY, LPT REALTY, LLC, CHARLES RUTENBERG
REALTY, INC., CHARLES RUTENBERG REALTY - ORLANDO, LLC, UNITED
REALTY GROUP,INC, THE K COMPANY REALTY, LLC, FLORIDA HOMES REALTY &
MORTGAGE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DALTON WADE, INC., AVANTI WAY
REALTY, LLC, MVP REALTY ASSOCIATES LLC, FLORIDA REALTY OF MIAMI
CORP., LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL REALTY LLC, WATSON REALTY CORP.,
PREMIERE PLUS REALTY CO., FUTURE HOME REALTY, INC., MICHAEL
SAUNDERS & COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 187328252 (Fla. Cir., 11th
Judicial, Miami-Dade Cty., Dec. 4, 2023) is brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated in Florida, against the Defendants for agreeing,
combining, and conspiring to impose, implement, and enforce
anticompetitive restraints that cause home sellers in Florida to
pay inflated commissions in connection with the sale of their
homes, in violation of the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980 and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Florida Realtors, the Broker Defendants, and their co-conspirators
collectively possess market power in the market for buyer-agent and
seller-broker services through their control of the Florida Realtor
Multiple Listing Services (MLSs). The Florida Realtor MLSs are the
tool by which Defendants exercise market power in Florida to
maintain buyer-agent commissions and seller-broker commissions at
artificially high levels. The MLSs are expressly designed to be the
"means" for members acting as seller-brokers to "make blanket
unilateral offers of compensation" to buyer-agents.
The conspiracy has substantially reduced competition in the markets
for buyer-agent services and seller-broker commissions to the
detriment of home sellers in Florida. Specifically, the conspiracy
enables brokers to raise, fix, and maintain real estate agent
compensation at artificially high levels that would not exist in a
competitive marketplace. The conspiracy also enables brokers to
"steer" home buyers away from lower commission homes, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff and other Class Members have each incurred
substantial overcharges, often thousands of dollars, as a result of
Defendants' alleged conspiracy.
Plaintiff Parker Holding Group Inc. is incorporated in Florida with
its principal place of business in Panama City, Florida. Plaintiff
sold homes in Panama City, Florida on March 31, 2021, and August
25, 2021. The homes were listed on the Central Panhandle MLS. As
part of the transactions, Plaintiff paid substantial buyer-agent
commissions and seller-broker commissions.
Florida Association of Realtors is the statewide professional trade
association for real estate agents in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jorge L. Piedra, Esq.
Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq.
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 372-1800
E-mail: jpiedra@kttlaw.com
bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey L. Berhold, Esq.
JEFFREY L. BERHOLD, P.C.
1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 1050
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 872-3800
E-mail: jeff@berhold.com
- and -
Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
Andrew Lampros, Esq.
Ricardo Gilb, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
alampros@hallandlampros.com
GEICO GENERAL: Porcu Files Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico General
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Edmondo Porcu,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Geico General Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-02302-LL-BGS
(S.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.
Geico General Insurance Company -- https://www.geico.com/ --
operates as an insurance company. The Company offers vehicle,
property, motorcycle, boat, homeowners, flood, mobile home, general
liability, and pet insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jorge Federico Lathrop, Esq.
205 W Alvarado St
Fallbrook, CA 92028
Phone: (760) 723-1295
Email: federico@lathroplawfirm.com
- and -
Paula R. Brown, Esq.
Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
Timothy G. Blood
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 338-1100
Fax: (619) 338-1101
Email: pbrown@bholaw.com
toreardon@bholaw.com
tblood@bholaw.com
GLEN MILLS: Seeks to File Sur-reply in Opposition to Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK, et al., v. GLEN
MILLS SCHOOLS, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01541-HB (E.D. Pa.), the
DHSA defendants file a motion for leave to file a sur-reply in
Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Pursuant to the Court's Policies and Procedures, Defendants Teresa
D. Miller, former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Human
Services, Theodore Dallas, former Secretary of the Pennsylvania
Department of Human Services, and Cathy Utz, former Deputy
Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services’
Office of Children, Youth, and Families (the "DHS Defendants") move
for an order granting them leave to file a short sur-reply in
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41Ltvu9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., Esq.
Paul Lantieri III, Esq.
Kaitlin M. Gurney, Esq.
Joseph J. Bailey, Esq.
John W. Scott, Esq.
Kathryn J. Boyle, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
Telephone: (215) 665-8500
Facsimile: (215) 864-8999
HYUNDAI CAPITAL: Factual Discovery in Metcalfe Due Dec. 13
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elsie Metcalfe, v. Hyundai
Capital America, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00378-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.),
the Hon. Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. entered a Pretrial Scheduling
Order as follows:
1. Pleadings shall be amended by: May 24, 2024
2. All parties shall be joined by: May 24, 2024
3. All factual discovery shall be Dec. 13, 2024
completed by:
Hyundai Capital provides commercial finance services. The Company
offers vehicle financing and leasing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47QkVfE at no extra charge.[CC]
ISM VUZEM: Hearing on Bid to Approve Proposed Class Notice Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maslic et al v. ISM Vuzem
d.o.o. et al, Case No. 5:21-cv-02556-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order as follows:
-- vacating hearing on the Plaintiff Sasa Maslic's motion for
approval of proposed class notice plan; and
-- approving proposed form of notice as modified by the court.
This suit for wage and hour violations and human trafficking is
brought by persons who claim that they were transported to the
United States from their home countries of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
the Republic of Slovenia, and Croatia to provide cheap labor for
American companies.
The Plaintiffs assert several individual claims and one class
claim. The Court has certified the class claim, appointed Plaintiff
Sasa Maslic as the class representative, and appointed the Law
Office of William C. Dresser as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs filed this suit in the Alameda County Superior Court
in August 2020, and filed a first amended complaint in October
2020.
The Plaintiffs assert the following claims against Eisenmann and
Tesla, and against ISM Vuzem d.o.o. and several related. Those
claims are:
(1) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA");
(2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA;
(3) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California law;
(4) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California
law;
(5) failure to provide meal breaks and rest periods in violation
of
California law;
(6) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of
California law;
(7) failure to pay waiting time penalties in violation of
California law;
(8) a class claim for violation of California wage and hour
laws;
(9) trafficking and coerced labor under the federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the California
Trafficking Victims Protection Act; and
(10) a claim under California Labor Code section 3706.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RlyzjM at no extra charge.[CC]
JACK IN THE BOX: Settles California Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------
Jack in the Box 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 21, 2023, that on
August 8, 2023, the court issued its final approval of settlement
of a purported Private Attorneys General Act claim and class action
alleging various causes of action under California's labor, wage,
and hour laws. On August 9, 2023 final judgement was entered.
The company made its first payment of half of the settlement amount
on August 28, 2023. Payment of the second half was made on November
27, 2023.
On March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported Private
Attorneys General Act claim and class action alleging various
causes of action under California's labor, wage, and hour laws. The
plaintiff generally alleges Del Taco did not appropriately provide
meal and rest breaks and failed to pay wages and reimburse business
expenses to its California non-exempt employees. On November 12,
2021, the court granted, in part, the plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The parties participated in a voluntary mediation on
May 24, 2022 and June 3, 2022.
On June 4, 2022, the company entered into a Settlement Memorandum
of Understanding which obligates the company to pay a gross
settlement amount of $50.0 million, for which in exchange the
company will be released from all claims by the parties.
Jack in the Box Inc. is a restaurant company that operates and
franchises "Jack in the Box(R)," one of the nation's largest
hamburger chains with approximately 2,200 restaurants across 22
states, and "Del Taco(R)," the second largest Mexican-American
quick service restaurants chain by units in the U.S. with
approximately 600 restaurants across 16 states.
KIRKLAND'S INC: Court Junks Gennock Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, 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 29, 2023, that on
May 16, 2023, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania ruled that
plaintiffs lacked standing under Pennsylvania law and dismissed
plaintiffs' complaint with regards to a putative class action filed
in April 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania captioned "Gennock v. Kirkland's, Inc."
On November 14, 2023, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided not to
take the case on appeal.
The complaint alleged that the company, in violation of federal
law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers' receipts and sought statutory and
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
On October 21, 2019, the District Court dismissed the matter.
Following the dismissal in federal court, on October 25, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania
state court, and on August 20, 2020, the court ruled that the
plaintiffs have standing. The company appealed that ruling, and on
April 27, 2022, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted the
company's petition for permission to appeal.
Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home décor and
furnishings in the United States operating 339 stores in 35 states
as of October 28, 2023, as well as an e-commerce website,
www.kirklands.com, under the "Kirkland's Home" brand.
KIRKLAND'S INC: Court Stays Miles Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, 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 29, 2023, that a
putative class action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of
California captioned "Miles v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc." has been
stayed in said court.
The case has been removed to United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleges, on behalf of
Miles and all other hourly Kirkland's employees in California,
various wage and hour violations and seeks unpaid wages, statutory
and civil penalties, monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the complaint and
believes that its employment policies are generally compliant with
California law.
On March 22, 2022, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
to certify in its entirety, and on May 26, 2022, the Ninth Circuit
granted the plaintiff's petition for permission to appeal. The
court has stayed the entire case pending the appeal.
Kirkland's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of home décor and
furnishings in the United States operating 339 stores in 35 states
as of October 28, 2023, as well as an e-commerce website,
www.kirklands.com, under the "Kirkland's Home" brand.
KOHL'S CORP: Faces Shanaphy Shareholder Suit Over SEC Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Kohl's Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 31, 2023, that it is facing a
putative class action lawsuit filed on September 2, 2022 by Sean
Shanaphy, an alleged shareholder of the company, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the
company, its directors, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934. Case is captioned "Shanaphy v. Kohl's
Corporation," No. 2:22-cv- 01016-LA.
The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between October 20,
2020 and May 19, 2022, and seeks compensatory damages, interest,
fees, and costs. The complaint alleges that members of the putative
class suffered losses as a result of false or misleading statements
and withholding of information regarding the conception, execution,
and outcomes of the company's strategic plan announced on October
20, 2020 and the company's financial results for the first quarter
of fiscal 2022 and its internal controls over financial reporting,
disclosure controls, and corporate governance mechanisms.
Lead plaintiff applications were submitted on November 1, 2022, and
on May 23, 2023, the court appointed Thomas Frame as lead
plaintiff. Subsequently, on June 9, 2023, lead plaintiff candidate
The Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan (NSHEPP) filed a
motion for reconsideration of the court's May 23, 2023 order.
On May 23, 2023, the court appointed Thomas Frame as lead
plaintiff. On October 19, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint with substantially similar claims and allegations which
named the company, certain of its current and former directors and
its Chief Financial Officer as defendants and revised the Class
Period to be August 19, 2021 to July 1, 2022.
Kohl's is a department store chain based in Menomonee Falls,
Wisconsin.
LESLIE'S INC: Faces WPBPPF Suit Over SEC Disclosures
----------------------------------------------------
Leslie's, 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 29, 2023, that on September 8,
2023, a class action complaint for violation of federal securities
laws was filed by West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona against the company, its
Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer.
The complaint alleges that the company violated federal securities
laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements that
failed to disclose adverse facts about its financial guidance,
business operations and prospects, and seeks class certification,
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other relief.
Leslie's is a direct-to-consumer brand in the pool and spa care
industry, serving residential and professional consumers, operating
primarily in the pool and spa aftermarket industry.
LOGAN'S SANCTUARY: Munteanu Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA C. MUNTEANU and TATSIANA MALOILA, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOGAN'S SANTUARY LLC dba
HAVEN ROOFTOP, and BRANDON FREID, and ELDA DeVILLA, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10565 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor
practices and policies in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law
The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay non-exempt
employees proper minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
spread-of-hours premiums; misappropriating and unlawfully retaining
tips from tipped employees; illegally retaining service charges
purported to be gratuities from tipped employees; and illegally
withholding and/or failing to pay wages and tips to employees.
Plaintiff Munteanu was employed by the Defendants as a server at
Haven Rooftop continuously during the period between August 14,
2021 and September 14, 2023.
Plaintiff Maloila was employed as a non-exempt server and bartender
and worked continuously during the period May 2018 through December
29, 2022, and again July 20, 2023 through October 18, 2023.
Logan's Santuary LLC, dba Haven Rooftop, is a restaurant, bar and
event space based in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING: Faces Oliver-Banks Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOY OLIVER-BANKS, on behalf of herself and current and former
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. MANAGEMENT & TRAINING; and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV29589 (Cal. Sup., Los
Angeles Cty., Dec. 4, 2023) is a Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, California Labor Code representative action brought by
Plaintiff on behalf of the State of California, herself and other
current and former aggrieved employees of Defendants who worked as
hourly non-exempt employees in California during the relevant time
period seeking civil penalties associated with Defendants'
violation of the state law.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay wages for all
hours worked at the employees' minimum wage rate or overtime rate,
failure to provide all legally required and legally compliant meal
and rest periods, failure to timely pay earned wages during
employment, failure to provide complete and accurate wage
statements, and failure to timely pay all unpaid wages following
separation of employment.
The named Plaintiff and the persons on whose behalf this action is
filed include current, former and/or future employees of Defendants
who work, worked, or will work for Defendants as direct employees
as well as temporary employees employed through temp agencies as
hourly non-exempt employees in California.
Management & Training Corporation is authorized to do business
within the State of California and is doing business in the
state.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Aaron D. Boal, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
aboal@lelawfirm.com
MAPFRE USA: Sinha Alleges Compromised Personal Info in Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case VIJAY SINHA and PHYLLIS DUBE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAPFRE U.S.A.
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-12966 (D. Mass., Dec. 4,
2023) involves the data breach that Defendant announced on August
22, 2023, wherein -- from July 1, 2023 to July 2, 2023 -- the
personal identifying information of hundreds of thousands of
individuals including Plaintiffs was exposed due to a flaw in
Defendant's online quoting system, which allowed hackers and other
bad actors to obtain individuals' PII for unsavory and illegal
purposes.
According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's failure to properly safeguard and
protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information from
unauthorized access, use, and disclosure, as required by various
state and federal regulations, industry practices, and the common
law, including Defendant's failure to establish and implement
appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to
ensure the security and confidentiality of Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' private information to protect against reasonably
foreseeable threats to the security or integrity of such
information.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's wrongful actions
and inaction and the resulting data breach, Plaintiffs and Class
Members have been placed at an imminent, immediate, and continuing
increased risk of harm from identity theft and identity fraud, says
the suit.
APFRE U.S.A. Corporation is a provider of insurance products to
Americans, including car insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luke Mitcheson, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN PA
101 Station Landing, Suite 230
Medford, MA 02155
Telephone: (857) 383-4905
E-mail: lmitcheson@forthepeople.com
MDL 2445: Court Awards $14-Mil. in Fees & Costs in Suboxone Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the motion for attorneys'
fees and expenses in the multidistrict litigation entitled IN RE
SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALOXONE) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: End Payor Actions, Case No.
2:13-md-02445-MSG (E.D. Pa.).
On Oct. 19, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the Unopposed Motion
for Final Approval of End Payor Settlement and for Related Relief
(the "Final Approval Motion") brought by A.F. of L. - A.C.G.
Building Trades Welfare Plan, Construction & General Laborers'
Local 190 Welfare Fund, I.B.E.W. 292 Health Care Plan, Michigan
Regional Council of Carpenters Employee Benefits Fund, Painters
District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, Teamsters Health
Services and Insurance Plan Local 404, and United Food & Commercial
Workers Health and Welfare Fund of Northeastern Pennsylvania
(collectively, "End Payor Plaintiffs").
The Court, having reviewed the Final Approval Motion and supporting
materials, the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses, and Payment of Service Awards to the Class
Representations, and the Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and Payment of Service
Awards, and having heard the arguments of counsel for the parties,
finds that the Final Approval Motion, the Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, and the Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees should be granted
and the Settlement Agreement between End Payor Plaintiffs and
Indivior, Inc., f/k/a Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Defendant" or "Indivior") should be finally approved pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
For purposes of this Order, except as otherwise stated, the Court
adopts and incorporates the definitions contained in the Settlement
Agreement. Nothing in this Order is intended to modify the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(3), and (e)(ii), the Court
certifies the following End Payor Class for settlement purposes:
All persons or entities who purchased and/or paid for some
or all of the purchase price for Co-Formulated
Buprenorphine/Naloxone (Suboxone and/or its AB-rated generic
equivalent) in any form, for consumption by themselves,
their families or their members, employees, plan
participants, beneficiaries or insureds in Alabama, Alaska,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and District
of Columbia between December 22, 2011 and the date on which
the Court enters the Plaintiffs' proposed Preliminary
Approval Order (the "Class Period").
The following persons or entities are excluded from the End Payor
Class: (i) Pharmacy benefit managers; (ii) Defendant and its
officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or
affiliates; (iii) all governmental entities, except for government
funded employee benefit plans; (iv) all persons or entities who
purchased Suboxone or its AB-rated generic equivalents in any form
for purposes of resale or directly from Defendant or its
affiliates; and (v) the judges in this case and any members of
their immediate families.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g), the Court gives
final approval to the appointment of Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP,
Miller Law, LLC, Motley Rice LLC, and Hilliard Shadowen LLP as
Co-Lead Counsel for the End Payor Class, and Spector Roseman &
Kodroff PC as Liaison Counsel for the End Payor Class.
The Court grants final approval to the Settlement Agreement and the
terms contained therein, and finds that the Settlement Agreement
is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and directs
consummation of the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and
conditions.
The Court finds that notice was provided to the members of the End
Payor Class as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and due process
and was provided as directed by this Court in the Amended
Preliminary Approval Order. Such notice constitutes the best notice
practicable under the circumstances and satisfies the requirements
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (c)(2)(B) and Rule 23 (e)(1).
The Court finds that the Allocation Plan, described in the class
notice and posted on the Settlement website, treats the members of
the End Payor Class in a manner that is equitable and distributes
the Net Settlement Fund to End Payor Class members based on a
rational assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of certain
claims, as well as an expert analysis of the damages distribution
as between consumers and Third Party Payors. Distribution on a pro
rata basis has been approved in similar cases to this. As such, the
Allocation Plan is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Judge Goldberg notes that no objections to the Settlement were
filed.
Any member of the End Payor Class, who failed to timely and validly
request to be excluded from the End Payor Class, will be subject to
and bound by the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Third
Party Payors, who validly requested to be excluded from the End
Payor Class, are listed in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kenneth
A. Wexler. A list of consumers, who validly opted out, has been
filed and will remain under seal pursuant to paragraphs 14 and 19
of the Amended Order Nunc Pro Tunc August 21, 2023 Granting
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of End Payor
Settlement and for Other Relief.
All members of the End Payor Class not specifically set forth in
these lists of exclusions will be subject to, and bound by, the
terms of this Order and the provisions of the Settlement Agreement,
including the Release and Covenant Not to Sue set forth in
paragraph 12.
The Court finds that the notice requirements set forth in the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, have been
satisfied.
The Court dismisses the End Payor Class Action with prejudice, with
each party to bear its own costs and fees, including attorneys'
fees, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
The Court reserves exclusive jurisdiction over the Settlement and
this Settlement Agreement, including the provisions of paragraph 5
of the Settlement Agreement regarding the administration and
consummation of the Settlement, the award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of costs and expenses, and the payment of service
awards to each of the named End Payor Plaintiffs.
The Court directs that the judgment of dismissal of all End Payor
Class claims against the Defendant will be final and appealable
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), there being no just reason for
delay. Neither this Order nor the Settlement Agreement nor any
other Settlement-related document will constitute any evidence or
admission by the Defendant or any other Released Party.
The Court, having fully reviewed the factors set forth in Gunter v.
Ridgwood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190, 195 n.1 (3d Cir. 2000),
approves the award of attorneys' fees in the amount of one-third of
the Settlement Fund or $10,000,000, plus one-third of the interest
earned on the Settlement Fund as of the date of this Order.
The Court finds that the $1,588,715.24 in expenses reflected in the
submissions of Class Counsel were reasonably incurred and of the
type routinely billed by attorneys to their clients in similar
cases, such as for expert, depositions, and document hosting. In
addition, Class Counsel incurred expenses of $931,255.51 providing
notice to the eleven-State Class, $1,404,056.05 for nationwide
notice and settlement administration, and $18,745.07 for the End
Payor Plaintiffs' economist. In total, Judge Goldberg finds that
$3,942,771.87 in fees and costs paid and/or accrued over a ten-year
period warrants reimbursement.
The Court finds that the class representatives for the EPPs were
active participants in the matter and, therefore, the requested
award of $15,000 to each named End Payor Plaintiff is reasonable
and warranted for their efforts on behalf of the End Payor Class,
for a total amount of $105,000.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/eckxv4ssfrom PacerMonitor.com.
MDL 2445: Court Finally Approves $30-Mil. End Payor Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania gives final approval to the $30
million settlement with the End-Payor Plaintiffs in the
multidistrict litigation styled IN RE SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE
HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALOXONE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO: End Payor Actions, Case No. 2:13-md-02445-MSG (E.D.
Pa.).
Currently before the Court in this multi-district antitrust case is
the End-Payor Plaintiffs' ("EPPs") Motion for Final Approval of the
End Payor Settlement. Upon review of the parties' briefing and
considering the arguments at the final fairness hearing on Oct. 19,
2023, Judge Goldberg will certify a settlement class, grant final
approval of the class action settlement, and award attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive payments as requested.
Defendant Indivior, Inc., manufactures Suboxone, a drug commonly
used to combat opioid addiction. Suboxone previously came in tablet
form, but in 2010, citing safety concerns, the Defendant
effectuated a change in the administration of this drug, switching
from tablet to sublingual film. Various purchasers/consumers of
Suboxone claimed that this switch was anticompetitive and solely
designed to maintain the Defendant's market exclusivity--a scheme
known as a "product hop." These claims resulted in multi-district,
antitrust litigation before the Court.
The alleged antitrust scheme at issue is multi-faceted and
explained at length in Judge Goldberg's Opinion regarding the
denial of the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on liability
in In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone)
Antitrust Litigation, 622 F. Supp. 3d 22, 35–45 (E.D. Pa. 2022).
On Aug. 15, 2013, the EPPs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint setting forth antitrust, consumer protection, and
unjust enrichment claims under the laws of forty-eight states, plus
Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
Following motions to dismiss, Judge Goldberg dismissed claims
arising under the laws of thirty-seven States and territories and
granted the motions as to all Defendant entities other than
Defendant Indivior, Inc., formerly known as Reckitt Benckiser,
Inc.
Discovery proceeded, and the EPPs filed a motion for class
certification of an issues-only class. On Sept. 27, 2019, Judge
Goldberg certified a class of EPPs pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c)(4) on six distinct issues, including whether
the Defendant engaged in anticompetitive and deceptive conduct, and
whether the Defendant willfully maintained monopoly power through
such conduct.
The Defendant subsequently filed summary judgment motions as to all
claims against it. Judge Goldberg denied those motions in August
2022, and scheduled trial to commence in September 2023.
In January 2023, upon all counsel's request, Judge Goldberg engaged
in mediation with the EPPs and the Defendant. Following several
months of mediation, the EPPs and the Defendant reached a
settlement in the amount of $30 million, in exchange for a release
of all antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims
asserted on behalf of the class of consumers and third-party
payors, who purchased and/or paid for Suboxone and/or its generic
equivalents in forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico (the "Settlement").
On Aug. 21, 2023, Judge Goldberg entered an order for preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement, for preliminary certification
of the settlement classes, and for permission to disseminate notice
of the proposed settlement to members of the settlement classes
("Preliminary Approval Order").
Upon review of the relevant factors under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, Judge Goldberg certified the following class:
All persons or entities who purchased and/or paid for some
or all of the purchase price for Co-Formulated
Buprenorphine/Naloxone (Suboxone and/or its AB-rated generic
equivalent) in any form, for consumption by themselves,
their families or their members, employees, plan
participants, beneficiaries or insureds in Alabama, Alaska,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and District
of Columbia between Dec. 22, 2011, and the date on which the
Court enters the Plaintiffs' proposed Preliminary Approval
Order (the "Class Period").
The following persons or entities were excluded from the proposed
Classes: (i) pharmacy benefit managers; (ii) the Defendant and its
officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or
affiliates; (iii) all governmental entities (except for government
funded employee benefit plans); (iv) all persons or entities who
purchased Suboxone or its AB-rate generic equivalents in any form
for purposes of resale or directly from Defendant or its
affiliates; and (v) the judges in this case and any members of
their immediate families.
Following entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, Lead Counsel for
the EPPs ("Class Counsel") worked with Settlement Administrator
A.B. Data, Ltd., to implement the approved notice program ("Notice
Program"). The Notice Plan included direct mail notice to members
of the End Payor Class, who could be identified with reasonable
effort, augmented by publication in print media and digital media
placement.
Thereafter, beginning Aug. 28, 2023, notice was sent by mail to
approximately 900,000 addresses and published in targeted digital
email. More than 1,250 emails were sent to third-party payors
("TPPs") and their representatives, and over 291 million digital
media impressions were delivered to end-payor class members. A news
release was also disseminated via PR Newswire, reaching the desks
of over 10,000 newsrooms across the United States.
Following this notice, thirty-seven class members opted out of the
class, and no objections to the settlement were filed. As of the
date of the EPPs request for final approval, class members had
submitted more than 110,000 claims. Claim forms are not due until
Feb. 17, 2024.
The proposed Plan of Allocation calls for payment of any approved
attorneys' fees, litigation costs, settlement administration costs,
escrow administration costs, and incentive payments from the
settlement funds received. Following those disbursements, the net
settlement funds ("Net Class Settlement Fund") will be used to pay
class claims that have been approved and authorized.
The Net Class Settlement Fund will be divided into two State
Allocation Pools: (a) 90% will go to States with Illinois Brick
repealer statutes, and (b) 10% will go to States without Illinois
Brick repealer statutes. Within each of these State Allocation
pools, the funds will be allocated with 45% going to consumers and
55% going to third party payors. All funds in each pool will be
exhausted, and, to the extent any funds remain after payment of all
claims, End Payor Class members may receive more than 100% of their
damages.
On Oct. 16, 2023, Class Counsel filed the present Motion for
Approval of Proposed Settlement and for Related Relief. The Court
held a final fairness hearing on Oct. 19, 2023.
Judge Goldberg finds that the settlement is reasonable in light of
the best possible recovery. The EPPs had only calculated their
recovery in terms of overcharges, not actual damages, and their
overcharge amount did not take into account the impact that rebates
would have. Their overcharge figures for an eleven-state class
ranged from approximately $230 million to almost $300 million. The
total EPP settlement of $30 million is approximately ten percent of
the best possible recovery situation.
The settlement becomes even more reasonable when considered against
the attendant risks of litigation, Judge Goldberg opines. The
settlement was achieved after 10 years of litigation. Class
certification was granted to an eleven-state class on liability
issues only. As such, the best-case recovery scenario could not
have been obtained through a singular trial.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Goldberg finds that the Settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Lending the Settlement the
requisite presumption of fairness, Judge Goldberg notes that all of
the Girsh factors, all of the Prudential factors, and the Baby
Products direct benefit consideration weigh in favor of approval.
Accordingly, Judge Goldberg grants final approval to Settlement.
Judge Goldberg also finds that the proposed Plan of Allocation is
fair, reasonable, and adequate as it provides a straightforward
method for determining each Class Member's pro rata share of the
Net Settlement Fund and then reimburses Class Members based on the
type and extent of their injuries.
The settlement funds from tje Defendant will be subject to
deductions for approved attorneys' fees, administrative costs,
litigation costs, and incentive payments. Ninety percent of the net
amount will be given to the "Repealer State Allocation Pool" and
ten percent will go into the "Non-Repealer State Allocation Pool."
From each of those pools, 45% will be paid out to consumers, while
55% will be paid out to third party payors. The amounts will be
allocated on a pro rata basis and all Class Members will receive a
proportionate award based on the amounts they paid for brand and
generic Suboxone during the class period. All of the net settlement
amounts will be reimbursed to Class Members.
The EPPs seek an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $10
million plus accrued interest--approximately one-third of the Class
Settlement Fund--on behalf of Class Counsel.
Judge Goldberg finds that by all measures, the requested fee is
fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the skill of the attorneys,
the amount of work they expended on this complicated litigation,
and the results they achieved. Accordingly, Judge Goldberg will
grant attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,000,000 plus accrued
interest.
Having fully reviewed the documentation submitted by Class Counsel
in support of both their original Motion and their Amended Motion,
Judge Goldberg finds that the requested expenses were adequately
substantiated and reasonably and appropriately incurred in the
prosecution of the case. Accordingly, Judge Goldberg will award
reasonable and necessary expenses in the total amount of
$3,942,771.87.
Judge Goldberg will also grant the requested incentive awards of
$15,000 to each of the End Payor Plaintiffs, including: A.F. of L.
- A.C.G. Building Trades Welfare Plan, Construction & General
Laborers' Local 190 Welfare Fund, I.B.E.W. 292 Health Care Plan,
Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters Employee Benefits Fund,
Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, Teamsters
Health Services and Insurance Plan Local 404, and United Food &
Commercial Workers Health and Welfare Fund of Northeastern
Pennsylvania -- for a total of $105,000 in incentive payments.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Goldberg approves the End Payor
Class Settlement and Plan of Allocation. In addition, Judge
Goldberg (a) awards End-Payor Class Counsel for the Settlement
Classes attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,000,000, plus
accumulated interest on the Class Settlement Fund; (b) reimburses
Class Counsel $3,942.771.87 in litigation costs and expenses; and
(c) awards each of the End Payor Plaintiffs $15,000 (for a total of
$105,000) to be paid from the Class Settlement Fund.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 4,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/bp577sjpfrom
PacerMonitor.com.
MDL 2741: Conditional Transfer Orders for 3 Hawaii Actions Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In "In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2741,
Acting Chairperson Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation vacates the panel's conditional
transfer orders designated as "CTO-413" and "CTO-417" as to three
actions from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Monsanto Company moved to vacate the panel's orders that
conditionally transferred the three actions from the District of
Hawaii to the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL
No. 2471. Plaintiffs opposed the motions to vacate.
In support of its motions to vacate, Monsanto primarily argues that
inclusion of these three cases, in which plaintiffs allege that
their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by exposure to both
Roundup and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), would disrupt
proceedings in this relatively advanced MDL. Monsanto further
argues that counsel for these plaintiffs have filed more than one
hundred actions (naming nearly 2,000 plaintiffs) in multiple
different state courts that involve similar "Roundup" and "PCB"
claims, and that these actions already are being coordinated
informally by the parties and the involved courts. In opposition,
plaintiffs argue that the presence of issues relating to another
Monsanto product does not preclude transfer of actions that share
common factual questions relating to Roundup.
The general causation and bellwether phases of the litigation are
complete, and the transferee court has implemented a wave-based
remand and mediation program, through which case-specific discovery
is completed and case-specific summary judgment relating to
causation are adjudicated prior to remand of the actions to their
transferor courts for trial.
The transfer of Roundup actions to the MDL remains warranted as
these actions are being efficiently resolved through the wave-based
remand and mediation process. Transfer of these three actions,
however, would inject unique factual and legal issues into the MDL
at a late hour, and likely would require significant judicial and
party effort to allow for litigation of plaintiffs' PCB-related
claims. Given the large number of similar actions in various state
courts that are, according to both parties, being litigated in a
coordinated fashion, the inefficiencies that would result from
transfer of these actions to the MDL outweigh any efficiencies to
be gained with respect to plaintiffs' Roundup-related claims.
Accordingly, the panel granted Monsanto's motions to vacate the
conditional transfer orders.
A full-text copy of the court's December 7, 2023 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2741-Order_Vacating_CTO-11-23.pdf
MDL 2873: Kentucky v. EI. Dupont Transferred to D.S.C.
------------------------------------------------------
In "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability
Litigation," MDL NO. 2873, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order transferring "Commonwealth of
Kentucky, Energy and Environment Cabinet v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours
and Company, et al.," C.A. No. 3:23−00047, E.D. Ky.) from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the
District of South Carolina and assigned it to Judge Richard M.
Gergel for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Defendants E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, The Chemours
Company, The Chemours Company, FC, LLC, Corteva, Inc. and DuPont de
Nemours, Inc. moved to transfer this action to the District of
South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. No party responded to
this motion, and DuPont stated that plaintiff agrees to transfer of
this action.
In the panel's order centralizing this litigation, it was
determined that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate
forum for actions in which plaintiffs allege that aqueous
film-forming foam (AFFF) products used at airports, military bases,
or certain industrial locations caused the release of
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and/or perfluorooctanoic acid into
local groundwater and contaminated drinking water. The panel finds
that the said actions share factual questions concerning the use
and storage of AFFFs, the toxicity of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances and the effects of these substances on human health and
these substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in
groundwater supplies.
A full-text copy of the court's December 7, 2023 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Transfer_Order-11-23.pdf
MDL 2873: Panel Denies Transfer of Rougeau v. Ahlstrom to D.S.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873,
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the move
by defendant 3M Company to transfer the case captioned "Rougeau, et
al. v. Ahlstrom Rhinelander, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:23−00546,
W.D. Wisc.) to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL
No. 2873.
MDL No. 2873 involves allegations that aqueous film-forming foams
(AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or other locations to
extinguish liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA; collectively,
these and other per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances are referred to
as PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water
supplies. These defendants allegedly discharged their industrial
wastewater to conventional wastewater treatment plants and dispose
of other waste products in area landfills. PFAS from these waste
products allegedly flows into the downstream waters.
The panel said that 3M has not met its "significant burden" of
showing that transfer of the Rougeau action is appropriate. The
plaintiffs' complaint is wholly focused on the alleged
contamination of private water wells in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, are
contaminated from PFAS stemming from the Rhinelander Paper Mill.
Plaintiffs claim that the mill dumped PFAS-contaminated waste on
farmland in Oneida County and seek to represent a putative class of
Oneida County property owners. The panel has excluded actions
involving non-AFFF discharges of PFAS from specific industrial
locations. 3M argues that the Rougeau plaintiffs and class members'
allegations of non-AFFF contamination of their wells will overlap
with the other claims pertaining to AFFF contamination, but these
arguments are too speculative. In support of its motion to
transfer, 3M argues that Rougeau involves contamination sites
already at issue in the MDL.
After considering the parties' arguments, and consideration of the
pleadings and the record, the panel determined that 3M has not
established a sufficiently substantial and concrete overlap between
Rougeau and the AFFF claims pending in the MDL to justify transfer
to the MDL; whether and how AFFF plays a role in plaintiffs'
injuries in Rougeau remains too uncertain to warrant transfer, it
held.
A full-text copy of the court's December 7, 2023 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2873-Order_Denying_Transfer-11-23.pdf
MDL 3014: Panel Vacates Order Transferring Lis Case
---------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned "In Re: Philips Recalled
CPAP, Bi-Level PAP and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability
Litigation," MDL No. 3014, the conditional transfer order
designated as "CTO-81" was vacated as to case captioned "Lis, et
al. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al.," (C.A. No. 1:23−00907,
W.D.N.Y.) by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Plaintiffs moved to vacate the panel's order that conditionally
transferred the Lis case to the Western District of Pennsylvania
for inclusion in MDL No. 3014. Defendants Philips RS North America
LLC, Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips
Holding USA, Inc. and Philips Healthcare opposed the motion.
Plaintiffs argued that federal subject matter jurisdiction over
their action is lacking and that transfer is therefore
inappropriate. Ordinarily, this would be insufficient to justify
vacating CTO-81. The procedural posture of the plaintiff, however,
warranted a different resolution. The assigned magistrate judge in
the Western District of New York has issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the transferor court remand Lis to
state court. Objections to the Report were filed on November 27,
2023. Accordingly, the panel granted the plaintiffs' motion to
vacate the conditional transfer order.
A full-text copy of the court's December 7, 2023 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3014-Order_Vacating_CTO-11-23.pdf
MDL 3047: Livingston Parish v. Meta Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned "Livingston
Parish School Board v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.," C.A. No.
3:23−00807 from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana to the Northern District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in IN RE: SOCIAL
MEDIA ADOLESCENT ADDICTION/PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 3047.
This litigation involves Meta platforms' (Facebook and Instagram)
alleged encouragement of addictive behavior, failure to verify
users' ages, encouragement of adolescents to bypass parental
controls and inadequately safeguarding against harmful content
and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitive content.
The panel held that centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with
respect to motions to dismiss and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
A full-text copy of the court's December 6, 2023 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3047-Transfer_Order-11-23.pdf
MDL 3072: Aprillia v. Boeing Consolidated in Java Sea Air Crash Row
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned "IN RE: Air Crash into
the Java Sea on January 9, 2021," MDL No. 3072, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transfers the case captioned "Aprillia, et al. v. The
Boeing Company," C.A. No. 1:23−04649 from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois to the Eastern District of
Virginia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge
Claude M. Hilton for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
The action arises from the January 9, 2021 crash of a Boeing
737-500 aircraft operated by Indonesian airline Sriwijaya Air into
the Java Sea off the coast of Indonesia, shortly after it departed
from Jakarta. The crash resulted in the deaths of all 62 passengers
and crew members, who were citizens of Indonesia.
All actions share factual questions regarding the cause or causes
of the crash of the Boeing 737-500 aircraft operated as Sriwijaya
Air Flight 182 into the Java Sea on January 9, 2021. The actions
also share significant threshold questions concerning (1) whether
admiralty or diversity jurisdiction lies over the actions (2)
whether the alleged location of significant evidence and witnesses
in Indonesia warrants dismissal under the doctrine of forum non
conveniens, as asserted by defendant Boeing and (3) whether
plaintiffs’ claims require the joinder of allegedly necessary
parties such as Sriwijaya Air. The panel determined that
centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, particularly
with respect to potential international discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
Competing plaintiffs' counsels are seeking damages on behalf of
some of the same decedents in both districts mentioned and Boeing
identifies five other actions involving overlapping decedents.
Centralizing all actions before a single court will ensure
consistent proceedings with respect to the claims pertaining to
decedents involved in multiple actions, rules the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's December 6, 2023 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3072-Transfer_Order-11-23.pdfx
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Overruled
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTIN CONFER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC
TOOL CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-02028-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order overruling the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Proposed Class Action
Settlement filed October 31, 2023.
The Plaintiff has not shown that his claims are typical of the
putative class or that common issues will predominate. Therefore,
he has not shown that a nationwide class action is superior to
other methods for adjudicating (or settling) this case.
The plaintiff has not met the requirements for class certification
under Rule 23(a) or (b)(3). In light of this ruling, the Court does
not address other aspects of the proposed settlement.
The plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the following
settlement class:
"All Persons who purchased one or more Covered Products at
retail
in the United States and its territories during the Class
Period."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendant and its
employees; (ii) any Person who properly and timely opts out
pursuant to this Agreement; (iii) federal, state, and local
governments, including all agencies and subdivisions thereof
(but
employees thereof are not excluded); and (iv) any judge who
presides over the consideration of whether to approve the
settlement of this class action and any member of their
immediate
family."
Dustin Confer brings this putative class action on behalf of
himself and all persons who purchased 45 different types of organic
bonded abrasive discs designed, manufactured, distributed and/or
sold by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation that did not include a
clear expiration warning or label.
The Plaintiff brings claims for violations of the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act (Count I), and unjust enrichment (Count II) and
breach of implied warranty (Count III) under Kansas law.
Milwaukee Electric is a multi-national company that develops,
manufactures, and markets power tools, hand tools, tool
accessories, tool storage, and personal protective equipment.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v4h67W at no
extra charge.[CC]
MONSANTO CO: N.D. California Grants Bids to Dismiss Koller Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SCOTT KOLLER, et al., Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04260-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendants' motions to
dismiss.
Before the Court are these motions, each filed April 21, 2023: (1)
Defendants Bayer CropScience LP ("Bayer") and Monsanto Company's
("Monsanto") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint; (2)
Bayer and Monsanto's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dr.
Charles Jameson; and (3) Defendant The Scotts Company LLC's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
In the operative complaint, the First Amended Class Action
Complaint ("FAC"), Plaintiffs Scott Koller, Tim Ferguson, Ruby
Cornejo, and John Lysek allege they each purchased a concentrated
form of Roundup, i.e., a Roundup product that consists of more than
40% glyphosate in sizes at or below 6.8 lbs (the "Products"), which
Products are designed to kill weeds. The Plaintiffs allege that
Bayer and Monsanto, as well as Defendant Seamless Control LLC,
manufacture, sell, market, and, through third-parties, distribute
the Products, and that Scotts sells, distributes, and markets some
of the Products.
The Plaintiffs allege that "N-Nitrosoglyphosate ('NNG') is an
impurity inherent to glyphosate," the active ingredient of the
Products, and that glyphosate degrades into NNG when glyphosate
reacts with nitrites, which are prevalent in everyday environments,
such as city air, exhaust from cars, and water. They also allege
that NNG belongs to a class of chemicals called nitrosamines, that
the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") "presumes" nitrosamines
to be carcinogenic when they occur at certain levels, and that the
EPA sets a hard limit of 1 part per million ('ppm') of NNG in
pesticides, including glyphosate products.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants sold the Products
or caused the Products to be sold to consumers, even though they
knew or should have known at the time of those sales that the
Products were defective because the Products could never guarantee
they would stay below the 1 ppm safety limit for NNG through the
time a consumer uses the entirety of the Product.
According to the Plaintiffs, ordinary use consistent with the label
makes it substantially certain that NNG will form above 1 ppm
before the Product is fully used. The Plaintiffs allege that each
Plaintiff read the label on the Product he or she purchased and
believed the Product was "chemically identical" to a registered,
EPA-approved herbicide, but, unbeknownst to each Plaintiff, the
Product had a different chemical composition that enabled it to
develop NNG far in excess of the 1 ppm legal limit, which different
composition was never approved or registered with the EPA.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege that given the lack of an
expiration date on the Product, it could be used for an indefinite
duration when used and stored in accordance with the label, but,
unbeknownst to each Plaintiff, the Product did not last for an
indefinite period and could be used only for a limited period of
time, if at all. Lastly, the Plaintiffs allege that each Plaintiff
was unaware that the Product was substantially certain to develop
uncontrollable and unlawful levels of a probable carcinogen, even
with use and storage consistent with the label, there being no
point-of-sale warnings or advertisements disclosing any of the
above.
Based on said allegations, the Plaintiffs assert, on their own
behalf and on behalf of a putative class, eleven Causes of Action:
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for Breach of Express
Warranties, violation of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act for Breach
of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Breach of Implied Warranty,
Breach of Express Warranty, Fraudulent Concealment, Common Law
Fraud, Deceit and/or Misrepresentation, violations of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising, Business and Professions
Code, unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent trade practices in violation
of Business and Professions Code and Unjust Enrichment.
By order filed Feb. 10, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the initial complaint. As set forth on the
record at the hearing on those motions, the Court dismissed the
Plaintiffs' initial pleading for failure to sufficiently allege NNG
is carcinogenic at any level and for failure to sufficiently allege
the Products they purchased are substantially certain to develop
NNG at a level above 1 ppm, a limit the Plaintiffs alleged had been
set by the EPA. By the same order, the Court afforded the
Plaintiffs leave to amend, which they subsequently did.
In their motion to dismiss the FAC, Bayer and Monsanto argue that
the deficiencies previously identified by the Court have not been
cured in the FAC; Scotts, in its separate motion, has joined in
those arguments.
In their initial complaint, the Plaintiffs, with regard to the
question of whether NNG is carcinogenic, relied on a notice filed
by the EPA in the Federal Register in June 1980, in which the EPA
stated that, as of that time, eighty nitrosamines had been tested
for carcinogenicity and, of those, eighty percent were found to be
carcinogenic. The Plaintiffs alleged that in said notice, and "in
light of" the referenced statistic, the EPA had "adopted" a
"process" whereby it would presume nitrosamines are carcinogenic if
the level of nitrosamines was more than 1 ppm, unless the
manufacturer provided acceptable oncogenic testing proving
otherwise.
The Court found the Plaintiffs' allegations insufficient, the EPA
notice being titled a "Proposed Policy" that had been submitted for
public comment and there being no allegation the proposal had ever
been adopted by the EPA. The Court also found the Plaintiffs'
allegation that most of the tested nitrosamines were determined to
be carcinogenic was not, in the absence of other allegations,
sufficient to support a finding that NNG itself was carcinogenic.
In the FAC, the Plaintiffs have added allegations regarding the
EPA's proposed process, as well as other allegations pertinent to
the question of whether NNG is carcinogenic.
Having considered all of the allegations, the Court finds, as to
the question of whether NNG is carcinogenic, the Plaintiffs have
alleged sufficient facts to nudge their claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible.
The next issue presented is what amount of NNG needs to be present
before it can be considered carcinogenic and whether any such
amount is present in the Products. The Court found the Plaintiffs'
allegations in the initial complaint were insufficient to support a
finding to that effect, and, as discussed, the Court finds the
allegations in the FAC likewise are insufficient to support such a
finding.
Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth in this Order, Judge
Chesney holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently
allege that the Products they purchased are substantially certain
to form NNG in excess of 1 ppm, and, consequently, each of their
claims fails.
In their opposition, the Plaintiffs request further leave to amend
in the event the Court finds they have again failed to a state a
cognizable claim. As the Plaintiffs fail, however, to identify
additional facts they could allege to state such a claim, Judge
Chesney points out that further leave to amend will be denied.
For the reasons stated, the Court grants the Defendants' motions to
dismiss, and the First Amended Class Action Complaint is dismissed
without further leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/nh2j66ydfrom PacerMonitor.com.
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: LW's Bid to Intervene in Woodard Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska issued a Memorandum and Order
denying LW Holdco IV LLC's Amended Motion to Intervene and Request
for Oral Argument and Motion to Request Status Conference in the
lawsuit styled KENNETH JOSEPH WOODARD, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC and
NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
8:23-cv-00301-RFR (D. Neb.).
In 2021, Plaintiff Kenneth Joseph Woodward initiated proceedings,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against
Defendants Navient Solutions, LLC, and Navient Credit Finance
Corporation (together, "Navient"), alleging Navient had unlawfully
collected discharged student-loan debt, in violation of the 11
U.S.C. Section 524 injunction.
The matter was first heard by a bankruptcy judge, the Honorable
Thomas L. Saladino, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Nebraska, who authorized Woodward and
similarly situated litigants to move forward as a class. The
parties later reached a settlement agreement through extensive
negotiations, which was preliminarily approved by the bankruptcy
judge on July 6, 2023.
In July 2023, this Court received and adopted the Findings and
Recommendations of the bankruptcy judge, recommending the Court
order the withdrawal of the adversary proceedings from the
bankruptcy court and set a hearing on the final approval of the
class-action settlement. That hearing was scheduled for Dec. 8,
2023.
Now before the Court are LW Holdco IV LLC's ("LW Holdco") Amended
Motion to Intervene and Motion for Status Conference to discuss
that matter. As of Nov. 22, 2023, LW Holdco seeks to intervene in
this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 as
attorney-in-fact for Smith Law Group LLC and in its own capacity
for the purpose of enforcing its interest and the interests of
Smith Law in any attorneys' fees, costs, or expenses awarded in
connection with the settlement of this action.
LW Holdco believes Smith Law is entitled to a fee-split of the
attorney fees in this case due to an arrangement that firm had with
Woodward's counsel in another matter. Asserting LW Holdco is its
attorney-in-fact and also has a financial interest in a portion of
Smith Law's present and future claims for fees in certain cases, it
seeks to intervene to protect those interests here.
LW Holdco argues the Court should grant its motion to intervene as
of right but also states that permissive intervention under Rule
24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is nonetheless
warranted because fairness demands that Smith Law be afforded the
opportunity to assert its right to fees for the intellectual
capital, perseverance, and sweat equity contributed to the cases
that resulted in the current settlement.
As a result, the Court scheduled a status conference to discuss the
parties' positions on whether, in light of the pending Motion to
Intervene and Woodward's recent Motion for Attorney Fees, the Dec.
8, 2023 hearing on the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement could move forward. Having now received a response
regarding that issue from Woodward, as well as a reply from LW
Holdco, the Court is satisfied it can and should move forward
without a status conference and will deny LW Holdco's request to
intervene as untimely.
Based on all the circumstances, Judge Rossiter finds that LW
Holdco's motion is untimely. First, LW Holdco is incorrect that
this matter is still in its earliest stages. In actuality, LW
Holdco seeks to intervene at the near "end-game" of the litigation
between these parties, who have already reached a settlement
agreement after extensive proceedings in bankruptcy court and
laborious negotiations.
Second, Judge Rossiter opines, the fact that LW Holdco has long
been on notice of this litigation and its claimed interest in
attorney fees in the matter also strongly cautions against
intervention. According to its own filings, LW Holdco has been
aware of its interest in this matter since at least July 2022, when
it began communicating its position to the Plaintiff's counsel that
Smith Law was entitled to a share of the fees in this proceeding.
Given this lengthy history and the ongoing lack of assurance that
Smith Law's alleged interests in this case would be protected by
the parties, the Court disagrees with LW Holdco's assertion that
intervention has only now become necessary because of Woodward's
counsels' recent representation they have no intention of
allocating fees to Smith Law. Thus, even absent any prejudice to
the parties, the progress of the litigation, LW Holdco's knowledge
of it, and its failure to adequately explain the delay support the
Court's denial of its motion, Judge Rossiter points out.
Finally, the possible prejudice to the current parties in this
matter presented by any late-stage intervention is substantial,
Judge Rossiter says. The complex issues potentially presented by LW
Holdco's claimed interest would result in a lengthy delay of any
final judgment, and the existing parties have already expended
considerable time and resources up to this point.
In denying LW Holdco's motion as untimely, the Court agrees with
the similar conclusion of the district court in Youssef v. Sallie
Mae, Inc., 23-MC-02113 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2023). This Court agrees
with that court that, given the weighty factors against
intervention in this case, LW Holdco has not identified any unusual
circumstances weighing in favor of timeliness and has, therefore,
failed to establish that its request to intervene should be
granted.
As such, Judge Rossiter denies LW Holdco IV LLC's Amended Motion to
Intervene and Request for Oral Argument, and Motion to Request
Status Conference. The hearing on Plaintiff Kenneth Joseph
Woodward's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement was
to proceed as originally planned on Dec. 8, 2023, at 1:30 p.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 4,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3fur4pu8from
PacerMonitor.com.
NCINO INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
nCino, 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 29, 2023, that in July 2023,
through mediation, the company and the plaintiffs in a putative
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 12, 2021
reached a settlement agreement in principle of approximately $2.2
million that remains subject to court approval.
The sole class representative in the suit is one individual
alleging a contract, combination or conspiracy between and among
the company, Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. and Apiture, Inc. not to
solicit or hire each other's employees in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and N.C. Gen Stat. Sections 75-1 and 75-2.
The complaint seeks treble damages and additional remedies,
including restitution, disgorgement, reasonable attorneys' fees,
the costs of the suit, and pre-judgment and post judgment interest.
The complaint does not allege any specific damages.
nCino is a financial technology company headquartered in
Wilmington, North Carolina using a cloud-based banking software to
help financial institutions to gain efficiencies from digitizing
and streamlining processes in commercial banking, small business
banking and retail banking.
NEW YORK: Court Approves Class Notice in Milburn/Beriquette Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York approves the parties' proposed Notice to the
Class in the lawsuit titled PABLO BERIQUETTE, et al., Plaintiffs v.
DANIEL F. MARTUCELLO III, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:79-cv-05077-LAP (S.D.N.Y.).
As set forth more fully in the Court's Order Preliminarily
Approving the Modified Consent Order, Directing Notice to the
Class and Scheduling a Fairness Hearing, the Court has approved the
parties' proposed Notice to the Class. The parties may distribute
to class members the signed and dated Notice that is appended
hereto.
The Milburn lawsuit was filed in 1979 by prisoners, who challenged
how medical care was delivered at Green Haven Correctional
Facility. In 1980, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York certified the case as a class action. In 1982,
the parties entered into a Final Judgment in the form of a Consent
Order, which was later modified several times. The last
modification occurred in 1991, and under that Consent Order, the
New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
("DOCCS") and the Green Haven administration agreed to take certain
steps to improve the delivery of medical care to Class members.
In 2014, the Defendants moved to terminate the Consent Order. In
March 2015, without any opposition from the former Class Counsel,
the Court terminated the Consent Order. In 2016, certain
individuals then incarcerated at Green Haven filed motions asking
the Court to reconsider and when those were denied, some of those
individuals filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.
In November 2019, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded the
lawsuit on the ground that there was no adequate class
representative at the time of the termination. The Second Circuit
ordered the motion to terminate to be heard again with class
representatives, who would have a chance to show current and
ongoing violations of their federal rights.
On June 30, 2021, the Court substituted Class Counsel and the Court
named new representative Plaintiffs. The Class Representatives are
currently: Pablo Beriquete, Diogenes Filpo, Lawrence Lewis, Milan
Heggs, Alonzo Jacobs, and David Rhodes. Since that time significant
litigation activity has occurred, including document and deposition
discovery, reports by experts on both sides, and updated briefing
on the motion to terminate.
After substantial good faith discussions among the Parties and
counsel, several conferences with the Court, and without any
admissions of violations of the Plaintiffs' rights, the Parties
have agreed to settle the lawsuit by entering into a new Modified
Consent Order.
The Modified Consent Order must be approved by the Court before it
can go into effect. The details of the Settlement, summarized in
the Notice for convenience, are contained in the Modified Consent
Order. The purpose of the Notice is to inform Class members of the
proposed settlement in the form of the Modified Consent Order and
to give them a chance to object to the terms.
The Modified Consent Order grants injunctive relief only, which
means that the parties are asking the Court to approve their plan
to remedy the alleged patterns of violations of federal rights at
Green Haven. This lawsuit, now 44 years old, has never included a
claim for damages and the Modified Consent Order does not and
cannot include money damages. This means that the settlement does
not entitle Class members to a cash payment. It also means that the
settlement does not in any way support or extinguish any claim
Class members may have for money damages in a separate lawsuit.
The Modified Consent Order only addresses issues concerning medical
care at Green Haven. If prisoners are transferred to another
facility or are released from DOCCS' custody, they are no longer
members of the Class and the terms of the Modified Consent Order no
longer apply to them.
Among other things, the Modified Consent Order provides that at
Intake, Green Haven officials will maintain specified medical
staffing levels at Green Haven, including the numbers of providers,
nurses, and administrators, and maintain enough clerical staff
members to ensure patients, their lawyers, and family members can
get timely copies of medical records.
The Modified Consent Order allows for Co-Class Counsel at the Law
Office of Amy Jane Agnew, P.C., to monitor Green Haven's compliance
with the terms of the Settlement. Monitoring will be accomplished
in part through the production of certain documents by Green Haven,
which are listed in the Modified Consent Order.
The Court will hold a fairness hearing to approve the Modified
Consent Order on Jan. 31, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/mtxrmjaafrom PacerMonitor.com.
NICK'S LIVE LOBSTERS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nick's Live Lobsters,
Inc. The case is styled as Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Nick's Live Lobsters, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-09354 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nick's Live Lobsters Inc. -- http://www.nickslobster.com/index.html
-- operates as a restaurant and seafood markets company. The
Company provides quality fish and seafood dishes such as live
lobsters, baked clams, oysters, shrimp, crab legs, and many
more.[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
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Carino Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI & PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Carino, individually and as parent and natural guardian of
W.W., a minor, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. and PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case
No. 2:23-cv-02090 (D. Nev., Dec. 19, 2023), is brought arising out
of a targeted cyberattack and data breach that occurred between
around March 27, 2023 and May 2, 2023 ("Data Breach") resulting
from the Defendants' failure to implement reasonable and industry
standard data security practices to safeguard the personally
identifying information ("PII") and personal health information
("PHI") of millions of individuals.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect patients' Private Information from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. As a result of the Data
Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been exposed to a
heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft.
Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and in the future closely
monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft.
Armed with the Private Information accessed in the Data Breach,
data thieves have already engaged in identity theft and can in the
future commit a variety of crimes including, e.g., opening new
financial accounts in Class Members' names, taking out loans in
Class Members' names, using Class Members' information to obtain
government benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns using Class
Members' information, and giving false information to police during
an arrest.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members may also incur out of pocket
costs, e.g., for purchasing credit monitoring services, credit
freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and
detect identity theft. The Plaintiffs bring this class action
lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address
Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private
Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to
provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class
Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized
access by an unknown third party or precisely what specific
information was disclosed, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs Michele Carino and her son W.W., a minor, are
citizens of the State of New York. W.W. was and is a patient of
Northwell.
Northwell describes itself as New York State's largest health
system, seeing more than 2 million patients per year and having 900
hospitals and care centers and more than 85,000 employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan R. Ring, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Phone: (725) 235-9750
Email: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN and BLACK, R.P.C.
One South Broad St., 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-567-6565
Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
NSC HOLDINGS: Cartwright Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Cartwright, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NSC HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a/ NSC TECHNOLOGIES,
Case No. 1:23-cv-05821-JPB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 18, 2023), is brought
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and
former employees' and job applicants' ("Class Members") personally
identifiable information ("PII") from hackers.
On June 26, 2023, NSC discovered a data security incident through
which an unauthorized actor gained access to NSC's network and
accessed files on its computer systems between June 19, 2023, and
June 20, 2023 (the "Data Breach"). Through the Data Breach, the
cybercriminals were able to access current and former employees'
and job applicants' Private Information. As a result of the Data
Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have experienced and/or are at
a substantial and imminent risk of experiencing identity theft and
various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. This
risk will remain for their respective lifetimes.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves,
including but not limited to, Social Security numbers that NSC
collected from its employees and job applicants and maintained in
its systems. Compounding the damage done by the Data Breach, NSC
failed to notify affected Class Members until nearly five months
after it discovered the Data Breach.
There has been no assurance offered by NSC that all personal data
or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that it has
adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficient to avoid
a similar breach of its network in the future. Therefore, Plaintiff
and Class Members are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing
increased risk of suffering ascertainable losses in the form of
identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private
Information, out-of pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate
the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data
Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of NSC.
NSC is a nationwide staffing company that provides workforce
solutions to a variety of industrial and technical industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (678) 642-2503
Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and -
Mason Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
ON POINT GLOBAL: Must Respond to Walker-Schaut Complaint by Jan. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, extends the Defendant's
time up to and including Jan. 10, 2024, to respond to the
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint in the lawsuit entitled CHRISTY
WALKER-SCHAUT, Plaintiff v. ON POINT GLOBAL LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-05913-TMC (W.D. Wash.).
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(j), Plaintiff Christy Walker-Schaut and
Defendant On Point Global LLC submit a stipulated motion for an
extension of time for the Defendant to answer, move or otherwise
respond to the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint.
The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on Oct. 10, 2023. Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Defendant's original deadline
for responding to the Plaintiff's Complaint was Nov. 6, 2023. On
Nov. 6, 2023, the Defendant filed a stipulated motion for an
extension of time as counsel for the Defendant had been recently
retained and needed additional time to review the allegations and
investigate the underlying facts, before preparing the Defendant's
response.
The Court granted the motion and extended the time for the
Defendant to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's
Class Action Complaint, to Dec. 6, 2023. The parties have since
exchanged preliminary information regarding the Plaintiff's claims
and related issues.
The parties assert that good cause exists to grant the extension
because they continue to investigate the underlying facts, discuss
jurisdictional issues, and explore the possibility of an early
resolution, which may obviate the need for a response to the
Complaint. They assure the Court that the motion is not filed for
the purpose of delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the
granting of the motion.
The parties stipulate and agree, and the Court approves, that the
Defendant will have an extension of time up to and including Jan.
10, 2024, to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's
Class Action Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/5n8yja69from PacerMonitor.com.
LawHQ, PC -- Conner Spani -- conner.spani@lawhk.com -- in Salt Lake
City, Utah 94111, Attorney for the Plaintiff.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP -- Kristin M. Asai -- Kristin.Asai@hklaw.com
-- in Portland, Oregon 97204, Attorney for the Defendant.
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Denies Habeas Petition in Minaya-Rodriguez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania denies the Plaintiff's petition for a writ
of habeas corpus in the lawsuit styled GILBERTO MINAYA-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner V. WARDEN, FCI-ALLENWOOD LOW, Respondent, Case No.
3:23-cv-01725-RDM-CA (M.D. Pa.).
Petitioner Gilberto Minaya-Rodriguez, an inmate currently confined
at the Low Security Correctional Institution Allenwood, in White
Deer, Pennsylvania ("LSCI-Allenwood"), initiated the action by
filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 2241. He asserts that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has
been unlawfully denying and revoking inmates' time credits under
the First Step Act ("FSA").
Mr. Minaya-Rodriguez is serving a 24-month term of imprisonment
imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York for racketeering and engaging in monetary
transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity.
His projected release date is Feb. 7, 2024, via FSA earned time
credit release.
The Administrative Remedy Generalized Retrieval reveals that
Minaya-Rodriguez has not filed any administrative remedies while in
BOP custody. The BOP has assessed Minaya-Rodriguez as having earned
eighty (80) days of FSA time credits applied towards early
release.
The Plaintiff appears to bring this action on behalf of
eighty-eight (88) inmates at LSCI-Allenwood and alleges that the
BOP has unlawfully denied and revoked those inmates' FSA time
credits. The Respondent argues that Minaya-Rodriguez's Section 2241
petition must be denied because: (1) he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies; (2) he has been accruing FSA time credits
and is currently eligible to have his credits applied; and (3) he
may not bring this habeas action on behalf of other inmates who are
subject to final order of deportation.
Judge Mariani finds that Minaya-Rodriguez's Administrative Remedy
Generalized Retrieval report reveals that he failed to exhaust the
claims in the instant habeas petition. The undisputed record
reflects that he has not filed any administrative remedies during
his incarceration. He has not presented any argument that he should
be excused from exhausting administrative remedies with respect to
his present claims.
Thus, Judge Mariani holds, Minaya-Rodriguez's Section 2241 petition
must be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies. To hold otherwise would frustrate the purposes of the
exhaustion doctrine by allowing him to invoke the judicial process
despite failing to complete administrative review.
Mr. Minaya-Rodriguez contends that the BOP unlawfully revokes FSA
time credits when an inmate becomes subject to a final order of
deportation. However, Judge Mariani says, the Respondent submitted
the Declaration of Jennifer Knepper, BOP Supervisory Attorney,
wherein she notes that although a detainer has been lodged against
Minaya-Rodriguez, the BOP has no documentation to show that he is
subject to a final order of deportation. She further notes that he
will continue to accrue credits that will be applied if he remains
in earning status.
Because Minaya-Rodriguez is eligible to earn FSA time credits and
is currently eligible to have those credits applied, Judge Mariani
holds that the habeas petition must be denied as he has failed to
demonstrate that the BOP is revoking his FSA time credits.
Mr. Minaya-Rodriguez purports to bring this habeas petition on
behalf of eighty-eight (88) other named inmates at LSCI-Allenwood.
The other inmate-petitioners did not sign the petition. However,
under the provisions of Section 2242, the signing of the habeas
corpus petition by Minaya-Rodriguez on the other inmates' behalf is
acceptable.
While Minaya-Rodriguez may arguably sign the Section 2241 petition
on behalf of the other inmates, the remaining question is whether
he, as a prose litigant, can adequately represent their interests.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure there
are four prerequisites, which must be met before Minaya-Rodriguez's
proposed class action may be certified.
Since Minaya-Rodriguez, a pro se inmate litigant, intends to serve
as a class representative, any request for class certification does
not meet the threshold consideration that the representative party
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,
Judge Mariani opines. Accordingly, he cannot pursue this matter as
a class action on behalf of fellow inmate-petitioners. Because he
fails to satisfy at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(a),
the Court need not consider whether he has shown that the proposed
class satisfies one of the three requirements listed in Rule
23(b).
Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the petition for writ of
habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Dec. 4, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/bd2syszefrom PacerMonitor.com.
PHH MORTGAGE: Dantzler Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Dantzler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION d/b/a PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES,
Case No. 2:23-cv-10562 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2023), is brought under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") as a consumer
protection action brought by Plaintiff and others similarly
situated to obtain redress from PHH's systematic use of unlawful
and unfair debt collection practices to collect upon residential
consumer mortgage loans.
Specifically, during the relevant time period, PHH sent borrowers
form letters alleging that the borrowers are in default of their
mortgages and that the failure to immediately make a full and
complete payment of all arrearages will result in acceleration of
their loan (hereinafter referred to as the "Final Letter").
However, the false ultimatum contained in the Final Letter
contradicts PHH's actual policies regarding acceleration and
foreclosure.
The Final Letter sent by PHH to the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated is a false and misleading threat of acceleration and
foreclosure designed to intimidate borrowers into making payments
to PHH that are beyond their means and beyond what is necessary to
avoid acceleration and save their homes from foreclosure, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Los Angeles County,
California.
PHH is regularly engaged in the business of collecting debt in the
State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson (SBN 317598)
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
PHIL MURPHY: Jackson Files Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Family
Medicine, P.A. The case is styled as Kevin Jackson, and all
similarly situated prisoners v. PHIL MURPHY, Governor, State of New
Jersey; VICTORIA KUHN, Commissioner, New Jersey Dept. of
Corrections; Administrator, Bayside State Prison; Former
Administrator, Bayside State Prison; ASST. SUPERINTENDENT SMITH,
Bayside State Prison; KELLY DANIELS, Assistant Commissioner;
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION; SPECIAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION,
Principal, Bayside State Prison; SGT. D. SLIMMER, Mailroom Officer,
Bayside State Prison; AMY SOUTHWICK Assistant Ombudsman, Office of
Corrections, State of New Jersey; JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, to be named
at a later date; Case No. 1:23-cv-23183-RMB-AMD (D.N.D., Dec. 18,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Philip Dunton Murphy is an American politician, diplomat, and
financier from the state of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff appear pro se.
PROGRESSIVE GULF: Files Bid to Seal Certain Exhibits
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY VANTREE and CYNTHIA
RAYBORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY and MOUNTAIN LAUREL
ASSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00070-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the
Defendants Progressive Gulf Insurance Company and Mountain Laurel
Assurance Company submit to the Court an unopposed motion to seal.
Specifically, the Defendants request that the Court accept the
proposed redactions to Exhibits 2 and 4 to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification and allow the unredacted versions of Exhibits 2
and 4 to be filed under seal.
Progressive provides property and casualty insurance.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41lO4wQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
La'Toyia J. Slay, Esq.
BUTLER SNOW LLP
1020 Highland Colony Pkwy, Suite 1400
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 985-4436
Facsimile: (601) 985-4500
E-mail: La'Toyia.Slay@butlersnow.com
- and -
Adam Spicer, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Allison Hill White, Esq.
Daniel S. Sanders, III, Esq.
Erin Munger, Esq.
Logan R. Hobson, Esq.
Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
E-mail: aspicer@kslaw.com
jcashdan@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
mbrigman@kslaw.com
awhite@kslaw.com
dsanders@kslaw.com
emunger@kslaw.com
lhobson@kslaw.com
jbarrett@kslaw.com
PROGRESSIVE GULF: MII, JD Power Seek to Seal Certain Exhibits
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETTY VANTREE and CYNTHIA
RAYBORN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY and MOUNTAIN LAUREL ASSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-00070-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), Third-Party
Respondents Mitchell International, Inc. and J.D. Power
(Third-Party Respondents), submit an unopposed motion to seal.
Specifically, the Third-Party Respondents request that the Court
accept the proposed redactions to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and portions, or all of, Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10
of Plaintiffs' Motion; and Defendants' Motion for Class
Certification and portions, or all of, Exhibits A, D, E, F, G, HH,
II, JJ, P, and Z, and allow the unredacted versions of these
materials to be permanently sealed from public access only, with
CM/ECF access permitted to the litigants' counsel pursuant to Local
Rule 79(e)(3)(B)(2).
Progressive provides property and casualty insurance.
A copy of the Third-Party Respondents' motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47U1eUp at no
extra charge.[CC]
Counsel For Mitchell International, Inc.
and J.D. Power, are:
Jennifer M. Studebaker, Esq.
Courtney C. Hunt, Esq.
FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ LLP
210 East Capitol Street, Suite 2200
Jackson, MS 39201-2375
E-mail: jennifer.studebaker@formanwatkins.com
Courtney.hunt@formanwatkins.com
PROPARK AMERICA: Benavides Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Propark America West,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nancy Benavides, individually and
on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees v. Propark America West,
LLC, Does 1 to 50, Case No. 23STCV30876 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Dec. 18, 2023).
Propark Mobility -- https://www.propark.com/ -- is a national
parking management company with over 35 years of experience
offering premium service in the parking industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 1-818-696-2306
Fax: 1-818-696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
Q3 CONTRACTING: Faces Rael Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD RAEL, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Q3 CONTRACTING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:23-cv-03720 (D. Minn., Dec. 4, 2023) arises from the Defendant's
failure to pay overtime and earned wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.
Plaintiff Rael worked for Q3C as a utility locator in and around
Denver, Colorado from approximately March 2023 until July 2023. The
Plaintiff asserts that he and the other hourly utility locators
regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek but Q3C does not
pay them for all the hours they work. Instead, Q3C requires him and
the other hourly utility locators to work significant time "off the
clock" without pay, says the Plaintiff.
In addition to depriving Plaintiff Rael and the other hourly
utility locators of pay for time worked "off the clock" before
their first ticket and after their last ticket, Q3C also requires
these workers to clock out for 30 minutes a day for so-called "meal
breaks," the suit contends.
Q3 Contracting, Inc. provides underground utility locating services
to its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: fisher@nka.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
QUICK BOX: Tan Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. QUICK BOX, LLC,
et al, Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.),the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying a class, appointing her as
Class Representative, and appointing Kevin Kneupper and Cyclone
Covey as Class Counsel.
Quick Box is a Business-to-Business (B2B) company offering
last-mile delivery, same day & on-demand delivery service.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rkx6KH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Kneupper, Esq.
A. Cyclone Covey, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC
17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Telephone: (512) 420-8407
E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com
cyclone@kneuppercovey.com
QUINOA CORP: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due August 8
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER HEYNING, v.
QUINOA CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04755-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered an order vacating case
management order as follows:
Deadline to Seek Leave to Amend Pleadings Mar. 7, 2024
Deadline to Move for Class Certification Aug. 8, 2024
Deadline to File Opposition to Class Oct. 3, 2024
Certification Motion
Deadline to File Reply in Support of Class Nov. 29, 2024
Certification Motion
Hearing on Class Certification Motion Jan. 9, 2025
Quinoa provides packaged food products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4acPq0R at no extra charge.[CC]
RAB INC: Seley Sues Over Collection Agents' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
VICKIE SELEY and REBECCA WHITEHEAD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RAB, INC. AND LEE
WADDELL, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02675 (N.D. Tex., Dec. 4,
2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiffs and Class members
required overtime wages.
Plaintiffs Seley and Whitehead were employed by the Defendants as
collection agents from March 18, 2020 through termination, and from
March 2, 2021 through March 3, 2023, respectively. They assert that
they are affected by the Defendants pattern, practice and policy of
mis-categorizing hours and failing to pay overtime wages.
Rab, Inc. is a collection agency in Addison, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elisaveta Dolghih, Esq.
DOLGHIH LAW GROUP PLLC
2626 Cole Ave., Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75204
E-mail: leiza@dlg-legal.com
REDBUBBLE INC: Seeks Denial of Walllster Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALLSTER, INC., dba
WALLSHOPPE, a California corporation, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated persons, v. REDBUBBLE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 60, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-02958-WLH-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
and (b) to deny class certification.
Despite all of these efforts to resolve the class allegations, the
Parties' counsel could not reach a resolution of the issues raised
by Redbubble in the Motion.
Redbubble seeks an order from this Court granting Redbubble's
Motion to Deny Class Certification as Plaintiff missed its June 8,
2023 deadline to file its Motion for Class Certification and fails
to demonstrate the minimum necessary requirements of Rule 23(a) and
(b).
Redbubble is a global online marketplace for print-on-demand
products based on user-submitted artwork.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rp7WL2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Teresa H. Michaud, Esq.
Sara Victoria M. Pitt, Esq.
BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-4728
Facsimile: (310) 201-4721
E-mail: teresa.michaud@bakermckenzie.com
sara.pitt@bakermckenzie.com
- and -
Allyson R. Bennett, Esq.
Katherine McNutt, Esq.
MORRISON FOERSTER
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 892-5200
Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
E-mail: ABennett@mofo.com
KMcNutt@mofo.com
- and -
Kenneth B. Wilson, Esq.
COASTSIDE LEGAL
455 1st Avenue
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Telephone: (650) 440-4211
E-mail: ken@coastsidelegal.com
REGIONAL FAMILY: Hicks Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Family
Medicine, P.A. The case is styled as Astina Hicks, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Regional Family
Medicine, P.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-03054-TLB (W.D. Ark., Dec. 18,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Personal Injury.
Regional Family Medicine, P.A. -- https://www.rfmmh.com/ -- offers
healthcare services from pediatric care to family medicine
including X-ray and therapy services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
REGIONAL FAMILY: Luebke Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Family
Medicine, P.A. The case is styled as Karen Luebke, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Regional Family
Medicine, P.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-03055-TLB (W.D. Ark., Dec. 18,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Regional Family Medicine, P.A. -- https://www.rfmmh.com/ -- offers
healthcare services from pediatric care to family medicine
including X-ray and therapy services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
REMEDIES HERB SHOP: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Remedies Herb Shop,
LLC. The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Remedies Herb Shop, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-09008-DLI-JRC (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Remedies Herb Shop -- https://remediesherbshop.com/ -- is New
York's best store for organic loose herbs.[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
RETAIL SERVICES: Cravens Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------
Christina Cravens and Tonya Bearden, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RETAIL SERVICES WIS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-02313-GPC-MMP (S.D. Cal.,
Dec. 19, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"); and bring Unjust Enrichment claims and claims for
violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL") due to WIS'
failure to compensate Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
hourly, non-exempt inventory auditors for work that WIS has
suffered and permitted them to perform for its own benefit as their
employer.
WIS employs the Plaintiffs and thousands of other similarly
situated employees in the United States as inventory auditors
and/or in other functionally equivalent hourly positions
(collectively, Plaintiffs and the other auditors will be referred
to herein as the "Auditors"). These positions are not exempt from
the overtime or minimum wage provisions of the FLSA. Nonetheless,
as a matter of policy and practice, WIS has failed to compensate
the Auditors with overtime pay because it has systematically failed
to fully record and compensate them for all their hours worked.
Specifically, WIS requires its Auditors--of which Plaintiffs were
two--to load and unload equipment, travel between their meeting
place and various audit sites, and receive daily briefings, while
off the clock. On average, Plaintiffs estimate that they worked
between 2.5 and 4 hours each shift that were not captured in the
time that WIS recorded for the shift or the time that WIS paid them
for. This uncompensated, off-the-clock work is integral and
indispensable to the principal activities of the Auditors' jobs.
WIS's policies and practices have deprived the Auditors of
substantial amounts of wages, including overtime, which they have
earned and to which they are entitled.
The Plaintiffs--on behalf of themselves and all of the other
Auditors--seek compensation and credit for all unrecorded and
uncompensated work time, including overtime, liquidated damages,
and/or all other relief permitted by law. Plaintiffs also request
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as Auditors.
WIS is an international corporation that provides inventory/data
collection and merchandising services to large retail stores across
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
Kevin A. Todd, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
1501 Westport Road
Kansas City, MO 64111
Phone: (816) 875-3332
Email: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
bthoenen@hkm.com
ktodd@hkm.com
- and -
Cecilia N. Brennan, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
401 West A Street, Suite 200 (#77)
San Diego, California 92101
Phone/Fax: (619) 717-6410
Email: cbrennan@hkm.com
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Tossed in Gilburd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rachael Gilburd, et al.,
v. Rocket Mortgage LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00010-DLR (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order denying the
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings:
-- The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue is
denied.
-- The Court also denies Defendant's request for certification
for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1292(b).
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is
granted
in part as follows:
1. The Court conditionally certifies Plaintiffs' collective
action for a period of three years prior to the filing of
Plaintiffs' First Amended.
The case is a collective action arising out of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs Rachael Gilburd, Andrew
Gebhart, Daniel Featherstone, Derek Martin, Angela McGuire, Kori
Morin, Katherine Redas, Erin Salava, David Vallejo, and Nick
Vincent, on behalf of themselves all other persons similarly
situated, accuse Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC of failing to pay
overtime wages pursuant to § 207 of the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs propose a collective class for their FLSA claim as
follows:
"All persons who work[ed] for Defendant Rocket Mortgage,
LLC or its predecessor entities Quicken Loans, LLC and Quicken
Loans, Inc.; who work[ed] over [forty] hours in any given
workweek
as a past or present mortgage banker or similar title, or who
performed the job duties of working with borrowers through loan
processing."
Rocket is an American mortgage lender, headquartered in Detroit,
Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41gU3mq at no extra charge.[CC]
SAINT AUGUSTINES UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Augustines
University. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Saint
Augustines University, Case No. 1:23-cv-10954 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Saint Augustine's University -- https://www.st-aug.edu/ -- is a
private historically black Christian college in Raleigh, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
SAM'S WEST: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Opposition Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated,
v. SAM'S WEST, INC. dba SAM'S CLUB, an Arkansas corporation, Case
No. 2:21-cv-05122-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order granting its application to continue its deadline
to file an opposition to Plaintiff's renewed motion for class
certification.
Sam's Club seeks ex parte relief due to:
(1) the current briefing schedule providing Sam’s Club only
one
week to oppose Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Class
Certification; and
(2) the Court’s denying the Parties' stipulation to continue
the
briefing schedule for Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Class
Certification on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to show
good
cause for the continuation.
The case involves a putative statewide class action concerning all
hourly-paid Sam's Club associates in California, alleging failure
to pay minimum wages, overtime, and wages at termination.
The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification on April 11,
2022, and the Court denied Plaintiff's First Motion on May 4, 2023.
The Plaintiff's First Motion was hard fought -- the parties
collectively submitted nearly 100 witness declarations and
conducted dozens of depositions. The briefing schedule for
Plaintiff's First Motion allowed Sam's Club four weeks to prepare
and file an opposition.
Sam's West is an American chain of membership-only warehouse club
retail stores owned and operated by Walmart Inc.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/487SjOY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
Carmen M. Aguado, Esq.
Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
carmen.aguado@ogletree.com
mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Google, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCRIPPS HEALTH, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-02215-LL-DEB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2023) seeks to address
Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing Plaintiffs and
similarly situated patients' confidential, personally identifiable
information and protected health information to third parties,
including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta and Google, Inc. without
consent, through the use of tracking software that is embedded in
Defendant's website, in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.
The Defendant owns and controls scripps.org, which it encourages
patients to use for booking medical appointments, locating
physicians and treatment facilities, communicating medical
symptoms, searching medical conditions and treatment options, and
more. Unbeknownst to patients, Defendant installed tracking
technologies onto its Website. These Tracking Tools, such as
pixels, web beacons, or cookies, track and collect communications
with the Defendant via the Website and surreptitiously force the
user's web browser to send those communications to undisclosed
third parties, such as Facebook or Google, says the suit.
As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members
have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of
privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain; (iii) diminution of
value of their private information; and (iv) the continued and
ongoing risk to their private information, the suit contends.
Scripps Health is a non-profit healthcare entity operating
throughout the San Diego, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
Alex J. Tramontano, Esq.
Ferdeza Zekiri, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
E-mail: byrd@whafh.com
tramontano@whafh.com
zekiri@whafh.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
Brandon P. Jack, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 375
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (747) 777-7748
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
bjack@justice4you.com
- and -
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
SEASONAL YARD WORK: Scutellaro Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seasonal Yard Work &
Landscaping, Inc. The case is styled as Benjamin Scutellaro,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Seasonal Yard Work & Landscaping, Inc. doing business as: Mr.
Level, Case No. 1:23-cv-24634-JAL (S.D. Fla., Dec. 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Seasonal Yard Work -- https://seasonalyardwork.com/ -- specializes
in building and maintaining all outdoor living spaces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
scott@edelsberglaw.com
SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shorter University,
Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Shorter University, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-10953 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shorter University -- https://www.shorter.edu/ -- is a
Christ-centered, four-year liberal arts university committed to
excellence in education.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
SOUTH CAROLINA PORTS: Brown Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Omar Brown, an individual v. SOUTH CAROLINA
PORTS AUTHORITY, Case No. 2023-CP-10-05303 was removed from the
Court of Common Pleas, County of Charleston, State of South
Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Dec. 19, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-06799-BHH-PJG.
The Plaintiff's claims arise solely under the laws of the United
States. Specifically, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges causes of
action for gender, sexual, and racial discrimination, retaliation,
and hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Oliver Eckard, Esq.
Michelle McMahon, Esq.
Ryan Van Buren, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
211 King Street, Suite 200
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: 843.853.1300
Facsimile: 843.853.9992
Email: michael.eckard@ogletreedeakins.com
michelle.mcmahon@ogletreedeakins.com
ryan.vanburen@ogletreedeakins.com
STATE FARM MUTUAL: King Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert King, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Judson
Mitchell, Case No. G-4801-CI-0202304291-000 was removed from the
Lucas County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Dec. 18, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02403-JZ to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a large
group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States
with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Portnoy, Esq.
810 West South Boundary Road
Perrysburg, OH 43551
Phone: (419) 874-2775
Fax: (419) 874-2777
Email: hawkport@aol.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Peter J. Georgiton, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL-COLUMBUS
191 West Nationwide Blvd., Ste. 300
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 628-6963
Fax: (614) 628-6890
Email: peter.georgiton@dinsmore.com
SUNPOWER CORP: Faces Securities Suit Over Connector Defect
----------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K/A for the fiscal
year ended January 1, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 18, 2023 that it is facing a purported
securities class action lawsuit filed against the company and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on February 16, 2022,
by putative shareholder Piotr Jaszczyszyn purportedly on behalf of
a class consisting of those who acquired the company's securities
from August 3, 2021 to January 20, 2022.
The complaint was filed following the company's January 20, 2022
announcement that it had identified a cracking issue that developed
over time in certain factory-installed connectors and that it
expects to record approximately $27.0 million of supplier-quality
related charges in the fourth quarter of 2021 and approximately
$4.0 million in the first quarter of 2022, and alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the
lawsuit claims that defendants failed to disclose the following to
investors that certain connectors used by the company suffered from
cracking issues, that, as a result, the company was reasonably
likely to incur costs to remediate the faulty connectors, that, as
a result, the company's financial results would be adversely
impacted and that, as a result, defendants' positive statements
about the company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On October 13, 2022, the court appointed Steamfitters Local 449
Pension & Retirement Security Funds as lead plaintiff in the
action. On December 15, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that named the same defendants and brought the same
claims as the previous complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint is currently due on February 24, 2023.
SunPower Corporation (together with its subsidiaries) is a solar
technology and energy services provider that offers fully
integrated solar, storage, and home energy solutions to customers
primarily in the United States and Canada through an array of
hardware, software, and financing options and "Smart Energy"
solutions.
TELEPERFORMANCE SE: Warren City Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CITY OF WARREN GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v. TELEPERFORMANCE SE, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00181-BLW (D. Idaho), Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho grants Teleperformance's
Motion to Transfer Venue.
The City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System ("The
City"), a Michigan-based retirement fund, filed a class action
lawsuit against Teleperformance, SE, and several of its corporate
officers, including CEO Daniel Julien, Deputy CEO and CFO Olivier
Rigaudy, and Akash Pugalia, the Global President of Trust and
Safety. The lawsuit alleges that Teleperformance and its officers
violated Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false statements about
employee working conditions that inflated the company's stock
prices.
Teleperformance is a global company that provides "omnichannel
customer experience management services and related digital
services" to companies. It is based in Paris, France, but has
numerous offices throughout the United States in the form of
subsidiary entities. These include an office in Boise, Idaho, an
office in Port St. Lucie, Florida, and corporate headquarters in
Miami, Florida. Of relevance to this action are Teleperformance's
content-moderation services. Content moderation services use both
AI and company employees to review potentially inappropriate or
dangerous user-generated content on digital platforms for the
purpose of flagging or removing that content.
From 2020 to 2022, Teleperformance provided content moderation
services for various digital platforms, including TikTok. Between
2020 and 2022, Teleperformance experienced growth in its Core
Services and Digital Integrated Business Services (i.e., content
moderation). As a result, content moderation grew to account for
approximately 9% of the company's profitability in 2022. During
this time, Teleperformance touted its success through numerous
press releases and earnings calls, including by highlighting the
fact that the company had been named a "Great Place to Work(R)"
after evaluation by independent third parties.
Teleperformance, through its corporate officers Julien, Rigaudy,
and Pugalia, claimed to make employee well-being "a key priority."
Teleperformance also claimed to deploy a number of initiatives and
tools in the areas of hiring, professional training and
development, human rights, diversity and inclusion, wellbeing, and
occupational health and safety, and emphasized its commitment to
corporate and social responsibility. Teleperformance officers made
these and other similar statements between July 29, 2020, and Nov.
9, 2022.
On Aug. 4, 2022, Forbes Magazine published an article entitled,
"TikTok Moderators are Being Trained Using Graphic Images of Child
Sexual Abuse." The article cited interviews with current and past
Teleperformance content moderators, who revealed that
Teleperformance provided access to real images of child
pornography, terrorism, and other graphic content for training
purposes. The content moderators were allegedly instructed to refer
to this content as they moderated platforms to inform them of what
was and was not appropriate. Many of those interviewed also said
that repeatedly viewing explicit content on the job severely
impacted their mental health, and that they felt Teleperformance
did not provide adequate mental health care.
Time Magazine published a similar article on Oct. 20, 2022. That
article also cited interviews with Teleperformance content
moderators, who made similar claims to those described in the
Forbes article. Most of the interviewed employees were either based
in El Paso, Texas, or Colombia, South America. One prior employee,
who was quoted in the article, had previously worked in Boise,
Idaho.
Following the publication of these articles, the price of
Teleperformance American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) declined over
50% from its Class Period high. The City alleges that the
Defendants' statements regarding the success of the company and the
prioritization of employee well-being were false and, therefore,
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In other words, The
City alleges that Teleperformance executives made false statements
regarding their employees' working conditions and, therefore,
knowingly inflated company stock prices.
The City then filed a securities class action lawsuit in this Court
on behalf of all persons, who purchased Teleperformance ADRs
between July 29, 2020, and Nov. 9, 2022. Teleperformance filed the
present Motion to Transfer Venue on Aug. 15, 2023, asking this
Court to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
Judge Winmill notes that the Ninth Circuit has outlined eight
private factors (the Jones factors) for courts to consider when
deciding Section 1404(a) motions to transfer: (1) the location
where any relevant agreements were negotiated and executed; (2) the
state most familiar with the governing law; (3) the plaintiff's
choice of forum; (4) the respective parties' contacts with the
forum; (5) contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in
the chosen forum; (6) differences in the cost of litigation in the
two forums; (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel
attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; and (8) the ease of
access to sources of proof (Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211
F.3d 495, 798 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Judge Winmill finds that most of the Jones factors weigh in favor
of transferring the case.
The Court concludes that the City's argument to maintain venue in
Idaho essentially boils down to the fact that Idaho was the venue
they selected. But that fact, alone, is not enough to overcome the
Defendant's showing of inconvenience and cost to the parties and
non-party witnesses.
The Court, therefore, grants Teleperformance's Motion to Transfer
Venue.
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2p9a5jt4from
PacerMonitor.com.
THERMO TECH: Scheduling Order Entered in Lopez Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN LOPEZ, v. THERMO TECH
MECHANICAL INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09113-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- That defendants shall file their opposition to the class
certification motion no later than January 5, 2024, and
plaintiff
shall file his reply no later than January 19, 2024.
-- The Defendants' counsel's excuse that plaintiff's counsel
failed
to "provide mailing or payment instructions to Defendants
regarding the transmittal of the payment to Plaintiff's
counsel's
law firm, until 10:36 a.m." on December 1, 2023, does not
justify
the failure to timely pay the $500 sanction ordered by the
Court.
Thermo Tec is a local, family-run HVAC company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nmi8CK at no extra charge.[CC]
THOMAS J. MCADAM: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomas J. McAdam
Liquors, Inc. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Thomas J. McAdam
Liquors, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09342 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Thomas J. McAdam Liquors, Inc. doing business as Buy Rite Liquor --
https://buyriteliquor.com/ -- formerly known as Cedar Gardens
Liquors, is a well-known and well reputable Route 33 liquor store
that has been serving Hamilton residents for years.[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
TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Mitchell
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONN MITCHELL, v. TOYOTA
OF DALLAS, Case No. 3:23-cv-01278-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
David C. Godbey entered a class certification scheduling order:
1. The Plaintiffs must serve on defendants (but NOT file with
the
Court) their motion for class certification within 45 days of
this Order. The motion must comply with Local Rule 23.2
(except
paragraph (f)), and must be accompanied by all supporting
evidence, including expert testimony, if any, and supporting
brief.
2. Any motions for leave to join additional parties must be
filed
within 30 days of the date of this Order. Any motion for
leave
to amend pleadings under Rule 15(a) must be filed within 60
days
of this Order. Any motion for leave to amend pleadings after
that date must show good cause pursuant to Rule 16(b).
3. All discovery except regarding class certification is
stayed.
4. The parties may by written agreement alter the deadlines and
limitations in this paragraph, without the need for court
order.
No continuance of the Submission Date will be granted due to
agreed extensions of these deadlines.
5. On the Submission Date, the parties must file with the Court
the
motion for class certification, response, and reply, together
with all supporting evidence and briefs.
Toyota of Dallas offers Toyota sales and service.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NsdFOO at no extra charge.[CC]
TWITTER INC: Yeh Suit Remanded to San Francisco Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the lawsuit entitled HENRY YEH, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-01790-HSG (N.D. Cal.), to the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco.
To provide adequate procedural background on this motion, the Court
begins not with the origins of this case, but of another: Price v.
Twitter, Inc. Price v. Twitter was filed in May 2022 and alleged
various state and common law causes of action arising from
Twitter's allegedly deceptive disclosure and sale of user contact
information for marketing purposes. At the time of filing, the
relevant defendant was known as "Twitter, Inc." Now, of course,
that entity is known as "X Corp." Throughout this order, the Court
will refer to the Defendant as "Twitter" for the sake of clarity
and consistency.
Both parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, and the
case was assigned to The Honorable Sallie Kim. On Aug. 15, 2022,
Twitter moved to dismiss the Price action, arguing, among other
things, that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. Its attack
on standing was detailed and extensive: Twitter dedicated pages to
arguing that the Price plaintiffs failed to establish "any
particularized, concrete, or future injury from Twitter's alleged
use of basic contact information to display more relevant
advertising."
Judge Kim agreed that the Price plaintiffs failed to adequately
plead injury sufficient for standing, and on Dec. 6, 2022, granted
Twitter's motion with leave to amend. Meanwhile, virtually
identical cases were bubbling up elsewhere in the district.
On Aug. 15, 2022 -- the same day Twitter filed its motion to
dismiss in the Price action --- a group of plaintiffs that included
Henry Yeh filed Gianakopoulos v. Twitter, Inc., Case No.
22-cv-04674-AGT. A few days later, yet more plaintiffs initiated
another follow-on action: McClellan v. Twitter, Inc., Case No.
22-cv-04758-TSH. On Sept. 23, 2022, both the Gianakopoulos and
McClellan actions were reassigned to Judge Kim.
Accordingly, by the time the Price plaintiffs received Judge Kim's
December ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, multiple
cases had been filed alleging overlapping claims. The Price,
Gianakoploulos, and McClellan actions were consolidated in January
2023, and the plaintiffs ultimately filed their consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 6, 2023.
Notably, the consolidated complaint dropped Mr. Yeh as a named
plaintiff. On March 1, 2023, Twitter once again moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended Price complaint, and once again argued
that the plaintiffs' amended allegations did not support Article
III standing. In its Reply, however, Twitter asserted that because
standing was intertwined with the merits for some of the
plaintiffs' claims, the court could consider (and then dismiss)
those claims on the merits.
While Twitter's motion was pending, Mr. Yeh reappeared, only this
time in state court. On March 10, 2023, Mr. Yeh (represented by the
same counsel) filed a class action complaint substantively
identical to the consolidated Price complaint in the San Francisco
County Superior Court. The Defendants timely removed Yeh v.
Twitter, Inc., to federal court, arguing that jurisdiction over
this Class Action Fairness Action ("CAFA") case is proper under 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) (which vests district courts with original
jurisdiction over civil actions in which the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million, there is minimal diversity of citizenship
between the parties, and the action involves at least 100 class
members).
On April 26, 2023, Judge Kim found that Yeh was related to the
consolidated Price action, and the case was reassigned to her.
However, because Mr. Yeh did not consent to magistrate
jurisdiction, the case was reassigned to this Court. Days later,
the consolidated Price action was voluntarily dismissed without a
ruling on Twitter's second motion to dismiss. Following the
dismissal and closure of the consolidated Price action, Mr. Yeh's
case remained before this Court (Yeh v. Twitter, Case No.
23-cv-01790-HSG).
On May 12, 2023, Mr. Yeh moved to remand his case to state court,
arguing that the Court's subject matter jurisdiction was in
question given the Defendant's prior attacks on Article III
standing for the similarly situated Price plaintiffs. Twitter moved
to dismiss the case (on grounds other than deficient standing), and
then opposed Mr. Yeh's motion to remand.
The parties do not dispute that on the facts of this case,
statutory standing exists under CAFA. The only real dispute is
whether the Defendant has met its burden of establishing Article
III standing. The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that it has not,
and accordingly, will remand the case.
The crux of the Plaintiff's motion is that the Defendant -- the
party who invoked federal jurisdiction by removing the case from
state court -- bears the burden of showing that Mr. Yeh's claims
articulate an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III
standing. Though all removing parties bear the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction, Judge Gilliam says Twitter's
task here is unusually challenging: since it previously spilled
considerable ink in the Price action arguing that the plaintiffs
identically situated to Mr. Yeh had not shown Article III standing,
Twitter's decision to remove this materially identical case to
federal court comes as something of a plot twist.
Given the inconsistency between the Defendant's arguments in Price
and its actions in Yeh, Judge Gilliam points out that the
Plaintiff's motion puts the Defendant on the spot to "submit
support for standing." The Defendant did not. To be sure, it did
other things: it argued that there is "no antiremoval presumption"
under CAFA, and that the Court has jurisdiction to hear its claims
because the "jurisdictional arguments are intertwined with the
merits."
But nowhere in its opposition did Twitter affirmatively state that
the Plaintiff has standing under Article III -- let alone
articulate how, Judge Gilliam observes. Establishing jurisdiction
(including Article III standing) was the Defendant's obligation as
the party removing the case and invoking federal jurisdiction.
While the Plaintiff admittedly did not put forward an affirmative
argument as to why standing does not exist (which would be the
typical posture), the Court cannot ignore that the Defendant
already did. Without the Defendant now showing that standing is
proper after previously arguing to the contrary, the Court cannot
consider the merits of the case.
Though the Defendant suggests that this Court can rule on the
merits under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
instead of on jurisdictional grounds under Rule 12(b)(1) because
the jurisdiction and merits issues are intertwined, the Court is
not persuaded. After carefully reviewing the parties' cited cases,
the Court is of the view that the "intertwined" principle is far
narrower than the Defendant urges.
Since in this case the jurisdiction inquiries do not arise under a
federal statute, but instead under Article III, Judge Gilliam finds
that that exceptional rule just does not apply. And though the
Defendant asserts that "absent 'truly frivolous' claims, issues
that are intertwined with the merits are not matters of
constitutional standing," it cites no authority clearly
establishing this purported "bedrock principle."
To the extent that the Defendant raises this argument to suggest
that this Court need not find Article III standing before
proceeding to evaluate the Plaintiff's UCL and contract claims, the
Court finds no support for that contention, and the cases the
Defendant cite (which, as the Plaintiff points out, did not arise
in the context of remand) do not supply it.
In many of the Defendant's cited cases, for example, Judge Gilliam
says the courts clearly addressed the question of Article III
standing, even if they then proceeded to dismiss on the merits
certain statutory claims for standing reasons. These cases simply
do not suggest that where jurisdiction is in doubt, as it is here,
the Court can nonetheless proceed to rule on the merits of state
and common law claims.
Ultimately, the Defendant's argument that the Court can maintain
jurisdiction under a plainly inapplicable "intertwined" theory
falls short of establishing that the Plaintiff has standing, which
is its burden, Judge Gilliam opines. The Defendant's attempt to
evade that burden here is notable given its prior arguments against
standing, Judge Gilliam points out, among other things.
For all of these reasons, the Court is persuaded that since the
Defendant did not meet its affirmative burden of establishing the
Plaintiff's Article III standing after previously putting it in
question repeatedly in materially identical litigation, remand is
appropriate. The Court adds that it cannot conclude that the
Plaintiff's claims are definitively doomed in state court, and
accordingly, will remand rather than dismiss.
Hence, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand and
terminates as moot the Defendant's motion to dismiss and its
associated request for judicial notice. The Court remands the case
to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/5cerfsuxfrom PacerMonitor.com.
UNITED STATES POLO: Binder Suit Moved From Illinois to New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, transfers to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey the lawsuit
captioned DEMETRA BINDER, BARBEL PERISSA, and CHRISTINA CALCAGNO,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES POLO ASSOCIATION, and USPA PROPERTIES,
INC., and DOES 1‒50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 23 CV 2910
(N.D. Ill.)
Plaintiffs Demetra Binder, Barbel Perissa, and Christina Calcagno,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring a
seven-count first amended class action complaint against Defendants
United States Polo Association, Inc. and USPA Properties, Inc., for
an alleged false reference-pricing scheme in the Defendants' retail
stores in New Jersey, New York, and California, and on the
internet.
The Plaintiffs bring claims for violations of: the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act; the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract,
Warranty, and Notice Act; the New York Consumer Protection From
Deceptive Acts and Practices Act; the New York False Advertising
Law; California's Unfair Competition Law; and California's False
Advertising Law.
On Sept. 28, 2023, the Defendants moved to transfer venue from this
Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). For the reasons expressed
here, the Court grants the Defendants' motion.
Plaintiff Binder, a New Jersey resident, filed her original
complaint against the Defendants on May 9, 2023, which included
only factual allegations related to her transaction at U.S. Polo
Association's outlet store in New Jersey, claims under New Jersey
law, and a New Jersey proposed class.
On July 17, 2023, the Defendants filed their first motion to
transfer venue to the District of New Jersey. Binder then attempted
to concurrently file her response and move for leave to file a
first amended complaint that would invalidate the Defendants'
arguments in its motion. The first amended complaint added: named
Plaintiffs Perissa (a New York resident) and Calcagno (a California
resident); factual allegations regarding Perissa and Calcagno's
transactions at U.S. Polo Association's outlet stores in New York
and California; claims under New York and California law; and New
York and California proposed classes.
After the Court instructed Binder to separately file these briefs,
the parties stipulated for leave to file an amended complaint,
which the Court granted, and the Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint on Aug. 31, 2023. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint
defines the three proposed classes as "All persons, within the
State of New Jersey, New York, or California, who purchased from a
New Jersey, New York, or California U.S. Polo Association retail
store."
The Defendants filed the instant motion to transfer to the District
of New Jersey on Sept. 28, 2023.
The parties do not dispute that the Northern District of Illinois
is a proper venue for the instant case, and this Court properly has
jurisdiction. The Defendants, however, move to transfer this case
to the District of New Jersey. They argue that none of the alleged
acts occurred in Illinois, none of the named Plaintiffs are
connected to Illinois, and none of the proposed classes are
connected to Illinois.
Further, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs bring claims
under only non-Illinois state law, and none of the critical
witnesses are likely to reside in Illinois. The Plaintiffs counter
that it makes sense for the case to be heard in this court because
the Defendants are incorporated here. The Plaintiffs also argue
that this Court is centrally located, although they acknowledge
that the relevant defense witnesses are likely located in Florida
where the Defendants are headquartered and, thus, where its pricing
policies and practices presumably originated.
The Court notes that the Plaintiffs conflate "jurisdiction" and
"venue," and the distinction is important. As the Plaintiffs assert
in their amended complaint, subject matter jurisdiction over their
claims comes from the minimal diversity contemplated by the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").
The fact that the Plaintiffs bring claims under New York and
California law does not change the District of New Jersey's subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA, which depends on the diverse
citizenship of the parties rather than the source of law that
underlies their claims, Judge Gettleman opines.
Similarly, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants
based on their domicile, which makes them "at home" in Illinois.
While the Defendants would not be "at home" in the District of New
Jersey, that court would have specific personal jurisdiction over
them based on their purposeful contacts with the state (i.e., the
New Jersey outlet store), Judge Gettleman says. Conversely, venue
is based on the Defendants' location or the location of the
relevant events.
The Court considers, among other things, whether the District of
New Jersey has a stronger interest in resolving this controversy.
It is true, as the Plaintiffs argue, that Illinois has an interest
in regulating the entities incorporated under its jurisdiction from
violating consumer protection laws, Judge Gettleman says. Yet,
Illinois has no interest in regulating out-of-state transactions
that affect non-Illinois citizens.
Moreover, Judge Gettleman explains, the District of New Jersey has
a stake in resolving this controversy within its community, in
front of a locally comprised prospective jury, given the location
of the relevant outlet store and its probable customers.
Further, the Court acknowledges that Binder added Perissa and
Calcagno only after the Defendants filed their initial motion to
transfer venue to the District of New Jersey, which would have been
an appropriate venue at that time. Ostensibly, Binder sought to
amend her complaint in order to moot the Defendants' motion.
Engaging in such conduct runs counter to the interest of justice,
Judge Gettleman points out.
The Plaintiffs cite the median number of months from filing to
civil disposition in the two districts: 6.7 months in the Northern
District of Illinois compared to 10.0 months in the District of New
Jersey, amounting to a difference of 3.3 months. By amending their
complaint to avoid transfer, Judge Gettleman notes, the Plaintiffs
added almost three months to the timeline of this case in this
district, which effectively makes up the difference.
Based on its consideration of the factors discussed, this Court
concludes that the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as
well as the interest of justice, favor transfer.
For the reasons stated, the Court grants the Defendants' motion for
transfer, relinquishes its jurisdiction, and orders the Court Clerk
to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order dated
Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/54f5mrszfrom
PacerMonitor.com.
UNITED STATES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Padilla v. ICE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, denies in part and grants in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled YOLANY
PADILLA, IBIS GUZMAN, BLANCA ORANTES, BALTAZAR VASQUEZ, Plaintiffs
v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00928-MJP (W.D. Wash.).
The Plaintiffs and the Class they represent are "inadmissible"
noncitizens, who have come to the United States to seek asylum.
After being placed in expedited removal proceedings and detained,
the Plaintiffs have been found to have a credible fear of
persecution and their asylum claims were transferred to standard
removal proceedings.
In June 2018, the Plaintiffs filed suit to enforce their right to a
bond hearing that complies with the Due Process Clause while they
await a determination on their asylum application. Although all
four named Plaintiffs were given bond hearings, they fear that they
and similarly-situated individuals face the risk of being
re-detained and deprived of bond hearings in light of the Attorney
General's decision that bond hearings will no longer be given to
asylum seekers similarly situated to the Plaintiffs.
In 2019, the Court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that
required the Defendants to provide bond hearings to the Plaintiffs
and similarly-situated individuals, and set certain procedural
requirements consistent with due process. After the Ninth Circuit
largely upheld the injunction, the Supreme Court vacated the
injunction and remanded the matter to the Ninth Circuit for further
consideration in light of its decision in Dep't of Homeland Sec. v.
Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (2020).
The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case to this Court with
instructions to vacate the injunction and for further consideration
in light of Thuraissigiam and two other Supreme Court decisions.
The Plaintiffs have now filed their Fourth Amended Complaint
through which they continue to seek to enforce their right to bond
hearings that comport with due process. The Defendants challenge
the Court's jurisdiction over such claims and the adequacy of the
allegations in light of Thuraissigiam and other precedent.
The Court initially denied, in part, the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, and certified two classes of similarly-situated
individuals--those seeking a timely credible fear interview (the
Credible Fear Class) and those seeking a bond hearing comporting
with due process (the Bond Hearing Class).
The Court then issued and modified a preliminary injunction,
requiring the Executive Office for Immigration Review to: (1)
conduct bond hearings within seven days of a request for those in
the Bond Hearing Class; (2) satisfy the burden of proof as to why
the Bond Hearing Class members should not be released on bond,
parole or other conditions; (3) record the bond hearing and produce
the recording or verbatim transcript of the hearing upon appeal;
and (4) produce a written decision with particularized
determinations of individualized findings at the conclusion of the
bond hearing.
The Defendants timely appealed and the Ninth Circuit upheld the
injunction in large part, but remanded for consideration of whether
all of the procedural requirements and the nationwide scope of the
injunction were appropriate. The Supreme Court, then, vacated the
Ninth Circuit's opinion and remanded the matter to the Ninth
Circuit for further consideration in light of its decision in Dep't
of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1959
(2020).
The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case to this Court with
"instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and for further
consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Biden v.
Texas, ___ U.S. ___,142 S. Ct. 2528 (2022), Garland v. Aleman
Gonzalez, __ U.S.__, 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022), and Thuraissigiam.
Upon receipt of the mandate, the Court vacated the preliminary
injunction. The Plaintiffs then filed their Fourth Amended
Complaint, and the Defendants moved for dismissal of all claims for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a
claim.
Since then, the Parties settled the credible-fear-related claims,
and the Court has set a final fairness hearing on the settlement.
The Parties agree that the Motion to Dismiss should only be decided
as to the Bond Hearing Class and their bond-hearing-related claims.
Accordingly, this Order omits any analysis of the credible fear
claims.
Plaintiffs Yolany Padilla, Ibis Guzman, Blanca Orantes, and
Baltazar Vasquez filed this class action to challenge, among other
things, the government's alleged policy and practice of failing to
provide constitutionally-adequate bond hearings for detained asylum
seekers, who have been found to have a credible fear and whose
asylum applications remain pending. They allege they were detained
at the border for entering without inspection and placed into
expedited removal proceedings. But each successfully made showings
of credible fear and their asylum applications were placed into
standard removal proceedings.
After receiving positive credible fear findings, each Plaintiff was
given a bond hearing. At their bond hearings, the Plaintiffs were
all required to prove they were not a danger or flight risk, and no
verbatim transcript or recording of the proceedings was made.
Although Padilla and Vasquez were released after posting $8,000
bonds, both Plaintiffs Guzman and Orantes were denied bond with
little or no explanation. Guzman and Orantes were released from
detention only after the government was required to comply with a
preliminary injunction in another matter. All four Plaintiffs aver
that they and Class members face the prospect of being re-detained
without a bond hearing.
The Defendants challenge the Court's subject matter jurisdiction
under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Defendants also move for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing
that even if the Court has jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs have not
stated a claim.
Judge Pechman holds that the Defendants incorrectly argue that two
provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) bar the Plaintiffs' claims. Neither
provision applies to this action, Judge Pechman points out.
First, the Court continues to find that Section 1252(a)(2)(A) has
no application to the Plaintiffs' claims. Second, the Court
continues to find that Section 1252(e)(3), does not strip the Court
of jurisdiction.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Jennings v.
Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018), which rejected application of a
similar jurisdiction-stripping provision to claims challenging the
detention process for those facing removal. Judge Pechman points
out that the same logic applies here because the Plaintiffs
challenge only the constitutionality of their detention, and the
relief they seek does implicate the removal system.
The Court rejects the Defendants' argument and continues to find
that it has jurisdiction over the claims regarding bond hearings.
Hence, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion as to jurisdiction,
and finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' claims.
The Defendants primarily argue that Thuraissigiam compels the Court
to find that the Plaintiffs enjoy only those procedural protections
provided for by statute, and that this does not include bond
hearings. The Defendants further contend that beyond Thuraissigiam,
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a valid substantive or
procedural due process claim. The Court finds no merit in any of
the Defendants' arguments.
The Court stands unconvinced that the Supreme Court's decision in
Thuraissigiam requires dismissal of the Plaintiffs' due process
claim. Given the distinct claims presented in Thuraissigiam, the
Court finds the decision's narrow holding presents no bar to the
Plaintiffs' claim.
Nothing in Thuraissigiam suggests the Plaintiffs lack such a due
process right, Judge Pechman holds. As such, the Court denies the
Motion as to this issue.
The Court also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged a substantive and procedural due process
claim.
The Court notes that this Order does not resolve whether the
Plaintiffs are entitled to a bond hearing within the seven day
time-frame they have requested in their complaint. Judge Pechman
holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they are
entitled to a bond hearing in an expedited fashion.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that their APA claims related to
the bond hearing procedural safeguards (Counts II and VI) survive
dismissal. The Defendants sought dismissal of these claims on the
theory that the Plaintiffs lack a due process right to bond
hearings.
Because the Plaintiffs have shown a valid due process right to
prompt bond hearings before neutral decisionmakers, the attendant
APA claims are adequately alleged, Judge Pechman holds. The
Defendants also argue that the there is no final agency action to
review. But the Court remains convinced that the procedural defects
alleged by the Plaintiffs are part and parcel of the bond hearing,
which is indisputably a "final agency action" from which legal
consequences flow. The Court, therefore, denies the Motion as to
Counts II and VI.
But two of the Plaintiffs' APA claims must be dismissed, Judge
Pechman says. First, the Plaintiffs concede they included Count V
in the Fourth Amended Complaint "to preserve it for review," given
that the Court has previously dismissed it. The Plaintiffs offer no
reason why this claim should survive dismissal and the Court again
dismisses this claim for the same reasons as set forth in the
original Order on the MTD. Second, the Plaintiffs have withdrawn
their APA challenge to the Matter of M-S- set out in Count III and
the Court dismisses this claim.
The Court finds it has jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's claims.
And the Court remains convinced that the Plaintiffs have alleged a
viable due process claim and related claims under the APA.
The Court finds that the Supreme Court's decision in Thuraissigiam
does not undermine the Plaintiffs' due process claim. And the Court
finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged an actionable
substantive and procedural due process claim. The Court denies the
Motion as to Counts I, II, and VI. But the Court grants the Motion
as to Counts II and V, and dismisses them.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all
counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y3c6vy7hfrom PacerMonitor.com.
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in A Suit Set for Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A v. United States of
America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02342
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/471FSTP at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in A Suit Set for Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A v. United States of
America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-03475
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GS5zvk at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in C Suit Set for Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C v. United States of
America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-023558
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3th8xXb at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Chaney Set for Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chaney et al v. United
States of America et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02986 (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court’s Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v4G0oi at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in DG Suit Set for Jan. 3
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.G. v. United States of
America Federal Bureau of Prisons et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-05339
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tv8x0g at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in DS Suit Set for Jan. 3
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DS v. United States of
America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02668
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tzrkNj at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Gonzalez Set for Jan. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gonzalez v. United States
of America et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04611 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tpxi3g at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in MS Suit Set for Jan. 3
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.S. v. Federal
Correctional Institution - Dublin et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-08924
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply In Support Of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NBGvfX at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in P Suit Set for Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as P v. United States of
America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-05356
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GWTjJP at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in R Suit Set for Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as R v. United States of
America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02405
(N.D. Cal.)., the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an
order as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court’s Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/476xi64 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in RR Suit Set for Jan. 3
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as R. R. v Garcia, Case No.
4:23-cv-05294 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
entered an order as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court’s Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court’s website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/478SKYn at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in S Suit Set for Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as S v. United States of
America et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-93538 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41yZXQi at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in V Suit Set for Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as V v. United States of
America Federal Bureau of Prisons et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04321
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41s4l3r at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Z Suit Set for Jan. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z. v. United States of
America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-03827
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
as follows:
Parties To Proposed Order on Psychological Dec. 15,
2023
Evaluations:
Further Case Management Conference: Dec. 18,
2023
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Class Dec. 28,
2023
Certification Motion In 23-4155:
Evidentiary Hearing In 23-4155: Jan. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Jan. 5, 2024
Certification In 23-4155:
All cases for individual damages related to 22-5137 are stayed
until July 19, 2024.
Parties in cases for individual damages are put on notice that the
Court will later group cases to efficiently address joint issues.
The case requesting injunctive relief—23-4155—is not stayed.
Both the case and sought relief is distinctly different from the
claims for individual damages and will be addressed in a timely
manner.
The further CMC on December 18, 2023, will be held remotely. Though
all parties are welcome to attend should they have any questions
for the Court, the main purpose of this further CMC will be to
discuss the upcoming evidentiary hearing in 23-4155. Parties do not
need to submit a Joint CMC Statement in preparation.
All updates that apply globally should also be filed on the same
docket. All parties are advised that the Court will docket all
scheduling and substantive Orders on 22-5137.
The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in
Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil
Cases for additional deadlines and procedures.
All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that
operates U.S. federal prisons and is responsible for the care,
custody, and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/484pPpz at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Rubinstein Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB RUBINSTEIN, et al.,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:23-cv-12685-MAG-EAS (E.D.
Mich.), Mr. Rubinstein asks the Court to enter an order certifying
a proposed class of:
-- Persons in federal custody as the result of a conviction of
one
or more offenses under 18 U.S.C. section 2252 and/or section
22525A (and no other convinctions);
-- Zero or one criminal history point at sentencing, with no
history of violence and no prior convictions for a sex
offense;
-- Sentenced to a term of a Supervised Release; and
-- United States citizen.
United States is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of
North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending
the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tu2f17 at no extra
charge.[CC]
VALLEY NATIONAL: Allcock Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Susan Allcock, on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated v. Valley National Bancorp doing business
as: VALLEY BANK, Case No. 2:23-cv-20900 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 8, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13022-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Valley National Bancorp doing business as Valley Bank --
https://www.valley.com/ -- is a regional bank holding company
headquartered in Morristown, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
1814 East Route 70, Suite 350
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Phone: (856) 396-0600
Fax: (833) 775-3450
Email: amilz@consumerslaw.com
jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.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:
Matthew Adam Sklar, Esq.
Omar Abdussellam Bareentto, Esq.
Scott S. Christie, Esq.
MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP
100 Mulberry Street
Four Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 622-4444
Email: msklar@mccarter.com
obareentto@mccarter.com
schristie@mccarter.com
VEOLIA WATER: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMIAH NICHOLLS, WALTER
GOODROW, WESLEY DINSMORE, and RICHARD RUPPERT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VEOLIA WATER
CONTRACT OPERATIONS USA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-30034-MGM (D.
Mass.), Plaintiffs ask the Court extending the deadlines by an
additional two weeks.
The Plaintiffs request that the deadlines be modified as follows:
-- Dispositive motions by either party Dec. 29, 2023
shall be filed by:
-- Oppositions shall be filed by: Jan. 29, 2024
-- Replies, if any, shall be filed by: Feb. 12, 2024
-- The Plaintiffs shall file any motion Dec. 29, 2023
for class certification by:
Veolia operates, maintains and manages water and wastewater
systems.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uWNmdp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Terence E. Coles, Esq.
PYLE ROME EHRENBERG, P.C.
2 Liberty Square, 10th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 367-7200
E-mail: tcoles@pylerome.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen T. Melnick, Esq.
Shea A. Miller, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One International Place, Suite 2700
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 378-6000
Facsimile: (617) 737-0052
E-mail: smelnick@littler.com
samiller@littler.com
VETERANS ALLIANCE: Mitchell Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN MITCHELL, individually and for others similarly situated
v. VETERANS ALLIANCE, LLC, a domestic limited liability company,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00617 (D. Nev., Dec. 4, 2023) is a class and
collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act.
Plaintiff Mitchell was employed by the Defendant as an aircraft
maintenance technician from approximately May 2022 until March
2023. The Plaintiff and the other aircraft maintenance employees
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But Veterans Alliance
did not pay him and its other aircraft maintenance employees
overtime at the proper premium rate, says the Plaintiff.
Veterans Alliance provides aircraft maintenance staffing services
to companies across the U.S., including in Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
VITAL FARMS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Responses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS USLER, ET AL., v.
VITAL FARMS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00447-RP (W.D. Tex.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Defendant's
deadline to file motion to confirm confidentiality designations and
response to the Plaintiffs' motion to unseal unredacted motion for
class Certification.
On September 16, 2022, the Court issued the Confidentiality and
Protective Order. On December 5, 2023, Plaintiffs objected pursuant
to Paragraph 11 of the Protective Order to the confidentiality
designations of all documents cited in and attached to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.
Vital Farms is a Certified B Corporation that offers a range of
ethically produced foods nationwide.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GJJrDe at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas A. Daniels, Esq.
John F. Luman III, Esq.
Heath A. Novosad, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC
6363 Woodway, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
Facsimile: (713) 917-00226
E-mail: doug.daniels@dtlawyers.com
luman@ dtlawyers.com
heath@ dtlawyers.com
- and -
Jesse Z. Weiss, Esq.
Ryan Shelton, Esq.
EDMUNSON SHELTON WEIS PLLC
317 Grace Lane, Suite 210
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 596-3058
Facsimile: (512) 532-6637
E-mail: jesse@eswpllc.com
rayn@eswpllc.com
- and –
Richard L. Stone, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. STONE, PLLC
11 East 44th Street, Suite 1900
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (561) 358-4800
E-mail: rstoneesq@rstoneesq.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Dwight M. Francis, Esq.
Aimee C. Oleson, Esq.
P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
Alyssa Sones, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, 20th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 391-7400
Facsimile: (469) 391-7401
E-mail: dfrancis@sheppardmullin.com
aoleson@sheppardmullin.com
ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
jramsey@sheppardmullin.com
asones@sheppardmullin.com
VITAL FARMS: Plaintiffs Seek to Unseal Unredacted Bid in Usler
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS USLER, et al., v.
VITAL FARMS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00447-RP (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to
unseal unredacted motion.
The Plaintiffs filed the Unredacted Class Motion under seal because
they were required to do so under the Protective Order and Local
Rule CV-5.2. Plaintiffs do not submit any reason as to why the
information they redacted in their public filing should remain
sealed, because Plaintiffs did not designate the documents
containing that information confidential, do not believe it is
confidential, and do not believe it should remain sealed.
Vital has gaslit the American consumer for years. Vital preached
the ethical and humane treatment of its chickens, yet Vital'
produced documents contradict Vital's very deceptive marketing
campaign. Like the Wizard of Oz, Vital does not want the American
consumer to look behind the curtain. To prevent anyone from seeing
how badly Vital treated its chickens, Vital designated almost every
document in its production as confidential with the hope of keeping
them secret from the public.
Vital Farms is a Certified B Corporation that offers a range of
ethically produced foods nationwide.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GF0feC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas A. Daniels, Esq.
John F. Luman III, Esq.
Heath A. Novosad, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC
6363 Woodway, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
Facsimile: (713) 917-0026
E-mail: doug.daniels@dtlawyers.com
luman@dtlawyers.com
heath@dtlawyers.com
- and -
Jesse Z. Weiss, Esq.
Ryan Shelton, Esq.
EDMUNDSON SHELTON WEISS PLLC
317 Grace Lane, Suite 210
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 596-3058
Facsimile: (512) 532-6637
E-mail: jesse@eswpllc.com
ryan@eswpllc.com
- and -
Richard L. Stone, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. STONE, PLLC
11 East 44th Street, Suite 1900
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (561) 358-4800
E-mail: rstoneesq@rstoneesq.com
VOLVO CAR: Dionysius Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Dionysius, Individually, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. VOLVO CAR NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case
No. 2:23-cv-06791-BHH (D.S.C., Dec. 19, 2023), is brought for
overtime violations as a Collective Action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act ("SCPWA") against Volvo.
The Plaintiff and Covered Employees were typically scheduled to
work at least 40 hours per week, but at times worked additional
hours, including overtime hours in excess of 40 hours per week.
Volvo knew, and was aware at all times, that Plaintiff and Covered
Employees worked more hours than the hours reflected in their
scheduled shifts, and at times more than 40 hours within weekly pay
periods of the Violation Period without compensating them at the
rate of one and one half times their regular hourly rate of pay for
all such overtime hours, as required by the FLSA, and; thereby
violated the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a resident of South Carolina and worked as an
hourly-paid (protective safety geared) employee of Volvo at its
Ridgeville, South Carolina.
Volvo Car North America, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
MULLANEY LAW
652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone (843) 588-5587
Email: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net
- and -
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: rbryant@jsyc.com
WALGREEN CO: Faces Simpson Suit Over Mislabeled Cutlery Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGET SIMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO.; SUMTER EASY HOME LLC; NINGBO
(USA) HOME-LINK PLASTIC PRODUCT MFG., LTD., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-16465 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 4, 2023) f is a consumer protection
and false advertising class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff
against Defendants regarding their misleading business practices
with respect to the sale of their Complete Home Heavy Duty
Cutlery.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have marketed and sold
the Products with labeling and packaging that leads consumers to
believe that the products can be safely washed in the dishwasher in
the way standard cutlery is. By labeling the products as
"DISHWASHER SAFE" and "HEAVY DUTY," Defendants have misled
consumers into believing that the products are actually "dishwasher
safe" which, in the context of cutlery, means that the products can
be safely washed in the bottom rack of a dishwasher.
However, unbeknownst to reasonable consumers, the products are not
dishwasher safe because they can only be safely washed on the top
rack of the dishwasher. In fact, Defendants themselves admit that
the products are only "dishwasher safe" if cleaned on the top rack.
The Defendants' deception causes consumers to suffer economic
damage because they are not getting what they paid for: cutlery
that is dishwasher safe, says the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased Complete Home Heavy Duty cutlery at a
Walgreens store in Riverside, California in May 2022.
Walgreen Co. operates retail drugstores, offering a wide range of
prescription and non-prescription drugs, as well as wellness,
health and fitness products, everyday wares and foodstuffs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 536-2145
Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com
WALMART INC: Canseco Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marisol Canseco, an individual v. WALMART
INC.; WALMART STORES EAST, LP; WAL-MART STORES, INC.; WAL- MART
ASSOCIATES, INC.; SANDRA DOE, an individual; GEORGE DOE, an
individual; MATTHEW SUEKUT, an individual; and DOES 1 to 100,
Inclusive, Case No. 23CV009829 was removed from the Sacramento
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Dec. 18, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-02947-KJN.
The elements of a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of
public policy are: an employer-employee relationship, the employer
terminated the plaintiff's employment, the termination was
substantially motivated by a violation of public policy, and the
discharge caused the plaintiff harm.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
James T. Conley, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: james.conley@ogletree.com
- and -
Jane A. Rothbaler, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Dr., Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: 858-652-3100
Facsimile: 858-652-3101
Email: jane.rothbaler@ogletree.com
WALMART INC: Faces Securities Suit in Delaware Court
----------------------------------------------------
Walmart Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 31, 2023, that the company is the
subject of two securities class actions alleging violations of the
federal securities laws regarding the company's disclosures with
respect to opioids, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware on January 20, 2021 and March 5, 2021,
purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who acquired Walmart
stock from March 30, 2016 through December 22, 2020. Those cases
have been consolidated.
On October 8, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities action. After the parties had fully briefed
the motion to dismiss, on September 9, 2022, the court entered an
order permitting the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which
was filed on October 14, 2022, and which revised the applicable
putative class of investors to those who acquired Walmart stock
from March 31, 2017, through December 22, 2020. On November 16,
2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. That motion remains pending.
Walmart Inc. is a multinational retail corporation that operates a
chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery
stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville,
Arkansas.
WATA INC: Knight Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS,
JASON DOHSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WATA INC., COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-01873-GPG-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting class certification pursuant to federal
Rule of civil procedure 23(b)(3).
The Plaintiffs are proposing three classes. The Class Period
consists of all Wata customers who did not have turnaround times
met from May 10, 2019 through May 10, 2022. However, there are also
subclass based on California claims and the time period after Wata
was sold to and operated by Collectors Universe from California
(July 1, 2021). As such, the Plaintiffs request the certification
of a California subclass as follows:
A. Proposed "Nationwide Class":
With respect to the nationwide plaintiffs, the named Plaintiffs
propose to certify the following class:
"All individuals in the United States who directly purchased
encapsulation and video game grading services from Wata, Inc.
from
May 10, 2019 through May 10, 2022 who did not have their orders
returned within the turnaround times stated by Wata, Inc. on the
company's website."
B. Proposed Subclass of "California Residents":
"All California residents who directly purchased encapsulation
and
video game grading services from Wata, Inc. from May 10, 2019
through May 10, 2022 who did not have their orders returned
within
the turnaround times stated by Wata, Inc. on the company's
website.
C. Proposed Subclass "After Sale Subclass":
"All individuals in the United States who directly purchased
encapsulation and video game grading services from Wata, Inc.
or
Collectors Universe from July 1, 2021 through May 10, 2022 who
did not have their orders returned within the turnaround times
stated by Wata on the company’s website."
The case involves allegations of misconduct by video game grading
company, Wata, now known as Collectors Universe. Defendant Wata, by
and through its then-President Deniz Kahn, along with James
Halperin, the founder of an associated auction house called
Heritage Auctions, and several other Wata associates engaged in a
plan to inaccurately publicize the sale of a collectible Nintendo
Entertainment System (NES) video game, Super Mario Bros., in order
to profit from the corresponding run up of demand for services and
prices in the retro video game market.
Wata was a Colorado corporation selling grading, authentication and
encapsulation services for collectible video games.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47418bk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Janeen Carlberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JANEEN CARLBERG
1912 N. Broadway, Suite 106
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Telephone: (714) 665-1900
E-mail: jcarlberg@lawfirmoc.com
WAYFAIR LLC: Counts Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYLA COUNTS, KAYLYNN
MAJOR, and NATHAN CHURCHILL, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. WAYFAIR LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-11706-FDS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for
entry of an order:
(1) Conditionally certifying a FLSA Collective, defined as:
"All current and former remote hourly-paid remote Customer
Service Employees ("CSEs") that held the job titles of
Customer
Service Representative ("CSR"), Inbound Sales Specialist
("ISS"), or Customer and Resolution Expert ("CARE") who
worked
for Defendant at any time during the three years preceding
the
date granting conditional certification (the "FLSA
Collective");
(2) Implementing a procedure to send Court-approved Notice of
this
action to putative members of the proposed Collective via US
Mail and email
(3) Requiring Defendant to identify all putative members of the
proposed Collective by providing a list of their names, last
known addresses, dates and locations of employment, phone
numbers, and e-mail addresses in electronic and importable
format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days
of
the entry of the order;
(4) Approving a 60-day opt-in period from the date the Court-
approved Notice is sent during which putative members of the
Collective may join this case by returning their written
consents; and
(5) Approving the short reminder Notice to be sent to the
Collective via text message and e-mail 30 days into the
opt-in
period.
Wayfair is an American e-commerce company that sells furniture and
home goods online.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uXybAF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4388
Telephone: (734) 234-5583
E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Kelsey Raycroft Rose, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
kraycroftrose@forthepeople.com
- and -
Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
126 S. Main St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903
Telephone: (734) 662-4426
E-mail: orod@hooperhathaway.com
WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Bid Due May 1, 2024 in Droesch
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE DROESCH, et al., v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:20-cv-06751-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order setting
following case schedule through class certification.
Wells Fargo Data Production: February 20, 2024
Class Certification Motion Due: May 1, 2024
Deadline for Deposition of Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Expert(s): May 23, 2024
Class Certification Opposition Due: June 14, 2024
Deadline for Deposition of Defendant's
Class Certification Expert(s): July 3, 2024
Class Certification Reply: July 11, 2024
Class Certification Hearing: August 8, 2024, at
10:00 in person
Wells Fargo operates as a bank.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uV27NQ at no extra charge.[CC]
WESTERN UNION: Must File Dispositive Bid by Jan. 8
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Radulescu v. Western Union
Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03009 (D. Colo., Filed Oct. 22,
2019), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order re: Joint
Status Report:
-- The plaintiff may file a petition with the circuit clerk for
the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting permission to appeal
the
Court's order denying class certification in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) and the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
-- The defendant must file any dispositive motion regarding
whether
the plaintiff's individual claims are barred by the applicable
statute(s) of limitation by Jan. 8, 2024.
-- The parties are directed to jointly contact Magistrate Judge
Crews's chambers for instructions on how to proceed with
respect
to any other scheduling or discovery matters, including (a)
whether good cause exists to extend the scheduling-order
deadline
for amendment of pleadings and (b) the timing, parameters, and
scheduling of merits-related fact and expert discovery.
-- The Court will contact the parties to set a trial date, Final
Pretrial Conference/Trial Preparation Conference date(s), and
related pretrial deadlines after discovery has been completed and
the Court has issued rulings on any dispositive motions.
The nature of suit states Torts - Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.
Western Union is an American multinational financial services
corporation.[CC]
WIRECARD AG: EY Germany's Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated lawsuit styled IN RE: WIRECARD AG SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-03326-AB (E.D. Pa.), Judge Anita B.
Brody of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania grants EY Germany's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs in this class action sued Wirecard AG, several of
its executives, and Ernst & Young GmbH
Wirtschaftspruefungsgesellschaft ("EY Germany") for violations of
Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5,
17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. They claim that Wirecard and EY
Germany, both based in Germany, made false and misleading
statements about the financial condition of Wirecard. The
Plaintiffs allegedly relied upon those statements when they
purchased certain financial instruments relating to Wirecard that
were available in the United States. In 2021, Wirecard filed a
notice of bankruptcy. This case has been placed in suspense as to
Wirecard alone since that filing.
EY Germany moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and,
alternatively, for insufficient service of process, failure to
state a claim, and forum non conveniens. Judge Brody initially
granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
But the Plaintiffs asked for leave to conduct jurisdictional
discovery, and Judge Brody vacated the dismissal order to allow for
it. The parties have now submitted supplemental briefs on the
question of personal jurisdiction over EY Germany.
Upon reconsideration and review of the jurisdictional record, Judge
Brody will again grant EY Germany's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
Wirecard was a global enterprise headquartered in Germany and
primarily engaged in processing credit card payments. It grew to
encompass approximately 53 subsidiaries across the world. Annedore
Streyl, a member of the Management Board at EY Germany, provided a
declaration on behalf of EY Germany in support of its motion to
dismiss.
The Plaintiffs then referenced the Streyl Declaration throughout
their brief responding to EY Germany's motion as evidence in
support of their argument for personal jurisdiction. Accordingly,
the averments from the Streyl Declaration are included here as
undisputed.
As an electronic payments processor, Wirecard acted as an
"acquirer." When a merchant in Wirecard's network charged a credit
card, Wirecard collected the funds from the bank that issued the
card and distributed them to the merchant. It made money by taking
a small portion of each transaction it processed. In countries
where Wirecard did not hold a license to process payments, Wirecard
partnered with "third-party acquirers" ("TPAs"). The partnership
between Wirecard and these TPAs enabled it to profit from the
commissions from transactions the TPAs processed.
As part of its acquiring operations and partnership with TPAs,
Wirecard maintained various trust accounts holding "reserves."
These balances represented funds that Wirecard owed to merchants,
who initiated credit card transactions but which were held for a
period of time before distribution to provide for potential
refunds, known as "chargebacks." Wirecard reported it had trust
accounts in banks in Singapore and later the Philippines, among
other locations.
Beginning in 2017, Wirecard's reporting of its cash balances—a
key metric of financial health—included the cash held in these
trust accounts. In March 2017, Wirecard closed on two transactions
with Citigroup. One involved the acquisition of Citigroup's
portfolio of customers based in Asia. The other was the acquisition
of Citigroup's "issuing" business, which had been known as Citi
Prepaid, and which was renamed "Wirecard North America."
In contrast to Wirecard's "acquiring" business operations in other
parts of the world, Wirecard North America was an "issuing"
business. It provided prepaid cards that clients used as
incentives, disbursements, compensation, or payments. Wirecard
touted the acquisition of the issuing business from Citigroup as
significantly extending the company's geographical reach and the
available licensing framework. It also envisioned a connection
between its newly acquired United States business and its existing
Asian businesses.
Beginning in 2015, independent research groups and journalists at
the Financial Times raised questions about Wirecard's accounting
and business practices. They suggested that Wirecard inflated its
revenues in its Asian business operations and misrepresented the
value of an acquisition in India.
A February 2019 article in the Financial Times described a pattern
of book-padding across Wirecard's Asian operations. This included a
plan orchestrated by Edo Kurniawan, Wirecard's head of accounting
in Asia, to "round trip" several million euros from Wirecard in
Germany, through entities in Hong Kong, and ultimately onto
Wirecard's Indian subsidiary. The scheme to route funds through
Hong Kong would enable Wirecard to obtain from the Hong Kong
Monetary Authority a license to sell prepaid credit cards in the
region.
According to another article published in March 2019 by the
Financial Times, whistleblowers indicated that the 2018 revenues
reported by Wirecard's subsidiary based in Singapore likely
reflected sham financial transactions. A subsequent Financial Times
article in October 2019 suggested Wirecard was reporting
substantial revenue from TPAs that did not exist.
In response to these reports, in October 2019, Wirecard
commissioned accounting firm KPMG to conduct an additional
independent audit of its practices. KPMG examined: (1) the amount
and existence of revenues from TPAs; (2) Wirecard's merchant
cash-advance business, in which it issued short term loans to
merchants; (3) "roundtripping" and other misconduct alleged in
Singapore; and (4) potential overpayment for two subsidiaries based
in India.
KPMG produced a report that Wirecard published in April 2020, as
well as a confidential addendum.
In the spring and into summer of 2020, with its annual audit and
financial reporting overdue, Wirecard ran out of answers for its
detractors. As noted, Wirecard had represented that it held trust
funds related to potential "chargebacks" in its acquiring business
in several banks, including two in the Philippines.
In June 2020, it was forced to acknowledge that EUR1.9 billion said
to be held as cash balances on trust accounts in the Philippines
could not be verified by auditors. The two Philippine banks then
confirmed that the trust accounts did not even exist. Wirecard
announced that it needed to withdraw its 2019 and 2020 preliminary
financial results in light of this discrepancy as to its reported
cash holdings. Share prices dropped precipitously following these
admissions. Wirecard also defaulted on a EUR2 billion loan and
entered insolvency proceedings.
Subsequent investigations suggested that Wirecard's accounting
fraud began as early as 2015, when key executives allegedly agreed
to inflate Wirecard's revenue in an attempt to deceive investors.
The global scope of the fraud became apparent in July 2020, when
several investigations were commenced or became public. German
prosecutors charged Wirecard's former CEO with fraud and brought
charges against the head of Wirecard's CardSystems entity in
Dubai.
Law enforcement in Ireland launched an investigation of Wirecard UK
& Ireland, a Wirecard entity responsible for funneling revenue and
earnings from TPAs to Wirecard. Subsequent investigations concerned
the existence and value of its net assets and escrow holdings.
Prosecutors in Singapore brought fraud and forgery charges against
the man, who acted as the trustee for the bank accounts that were
claimed to hold EUR1.9 billion of Wirecard's cash. Investigators
learned that Wirecard also loaned "millions" to a company
incorporated by this man, which prosecutors suspected was "part of
a scheme to loot Wirecard."
While Wirecard engaged KPMG for the specific investigation
following the Financial Times reporting, its primary independent
auditor for over ten years was EY Germany, an accounting firm
incorporated and operating in Germany. EY Germany has no offices or
employees in the United States. It is a member firm of Ernst &
Young Global Limited.
Wirecard retained EY Germany on an annual basis to audit the
consolidated financial statements of "the Wirecard Group,"
comprised of Wirecard AG and its subsidiaries. EY Germany involved
teams at other auditing firms to perform audit work on certain
Wirecard subsidiaries located outside of Germany. It referred to
those subsidiaries as "components" and the respective auditing
teams as "component auditors."
EY Germany routinely issued an "unqualified" opinion, which
reflected its determination that Wirecard complied with
international and German accounting requirements and that
Wirecard's consolidated financial statements gave an accurate view
of the company's financial position. Wirecard then published EY
Germany's audit opinion in its annual report to investors.
As EY Germany prepared its audit of Wirecard's 2016 financial
results in early 2017, it threatened Wirecard that it would publish
only a "qualified" audit opinion due to concerns about accounting
malpractice in India. But ultimately it issued an "unqualified"
opinion. Two years later, the audit of the FY18 annual results
coincided with news accounts suggesting improprieties in Wirecard's
Singapore subsidiary.
In April 2019, however, EY Germany issued an "unqualified" audit
opinion as to Wirecard's annual financial reports. EY Germany
specifically noted in that year's opinion letter that Wirecard's
financial reports did not, at that time, require correction due to
the "ongoing investigations by the authorities in Singapore." EY
Germany continued to issue "unqualified" opinions as to Wirecard
through the 2019 audit year.
The special investigation by KPMG of Wirecard's practices
ultimately revealed various deficiencies by EY Germany in its role
as an auditor. KPMG concluded that EY Germany relied on flawed data
when it reviewed whistleblower allegations regarding Wirecard
Singapore. It found that EY Germany's audit was deficient as to the
value of the Indian business that Wirecard purchased. It also
recounted a report that a senior Wirecard executive had tried to
bribe an EY Germany employee in connection with Wirecard's
acquisition of the Indian company and that Wirecard executives were
among the seller's shareholders.
The Plaintiffs allege that EY Germany's annual audits of Wirecard's
group financial statements were intentionally, or at a minimum
recklessly, deficient in failing to detect the accounting
deficiencies and misconduct by Wirecard. They believe that Wirecard
was only able to successfully perpetrate its massive accounting
scheme because of EY Germany's knowing complicity or egregious
refusal to see the obvious or to investigate the doubtful. They
allege that EY Germany's "prestige and reputation" was
"instrumental in convincing investors" of the legitimacy of
Wirecard's reported financial results.
The Plaintiffs recount, among other things, the many warnings and
red flags that should have caused EY Germany to question Wirecard's
practices. As noted, EY Germany personnel had reason to believe
that senior Wirecard executives profited from Wirecard's
overpayment for the Indian subsidiary from a company in which they
were shareholders; that Wirecard inflated sales at the subsidiary
to increase post-sale payments to the entity in which they were
shareholders; and that a senior Wirecard executive had tried to
bribe an auditor to sign off on the accounts of the Indian
subsidiary.
EY Germany has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack
of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2).
The parties recognize that EY Germany lacks continuous and
systematic general business contacts with the United States.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs must establish that this court has
specific jurisdiction over EY Germany due to forum contacts that
relate to this particular litigation.
Judge Brody says there are three considerations. First, the
defendant must have purposefully directed its activities at
residents of the forum (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471
U.S. 462, 477 (1985)), or purposefully availed itself of the
privilege of conducting activities within the forum State (Hanson
v. Denckla, 375 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)).
Second, the litigation must "arise out of or relate to" at least
one of those activities by the defendant in, or directed at, the
forum (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 141 S.
Ct. 1017, 1025 (2021)). Finally, if those elements are satisfied, a
court may consider whether the exercise of jurisdiction in the
circumstances of the particular case would comport with fair play
and substantial justice.
In the prior round of briefing on the jurisdictional question, the
Plaintiffs contended that EY Germany purposefully availed itself of
the forum of the United States "through its numerous auditing
activities, including its auditing of Wirecard and through its
participation in EY Global's integrated network." They also
suggested that EY Germany intended that its audit reports of
Wirecard would reach American investors. Following jurisdictional
discovery, the Plaintiffs point to an additional factual basis to
support their contention that EY Germany purposefully availed
itself of the U.S. forum: its personnel traveled to the United
States for the two-day site visit in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
concerning the operations of Wirecard North America.
Having reconsidered the Plaintiffs' arguments in light of the facts
adduced by them in jurisdictional discovery, Judge Brody again
reached the conclusion that specific jurisdiction over Defendant EY
Germany does not lie here for the fraudulent activities alleged in
the complaint.
Judge Brody finds that the Plaintiffs have established purposeful
availment by EY Germany of the United States as a forum through its
participation in a business meeting with its American counterpart
and Wirecard North America personnel in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
They fail to demonstrate purposeful availment by EY Germany in
relation to the actual audit activity conducted as to the Wirecard
entities.
But the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the relatedness prong of the
specific jurisdiction test as to either contact, Judge Brody holds.
They have not established any relationship -- much less the "strong
relationship" that the Court of Appeals required in Hepp -- between
EY Germany's contacts to the United States and the fraud
perpetrated by Wirecard personnel in Europe and Asia as set out in
the complaint and allegedly overlooked in EY Germany's annual
reviews.
The Due Process Clause does not countenance haling EY Germany into
an American court to answer for these alleged auditing failures and
misrepresentations as to Wirecard, Judge Brody opines. Hence, the
Court grants EY Germany's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Dec. 4, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/avf45y8ffrom PacerMonitor.com.
XYBION CORPORATION: Brumbaugh Sues Over Failure to Protect PII
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Brumbaugh, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. XYBION CORPORATION, Case No.
2:23-cv-05019-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Dec. 19, 2023), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to adequately protect consumers'
personally identifiable information ("PII").
In September 2022, the Defendant discovered it had lost control
over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal
information stored on the computer network in a data breach by
cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). On information and belief, the Data
Breach has impacted thousands of consumers. Xybion's breach differs
from typical data breaches because it affects consumers who had no
relationship with Xybion, never sought one, and never consented to
Xybion's collecting and storing their information.
Due to Defendant's intentionally obfuscating language, it is
unclear when the Data Breach precisely occurred and how long
cybercriminals had unfettered access to Plaintiff's and the Class's
highly sensitive information. Following an internal investigation,
Defendant learned cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to
current and former consumers' personally identifiable information
("PII").
On November 30, 2023--an appalling fifteen months after the Data
Breach Occurred--Xybion finally notified Plaintiff and Class
Members about the Data Breach ("Breach Notice"). Cybercriminals
were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to
adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to
adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers
in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to
maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the
Class's PII—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals.
The Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of the breach
and the threat it posted--refusing to tell its consumers how many
people were impacted, how the breach happened, or why it took the
Defendant fifteen months to begin notifying victims that
cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private
information. The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data
Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any
warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to
prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should
have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and
efficient notice of the Data Breach and in mitigating the effects
of PII misus
In failing to adequately protect consumers' information, adequately
notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the
breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number
of consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim.
Xybion is a SaaS company dedicated to providing life sciences and
health companies with software solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 496-8282
Fax: (215) 496-0999
Email: phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Fax: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
YARDI SYSTEMS: Duffy Plaintiffs & Merrill Agree to Adopt Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned McKENNA DUFFY and MICHAEL BRETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
approves the stipulation between the Plaintiffs and R.D. Merrill
Real Estate Holdings, LLC, to adopt the Court's Rule 12 briefing
schedule and procedures.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 7(d)(1) and 10(g), Plaintiffs McKenna
Duffy and Michael Brett, and Defendant R.D. Merrill Real Estate
Holdings, LLC, by and through their counsel, stipulate as follows:
1. Whereas, on Oct. 31, 2023, the Court granted in part the
Plaintiff's Motion to Deem R.D. Merrill Real Estate
Holdings, LLC, Substituted for Pillar Properties, LLC, and
directed that the Plaintiff's amended complaint be served
on Merrill;
2. Whereas, on Nov. 15, 2023, the First Amended Class Action
Complaint was served on Merrill; and
3. Whereas, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the deadline for Merrill to file its answer or
otherwise respond to the First Amended Class Action
Complaint was Dec. 6, 2023.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs and Merrill Stipulate and Agree that in
the interest of judicial efficiency, they will adopt the Rule 12
briefing schedule and procedures in the Court's Nov. 9, 2023 Order
for Merrill's Rule 12 response to the First Amended Class Action
Complaint.
In the interest of judicial efficiency, Judge Lasnik says the
previously filed Joint Status Report should apply to Merrill as if
Merrill were a signatory as a Lessor Defendant to that document,
such that the Plaintiffs and Merrill need not submit a duplicative
Joint Status Report.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulated Motion and Order dated
Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/34y976mefrom
PacerMonitor.com.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP -- Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Theodore Wojcik -- tedw@hbsslaw.com --
Stephanie A. Verdoia -- stephaniev@hbsslaw.com -- Xiaoyi Fan --
kellyf@hbsslaw.com -- in Seattle, Washington 98101; Rio S. Pierce
-- riop@hbsslaw.com -- in Berkeley, California 94710, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs MCKENNA DUFFY and MICHAEL BRETT.
K&L GATES LLP -- Christopher M. Wyant -- chris.wyant@klgates.com --
Tyler Lichter -- tyler.lichter@klgates.com -- in Seattle,
Washington 98104; Lauren Norris Donahue --
lauren.donahue@klgates.com -- in Chicago, Illinois 60602; Derek
Sutton -- derek.sutton@klgates.com -- in Raleigh, North Carolina
27603, Attorneys for Defendant R.D. Merrill Real Estate Holdings,
LLC.
ZURU LLC: Court Enters Class Cert Order in Bui Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HANNAH BUI, et al., v.
ZURU, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-06125-FMO-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order re: motions for class
certification.
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully
integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed
by the opposing party's/parties' response.
All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to
the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix.
The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed
appendix of declarations and written evidence (including documents,
photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.)
Zuru designs, manufactures and markets innovative toys and consumer
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47UiqZI at no extra charge.[CC]
*********
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 2024. 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 ***