/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240102.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 2, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 2 Headlines 24HR HOMECARE: Pugh Sues Over Misclassification of Employees AIR MARKETING: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AIRPLANE SHOP: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Li Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Winters Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Bracy Files ADA Suit in N.D. Georgia AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Turner Files Suit in N.D. Georgia API FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach APPLE INC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition to Class Cert Bid AT WORLD PROPERTIES: Faces Suit Over Real Estate Market Conspiracy ATHENAHEALTH INC: Heiting Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sanes Suit Transferred to E.D. New York BCA FINANCIAL: Berger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey BEDROOM SOURCE: Pagan Sues Over Website Inaccessibility BELMONT ABBEY COLLEGE: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BIG NOSE FULL BODY: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BKLYN CLAY IP: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BLUETRITON BRANDS: Slowinski Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. BOND VETERINARY: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CANADA: Indigenous People Class Suits Against RCMP to Move Forward CARIBBEAN FOOD: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CARNIVAL PLC: High Court Finds Class Suit Waiver Clause Unfair CMG MEDIA: Hawkins Seeks More Time to File Class Certification COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: El Dorado Seeks Final OK of Settlement COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: El Dorado Seeks OK of Atty's Fees COLONIAL WINE: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COMCAST CORP: Hendrickson Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania CONIFER VALUE-BASED: Kolb Suit Transferred to C.D. California CVS HEALTH: Kleiman Suit Transferred to E.D. New York CVS PHARMACY: Cohen Suit Transferred to E.D. New York DAVID RAMSEY: Scheduling Order Entered in Patrick Suit DELTA AIR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Coordinators, Goodyear Says DELTA REALTY: General Pretrial Management Entered in Shi Class Suit DOUGLAS PARKING: Barragan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Loses Bid for Judgment on the Pleadings EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Miller Sues Over Misleading Statements EAST RIVER MEDICAL: Kuecher Sues Over Inadequate Data Security EAST RIVER MEDICAL: Lowe Files Suit in S.D. New York EDWARD JONES: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Reply ELON MUSK: N.D. Cal. Ruling in Securities Class Suit Discussed ENRICO PUGLISI: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EXPRESS SCRIPTS: LDS Files Suit in E.D. Missouri FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Cybersecurity Attack FIRST NATIONAL: Burkett Seeks More Time to File Class Certification FORD MOTOR: Parties Seek OK of Proposed Briefing Schedule FRANCO'S FASHION: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York G-STAR RAW: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Benjamin Suit Transferred to E.D. New York GORDON COMPANIES: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GRAIN & THE VINE: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York GRAND BRANDS: Holder Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling GRANDE COSMETICS: Judge OKs Prelim. Deal in Eyelash Products Suit GRANITE STATE: Class Settlement in Grenier Suit Has Final Approval GREEN CANOE: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York GUARANTEED RATE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 12 HARD SELTZER: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HARRIS TEETER: Rankin Suit Transferred to E.D. New York HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Warren Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit HENKEL CORPORATION: Boren Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri HOP STOCK & BARREL: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HOWARD D. SOBEL: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York INTERSTATE HOTELS: De Paz Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices JACHS NY LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JADE EATERY & LOUNGE: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JAMAICA HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Macary Suit Alleges JEA SENIOR: Settlement Class Gets Certification in Bowen Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bader Suit Transferred to E.D. New York JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carrigan Suit Transferred to E.D. New York JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Chavez Suit Transferred to E.D. New York JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Heaghney Suit Transferred to E.D. New York JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Isom Suit Transferred to E.D. New York JOY SIGNAL: Hardiman Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices KANDLE DINING: Class Action Settlement in Bodi Gets Initial Nod KELLY SERVICES: $3.15M Deal in Wage and Hour Suit Granted Prelim OK KOKO WINES INC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CPAP $479M Class Suit Settlement Claims Opened KOSHERICA LLC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LAWTON, OK: Wilson Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma LEADER CONSULTING: Fails to Pay OT Premium, Roof Suit Says LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Aley Seeks Notice for Class Certification Bid LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Aley Seeks to Seal Unredacted Class Cert Bid LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bids for Opt Out Extension in COI Suits Denied LINE QUEST: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LOWE'S HOME: Garrido Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LUMICO LIFE: Griffith-Sullivan Files Suit in S.D. New York MANARI CHAWLA: Krause Bid for Class Status Tossed as Premature MCNEIL CONSUMER: Emmons Suit Transferred to E.D. New York MERRILL LYNCH: McCrary Sues Over Alleged Breach of Contract MICROSOFT CORP: Court Certifies Suit Over Data Privacy Violations MIGUEL ANGEL CARDONA: Bradley Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia MIKE'S HOT HONEY: Suarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MONSANTO COMPANY: Hanks Suit Transferred to N.D. California MOONPAY USA LLC: Wilhelm Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois N.Y. WINE STORE: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Grace Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy NATURAL BODY INC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Suit Over Racial Disparity, Discrimination NEW YORK, NY: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Zarkower Suit NORTON HEALTHCARE: Garrett Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky OPTIM HEARING: Connor Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Georgia OZONE DESIGN INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PACIFICNORTHWEST NATURALS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PACIFICORP: Agrees to Settle Wildfires Class Suit for $250MM PAPA TEXAS: Myers Sues Over Labor Law Breaches PATHWARD NA: Fields Sues Over Unprotected Private Information PEACOCK TV LLC: Weiss Suit Transferred to S.D. New York PINNACLE TOO: Fact Discovery Deadline in Charles Due Jan. 5 PRECISION IMAGING: Sharfman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid PROCTER & GAMBLE: Depaola Suit Transferred to E.D. New York PROCTER & GAMBLE: Enriquez Suit Transferred to E.D. New York PROCTER & GAMBLE: Kleiman Suit Transferred to E.D. New York PROCTER & GAMBLE: Lee Suit Transferred to E.D. New York PROCTER & GAMBLE: Morgan Suit Transferred to E.D. New York PROCTER & GAMBLE: Taylor Suit Transferred to E.D. New York PROVIDENCE HEALTH: More Time to File Class Cert Bid OK'd PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response RB HEALTH: Murdock Suit Transferred to E.D. New York RB HEALTH: Scoffier Suit Transferred to E.D. New York RB HEALTH: Striegel Suit Transferred to E.D. New York RECKITT BENCKISER: Grimsley Suit Transferred to E.D. New York RECKITT BENCKISER: Jones Suit Transferred to E.D. New York RECKITT BENCKISER: Nyanjom Suit Transferred to E.D. New York RECKITT BENCKISER: Silva Suit Transferred to E.D. New York RED HOOK TAVERN: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York RITE AID: Parker Suit Transferred to E.D. New York RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Crews Wins Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibits ROBINSON ECONOMIC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Loans SAN FRANCISCO, CA: E.J. Files Suit in N.D. California SANYO FOODS: Shin Suit Removed to C.D. California SAVVY BISTRO: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SELENE FINANCE: Court to Set New Deadline for Class Cert Bid SHARED IMAGING: Court Certifies Settlement Deal in Ranger Suit SLOPE GROUP: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SN SERVICING: Koontz Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia SOLID WASTE: Jones Seeks to Certify Class Action STAT COURIER: Plaintiff's Expert Reports Due May 25 SUEZ WATER: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 29 TABLE 87: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York TARGET CORPORATION: Rampalli Suit Transferred to E.D. New York TESLA INC: Cobb Files Suit in E.D. Michigan TIP-TOP ROOFING: Vriens Suit Removed to D. South Carolina TORRID HOLDINGS: Faces Waswick Shareholder Suit TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Suit Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in G Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in C Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in CCWP Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in DG Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in DV Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in F Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in H Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in J Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in JF Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in JO Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in JR Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in M Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in MJR Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in MR Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in NE Suit Set for Jan. 3 UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Reyes Set for Jan. 3 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Marden's Ark Alleges TCPA Violations UNIVERSAL STANDARD: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lyman Claims US COACHWAYS: Khen et al. Allege Racial Discrimination Against Jews US NURSING CORP: Gilmore Sues Over Late Payments VAN VLIET: Ganeo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages VERU INC: Faces Securities Suit Over Disclosures on COVID Drug VIKY ARACELY: Padilla Files Suit in S.D. New York VISA INC: Micamp Sues Over Unreasonable Penalties and Fees VISION HOSPITALITY: Moran Suit Alleges FLSA Violations WALGREEN CO: De Priest Suit Transferred to E.D. New York WALGREEN CO: DeRosa Suit Transferred to E.D. New York WALMART INC: Holmes Suit Transferred to E.D. New York WALMART INC: Potters Sues Over Inadequate Anti-Fraud Practices WELLTOK INC: Cooper-Leonard Sues Over Alleged Data Breach WHITEFISH, MT: Plaintiffs Seek to Adopt Proposed Class Notice WINO(T) INC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Jacobson Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ZUORA INC: Court OK's Settlement Deal in IPO Dispute ********* 24HR HOMECARE: Pugh Sues Over Misclassification of Employees ------------------------------------------------------------ AALIYAH PUGH, an aggrieved employee and on behalf of other aggrieved employees; Plaintiff v. 24HR HOMECARE L.L.C., a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV30003 (Cal. Super., December 8, 2023) seeks for recovery of civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act and alleges violations of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee since approximately May 14, 2023 as a caregiver. During the relevant time period, Defendant required Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees to work during meal and rest periods and failed to compensate them properly and at the regular rate of compensation for non-compliant meal and rest periods because Defendant misclassified them as personal attendants. In addition, the Defendants provided Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees cellphone reimbursements of $1 per week which was insufficient to fully reimburse them for these necessary business expenses, says the Plaintiff. 24HR HOMECARE LLC provides in-home care services for seniors in the state of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Young K. Park, Esq. William C. Sung, Esq. JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C. 3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1815 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 922-2000 Facsimile: (323) 922-2000 E-mail: young@justiceforworkers.com william@justiceforworkers.com AIR MARKETING: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Air Marketing Group, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Air Marketing Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10872 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Air Marketing Group LLC -- https://www.amgair.com/ -- is a Manufacturers' Representative & Distributor of Specialty HVAC, Dehumidification & Air Filtration Equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com AIRPLANE SHOP: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Airplane Shop, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Liz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Airplane Shop, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10871-DEH-SN (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Airplane Shop -- https://www.airplaneshop.com/ -- is the world's most relied-upon connection for high-quality transportation collectibles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Li Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eric Li, Anita Medal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00441-AMO was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01975-JHC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Amazon.com Services LLC -- http://www.amazon.com/-- provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maia Kats, Esq. JUSTFOOD LAW 6109 32nd Place NW Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 669-0658 Email: maiakats@justfoodlaw.com - and - Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW 2121 Avenue of The Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (213) 401-4100 Fax: (213) 401-0311 Email: service@braunlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Jasmine Wei-Ming Wetherell, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP (LA-CENTURY CITY) 1888 Century Park East, Ste. 1700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-1721 Phone: (310) 788-9900 Fax: (310) 788-3399 Email: jwetherell@perkinscoie.com - and - Ross E. Bautista, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 720-5700 Fax: (858) 720-5799 Email: rbautista@perkinscoie.com AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Winters Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Financial Network, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Financial Network, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-02427 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. American Financial Network, Inc. -- https://www.afncorp.com/ -- provides finance services. The Company offers loan for buying homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard Street Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Bracy Files ADA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americold Logistics LLC. The case is styled as Lamont Bracy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Americold Logistics LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05743-MLB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 14, 2023). The nature of suit is stated 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 Plaintiff is represented by: Justin C. Walker, Esq. Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: jwalker@msdlegal.com tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, 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 - and - N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 200 13th Street Columbus, GA 31901 Phone: (706) 322-6226 Email: njackson@thefinleyfirm.com AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Turner Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americold Logistics, LLC. The case is styled as Branden Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Americold Logistics, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05843-MLB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 19, 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 API FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach -------------------------------------------------------- St. Louis Record reports that a federal lawsuit has been filed against API Financial Solutions alleging the company failed to properly secure and safeguard personal information from hackers, resulting in a data breach. According to the complaint that lists Doris Schleicher as the named plaintiff, the compromised data includes names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and workers' compensation information. The breach reportedly impacted 71,886 individuals, including current and former employees of API's clients. The lawsuit also says API detected unusual activity on its computer systems around June 28, 2023, but waited three months to notify the public about the breach. This delay allegedly put those affected at significant risk of identity theft and other forms of personal harm. The lawsuit seeks to address API's alleged inadequate safeguarding of private information and its failure to provide timely notice about the types of information accessed during the breach. API Financial Solutions is an accounting services company based in St. Charles. The plaintiffs are represented by Brandon J.B. Boulware and Jeremy M. Suhr of Boulware Law in Kansas City and by Mason A. Barney and Tyler J. Bean of Siri & Glimstad of New York. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case number 4:23-cv-01431 [GN] APPLE INC: Seeks to Seal Portions of Opposition to Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL ORSHAN, DEANNA NESS, KYE WEASNER, and MARGARET HART, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:14-cv-05659-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative bid to seal portions of its opposition to the plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. Each of these documents should be sealed in part. The portions of those documents that Apple seeks to seal reveal not only confidential customer information, but also proprietary and confidential terminology related to Apple's confidential, commercially sensitive internal data management systems. Pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rules and 79-5, Apple moves the Court for an order allowing it to file limited portions of its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification and its concurrently filed supporting documents under seal. Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RGR9mX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Powers, Esq. Andrew J. Weisberg, Esq. Sara N. Pahlavan, Esq. Caroline K. Katz, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Tel: (415) 984-8700 E-mail: mpowers@omm.com aweisberg@omm.com spahlavan@omm.com ckatz@omm.com AT WORLD PROPERTIES: Faces Suit Over Real Estate Market Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Bilyk of Cook County Record reports that Chicago's largest real estate brokerage, At World Properties, has been hit with a class action lawsuit, accusing the firm over its alleged role in a conspiracy with the National Association of Realtors to allegedly secretly force homebuyers to overpay their agents when purchasing homes, allegedly in violation of federal antitrust law. At World Properties, however, said it believes this is just a "copycat" lawsuit, seeking to expand on and capitalize from a recent jury verdict against NAR. They said they expect to ultimately prevail. The company operates under the brand name @properties. On Dec. 8, attorneys with the firm of McGuire Law P.C., of Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against the real estate brokerage, identified in the complaint as the largest in Illinois by both sales volume and total number of deals, and the eighth largest in the U.S. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiff James Tuccori, identified as an Illinois resident who purchased a home in Chicago using the services of a real estate agent affiliated with At World Properties. The plaintiffs seek to expand the action to include potentially hundreds of thousands of additional homebuyers in Illinois and throughout the U.S., who purchased homes since 2000 in deals that included commissions paid to real estate agents using multiple listing services (MLS) operated by the National Association of Realtors. The lawsuit is one of a mounting number filed throughout the country, accusing the NAR and affiliated realty firms of alleged anticompetitive behavior, allegedly using their control of the MLS system to restrict the ability of agents to compete. Specifically, the lawsuits have leveled accusations that NAR policies have allowed real estate agents to mislead homebuyers into believing that their agents work at no cost to them, because commissions for both the sellers' and buyers' agents are paid by the seller. Instead, the lawsuits assert the buyers' agents are actually paid through home prices, paid by the buyer, that are allegedly artificially inflated to cover the commissions for both agents. In October, a jury in Kansas City found against NAR on those claims, ordering the association to pay $1.8 billion in damages. The new lawsuit seeks to link At World Properties to the NAR and similarly exact payment from the brokerage on similar claims. "This anti-competitive behavior has led to buyers paying inflated fees for misrepresented 'free' broker services, overpaying for properties (whose purchase price necessarily includes the inflated commissions that cannot be reduced), and receiving overpriced and biased broker services," the new lawsuit says. The new lawsuit does not list the NAR as a defendant. The lawsuit asserts At World's "significant market power" and "prominent market position" has made its alleged involvement with NAR "crucial to the success of the conspiracy with NAR and other brokers." At World Properties' "advancement of the conspiracy has markedly diminished competitive practices in the buyer-agent service sector, negatively impacting homebuyers," the complaint says. "The result of the conspiracy has been inflated buyer-agent commissions, higher average cost of homes, and lower quality services provided to homebuyers as a result of buyer agents who are incentivized to avoid lower commission properties and receive supracompetitive commissions regardless of their experience or the level of services they provide." The lawsuit asserts the alleged conduct violates the federal Sherman Act antitrust law; the Illinois Antitrust Act; and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified payout from At World Properties as damages and restitution, plus attorney fees. They also seek an injunction to stop At World Properites "from maintaining or reestablishing the same or similar anti-competitive rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in this action in the future." Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Paul T. Geske, Evan Meyers and Brendan Duffner, of McGuire Law P.C. In response to the lawsuit, At World Properties said they believe the claims will fail. "This complaint is one of many 'copycat' lawsuits filed in the wake of the recent jury verdict in Kansas City against the National Association of Realtors and the nation's largest brokerages," a company spokesperson said in a prepared statement to The Cook County Record. "@properties was not named in that lawsuit. The Kansas City case was premised on those other brokerages controlling NAR by having their executives serve on its board of directors and executive committee, which allegedly created, implemented, and enforced the NAR rules at issue. In contrast, the Chicago complaint makes no specific allegation that @properties was or is involved in any such activities. "In fact, while we are members of NAR, no @properties manager or executive has ever served in any role at NAR with any rule-making authority. This applies to Mabel Guzman, a former @properties agent who is mentioned in the complaint, but who was never an employee or manager with @properties and was never directed by @properties' management in her volunteer role with NAR. "We will move to vigorously defend against this complaint and believe that it will be resolved in our favor." [GN] ATHENAHEALTH INC: Heiting Suit Alleges Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------- ANNE HEITING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATHENAHEALTH, INC. a Massachusetts Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10338 (C.D. Cal., December 8, 2023) alleges violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. During a browsing session on the Defendant's website, the Plaintiff utilized the chat box feature. However, the Plaintiff was not informed that her conversations were being recorded and exploited for commercial surveillance purposes without her consent, says the suit. Athenahealth, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls athenahealth.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Wendy Miele, Esq. TAULER SMITH, LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 590-3927 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com wmiele@taulersmith.com - and - Kevin J. Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sanes Suit Transferred to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Claudette Sanes, Daniel Flick, Janis Zimmerman, individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-21163 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09295-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Bayer Healthcare LLC -- https://www.bayer.com/en/ -- discovers and manufactures healthcare and medical products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 111 W. Washington, STE 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 750-1265 Email: katrina@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen C. Matthews, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 51 John F. Kennedy Parkway, Suite 120 Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone: (973) 520-2541 Fax: (973) 215-2602 Email: stephen.matthews@dlapiper.com BCA FINANCIAL: Berger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BCA Financial Services, Inc. The case is styled as Shlome Berger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BCA Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-23021-RK-JBD (D.N.J., Dec. 12, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. BCA Financial Services, Inc. -- https://bcafs.com/ -- is an accounts receivable management firm servicing hospitals, health systems and physician groups across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Muhammad Hasan Siddiqui, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: hsiddiqui@steinsakslegal.com BEDROOM SOURCE: Pagan Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER PAGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BEDROOM SOURCE CARLE PLACE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10773 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, https://www.bedroomsource.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Plaintiff Pagan alleges that the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the website is a violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Bedroom Source Carle Place, Inc., is a New York corporation and provides to the public a website, which offers consumers access to various features and services, including a vast array of, locally manufactured, quality children’s bedroom furniture. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com BELMONT ABBEY COLLEGE: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belmont Abbey College, Incorporated. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Belmont Abbey College, Incorporated, Case No. 1:23-cv-11054 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Belmont Abbey -- https://belmontabbeycollege.edu/ -- is one of the only Catholic colleges spanning from Virginia to Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal BIG NOSE FULL BODY: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Nose Full Body, LLC. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Big Nose Full Body, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-09372 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Big Nose Full Body -- https://www.bignosefullbody.com/ -- offers a rotating collection of over 700 wines as well as free delivery.[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 BKLYN CLAY IP: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bklyn Clay IP, LLC. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bklyn Clay IP, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09382 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bklyn Clay IP, LLC -- https://www.bklynclaymade.com/ -- offers ceramics studio with membership, classes, & events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com BLUETRITON BRANDS: Slowinski Files Suit in Ill. Dist. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluetriton Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Christine Slowinski, David Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bluetriton Brands, Inc., Case No. 2023LA001376 (Ill. Dist. Ct., DuPage Cty., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BlueTriton Brands, Inc. -- https://www.bluetriton.com/ -- is an American beverage company based in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Steve G. Perry, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 707 Skokie Blvd., Suite 600 Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone: (224) 218-0875 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: Steven.perry@toddflaw.com BOND VETERINARY: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bond Veterinary Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bond Veterinary Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10882 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bond Vet -- https://bondvet.com/ -- is a provider of veterinary services intended to provide urgent care for pets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com CANADA: Indigenous People Class Suits Against RCMP to Move Forward ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shari Narine of Nunatsiaq News reports that a decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada Dec. 14 to dismiss an appeal filed by the federal government will move two separate class actions against the RCMP forward. Canada's highest court ruled it would not grant leave to hear the appeal in the case of Joe David Nasogaluak, the representative plaintiff seeking to certify a class action proceeding against the RCMP for abuse against Indigenous people in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon. Nasogaluak is Inuvialuit from Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T. He alleges that when he was 15 years old, the RCMP assaulted him during an arrest and held him in police custody. Canada made its application to the Supreme Court following the decision by the Federal Court of Appeal which had certified the class action with some minor adjustments from the lower court. "We now have an uncontestable certified case in both the North and in the south," said Steven Cooper, of the Sherwood Park, Alta., law firm of Cooper Regel. Cooper Regel is co-counsel for Nasogaluak with Koskie Minsky LLP. The firm is also co-counsel with Murphy Battista LLP in the Shirley Meguinis-Martin and Edie Joseph case, who are representative plaintiffs for RCMP abuse against Indigenous peoples in the rest of Canada. The Meguinis-Martin action was brought in 2020 about one-and-a-half years after the Nasogaluak action. "I don't want to call (the Meguinis-Martin action) a companion case, but there's a related case involving similar allegations that applies to the rest of the country. It had already been certified and we were just waiting for the outcome on this case (in the Supreme Court) to determine what would happen with the southern case," said Cooper. The Nasogaluak lawsuit alleges that Indigenous people are frequently arrested, detained and abused by RCMP officers in the territories. The class period is from 1928, when the Crown entered into formal police agreements with the territory, to the present. However, only those who were alive as of Dec. 18, 2016, are eligible to claim. The Meguinis-Martin action covers those not included in the Nasogaluak lawsuit. The class period is from May 14, 1953, and applies to those who were alive as of July 2018. Both actions claim breach of Sections 7 and 15 Charter rights. While Nasogaluak sets a combined claim for negligence, breach of Charter rights, punitive and exemplary damages at $600 million, Meguinis-Martin offers no amount. "When it comes to estimates of damages, we use the limited information that we have before certification and before we have access to the sort of material and reports and expertise we'll have after certification," said Cooper. He said he does not know how many people are involved in either class. At this point, he said, damages will be claimed separately in the two actions. "There's always the possibility of the claims coming together, and that often happens. This has the advantage, fortunately, of existing only in the federal courts, both cases. So there is the potential for both cases to be dealt with harmoniously or separately. I expect there will be some harmony between them," said Cooper. As important as the financial compensation is, Cooper stresses that the advantage of a class action over a court-imposed penalty of increased fines is that a class action can bring about "behaviour modification." The substance of the claims is systemic negligence and systemic discrimination acts against the Charter on the part of the RCMP, says Cooper. "We're trying to change the system. We're blaming the system, not individual officers. This is not about individual officers," he said. He adds that statements made by prime ministers and RCMP commissioners about problems within the RCMP and complaints filed to the RCMP Complaints Commission have resulted in no changes. "I'm not naive enough to suggest that this will be the change, but I'm hoping it's going to be one of the factors. I'm hoping it's going to be the spark. I'm hoping it's going to be part of the motivation," said Cooper. Now with the Supreme Court's decision, Cooper said the matter can proceed either through litigation or negotiation. "Now we'll have the normal exchange of material on both sides…We'll have examinations of both sides. And then, if we can't settle it in the meantime, we'll proceed towards trial," he said. He adds that there is a "good chance" Nasogaluak andMeguinis-Martin will be dealt with concurrently or "in some sort of common discussion or common thread." Cooper expects it will take a year or more before any tangible results are seen. "These things are measured in years not months," he said. In the meanwhile, Cooper encourages members of both actions to report their interactions with the RCMP so a database can be created. Information like what happened, when it happened, where it happened and who perpetrated the abuse is needed. No private information will be released, he said, as it will all be amalgamated. "What we do is we get statistics and statistics is power in the class actions," he said. [GN] CARIBBEAN FOOD: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caribbean Food Delights, Inc. The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Caribbean Food Delights, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-11007 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Caribbean Food Delights -- https://cfdnyinc.com/ -- is the Largest Manufacturer of Jamaican Patties, Jamaican Beef Patties, Jamaican Frozen Food and Products in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CARNIVAL PLC: High Court Finds Class Suit Waiver Clause Unfair -------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Pagent, Ian Reynolds, Brad Woodhouse, Mark McCowan, James Cameron and Emerson Hynard report that Corrs Chambers Westgarth report that the judgment concerns a class action brought against Carnival Plc in connection to an outbreak of COVID-19 on the Ruby Princess cruise ship in March 2020. The class members seek, among other things, compensation for loss and damage arising from breaches of the ACL. A significant number of passengers (the US Passengers) had contracted for the cruise in the United States, agreeing to terms which contained: -- a choice of law clause applying US general maritime law; -- an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the United States District Courts for the Central District of California in Los Angeles; and -- a class action waiver clause. Carnival relied on these terms to argue that the claims brought by the US Passengers should be stayed. While this application was refused at first instance, the Full Court of the Federal Court found that the terms in the US contracts were enforceable and declared that the US Passengers' claims should be stayed. Ms Karpik, the lead applicant in the proceeding, appealed to the High Court. The High Court identified the following four issues for determination: -- whether section 23 of the ACL, which prohibits unfair contract terms in standard form consumer and small business contracts, has extraterritorial operation so as to apply to the US contracts; -- if section 23 does apply, whether the class action waiver clause is void as an unfair contract term; -- whether the class action waiver clause is otherwise unenforceable by reason of Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act); and -- whether there are strong reasons for not enforcing the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contracts of the US Passengers. The decision In its unanimous decision, the High Court held that: -- section 23 of the ACL does apply to the contracts of the US Passengers; -- the class action waiver clause is void under section 23 for want of fairness; -- the class action waiver clause is not separately unenforceable by reason of Pt IVA of the FCA Act; and -- there are strong reasons for not enforcing the exclusive jurisdiction clause. We will consider the reasoning in support of each of these conclusions in turn. Extraterritoriality The High Court determined that section 23 of the ACL applies to the contracts of the US Passengers, even though those contracts were made outside Australia. The Court stressed that the so-called common law "presumption" against the extraterritorial operation of Australian statutes is properly understood as an interpretive principle only. In every case, the starting point is whether, applying the ordinary rules of statutory construction, Parliament intended for statutory provisions to have extraterritorial effect. Here, the express words and object of section 23, read with provisions concerning the scope of the ACL in section 5, supported the view that section 23 was intended to apply to all entities carrying on business in Australia. It follows that the protections afforded by the ACL do apply to contracts governed by foreign law, regardless of whether the contract is, for example, entered into while the foreign company is engaged in business in Australia or whether the contract affects the acquisition of goods or services in Australia. Unfair contract terms Given the Court's finding that section 23 applies to the US contracts, it was necessary to consider whether the class action waiver clause was void. The Court considered the factors relevant to unfairness listed in section 24 of the ACL and concluded that the waiver clause was unfair because it: -- caused a significant imbalance in the parties' rights, as the waiver clause exclusively benefitted Carnival at the passenger's expense; -- was not reasonably necessary to protect Carnival's legitimate interests; -- imposed a detriment on the passengers, as it deprived them of the protections afforded by the ACL; and -- was not transparent because, although the terms themselves were legible, they were only provided through a series of steps after the booking was confirmed. As to transparency (which is a mandatory consideration that the courts must take into account in unfair contract term proceedings), the Court clarified that: -- an assessment of transparency is part and parcel of considering whether a term is unfair, not an independent enquiry; -- the greater the imbalance or detriment inherent in the term, the greater the need for the term to be expressed and presented clearly; and -- conversely, where a term has been readily available to an affected party, and is clearly presented and plainly expressed, the imbalance and detriment it creates may need to be of a greater magnitude in order for that term to be found unfair. Incompatibility with Part IVA of the FCA Act The High Court rejected Carnival's contention that the class action waiver clause is inconsistent with Part IVA of the FCA Act, given the Act expressly contemplates group members being able to take steps to remove themselves from a class action, including, most obviously, by opting out of the class action. Exclusive jurisdiction clause In respect of the final issue, the High Court found that there were strong reasons for not enforcing the exclusive jurisdiction clause. These reasons were essentially twofold: -- it was advantageous for the US Passengers' claims to be determined in the Federal Court given that the class action waiver clause may be enforceable in the United States and the US Passengers may otherwise be denied access to justice as well as the associated benefits of a class action if a stay was ordered; and -- enforcing the exclusive jurisdiction clause would 'fracture the litigation', with duplication of proceedings in the United States and Australia being wasteful, running the risk of producing conflicting outcomes, and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. Implications The High Court's judgment in Karpik provides useful guidance in respect of the extraterritorial application of the ACL to companies carrying on business in Australia, the barriers respondents face in seeking to rely on class action waiver clauses, and a hesitant approach to the enforcement of exclusive jurisdiction clauses where their operation would inhibit access to justice or be productive of multiplicity. Beyond these general observations, we explore three implications of the decision. Common law presumption against extraterritoriality This is the second decision of the High Court this year to consider the common law 'presumption' against the extraterritorial operation of Australian statutes. In the first decision, BHP v Impiombato (2023) 405 ALR 402, the plurality (Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ) observed that "this Court has never taken a uniform or mechanistic approach to applying the presumption" and that "the presumption has never been understood such that it needs to be applied to all elements or words in a statute". The decision in Impiombatio was cited 12 times in Karpik. As outlined above, the High Court was at pains to emphasise that the 'presumption' is an "interpretive principle only" and “is not a fundamental common law right". Their Honours stated that "it may have little or no role to play where … the statute expressly departs from those common expectations. In sum, the application or consideration of the presumption cannot precede the question of interpretation – being whether the statute expressly or impliedly addresses the territorial reach of its subject matter". These decisions serve as a reminder that the "presumption" does not carry the weight of binding principle and is only a tool in the construction exercise, informed always by a consideration of the text, context and purpose of the particular provision in question. Further class actions? A potentially significant implication of the decision in Karpik is its green light for class actions to be brought for contraventions of section 23 of the ACL in respect of contracts made outside Australia where one of the parties carries on a business in Australia. The High Court rejected any reading down of this interpretation, such as importing a requirement that section 23 does not apply to contracts that are performed or are to be performed predominately outside Australia. This would be, it was said, contrary to the plain text of the statute. The High Court attempted to allay any potential 'floodgate' arguments caused by this interpretation by drawing a distinction between the fact of bringing a claim and the fact of any such claim proceeding to judgment. The Court outlined three reasons which may prevent such a claim, if brought, from proceeding to judgment or being enforced: -- the proceeding may be stayed pursuant to rule 10.43A(2)(b) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) on the basis that an Australian court is an "inappropriate forum" for the proceeding; -- whether section 23 of the ACL, properly construed, applies in a particular situation is distinct from the separate question of whether a foreign court would apply section 23 when adjudicating a dispute relating to that situation; and -- even if an Australian judgment was given based on Australian law, the extent to which it would be enforced overseas is matter for foreign law. Two points are of significance here. First, these three reasons are all defensive mechanisms that a court (including a foreign court) could rely upon to prevent a claim proceeding to judgment or enforcing such a judgment; they are not bars to the commencement of a proceeding. The onus is therefore squarely on the respondent to make an application to prevent any claim from proceeding. Secondly, the language of rule 10.43A(2)(b) mimics the "clearly inappropriate forum" test the High Court approved in Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd (1990) 171 CLR 538. In that case, the High Court outlined that a stay on the grounds of a court being an inappropriate forum will usually only be granted when: -- continuation of the proceeding would be "oppressive" and "vexatious" to the defendant (adjectives which, it was found, are not to be narrowly construed); and -- the defendant can identify "some appropriate foreign tribunal to whose jurisdiction the defendant is amenable and which would entertain the particular proceedings at the suit of the plaintiff". Importantly, the fact that there is a "more appropriate forum" is not sufficient to make out that the Australian court is an "inappropriate forum". Indeed, the authorities are clear that the onus to show that the Australian court is an inappropriate forum is on the respondent and the stay will only be granted in "a clear case". In the light of the above, it may be that plaintiff solicitors and funders seek to take advantage of the decision in Karpik and commence class actions which only have a tangential territorial nexus to Australia. Unfair contract terms and penalties Recent reforms in respect of unfair contract terms in the ACL provide a further dimension to the Karpik decision. As of 9 November 2023, unfair contract terms in all standard form small business and consumer contracts are prohibited. Persons or corporate bodies that propose, apply or rely on (or purport to apply or rely on) such terms in affected standard form contracts are now also subject to penalties. For a body corporate, the penalties are the greater of: -- $50 million; -- three times the value of the benefit of the conduct; or -- 30% of the entity's adjusted turnover during the breach turnover period for the conduct. Penalties also apply for individuals knowingly concerned in a contravention. This is significant because not only does Karpik indicate that class action waiver clauses are likely to be considered unfair, but the inclusion of these clauses in standard form contracts now brings with it the added risk of significant penalties. [GN] CMG MEDIA: Hawkins Seeks More Time to File Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELECIA HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CMG MEDIA CORPORATION (d/b/a Cox Media Group), Case No. 1:22-cv-04462-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending her deadline to file her motion for class certification from December 11, 2023 (the first business day after December 9, 2023, which was the deadline set by the Court's June 13, 2023 Order) until 180 days thereafter (June 8, 2024). CMG Media is an American media conglomerate. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RpN5qH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kurt G. Kastorf, Esq. KASTORF LAW LLC 1387 Iverson Street NE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30307 Telephone: (404) 900-0330 E-mail: kurt@kastorflaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C. 975 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 E-mail: ncoulson@lsccounsel.com The Defendant is represented by: Tiana Demas, Esq. David Mills, Esq. Shane Rogers, Esq. COOLEY LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60606-1511 Telephone: (312) 881-6500 E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com dmills@cooley.com srogers@cooley.com - and - James A. Demetry, Esq. DEMETRY, DECARLO & COFFMAN 3666 N. Peachtree Road, Suite 100 Chamblee, GA 30341 Telephone: (770) 274-4383 E-mail: jdemetry@demetrydecarlo.com COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: El Dorado Seeks Final OK of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as El Dorado Minerals, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00249-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Class Representative and Class Counsel request that the Court enter the proposed Judgment: (1) Final certification of the Settlement Class; (2) Final approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class; and (3) final approval of the Notice to Class Members. Coffeyville operates the Coffeyville coking refinery, which is located in Kansas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41nqYpv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com - and - Brady L. Smith, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC One Leadership Square, Suite 1320 211 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 293-3029 E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: El Dorado Seeks OK of Atty's Fees -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as El Dorado Minerals, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00249-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for approval of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees, litigation Expenses, administration, notice, and distribution costs, and Case contribution award: 1) The Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees in the amount of forty percent of the Gross Settlement Fund; 2) a Case Contribution Award in the amount of $96,000.00 (2% of the Gross Settlement Fund); 3) Litigation Expenses in the amount of $146,845.28; 4) Administration, Notice, and Distribution Costs in the amount of $37,883.01; and 5) a reserve of up to $165,271.71 for future Litigation Expenses and Administration, Notice, and Distribution Costs through the Final Fairness Hearing and full implementation of the Settlement. Coffeyville operates the Coffeyville coking refinery, which is located in Kansas. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RIYrYj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com - and - Brady L. Smith, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC One Leadership Square, Suite 1320 211 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 293-3029 E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com COLONIAL WINE: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colonial Wine & Spirits, Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Colonial Wine & Spirits, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-11036 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Colonial Wine & Spirits -- https://colonial.global-wineandspirits.com/ -- is a Wine Store in Orchard Park, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com COMCAST CORP: Hendrickson Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comcast Corporation. The case is styled as Danielle Hendrickson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comcast Corporation d/b/a Xfinity, Case No. 2:23-cv-05072 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Comcast Corporation -- https://corporate.comcast.com/ -- incorporated and headquartered in Philadelphia, is the largest American multinational telecommunications and media conglomerate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com CONIFER VALUE-BASED: Kolb Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicole Kolb, on behalf of hrself and all others similarly situated v. Conifer Value-Based Care LLC, Conifer Health Solutions LLC, Conifer Revenue Cycle Solutions LLC, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00744 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10462-RGK-AJR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Conifer Health Solutions -- https://www.coniferhealth.com/ -- is a healthcare experience company focused on driving improved outcomes for patients and healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 West Monroe Street Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. TURKE AND STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com CVS HEALTH: Kleiman Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cathy Kleiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-04727 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09318-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. CVS Health Corporation -- https://www.cvshealth.com/ -- is an American healthcare company that owns CVS Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: pauld@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com - and - Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann St. Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 614-8888 Email: roy@akimlawfirm.com CVS PHARMACY: Cohen Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Emily Cohen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00403 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09317-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. -- https://www.cvs.com/ -- is an American retail corporation. A subsidiary of CVS Health, it is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zahra Rose Dean, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 238-1700 Fax: (215) 238-1968 Email: zdean@kohnswift.com - and - Paige A. Munro-Delotto, Esq. MUNRO-DELOTTO LAW LLC 400 Westminster Street, Ste. 200 Providence, RI 02903 Phone: (401) 521-4529 Fax: (866) 593-9755 Email: paige@pmdlawoffices.com DAVID RAMSEY: Scheduling Order Entered in Patrick Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA PATRICK, et al., v. DAVID L. RAMSEY, III, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00630-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered a Rule 16(b) and scheduling Order regarding class Certification motion: Deadline for motions relating to July 11, 2024 admissibility of experts on issues pertaining to class certification Deadline for dispositive motions or July 11, 2024 motions to compel arbitration that any party believes are likely to affect class certification Deadline to complete discovery on class 30 days after expert certification (not to be construed as a motions and dispositive bifurcation of discovery) motions or motions to compel arbitration affecting class certification are decided by the Court Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion 60 days after expert for class certification (noted on the motions and fourth Friday after filing and service dispositive of the motion pursuant to Local Rules motions or motions to W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3) unless the compel arbitration parties agree to different times for affecting class filing the response and reply memoranda). certification are decided by the Court A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v7zxZq at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA AIR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Coordinators, Goodyear Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUKAS GOODYEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (M.D. Ga., December 12, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime rates for time that Plaintiff worked in excess of scheduled, defined, hours during a work period. Plaintiff Goodyear is a Delta employee, working as a senior coordinator, on an irregular schedule. He was not paid overtime wages for the extra time he worked during a swap off period. He was also misclassified as exempt the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff asserts. Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Delta Air Lines, Inc. offers domestic and international flights to over 300 destinations in 60 countries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna Claire Skinner, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. Jeremy Levine-Drizin, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: askinner@dicellolevitt.com alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com jlevinedrizin@dicellolevitt.com DELTA REALTY: General Pretrial Management Entered in Shi Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHUANGLONG SHI, v. DELTA REALTY GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05349-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. -- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. The Plaintiff may wish to contact the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. Delta Realty provides real estate and property management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H19bvf at no extra charge.[CC] DOUGLAS PARKING: Barragan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Douglas Parking, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Silvester Barragan, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees v. Douglas Parking, LLC, Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 23STCV30735 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 18, 2023). Douglas Parking LLC -- https://www.douglasparking.com/ -- specialize in parking management, leasing, airport parking, valet and shuttle services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Boal, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: aboal@lelawfirm.com DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Loses Bid for Judgment on the Pleadings ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica Heppard, v. Dunham's Athleisure Corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-10834-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order denying the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the OMFSWA claim. Whether a state law defines substantive rights or remedies is a question that many federal courts have addressed. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s request that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. Ms. Heppard brings a putative collective action and class action suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wages Standards Act ("OMFWSA"). She alleges that Defendant Dunham's Athleisure Corporation had a policy and practice of not paying employees for all hours worked, including for overtime, and that Defendant also failed to keep accurate records. The Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio and worked for Defendant from September 27, 2021 to December 15, 2021 as a full-time retail store associate in Hillsboro, Ohio. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had a policy requiring retail store associates to clock out before completing closing tasks, and that they could only leave the store when all employees are ready to leave. Dunham's operates a sporting good chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GHj5Sp at no extra charge.[CC] EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Miller Sues Over Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SCOTT TARRIFF, and BRIAN CAHILL, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-23011 (D.N.J., December 11, 2023) asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff Miller brings this class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Eagle Pharmaceuticals securities between August 8, 2023 and November 28, 2023, inclusive. Throughout the class period, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that, among other things, the Company was experiencing slower-than-anticipated pull-though from a wholesale customer predominantly due to expiry of inventory and that the Company had overstated its revenue. As a result of these materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failures to disclose, Eagle Pharmaceuticals' securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, NJ, Eagle Pharmaceuticals is an integrated pharmaceutical company engaged in research and development, clinical, manufacturing and commercial sales. Its common stock trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol "EGRX." The Company has several commercialized products, including PEMFEXY, which is a metabolic inhibitor used in combination with chemotherapy for the initial treatment of certain genomic tumor aberrations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: decklund@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 EAST RIVER MEDICAL: Kuecher Sues Over Inadequate Data Security -------------------------------------------------------------- RACHAEL KUECHER, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST RIVER MEDICAL IMAGING, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10765 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2023) arises out of the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from East River's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices. According to the untitled letter that Defendant sent to Plaintiff and other impacted Class members, on September 20, 2023, Defendant identified suspicious activity within its IT network. The Defendant's investigation found out that an unauthorized party accessed its network and, between August 31, 2023 and September 20, 2023, accessed and/or copied some documents on its system. Moreover, in breaching its duties to properly safeguard patients' and employees' private information and give patients and employees timely, adequate notice of the data breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the suit. East River Medical Imaging, P.C. is a privately owned, independent, multi-modality radiology center in New York City on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and in White Plains, Westchester County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com EAST RIVER MEDICAL: Lowe Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against East River Medical Imaging, P.C. The case is styled as Jennifer Lowe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. East River Medical Imaging, P.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-10999-UA (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Personal Injury. East River Medical Imaging -- https://www.eastriverimaging.com/ -- is a leader in providing state-of-the-art diagnostic imaging and radiology solutions in Manhattan New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@masonllp.com EDWARD JONES: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD ANDERSON, RAYMOND KEITH CORUM, JESSE AND COLLEEN WORTHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-00714-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs request that the Court seal the Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Reply, the Class Cert. Exhibits, the Selman Daubert Motion, the Marietta-Westberg Daubert Motion, and the Daubert Exhibits and allow for a redacted version to be filed publicly on the docket Plaintiffs' Class Cert. Reply should be sealed because it contains the same confidential information referenced in Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification previously ordered sealed on September 27 and 28, 2023. The Plaintiffs' Selman Daubert Motion and Marietta-Westberg Daubert Motion include references to the parties' previously-sealed expert reports and relevant portions of expert depositions discussing the expert reports. The Class Cert. and Daubert Exhibits are excerpts from the deposition transcripts of the experts that reference portions of the expert reports sealed by the Court. Edward D. Jones is a financial services firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RH88GT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Michael D. Murphy, Esq. Paul R. Wood, Esq. Brian Hanlin, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: (303) 757-3300 Facsimile: (720) 213-5131 E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com murphym@fdazar.com woodp@fdazar.com hanlinb@fdazar.com - and - John R. Garner, Esq. GARNER & ASSOCIATES 109 North Marshall Avenue Willows, CA 95988 Telephone: (530) 934-3324 Facsimile: (530) 934-2334 E-mail: john@garner-associates.com ELON MUSK: N.D. Cal. Ruling in Securities Class Suit Discussed -------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that On December 11, 2023, Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California narrowed a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the purchaser of a social media company. Pampena v. Musk, -- F. Supp. 3d -- 2023 WL 8588853 (N.D. Cal. 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that they sold shares in the target company at depressed prices after the purchaser allegedly made material misstatements suggesting that he would not go forward with the acquisition. The Court held that certain of the challenged statements were actionable and granted leave to replead with respect to the others. With respect to the challenged statement that the "deal [was] temporarily on hold pending details supporting calculation that spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5% of users," the Court explained that the purchaser's statement -- concerning a figure from the target's SEC filings -- would cause a reasonable investor to believe the purchaser was waiting for details from the target. The Court also determined that this statement would cause a reasonable investor to believe that "absent the provision of such information, the deal would not close." Id. at *10. The Court therefore concluded that the statement was sufficiently alleged to be false because the purchaser had waived due diligence as a condition to closing on the transaction, and thus the target company had no obligation to provide such information. Id. In other words, because the company "did not have an obligation to provide this data . . . [d]efendant's representation that [the company] did have this obligation in order for the deal to close was false." Id. (emphasis in original). Moreover, while the transaction was, in fact, delayed beyond its original expected closing date, the Court reasoned that what made the statement false concerned whether the company "had an obligation to provide the requested information for the deal to close" not whether there would be any delay in actually closing the deal. Id. at *11. The Court also found actionable the purchaser's subsequent statements that fake and spam accounts made up at least 20% of the company's users and that the deal therefore could not "move forward" while the purchaser was further investigating the issue. The Court explained that statements about the volume of spam accounts were actionable because, even if the purchaser had conducted an analysis that supported those statements, it was plausible for "the investing public to believe that [d]efendant received -- and was basing his statement on -- bot user data from [the company], which was not the case." Id. at *12. The Court also noted that in conjunction with the prior statement indicating that the deal was "on hold," "a reasonable investor would likely find [d]efendant's access to and findings about [the company's] data to be material to their investment decision-making." Id. The Court also found the statement that the deal "could not move forward" was actionable for the same reasons as the prior statement asserting that the deal was "on hold." Id. The Court also explained why plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient with respect to other challenged statements. Regarding the purchaser's statement that the company had complained that he had violated a non-disclosure agreement by revealing certain information about how the company checked for spam accounts, the Court noted plaintiffs alleged nothing to show why this statement was false. Id. at *11. Similarly, the Court noted plaintiffs failed to explain why the purchaser's statement that information about the use of spam accounts at the company "is fundamental to the financial health of [the company]" was false or misleading. Id. And while the purchaser sent letters to the company demanding data and purporting to terminate the merger agreement, the Court held that statements in these letters were not actionable. The Court noted that plaintiffs failed to specify which portions of the letters were misleading and, moreover, that even if the purchaser intended to create uncertainty in the markets through these letters or to support a legal dispute with the company, this did not necessarily mean that the statements in the letter were false. Id. at *14–15. Turning to the other elements of plaintiffs' claims, the Court next held that plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter. The Court noted that the challenged statements concerned the purchaser himself and the merger agreement he negotiated. Id. at *16. In addition, plaintiffs alleged that the purchaser admitted to making certain statements because he did not want to go forward with the transaction, which the Court held created an inference of motive. Id. at *16–17. The Court also noted that the purchaser took positions in litigation relating to the transaction that supported the suggestion that even if the purchaser made statements "that were subjectively consistent with his beliefs," plaintiffs alleged facts "raising a strong inference that he knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that he had material information (such as the waiver of due diligence) that would render his statements false or misleading." Id. at *18. Thus, the Court explained that, "viewing all the evidence holistically in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs," plaintiffs had adequately alleged facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. Id. The Court further held that plaintiffs adequately pleaded loss causation. The Court explained that plaintiffs had generally pleaded loss causation under a corrective disclosure theory, under which the corrective disclosure occurred when the purchaser announced he would go through with the deal, which caused the target company's stock to rise. Id. The Court determined that the purchaser's change of heart amounted to disclosing that the company was never obliged to provide the purchaser with the information he claimed was required to move forward. Id. at *19. With respect to the statement that spam accounts made up "at least 20%" of the company's users, the Court held that while it was questionable whether plaintiffs had pleaded a corrective disclosure occurred in connection with that statement, plaintiffs had adequately alleged this statement itself caused the company's stock to fall by nearly ten percent on the day it was made and that this direct economic loss was sufficient to plead loss causation. Id. at *19–20. Finally, the Court rejected the purchaser's argument that his statements were immune from suit under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. This doctrine immunizes from suit certain statements made in the course of petitioning the government. Id. at *20. The Court assumed without deciding that certain statements made leading up to the litigation between the purchaser and the company could be protected from suit because the statements were intertwined with a request for judicial relief to not complete the transaction. See id. But the Court explained the Noerr-Pennington doctrine did not apply to the statements the Court held were actionable because they were public statements about the transaction and were not the type of statements that are only made in the context of petitioning a government entity. Id. [GN] ENRICO PUGLISI: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enrico Puglisi, Ltd. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Enrico Puglisi, Ltd., Case No. 1:23-cv-11017 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Enrico Puglisi Flies -- https://epflies.com/ -- provides the highest quality freshwater and saltwater flies as well as an incredible selection of fly tying materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com EXPRESS SCRIPTS: LDS Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Express Scripts, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lackie Drug Store Inc., on behalf of itself and Arkansans similarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc., ESI Mail Order Processing, Inc., ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc., Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-01669 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Express Scripts Holding Company -- https://www.express-scripts.com/ -- is a pharmacy benefit management organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason D. Sapp, Esq. SAPP LAW LLC 75 W. Lockwood Avenue, Suite 222 Webster Groves, MO 63119 Phone: (314) 782-3500 Fax: (314) 782-3400 Email: jason@sapplawllc.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Cybersecurity Attack ------------------------------------------------------------- Brooklee Han of Housingwire reports that Big Four title firm Fidelity National Financial and its subsidiary mortgage subservicer Loancare are facing a class action lawsuit alleging that they were negligent with customer data and that they breached their contract, after the firm was the victim of a cyber security attack in late-November. The suit was filed last December 19, 2023 by Teneika Tillis, a Loancare servicing client, in U.S. District Court for Central California. The complaint states that Tillis filed the suit "upon information and belief" that her personal identifiable information had been comprised in the attack. "The data breach itself and information defendants have disclosed about the breach to date, including its length, the need to remediate defendants' cybersecurity and the sensitive nature of the impacted data, collectively demonstrate defendants failed to implement reasonable measures," the complaint states. In addition, Tillis claims as a result of the data breach the plaintiff class has been "required to continue to undertake time-consuming and oten costly efforts to mitigate the actual and potential harm." The complaint also maintains that Loancare should have notified consumers of inadequate security measures after it reported a data breach around August 2022. "Defendants thus failed to take reasonable measures to secure its system," the lawsuit said. Roughly a week after initially reporting the attack, Fidelity said the incident was contained, however the firm has yet to disclose the type of personal information that may have been acquired by the cyber criminals or the number of clients impacted by the incident. Shortly after the incident, ransomware gang AlphV/BlackCat claimed responsibility. In an online post last week, AlphV/BlackCat blamed Fidelity for allegedly hiring incident responders from Google's Mandiant unit and threatened to disclose information on data it collected. Tillis is demanding a jury trial and a damages amount that is "equitable relief with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest" to the plaintiff and members of the class. Mr.Cooper, which became the victim of a cyber security attack in late October, is currently facing four class action suits as a result of the attack. [GN] FIRST NATIONAL: Burkett Seeks More Time to File Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER BURKETT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Case No. 9:23-cv-81269-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time through and including May 20, 2024, to file her forthcoming Motion for Class Certification. On October 27, 2023, Magistrate Judge William Matthewman entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order and Order Referring Case to Mediation. The Pretrial Scheduling Order required the parties to file a discovery plan by November 10, 2023. Between October 27, 2023, and November 10, 2023, the parties conferred regarding the discovery plan. On Nov. 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a discovery plan [DE 14]. However, on Nov. 13, 2023, Magistrate Judge William Matthewman entered a Paperless Order informing the parties that the discovery plan proposed a discovery cut-off date that was incompatible with the Pretrial Scheduling Order. First National is a nationally licensed full service accounts receivable management firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GGYGge at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com FORD MOTOR: Parties Seek OK of Proposed Briefing Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion and enter the proposed briefing schedule for the plaintiffs' class certification motion and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to certain named plaintiffs' claims. Pursuant to the Court's October 30, 2023, Order Granting Joint Motion to Continue Deadline for the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion, the Parties on December 8, 2023, notified Chambers via email that they had met and conferred and agreed to the below joint proposed briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' pending class certification motion and Ford's pending summary judgment motion. Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47Yt6qr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. Wright, Esq. McCUNE LAW GROUP, APC 281 E Guasti Rd 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 345-8110 The Defendants are represented by: Randall W. Edwards, Esq. Amy Laurendeau, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: redwards@omm.com alaurendeau@omm.com FRANCO'S FASHION: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franco's Fashion, Inc. The case is styled as Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Franco's Fashion, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09355 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Franco Apparel Group Inc. -- https://www.francos.com/ -- is an apparel & fashion company.[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 G-STAR RAW: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Andrew Wilkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. G-STAR RAW ESTORE, INC., Case No. 23-09309-TT was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05049 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. G-Star RAW (commonly called G-Star) -- https://www.g-star.com/ -- is a Dutch designer clothing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 525-2552 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Jacob Oslick, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 - 8th Ave., 31st Fl, New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 218-6480 Email: joslick@seyfarth.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Benjamin Suit Transferred to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tatiana Benjamin, Christine Contreras, Robin Glauser, Anthony Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, Kenvue Inc., McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Procter & Gamble Company, Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-03856 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09313-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. GlaxoSmithKline LLC -- https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/home/ -- produces and distributes pharmaceutical products. The Company supplies products for asthma, anti-virals, infections, mental health, diabetes, cardiovascular, and digestive treatments, as well as other related healthcare products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 564-2300 Fax: (215) 851-8029 Email: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com The Defendants are represented by: Alison Sarah DiCiurcio, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 10th Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 662-5353 Email: adiciurcio@cov.com - and - David Newmann, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1735 Market Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 675-4610 Fax: (267) 675-4601 Email: david.newmann@hoganlovells.com GORDON COMPANIES: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gordon Companies, Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gordon Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-11029 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gordon Companies -- https://www.gordoncompaniesinc.com/ -- is a family owned and operated company based in Cheektowaga, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com GRAIN & THE VINE: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Grain & The Vine, LLC. The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Grain & The Vine, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09353 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Grain & The Vine, LLC -- https://grainvine.com/ -- is a boutique in East Williamsburg, Brooklyn wine, spirits and sake shop.[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 GRAND BRANDS: Holder Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling --------------------------------------------------------- RONIQUE HOLDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND BRANDS, INC. d/b/a THE TRUE CITRUS CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10754 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2023) arises from the Defendant's misleading and false representation of its True Citrus beverage mixes and asserts claims against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the New York General Business Law. The Defendant's "No Preservatives" representation is featured on the said products' labeling in order to induce health-conscious consumers to purchase foods that are free from preservatives. However, these products contain citric acid--a well-known preservative commonly used in food products, says the suit. Headquartered in Baltimore, MD, Grand Brands, Inc. d/b/a The True Citrus Co. is a corporation that formulates, advertises, manufactures, and/or sells the beverage mixes throughout New York and the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Alec Leslie, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Israel Rosenberg, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Erin J. Ruben, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: eruben@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com GRANDE COSMETICS: Judge OKs Prelim. Deal in Eyelash Products Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports that a federal judge has given preliminary approval to a class action settlement with Grande Cosmetics over its eyelash-enhancing products. The lawsuit, filed in November 2022 in New Jersey federal court, contained allegations Grande's eyelash-enhancing products were sold as cosmetics despite containing the same active ingredients as a prescription drug for eyelash growth. Plaintiff Brenda Nixon said the GrandeLASH-MD caused a severe reaction that included swelling, pain, impaired eyelids and blurred vision. The product and others contain isopropyl cloprostenate, the suit alleges. On Oct. 23, the sides presented their proposed settlement for preliminary approval. It has Grande paying $6.25 million to a fund to pay class members nationwide up to $150. The motion lauds the case's results while pointing out a rejected settlement over the same allegations in California. This settlement, they say, is all-cash and no coupons and worth more than the other. After attorneys fees, court costs and notice costs, the fund for 800,000-1 million class members will be more than $3.5 million, the motion says. Lawyers will be seeking up to one-third of the $6.25 million figure - $2,083,333.33. New Jersey federal court judge Renee Marie Bumb on Dec. 13 gave preliminary approval to the settlement. She will weigh any objections before giving final approval. The lawsuit claims Grande sells its enhancement serums without a prescription and with no warning of the serious side effects. Nixon alleges in her suit that she and other consumers purchase the products without knowing they were "new, unapproved drugs" that can have serious side effects. Nixon further alleges Grande negligently used misleading, deceptive and fraudulent actions to sell its product. She is represented by Ruben Honik and David Stanoch of Honik Law LLC in Philadelphia. A statement from the company says: "Grande Cosmetics denies the allegations asserted in the Complaint filed by Brenda Nixon, including the allegations that Grande made any misrepresentations relating to its products or that its products containing Isopropyl Cloprostenate cause any serious potential side effects. The case did not relate to personal injuries suffered by users of the products. "In resolving the dispute, Grande Cosmetics did not admit any wrongdoing relating to its marketing of any of its products. Grande Cosmetics, however, has agreed to enhance the labeling of the products – including updated usage instructions and wording within the ingredient list – for clarity. GrandeLASH-MD, GrandeBROW and GrandeHAIR are safe cosmetic products with a proven track record of overwhelmingly positive consumer satisfaction and comprehensive product safety testing substantiates the safety of Grande's products." [GN] GRANITE STATE: Class Settlement in Grenier Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled Rita Grenier and Edwin Grenier, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Granite State Credit Union, Does 1 through 5, Case No. 1:21-cv-00534-LM (D.N.H.), Judge Landya McCafferty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire issued a Final Order approving class action settlement and motion for attorney fees, costs and incentive award. Plaintiffs Edwin and Rita Grenier brought this class action on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of current and former account holders with Granite State Credit Union alleging that Granite's overdraft policies violate the Electronic Funds Transfer Act's implementing regulations. After engaging in motions practice and substantial discovery, the parties informed the Court on Jan. 9, 2023, that they had reached agreement on a settlement in principle, subject to the Court's approval. On May 8, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an assented-to motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement and preliminary certification of the class for purposes of settlement. On Aug. 2, 2023, the Court issued a written order granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and preliminary certification of the proposed class. In that order, the Court conducted a rigorous and searching analysis of whether it would likely be able to certify the class for purposes of settlement and find that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement, preliminarily certified the proposed class for settlement purposes, provisionally appointed Edwin and Rita Grenier as the class representatives, and appointed the Grenier's chosen counsel, McCune and Shaheen & Gordon, P.A., as settlement class counsel. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Settlement Administrator served the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") notice required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1715. On Sept. 11, 2023, the Settlement Administrator sent Court-approved notices of the proposed settlement to the settlement class members as ordered. On Nov. 28, 2023, the Court held a fairness hearing regarding the parties' proposed class action settlement. The parties confirmed at the hearing that, to date, no class members have objected to the proposed settlement or opted out of the settlement class. The Court grants final approval of the parties' proposed settlement. The Court has not reviewed or heard any information that would change the Court's view expressed in its order granting preliminary approval of the settlement that the class can be certified for settlement purposes and that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court approves the parties' settlement agreement for the reasons stated in its order granting preliminary approval and the reasons outlined by the parties in the joint motion for final approval. Judge McCafferty affirms the Court's findings made in its preliminary approval order. Specifically, the Court finds that, for purposes of settlement, the prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for award of attorneys' fees and costs. Attorney fees are awarded in the amount of $200,168 plus interest accrued at the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund. Costs are awarded in the amount of $75,000. An incentive awards are awarded to representative Plaintiffs Rita and Edwin Grenier in the amount of $5,000 each. For purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court further certifies this action as a class action, composed of all current and former members of the Defendant with consumer accounts, who were charged a Reg E Fee during the Class Period. Excluded from the class are Granite State Credit Union, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors; DOES 1 through 5; all Settlement Class members, who make a timely election to be excluded; and all judges assigned to this litigation and their immediate family members. The Court approves the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and the plan of allocation for the Settlement Fund. The Court finds that the parties' settlement, on the terms and conditions set forth in their agreement, is in all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class members. The Court finds, among other things, that the manner and means of providing notice to class members of the proposed settlement constituted a reasonable manner of providing notice to parties, who would be bound by the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, and thus, satisfied the requirements of due process and Rule 23(e). This action is dismissed with prejudice as to all other issues and as to all parties and claims. Each settlement class member is barred and permanently enjoined from bringing on behalf of themselves, or through any person purporting to act on their behalf or purporting to assert a claim under or through them, any of the Released Claims against Granite in any forum, action, or proceeding of any kind. Judge McCafferty holds that Doc. nos. 47 and 48 are granted. The clerk's office is directed to enter judgment and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Order dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/bp5ubv6cfrom PacerMonitor.com. GREEN CANOE: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Canoe Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Green Canoe Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09339 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Green Canoe Hospitality, LLC is a New York Domestic Limited-Liability Company.[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 GUARANTEED RATE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN P. SHULAK, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GUARANTEED RATE, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-00864-JWH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order continuing hearing date and corresponding deadlines for the Plaintiff's motion for class Certification. 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for class certification is Friday, July 12, 2024. 2. The Defendant's Deadline to oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is Friday, August 2, 2024. 3. The Plaintiff's Deadline to file a Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification is Friday, August 16, 2024. 4. The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is set for Friday, August 30, 2024. Guaranteed Rate provides residential mortgage lending services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tqx5HI at no extra charge.[CC] HARD SELTZER: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hard Seltzer Beverage Company LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hard Seltzer Beverage Company LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10879-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hard Seltzer -- https://trulyhardseltzer.com/ -- offers a refreshing alternative to beer, wine, & cocktails.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com HARRIS TEETER: Rankin Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Stacy Rankin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harris Teeter, LLC, Harris Teeter Supermarkets, Inc., Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Kenvue Inc., McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Proctor & Gamble Company, Foundation Consumer Brands, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-02864 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09280-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Harris Teeter Supermarkets, LLC -- http://www.harristeeter.com/-- also known as Harris Teeter Neighborhood Food & Pharmacy, is an American supermarket chain based in Matthews, North Carolina, a suburb of Charlotte.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com - and - Chad C Alexander, Esq. SIEBEN POLK, P.A. 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 50 Eagan, MN 55121 Phone: (651) 437-3148 Fax: (651) 437-2732 Email: calexander@siebenpolklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ann Elizabeth Motl, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3500 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 259-9753 Email: motla@gtlaw.com HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Warren Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BHAPINDERPAL S. BHANGAL, v. HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04332-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting Daniel Warren's motion to be lead plaintiff in this action. The Court denies the motions to be lead plaintiff filed by Pontiac Retirement System, Phu Tran, and Mark Williams. All securities class actions on behalf of purchasers of Hawaiian Electric securities subsequently filed in, or transferred to, this District shall be consolidated into this action. This Order shall apply to every such action, absent an order of the Court. A party objecting to such consolidation, or to any other provisions of this Order, must file an application for relief from this Order within 10 days after the action is consolidated into this action. This Order is entered without prejudice to the rights of any party to apply for severance of any claim or action. Bhapinderpal S. Bhangal brings this Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") securities class action on behalf of himself and a group of similarly situated individuals who purchased Hawaiian Electric securities between February 28, 2019 and August 16, 2023. Hawaiian Electric is the largest supplier of electricity in the U.S. state of Hawaii. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41iIjQw at no extra charge.[CC] HENKEL CORPORATION: Boren Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Boren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Henkel Corporation, Does 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No. 23SL-CC04779 was removed from the St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Dec. 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-01605-SRC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, commonly known as Henkel -- https://www.henkel.com/ -- is a German multinational chemical and consumer goods company headquartered in Düsseldorf, Germany.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Harvath, Esq. HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC 75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1 St. Louis, MO 63119 Phone: (314) 550-3717 Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: C. David Goerisch, Esq. Michael L. Jente, Esq. LEWIS RICE LLC - St. Louis 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 444-7600 Fax: (314) 241-6056 Email: dgoerisch@lewisrice.com mjente@lewisrice.com HOP STOCK & BARREL: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hop Stock & Barrel II, LLC. The case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hop Stock & Barrel II, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09337 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hop Stock & Barrel II LLC is a liquor license holder in Brooklyn.[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 HOWARD D. SOBEL: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Howard D. Sobel, M.D., P.C. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Howard D. Sobel, M.D., P.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-09347 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Howard Sobel -- https://sobelskin.com/ -- is a board-certified dermatologic cosmetic surgeon at Sobel Skin.[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 INTERSTATE HOTELS: De Paz Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSHUA DE PAZ, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE HOTELS, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV30189 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 11, 2023) seeks to recover civil penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in an hourly position at Defendants' location in Los Angeles from approximately October 2018 until on or about August 14, 2023. Among others, the Defendants failed to pay wages to hourly non-exempt employees for workdays that Defendants failed to provide legally required and compliant meal periods, says the Plaintiff. Interstate Hotels, LLC is a hotel management company. It operates a hotel located at 404 S Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Elizabeth L. Harrier, 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 eharrier@lelawfirm.com WHT1@lelawfirm.com JACHS NY LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jachs NY, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jachs NY, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10877 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jachs NY, LLC -- https://www.jachsny.com/ -- offers collections of men's and women's clothing online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com JADE EATERY & LOUNGE: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jade Eatery & Lounge, LLC. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Jade Eatery & Lounge, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09351 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jade Eatery & Lounge -- https://www.jadeeatery.com/ -- offers bar-style sushi, Thai Chinese, and Asian fusion Forest Hills, New York loves.[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 JAMAICA HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Macary Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DIANA ST. MACARY, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-09093 (E.D.N.Y., December 11, 2023) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was hired as a case manager associate at Jamaica Hospital in April 2019. In that role, Plaintiff assisted with discharge planning for patients admitted to Jamaica Hospital. The Plaintiff worked in that role until November 2021, when she resigned from her position. Throughout her employment, Jamaica Hospital failed to compensate her and the other CMAs for all their hours worked and failed to pay them one and a half times their hourly rate for the hours that exceeded 40 hours per week in violation of both the FLSA and the NYLL. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in Queens, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq. Amy Robinson, Esq. GISKAN, SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 964-9604 E-mail: jsolotaroff@gslawny.com JEA SENIOR: Settlement Class Gets Certification in Bowen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNICA B. BOWEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JEA SENIOR LIVING HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02318-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kendall J. Newman entered an order that: 1. The Class Action Settlement Agreement and the PAGA Agreement, and the settlement embodied therein, is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; 2. The certification of the Settlement Class as defined in this court's order of June 9, 2023 is confirmed for purposes of the settlement of this Action; 3. The Notice to class members, as provided for by the Agreement, constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and was valid, due, and sufficient notice to Class Members in full compliance with the requirements of applicable law, including the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution; 4. The Representative Class Plaintiff and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class members at all times in the action; 5. Settlement Class members who have not timely requested exclusion from the Settlement Class and any of their predecessors, successors, representatives, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, heirs, executors, administrators, attorneys, successors, and assignees are hereby enjoined and barred from instituting, filing, commencing, prosecuting, maintaining, continuing to prosecute, directly or indirectly, as an individual or collectively, representatively, derivatively, or on behalf of them or in any other capacity whatsoever, any action in any state or federal court or any other tribunal, forum, or proceeding of any kind against the Released Parties that asserts any of the Released Claims as set forth in the Agreement; 6. Defendants are discharged from all further liability for the Released Claims to Settlement Class members; 7. Class Counsel's application for an award of fees of $41,666.66 and costs of $10,333.50 is fair and reasonable and is granted, subject to the fee division agreement of counsel; 8. The request for an enhancement award of $3,000 to the named plaintiff is fair and reasonable and is granted; 9. The $9,000.00 fees of Simpluris, the claims administrator are approved; 10. The PAGA settlement of $5,000.00 is approved, with 75% of this sum being paid to the State of California, and the remainder to Class Members with a PAGA claim, based on the Settlement Agreement of the parties; 11. The Action is dismissed with prejudice; 12. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case for the limited purpose of administering the settlement, enforcing the settlement, and related matters; and 13. The Clerk of the Court shall enter this Order as a Final Judgment in the docket of this action. The Plaintiff alleges in the First Amended Complaint (FAC) that she previously worked as a non-exempt hourly-wage employee for defendants Empire Ranch, Willow Springs, and Blossom Grove, who jointly ran Alzheimer care centers in Northern California. She alleges that from at least 2016 through 2021, defendants enforced policies and practices that did not allow for her and other caregivers to take meal breaks despite working 5+ hours a day; take rest breaks for every four hours worked; receive itemized wage statements; and receive all wages owed at the conclusion of her employment. The Settlement Agreement contains a release of all claims that are factually supported by the 1AC against defendants by the class, who are defined as: "all current or former nonexempt caregivers working at the Willow Springs Facility, the Empire Ranch Facility, and/or the Blossom Grove Facility at any time between April 30, 2016, through September 2, 2021." A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41pW1RB at no extra charge.[CC] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bader Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Jeffrey Bader, Brian Lloyd Fireng, Carrie Diane Huff, Joseph Samuel Sorge, Joshua Edward Sorge, Christine Ann Waters, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Kenvue Incorporated, Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Procter & Gamble, Case No. 2:23-cv-02108 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09253-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Dean Curtis, II, Esq. BURCH & CRACCHIOLO PA 1850 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 234-8760 Email: jcurtis@bcattorneys.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carrigan Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as James Carrigan, a consumer residing in Washington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., The Procter & Gamble Company, Walgreen Co., Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 2:23-cv-01481 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09319-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Ku, Esq. KU & MUSSMAN PA 18501 Pines Blvd., Ste. 209-A Pembroke Pines, FL 33029 Phone: (305) 891-1322 Fax: (305) 891-4512 Email: brian@kumussman.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Chavez Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Richard Chavez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, RB Health (US) LLC, Bayer Healthcare L.L.C., The Procter & Gamble Company, Church & Dwight Co. Inc., Walmart Inc., Target Corporation, CVS Pharmacy Inc., Walgreen Co., Albertsons Companies Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., John Does 1-200, Case No. 1:23-cv-00883 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09304-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Colon, Esq. Robert James Sanchez, Esq. Jacob Payne, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER 6501 Americas Parkway NE, Suite 670 Albuquerque, NM 87110-87301 Phone: (505) 270-2154 Email: bcolon@singletonschreiber.com rsanchez@singletonschreiber.com jacob.payne@state.nm.us JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Heaghney Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Heaghney, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, RB Health (US) LLC, Bayer Healthcare L.L.C., The Procter & Gamble Company, Walmart Inc., Walgreen Co., Target Corporation, CVS Pharmacy Inc., Dierbergs Markets, Inc., Price Chopper Foods, Incorporated, Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Does 1-20, Case No. 4:23-cv-01342 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09282-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Stephen McIntosh, Esq. 701 Market Street, Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 480-5180 Fax: (314) 932-1566 Email: ben.mcintosh@swmwlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Adrienne L. Byard, Esq. SHOOK HARDY LLP - Kansas City 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 474-6550 Fax: (816) 421-5547 Email: abyard@shb.com - and - Michael Klebanov, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP - DC 1801 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 378-2363 Email: michael.klebanov@huschblackwell.com - and - Tanner Cook, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP - St. Louis 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1500 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 480-1500 Email: tanner.cook@huschblackwell.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Isom Suit Transferred to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Andrew Isom, individually and, on behalf of those similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Kenvue Inc., Procter & Gamble Co., Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Wal-Mart Stores East 1, LP, Wal-Mart Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-04200 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09283-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron W. Smith, Esq. Ethan Charles Duckworth, Esq. A. W. SMITH LAW FIRM PC 2100 West Broadway Columbia, MO 65203 Phone: (573) 777-3333 Fax: (573) 443-7301 Email: aw@awsmithlaw.com ec@awsmithlaw.com - and - Kelly Wallis, Esq. KESPOHL, MCCRARY, & CORENJO, L.L.C. 1103 E. Walnut St. Columbia, MO 65201 Phone: (573) 443-2889 Fax: (573) 443-3889 Email: kelly@awsmithlaw.com JOY SIGNAL: Hardiman Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- MARK HARDIMAN, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOY SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23CV03426 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., December 8, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged systemic illegal employment practices that resulted in violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an Operator 1 from about April 19, 2022, to about March 30, 2023. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt, hourly employee. On or about March 28, 2023, Plaintiff received a termination notice from Defendants notifying him that he was laid off from his employment with Defendants effective on or about March 30, 2023. The Defendants laid off approximately 100 employees but did not provide any other notices aside from the termination notice to other employees who were laid off in March 2023, says the Plaintiff. Joy Signal Technology, LLC was and is an Ohio limited liability company that maintains operations and does business in the State of California, including in Butte County, California. The company manufactures and sells custom cables and connectors to original equipment manufacturers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. Mai Tulyathan, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com mgavron@diversitylaw.com ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com - and - Manny Starr, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, #2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com KANDLE DINING: Class Action Settlement in Bodi Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAINA BODI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KANDLE DINING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02491-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn A. Starnella entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to certify class for settlement purposes, to preliminarily approve class and collection action settlement, and to authorize notice to settlement lass be amended as follows: 1. CAC will create a website for Putative Class Members which will contain copies of the Notice, Consent, and Opt-Out Forms, and allow Putative Class Members to submit their forms electronically through the website. CAC will add its email contact information to the Notices. 2. CAC will send out notice on Friday, December 8, 2023, to all putative class members in English and Spanish via mail, email, text, and Whatsapp. 3. On December 22, 2023, CAC will provide Class Counsel with a list of putative Class Members who have not submitted their consent form and Class Counsel will be permitted to research and attempt to contact putative class members to confirm contact information. Class counsel will provide updated information to CAC. 4. On January 5, 2024, CAC will send out a second round of Notice in Spanish and English via email, text, and Whatsapp. 5. The putative class members will have until January 23, 2024, to submit their consent and/or opt-out forms. This date is 45 days from December 8, 2023. 6. The Parties will then file a joint motion seeking final approval on or before February 6, 2024, 15 days prior to the currently scheduled Final Fairness Hearing. Kandle Dining is a certified Women Owned Small Business with a focus on food service management for camps and conference centers. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rpg1PI at no extra charge.[CC] KELLY SERVICES: $3.15M Deal in Wage and Hour Suit Granted Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Staffing Industry Analysts reports that A federal judge on Dec. 11 granted preliminary approval to a proposed $3.15 million settlement in a class action lawsuit between Kelly Services Inc. and groups of recruitment personnel across four states, according to court records. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege Kelly violated wage and hour laws by classifying employees who worked in certain recruiter positions as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. One of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Aliah Larry, first filed a complaint in federal court in April 2020, though the case was later transferred to Michigan. Kelly denies any wrongdoing in the settlement, according to court records. The company said it did not have comment on this case. Included in the class action are groups of recruitment personnel in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Illinois and California who worked for Kelly Services through the time of the preliminary approval of the settlement. For workers in Kentucky, the group includes those who worked at Kelly any time between June 28, 2016, and the time of the preliminary settlement. For those in Pennsylvania, the starting date was June 28, 2018, while the starting date for those in Illinois was Dec. 19, 2019, and for those in California the starting date was June 28, 2017. Larry, et al. v. Kelly Services Inc., US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 2:20-CV-11481-DPH-EAS. [GN] KOKO WINES INC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koko Wines, Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Koko Wines, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09371 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Koko Wines Inc. is a liquor license holder in Brooklyn licensed by the Licensing Bureau of New York State Liquor Authority (NYSLA).[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 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: CPAP $479M Class Suit Settlement Claims Opened ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bianca Prieto of DrugWatch reports that people who used certain recalled Philips CPAP devices may now file for compensation as part of a settlement agreement for a class action lawsuit. In September, Philips agreed to a $479 million settlement plan that would compensate people who bought, leased or rented specific CPAP, BiPAP or ventilator devices impacted by a June 2021 recall. "This settlement ensures the millions of Americans who purchased defective Philips devices receive significant financial compensation," the attorneys for the plaintiffs said in a statement to CBS News. As part of the class action CPAP lawsuit settlement, eligible claimants can receive money for Philips CPAP machines recalled because sound abatement foam inside the device failed and was inhaled or swallowed by users. A settlement website has been established to help CPAP users navigate eligibility and determine benefits. The claim filing period opened on Dec. 11 and is expected to close in August 2024. This class action settlement, still pending final approval from a judge, does not impact Philips CPAP lawsuits for personal injury or medical monitoring. Compensation for Users of Eligible CPAP Devices About 11 million Philips devices were recalled in 2021 when polyester-based polyurethane foam insulation degraded and sent toxic fumes and particles into users' mouths and airways, resulting in respiratory and carcinogenic effects. The FDA received roughly 105,000 complaints about the foam inside the CPAP machines. Of these, 385 included deaths. Many devices initially replaced during the recall were incorrectly refurbished, leading to secondary recalls. People who purchased, leased or rented affected devices may be eligible for compensation up to $1,500 per device. Recalled devices include: System One 50 Series ASV4 (Auto SV4) System One 50 Series Base System One 50 Series BiPAP System One 60 Series ASV4 (Auto SV4) System One 60 Series Base System One 60 Series BiPAP C-series S/T, AVAPS (C-series and C-series HT) DreamStation CPAP DreamStation ASV DreamStation ST, AVAPS DreamStation BiPAP DreamStation Go E30 OmniLab Advanced Plus Trilogy 100/200, Garbin Plus, Aeris LifeVent V30 Auto Source: Amended Class Settlement Agreement Eligible users may be entitled to a device payment award, a device return award and/or a device replacement award. To determine eligibility, Philips CPAP users can go to the settlement's website. Recent Issues with Philips CPAP Devices An estimated 30 million people in the U.S. have sleep apnea, but only about 6 million are diagnosed, according to the American Medical Association. The recalls may have led to a CPAP replacement shortage and hundreds of thousands of patients have yet to receive replacements. The machines remain plagued by issues. Last month, the FDA warned that some Philips CPAP machines could overheat and cause a fire. The agency received 270 medical device reports, or MDRs, associated with thermal issues from people using the Philips DreamStation 2 CPAP machines between Aug. 1 and Nov. 15. In the prior three years, the agency only received 30 such reports. The company maintains that its devices are safe. Philips has not commented on the pending settlement. [GN] KOSHERICA LLC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kosherica LLC. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Kosherica LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-11055 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kosherica Kosher Cruises -- https://kosherica.com/ -- is the leader in jewish travel offering 2024 kosher cruises & passover vacations while upholding the traditional kosher lifestyle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal LAWTON, OK: Wilson Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Lawton, et al. The case is styled as Rashawn Wilson, on behalf of individuals who are similarly situated v. City of Lawton, John Ratliff, Timothy Wilson, Richard Franz, Nicholas Flores, Patrick Bellamy, Brandon Brecker, in their official capacity, Case No. 5:23-cv-01165-R (W.D. Okla., Dec. 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights Act. Lawton -- https://www.lawtonok.gov/ -- is a city in southwest Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason D. Sapp, Esq. SAPP LAW LLC 75 W. Lockwood Avenue, Suite 222 Webster Groves, MO 63119 Phone: (314) 782-3500 Fax: (314) 782-3400 Email: jason@sapplawllc.com LEADER CONSULTING: Fails to Pay OT Premium, Roof Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ROOF, individually and for others similarly situated v. LEADER CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01280 (W.D.N.Y., December 8, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Leader Consulting Services, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. Plaintiff Roof worked for LSC as a Safety Specialist at nuclear and power plants across the country from approximately September 2003 until February 2021. Throughout his employment, LSC paid Roof straight time for overtime. Thus, the Defendant deprived him of the "time and a half" overtime premium he is owed for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Buffalo, NY, LSC is a full service environmental consulting and health and safety consulting firm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hunter Benharris, Esq. Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - 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 LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Aley Seeks Notice for Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA ALEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, v. LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00330-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting notice of motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. LightFire is a full-service, business-to-consumer marketing, advertising and branding firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/472erce at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Aley Seeks to Seal Unredacted Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA ALEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, v. LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00330-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff Aley moves to seal an unredacted version of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff requests that the Court permit the filing of the unredacted Motion under seal and make the redacted version, together with the proposed sealing order available for public inspection, pursuant to the dictates of Local Rule 5.3. LightFire is a full-service, business-to-consumer marketing, advertising and branding firm. A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Np28zZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bids for Opt Out Extension in COI Suits Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denies motions for extension of time to opt out from the class in the lawsuits styled IN RE: LINCOLN NATIONAL COI LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP (E.D. Pa.), and IN RE: LINCOLN NATIONAL 2017 COI RATE LITIGATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-04150-GJP (E.D. Pa.). After more than six years of litigation over whether Lincoln National Corporation and Lincoln National Life Insurance Company breached their contracts with certain life-insurance policy owners, the parties agreed to settle these two class actions. In June 2023, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement class and the settlement between Lincoln and the Class Plaintiffs. Apollo Global Management is the beneficial owner of fifty-two policies in the class, with Apollo's securities intermediaries the policies' record owners. The day before the hearing for final approval of the class action settlement, and six weeks after the opt-out deadline, Apollo and its securities intermediaries (collectively "movants") filed motions for extension of time to opt out from the class. The Court granted them additional time to investigate the reasons for not timely opting out, and to file a renewed motion for extension of time to do so. After considering movants' initial and renewed motions, all accompanying filings and responses by the Plaintiffs and Lincoln, the Court denies the motions. Ruling otherwise on these facts would render class action settlement opt-out deadlines meaningless, Judge Pappert points out. On June 14, 2023, the Court preliminarily certified the settlement class, and preliminarily approved the settlement and the form and procedures for notice of the settlement to class members. Apollo, a private equity firm managing over $600 billion in assets, including life settlement portfolios, is the beneficial owner of fifty-two policies in the settlement class. Apollo's securities intermediaries--U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Wilmington Savings Fund Society and Wilmington Trust--act on behalf of Apollo and, in addition to the fifty-two policies at issue here, also serve as intermediaries for 375 other policyholders. Lincoln provided the settlement administrator retained by Class Plaintiffs, JND Legal Administration LLC, with a list of the owners and addresses of all 51,340 policies, including the Apollo policies. On July 5, 2023, the settlement administrator mailed the class notice via U.S Postal Service regular mail to those 51,340 class members. A total of 426 class notices were mailed to the securities intermediaries, none of which were returned to the settlement administrator as undeliverable. In addition to sending notices to all members of the settlement class, the settlement administrator created a website publicizing information related to the settlement, https://www.2016and2017coisettlement.com. The preliminarily approved settlement was also reported in the media, including in the April 3, 2023 issue of The Deal, a news source for the life settlement industry. The notice stated class members could opt out by submitting a request to the settlement administrator postmarked by Aug. 21, 2023, or commencing a lawsuit against Lincoln asserting claims that would have been resolved by the settlement, serving a copy of the pleading on Lincoln on or before Aug. 21, 2023. On Sept. 27, 2023, Apollo purportedly discovered that it and the securities intermediaries failed to remove Apollo's policies from the settlement class prior to the August 21 deadline. On Sept. 30, four days before the fairness hearing, movants' counsel notified Lincoln and Class Plaintiffs' lawyers of their intention to move for an extension of time to opt out of the settlement. They informed the Court of their plans on Oct. 2. Movants filed their initial motions for extension of time to opt out on Oct. 3. At the October 4 hearing, counsel could not explain their clients' failure to timely opt out from the settlement class. The Court granted movants additional time to complete their internal investigation and ordered them to file a renewed motion on or before Oct. 13. The Court subsequently approved the settlement and certified the class. Movants filed their renewed motions, which included details of Apollo's internal investigation. The investigation confirmed Apollo's receipt of notices for three policies from securities intermediary Wilmington Trust twenty days before the opt-out deadline, but concluded to the best of Apollo's knowledge it did not receive notices for the other forty-nine. Movants concede the reason for delay factor does not weigh in their favor, but urge the Court to minimize this and find excusable neglect, since Apollo only received notices for three policies and this is not a case where, for instance, a movant received fifty-two separate notices and disregarded all of them. The Court sees little value in this distinction, or movants' other attempts to downplay their failure to opt out. Judge Pappert opines that they provide no reason for this failure with respect to the notices they admit receiving for three of the policies. And even if movants did not receive any notice pertaining to the forty-nine other policies, that does not excuse the decision to take no action in response to the notices they did receive. Furthermore, the securities intermediaries never say they didn't receive any notices, or that they didn't forward any notice they did receive to Apollo. And when an intermediary is responsible for liaising between a settlement administrator and certain settlement class members, the failure of that liaison to provide timely notice is unconvincing evidence of excusable neglect, Judge Pappert holds. Movants contend the risk of prejudice to the parties of extending the opt-out deadline is minimal because the Plaintiffs, class members and Lincoln would be in the same position if the movants opted-out by the August 21 deadline for three reasons: (1) the exclusion of Apollo's fifty-two policies would not hit the threshold at which Lincoln would have the right to terminate the Settlement Agreement, (2) Lincoln would face the same number of opt-out lawsuits as if the movants had opted out by August 21, and (3) a concern of "copycat" opt-out requests is unwarranted since no other class members have moved for an extension of time to opt out. According to Judge Pappert, none of these arguments move the needle. Giving movants a do-over on these facts would prejudice the parties and vitiate the "excusable neglect" standard altogether. Deadlines for opting-out allow the settling parties certainty as to the size of the settlement amount and class, while letting them know which, if any, claims remain to be litigated. Allowing parties to opt out, well after the deadline for doing so and for no articulable reason, would erode that certainty and pave the way for those who may second guess a settlement to opt out of it for any or no reason. The length of the delay and its potential effect on judicial proceedings also militates against finding excusable neglect, Judge Pappert explains. Movants argue their delay in seeking to opt out was shorter than in other cases where the Third Circuit has granted extensions on "excusable neglect grounds." But the relevant question is the delay's effect on judicial proceedings. Granting this late opt-out request will leave open questions of who will be bound by the Settlement Agreement, and if and when these cases will be finally resolved, Judge Pappert says. And granting this late opt-out in particular--where sophisticated movants admit they received but overlooked at least three notices and have no explanation for what happened to notices for the other forty-nine policies--means the Court would have little to no grounds for denying future opt-outs, further extending litigation that took over six years to resolve. Finally, movants contend they acted in good faith because their failure to opt out by the deadline was an honest oversight and they have since "acted with all possible speed" to, among other things, investigate the cause of the failure, retain counsel and notify the parties and Court in advance of the fairness hearing, and take steps to cure their mistake while minimizing any potential prejudice to either the Class, Defendants, or their respective counsel. The Court appreciates the lawyers' diligence, but this does not equate to good faith on their clients' part. Again, Apollo acknowledges it received class notices for three policies from the securities intermediary Wilmington Trust, and these notices were "overlooked" for more than eight weeks, and six weeks after the opt-out deadline. Judge Pappert points out that movants do not present a compelling showing of good faith, let alone one that outweighs factors cutting against finding excusable neglect. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Dec. 4, 2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/5f25947yfrom PacerMonitor.com. LINE QUEST: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Michael Garcia, individually and for others similarly situated v. LINE QUEST, LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00208 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 20, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant. Like the other Salaried Line Locators, the Plaintiff regularly works more than 40 hours in a week. But the Defendant does pay the Plaintiff and its other Salaried Line Locators overtime. Instead, the Defendant uniformly misclassifies the Plaintiff and its other Salaried Line Locators as exempt and pays them a salary with no overtime compensation (the Defendant's "salary pay scheme"). The Defendant's salary pay scheme violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Salaried Line Locators of overtime wages they are owed for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Line Locator in and around Midland, Texas since May 2021. Line Quest bills itself as "a full-service damage prevention company specializing in providing utility and private line locating, GIS mapping and hydro services to multiple markets."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com LOWE'S HOME: Garrido Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowe's Home Centers, LLC. The case is styled as Alexis Garrido, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0013801 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 19, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Lowe's Home Centers Inc. -- https://www.lowes.com/ -- retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2540 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 201 La Crescenta, CA 91214-4583 Phone: 818-230-8380 Fax: 818-230-0308 Email: alvin@yeremianlaw.com Website: www.yeremianlaw.com LUMICO LIFE: Griffith-Sullivan Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lumico Life Insurance Company. The case is styled as Valerie Griffith-Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Lumico Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-10880-PKC (W.D. Ky., Dec. 14, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Lumico -- https://lumico.com/ -- is a leading provider of both Life & Medicare Supplement insurance policies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Peter Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT + SCOTT, L.L.P.( NYC) 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Fax: (212) 223-6334 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com MANARI CHAWLA: Krause Bid for Class Status Tossed as Premature -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krause et al v. Manari Chawla, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02307 (E.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered a miscellaneous relief order on motion to certify class: Accordingly, the court finds it necessary to order as follows: (1) Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as premature, without prejudice to plaintiffs filing a motion for class certification consistent with the deadlines that will be set forth in the scheduling order that this court will issue following a scheduling conference in this case; (2) The parties shall not engage in any formal discovery in this action until after the court issues a scheduling order to govern this case; (3) Because formal discovery has not yet begun, plaintiffs' notices of admitted matters are premature; (4) A scheduling conference will not be held until after the court rules on defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint; (5) Until a scheduling order issues, the parties shall not file any motions in this action without first obtaining leave of court to do so, with the exceptions that defendants may file their anticipated motion to dismiss in response to plaintiffs'36 first amended complaint; (6) Until a scheduling order issues, plaintiffs shall not file any documents in this case without first obtaining leave of court to do so, with the exception that plaintiffs may still file (i) a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, (ii) a response to the anticipated motion to dismiss, and (iii) any remaining briefing for defendants'26 33 motion to set aside entry of default; (7) Defendants' motions are granted in part, as provided; and (8) Defendants' motion to shorten time is denied as having been rendered moot by this order. The nature of suit states Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights.[CC] MCNEIL CONSUMER: Emmons Suit Transferred to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kathleen Emmons, Nathan Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Case No. 2:23-cv-03874 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09314-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. McNeil Consumer Healthcare is an American medicals products company belonging to Kenvue consumer health group.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, Pa 19103 Phone: (215) 963-0600 Fax: (215) 963-0838 Email: jgolan@barrack.com The Defendants are represented by: David F. Abernethy, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 Phone: (215) 988-2503 Fax: (215) 988-2757 Email: david.abernethy@faegredrinker.com - and - Allison S. Diciurcio, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 Tenth Street, N.W. Email: adiciurcio@cov.com - and - Courtney Devon Taylor, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 675-4618 Email: courtney.taylor@hoganlovells.com - and - Gregory T. Sturges, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1717 Arch Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 988-7820 Email: sturgesg@gtlaw.com - and - Austin Evans, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 572-4600 Fax: (404) 572-5100 Email: aevans@kslaw.com MERRILL LYNCH: McCrary Sues Over Alleged Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------- MARGARET MCCRARY, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10768-UA (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2023) alleges claims against Merrill Lynch for breach of contract. According to the complaint, Merrill breached the terms of the Client Relationship Agreement and other retirement account agreements and failed to pay investors a reasonable rate of interest on cash in retirement accounts. Rather, as market interest rates rose beginning in March 2022 and into 2023, Merrill paid tier 1 and 2 retirement account investors interest on their cash. Allegedly, Merrill consistently paid the lowest rates on swept cash of brokerage firms surveyed by Crane Data and BofA Securities, regardless of whether those brokerages swept cash to affiliated or unaffiliated banks. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks both monetary recovery commencing on March 17, 2022 and declaratory and injunctive relief. Headquartered in New York, NY, Merrill is a registered broker-dealer, member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corp. Among other things, Merrill operates the "Merrill Edge" self-directed online investment platform. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Adam J. Blander, Esq. Philip M. Black, Esq. Antoinette Adesanya, Esq. Emer Burke, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 MICROSOFT CORP: Court Certifies Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alanna Mayham of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on December 19, 2023 allowed a class to move forward with four claims against Microsoft and Qualtrics, after dismissing another five claims involving the two software companies' collection of private health data from Kaiser Permanente patients online. The underlying lawsuit from May accuses Microsoft and Qualtrics, which specializes in survey technology, of violating Kaiser members' right to privacy under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The unnamed California lead plaintiff claims the companies implemented code on Kaiser's patient portal to illegally extract information about her search history, health care appointments, medical records and communications with doctors. "Unbeknownst to Kaiser members, code on the Kaiser website includes software development kits ("SDKs") offered by defendants Microsoft and Qualtrics that intercept and collect Kaiser members' activity and their private medical data," the plaintiff writes in the complaint. In a subsequent motion to dismiss, however, Microsoft denied the existence of any "Microsoft SDKs," writing that the plaintiff may have confused the service with the company’s "universal event tracking" service. "Indeed, the UET service code enables website operators to understand how their websites are used in order to improve the websites and the advertisements shown on them, much like other similar website analytics and advertising offerings in the industry," Microsoft wrote in July. The company contends that its tracking service is "privacy-protective" by requiring website operators that use the code to comply with consent obligations, and by disclosing Microsoft's user data collection through the website operator's privacy policy. Microsoft also pointed to Kaiser's publicly available privacy statement, which states that Kaiser records data from anyone who uses its website, and that it may disclose its users’ personal information to third parties with services that improve Kaiser's business activities. Likewise, Qualtrics argued in its motion to dismiss that the company is "just a vendor whose sole purpose is to provide tools to customers" like Kaiser -- allowing them to collect and analyze their website data. "Qualtrics does nothing with this data for itself," Qualtrics wrote. "Unlike other third-party data companies that have been the subject of recent litigation, Qualtrics does not sell user data, use the data for advertising, or use the data for its own purposes. Qualtrics' business model is selling software services, not data." Qualtrics also argued that its Kaiser data is anonymous, thanks to a "randomized alphanumeric string" assigned to all Kaiser website users. "Consequently, though all of plaintiff's claims are premised on the collection of her personal identifiable information, she does not allege that Qualtrics collected anything that specifically and personally identifies plaintiff," Qualtrics added, echoing other similar arguments from Microsoft. Having considered the record since May, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour issued a ruling on December 19, 2203 dismissing the plaintiffs' claims of computer fraud, statutory larceny and conversion, as well as two counts under the California Invasion of Privacy Act so long as they relied on the basis of intentional wiretapping. Still in play are claims of unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and the state's constitutional right to privacy. In dismissing claims under sections 630 and 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act -- a law that prohibits the recording of confidential conversations without the consent of everyone involved -- Coughenour explained that the plaintiff "does not suggest that defendants tapped her communications using telegraph or telephone wires" beyond a conclusion that the companies intercepted private data that had been transmitted or passed through a wire, line or cable. Coughenour also dismissed the claims for Microsoft because the plaintiff could not prove that the company intercepted the contents of her communications with Kaiser. Yet Qualtrics was not so lucky in dodging the second claim under the act for penal code section 632 -- a decision that leaned on technicalities over what constitutes an "electronic amplifying or recording device" to collect information. Coughenour explained that, under case law, software like Google Maps or Chrome are not devices under the California act because they are not "equipment." Servers are different, though, Coughenour wrote, adding that while the lead plaintiff asserts that both companies broke the law by "using their SKDs and receiving servers," her complaint alleges that only Qualtrics used such servers while Microsoft used software. Furthermore, Coughenour rejected Qualtrics' argument blaming Kaiser for using a recording device and that it did not intend to record confidential information without consent. "The first argument is unpersuasive because plaintiff adequately pleads Qualtrics' use of a recording device," Coughenour wrote, adding that Qualtrics' alleged involvement was not as minimal as the case law it cites. Only the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and statutory larceny claims were dismissed with prejudice. Attorneys for Microsoft, Qualtrics and the plaintiff did not immediately respond to requests for comment. [GN] MIGUEL ANGEL CARDONA: Bradley Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Wilma J. Bradley, and others similarly situated v. Miguel Angel Cardona, Secretary of Education, Case No. 1:22-cv-03316 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-05862-SEG-CMS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Job Discrimination (Race). Miguel Angel Cardona is an American educator and is currently serving as the twelfth United States secretary of education under President Joe Biden since 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela M. Keith, Esq. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE 650 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste 600 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 800-0292 Fax: (202) 807-5725 Email: pleadings@centerforemploymentjustice.com The Defendants are represented by: Dedra S. Curteman, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE-DC 555 Fourth Street NW Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 252-2550 MIKE'S HOT HONEY: Suarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mike's Hot Honey, Inc. The case is styled as Alvin Suarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mike's Hot Honey, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10867-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mike's Hot Honey -- https://mikeshothoney.com/ -- is a food and beverage company that offers a chili, pepper-infused honey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Hanks Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Hanks, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-07136 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-06531-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jim S. Hall, Esq. Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. JIM S. HALL & ASSOCIATES 800 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 100 Metairie, LA 70001 Phone: (504) 832-3000 Email: jodi@jimshall.com mmoreland@jimshall.com MOONPAY USA LLC: Wilhelm Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Candice Wilhelm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MoonPay USA LLC, Case No. 2023CH09544 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 18, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-16894 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. MoonPay Inc. -- https://www.moonpay.com/ -- is a financial technology company that builds payments infrastructure for crypto.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Robert Collins, III, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 876-7700 Email: robert.collins@lw.com N.Y. WINE STORE: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against N.Y. Wine Store, Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. N.Y. Wine Store, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09376 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.[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 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Grace Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Grace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. National Association of Realtors, RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., Anywhere Real Estate Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Compass, Inc., eXp World Holdings, Inc., Bay Area Real Estate Information Services, Inc., Marin Association of Realtors, North Bay Association of Realtors, Northern Solano County Association of Realtors, Inc., and Solano Association of Realtors, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-06352 (N.D. Cal., December 8, 2023) alleges violations of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the gravamen of Plaintiff's claim is that the anti-competitive Bay Area Real Estate Information Services, Inc.'s multiple listing service (BAREIS MLS) rules require all home sellers to agree to make a blanket, unilateral and effectively non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property on the BAREIS MLS. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants participated in a conspiracy to restrain trade by requiring home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes, and to pay inflated commissions by agreeing to adopt, implement, and enforce the anticompetitive rules. The said conspiracy has had and continues to have multiple harmful and anticompetitive effects, including: (a) requiring sellers to pay overcharges for services provided by buyer brokers to the buyer; (b) raising and stabilizing buyer broker compensation at levels that would be lower in a competitive marketplace; and (c) encouraging and facilitating steering and other actions that impede innovation and entry by new and lower-cost real estate brokerage service providers. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, National Association of Realtors (NAR) is a lobbying group that advocates for the interests of real estate brokers. It has over 1.5 million individual members from whom it has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in dues and membership fees. The organization oversees 44 state and territorial realtor associations and over 1,200 local realtor associations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jill M. Manning, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 555 Montgomery St., Suite 1205 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 E-mail: jmanning@pwfirm.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Naveed Abaie, Esq. Eric J. Mont, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com bpouya@pwfirm.com nabaie@pwfirm.com emont@pwfirm.com - and - Douglas Millen, Esq. Robert Wozniak, Esq. Matthew Ruan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com mruan@fklmlaw.com NATURAL BODY INC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Natural Body, Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Natural Body, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09369 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Natural Body, Inc. -- https://naturalbodyinc.com/ -- offers everyday low prices on discount fitness and bodybuilding supplement.[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 NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Suit Over Racial Disparity, Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Strozniak of Within 72 hours after a CNN report claimed the $168 billion Navy Federal Credit Union showed the widest racial disparity in approval rates among the nation's 50 largest mortgage originators, a new class action lawsuit was filed by two members. The CNN report was posted on its website on Dec. 14. The lawsuit was filed by three law firms in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., on Dec. 17. The class action lawsuit, which alleges the Vienna, Va.-based Navy Federal violated the race discrimination provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunities Act and the Fair Housing Act, names Laquita Oliver and Cherelle Jacob as the plaintiffs, who were not in the CNN report. In response to the class action lawsuit, a Navy Federal spokesperson said: "Navy Federal is a not-for-profit credit union and a leading mortgage lender to the Black community. We care deeply about the concerns expressed in this case. Out of respect for the judicial process, we will address those concerns in court." A deeper statistical analysis by CNN found that Black applicants to Navy Federal were more than twice as likely to be denied as white applicants even when more than a dozen different variables - including income, debt-to-income ratio, property value, down payment percentage and neighborhood characteristics - were the same. Although CNN acknowledged in its report the analysis doesn't prove that Navy Federal discriminated against any borrowers, it did show significant disparities in the credit union's approval rates for borrowers of different races - and that it has larger racial gaps than many other large financial institutions. What's more, the national news outlet acknowledged that Navy Federal has been successful at lending to minority borrowers, noting that a fourth of its conventional mortgage applicants are Black, and about 18% of the conventional loans it originated went to Black borrowers - a larger portion than almost any other large lender. "But because of the large racial disparity in Navy Federal's approval rates, even though more Black borrowers are applying for conventional mortgage loans from the credit union, most of them are getting denied," according to CNN. The class action lawsuit called statistics in the CNN report "damning," noting that Navy Federal approved 77% of the mortgage applications for white applicants, but only 56% of the applications from Latino applicants and 48% of the applications from Black applicants. Navy Federal's mortgage approval rates for Asians and Native Americans were 69% and 64%, respectively. While the lawsuit extensively cited the CNN report, the 19-page class action complaint did not indicate whether the law firms conducted their own analysis to validate CNN's information, which used Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. The law firms, Liles Parker PLLC in Washington, D.C., Dicello Levitt LLP in Chicago and Ben Crump Law PLLC in Tallahassee Fla., did not respond to CU Times' request for comment. Navy Federal spokesperson Bill Pearson said in the CNN report that its analysis did not accurately reflect the credit union's practices because it did not account for "major criteria required by any financial institution to approve a mortgage loan." Those factors included "credit score, available cash deposits and relationship history with (the) lender," he told CNN. But that information is not available in the public mortgage data and Navy Federal declined to provide it to CNN. In addition, most of the Navy Federal applications that were denied were listed as being rejected for reasons other than "credit history." The CNN report also has come under fire from NAFCU, CUNA and the African American Credit Union Coalition, which argued the report is misleading. "Fair lending practices are foundational to the credit union mission; however, we acknowledge there is more work to be done to reduce disparities within our industry," the trade groups said in a prepared statement. "It's unfortunate that a recent CNN analysis misconstrued credit union mortgage lending data to paint an inaccurate picture and draw false conclusions about Navy Federal Credit Union, and the entire credit union industry. The CNN numbers failed to calculate a large number of factors, leading to a flawed headline and disingenuous narrative that misrepresents credit union mortgage lending." Nevertheless, the lawsuit's plaintiffs, Cherelle Jacob, a 40-year-old Black woman from Washington State and Laquita Oliver, a 44-year-old Black resident of Florida, claimed their Navy Federal mortgage applications had been denied even though they believed they qualified for those loans. Jacob and her husband, who serves in the military, earn $200,000 a year in wages, have no debt, have ample savings and both have "exceptional" credit scores above 800. They were attracted to banking with Navy Federal because of its convenience to military bases across the globe. In October 2023, they together sought a mortgage from Navy Federal to support the purchase of a modest family home. The application was denied, which upset Jacob, but she and her husband later secured a mortgage for the same property from a mortgage broker. Oliver makes approximately $100,000 per year in salary, has good credit, a history of home ownership and very little debt. She applied for an Navy Federal mortgage to buy a $400,000 home in August 2023. After a month-long application process - which included a hard pull of her credit that lowered her credit score and for which Navy Federal charged her a fee - she was denied. When she complained, Oliver was initially ignored and then told that she could "appeal" the denial, but that such "appeal" would lead to another hard pull of her credit. Rather than risk lowering her credit or incurring any additional fees, she gave up on attaining a mortgage, according to the lawsuit. Jacob and Oliver are suing Navy Federal for violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which makes it unlawful for a creditor to discriminate against any applicant with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction on the basis of race. They are also suing the credit union for race discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Zarkower Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN ZARKOWER, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, PETER FORTUNE, Individually, SALVATORE DIMAGGIO, Individually, ANDREW CHIN, Individually, PABLO DEJESUS, Individually, and JOHN and JANE DOE 1 through 50, Individually, (the names John and Jane Doe being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), Case No. 1:19-cv-03843-ARR-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James R. Cho entered an order: -- Conditionally certifying class, -- Appointing Class counsel, -- Preliminarily approving proposed settlement, -- Appointing claims administrator, -- Directing notice to Class members, and -- Scheduling a fairness hearing. 1. Preliminary approval is appropriate where the proposed settlement appears to be the "result of serious, informed, non- collusive ('arm's length') negotiations, where there are no grounds to doubt its fairness and no other obvious deficiencies and where the settlement appears to fall within the range of possible approval." 2. The Court preliminarily finds that the proposed Stipulation of Settlement is likely to be approved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and warrants providing notice of the terms of the proposed Stipulation of Settlement to the Settlement Class, and scheduling a Fairness Hearing for further review of the proposed Stipulation of Settlement. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4ag4UkJ at no extra charge.[CC] NORTON HEALTHCARE: Garrett Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norton Healthcare, Inc. The case is styled as Margaret Garrett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Norton Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00656-RGJ (W.D. Ky., Dec. 14, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Norton Healthcare -- https://nortonhealthcare.com/ -- is a Kentucky healthcare system with more than 40 clinics and hospitals in and around Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Carlynne A. Wagner, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD COLEMAN MONTOYA, PLLC 19 North Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 821-0656 Fax: (270) 825-1163 OPTIM HEARING: Connor Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optim Hearing LLC. The case is styled as Jay Connor, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Optim Hearing LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00358-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Optim Hearing are hearing aid providers that offer premium, high-quality hearing aids at affordable prices that you can try for free for 30 days.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven H. Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Road, NE Building 15, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 513-6651 Fax: (404) 549-4654 Email: Steve@KovalFirm.com OZONE DESIGN INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ozone Design, Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ozone Design, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10874 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ozone Design -- https://www.ozonesocks.com/ -- is a premier fashion sock company based in NYC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com PACIFICNORTHWEST NATURALS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PacificNorthwest Naturals LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PacificNorthwest Naturals LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10878 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. PacificNorthwest Naturals -- https://www.nwnaturals.com/ -- is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tree Top, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com PACIFICORP: Agrees to Settle Wildfires Class Suit for $250MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan Haas of OPB reports that for the second time this month, the utility provider PacifiCorp will pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to end a lawsuit over its alleged role in the devastating Oregon wildfires in 2020. In a filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2023, PacifiCorp announced it has reached a $250 million settlement with 10 timber companies to resolve a lawsuit they brought against the utility related to the Archie Creek Complex Fire in Southern Oregon. On Dec. 5, the Berkshire Hathaway-owned company dished out $299 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Southern Oregon residents who lost their homes and property in the same fire, bringing PacifiCorp's payouts this month to more than half a billion dollars. The timber lawsuit alleged PacifiCorp's employees, working at the Oregon utility Pacific Power, ignored warnings from the National Weather Service on Labor Day weekend in 2020 and continued to operate its electrical equipment rather than powering down. The suit also claimed the company failed to trim hazard trees and other vegetation that could have sparked power lines during the high winds that weekend. "The 2020 wildfires were undeniably tragic, and PacifiCorp is pleased to resolve this matter on behalf of our impacted customers and communities," the company said in an issued statement, adding that the threat of wildfires is larger than any single industry and there need to be "holistic solutions" to preventing catastrophic fires. The Texas-based law firm Watts Guerra represented the timber companies, as well as the individual property owners who settled with PacifiCorp in early December. "I am proud to have recovered fair and full damages for Oregon's timber industry who lost tens of thousands of acres of valuable timberlands in the Labor Day 2020 fires," attorney Mikal Watts said in a statement on December 18, 2023. As with the residential lawsuit settlement, Watts praised the leadership at PacifiCorp and Pacific Power for reaching a deal rather than taking the cases to trial. Watts said he hopes to work with PacifiCorp, Oregon lawmakers and utility regulators to eventually create a statewide risk pool for utilities that would allow victims to receive payouts without having to sue. California created a similar fund in 2019 following the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas & Electric due to wildfire payouts. The pool would see utility customers and utilities themselves pay in before fires happen. Such a fund would give utilities assurance that wildfires won't bankrupt them, and allow customers to receive compensation much faster than the years it took to reach on December 18, 2023's settlement. "I say, you don't want to be one of my clients," Watts told OPB. "It means something terribly bad happened to you. And hopefully Oregon will not see a day like it did over Labor Day of 2020 because we are going to stop it from happening again." PacifiCorp's approach to lawsuits stemming from the Labor Day wildfires has varied, and many legal battles remain. Over the spring, the company spent months trying to convince jurors its equipment was not responsible for devastating wildfires in Western Oregon. The company failed to sway those jurors and ended up being billed for about $90 million in damages to 17 plaintiffs. That trial also left the door open for untold millions more in payouts as related class action cases will proceed next year. PacifiCorp has vowed to appeal the jury's decision to find them culpable in those fires. Pacific Power is also not finished with several lawsuits brought by Watts' firm. Attorneys are seeking damages from PacifiCorp for its potential role in the 2020 Slater Fire along the Oregon border with California. Wine growers in the Willamette Valley have also claimed that Pacific Power should compensate them for smoke damage to their crops in 2020. More recently, Watts Guerra took on a lawsuit against PacifiCorp for its role in the 2022 McKinney Fire, which also burned near the Oregon-California border and allegedly started underneath a powerline. [GN] PAPA TEXAS: Myers Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ---------------------------------------------- LUKE MYERS, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA TEXAS, LLC; GUILLERMO PERALES; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; JOHN DOE 1-10; Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01096 (D.N.M., December 8, 2023) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendants have allegedly taken unauthorized deductions from the delivery drivers' wages, have failed to pay the delivery drivers all wages due, and have been unjustly enriched by the delivery drivers' incurring automobile expenses for their benefit. Papa Texas, LLC owns and operates Papa John’s Pizza stores in New Mexico. It is owned and operated by Guillermo Perales. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Moody, Esq. MOODY & STANFORD, P.C. Albuquerque, NM 87199 Telephone: (505) 944-0033 Facsimile: (505) 944-0034 E-mail: moody@nmlaborlaw.com - and - Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com Website: www.billerkimble.com PATHWARD NA: Fields Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA FIELDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATHWARD, N.A. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-13058-ADB (D.Mass., December 12, 2023) arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated the highly-sensitive consumer data of Plaintiff, and nearly 800,000 Class members, asserting claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, bailment, and breach of fiduciary duty. According to the notice letter sent to Plaintiff Melissa Fields, Defendant Pathward and/or its third-party service providers used software made by Defendant Progress Software Corporation's (MOVEit), which was subject to a cybersecurity attack that allowed unauthorized parties to access and compromise Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information between May 28 and 29, 2023. Headquartered in South Dakota, Pathward, N.A. is a federally registered financial institution that provides banking infrastructure and technology resources to its third-party financial partners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven B. Rotman, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 207-0600 Facsimile: (617) 830-8312 E-mail: srotman@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. B. Annabelle Emuze, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com aemuze@hausfeld.com PEACOCK TV LLC: Weiss Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel Weiss, McKenzie Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peacock TV LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-61956 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-11037-PAC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Peacock -- http://www.peacocktv.com/-- is an American over-the-top video streaming service owned and operated by Peacock TV LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 628-5793 Fax: (954) 507-9974 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 905-6911 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Nury Agudo Siekkinen ZWILLGEN PLLC 1900 M St NW, Ste. 250 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 706-5229 Email: nury@zwillgen.com PINNACLE TOO: Fact Discovery Deadline in Charles Due Jan. 5 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles v. Pinnacle Too, LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04232-DEH-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer E. Willis entered an order granting the Parties' request extending the fact discovery deadline set forth in the Court's November 2, 2023 Order, an adjournment of Defendants' deadline to oppose Plaintiff's Motion on Class Certification and Final Collective Certification, and approval of the Parties' briefing schedule in connection with such motions. -- The fact discovery deadline is now: Jan. 5, 2024 -- Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's Jan. 23, 2024 Motion on Class Certification and Final Collective Certification is due on: -- Plaintiff's Reply on: Feb. 6, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4akFaUh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com PRECISION IMAGING: Sharfman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC IRWIN SHARFMAN M.D., P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. PRECISION IMAGING ST. AUGUSTINE LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and HALO DX, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 6:22-cv-00642-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for Plaintiff to file its motion for class certification to January 5, 2024. On Nov. 27, 2023, Precision served its Supplemental Answers and Objections to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories, producing as Exhibit A an Excel spreadsheet which purports provides responsive information. On December 4, 2023, the Defendants' counsel stated that the deposition could not proceed on December 8, 2023, because the Defendants' counsel was still trying to determine the witnesses with the most knowledge regarding the topics in the Rule 30(b)(6) Notice. The case challenges Defendants Precision and Halo's alleged practice of sending unsolicited advertisements by fax in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"). On August 9, 2023, this Court entered an order setting December 22, 2023, as the discovery deadline and the deadline for Plaintiff to file its motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's unopposed motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47JmIDf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Depaola Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kristin Depaola, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00727 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09058-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George T. Williamson, Esq. FARR FARR EMERICH HACKETT CARR & HOLMES PA 99 Nesbit St Punta Gorda, FL 33950 Phone: (941) 639-1158 Fax: (941) 639-0028 Email: gwilliamson@farr.com - and - David J. Stanoch, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 524-5777 Email: d.stanoch@kanner-law.com - and - Marlene J. Goldenberg, Esq. NIGH GOLDENBERG RASO & VAUGHN PLLC 14 Ridge Square, Third Floor Washington, DC 20016 Phone: (202) 978-2228 - and - Ruben Honik, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, PC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 985-9177 Fax: (215) 985-4169 Email: rhonik@golombhonik.com The Defendants are represented by: Bruce J. Berman, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA 2 MiamiCentral 700 NW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200 Miami, FL 33136 Phone: (305) 530-0050 Fax: (305) 530-0055 Email: bberman@carltonfields.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Enriquez Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Greg Enriquez, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., Walgreen Co., Case No. 3:23-cv-05715 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09260-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY 40 Worth Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 201-6820 Fax: (917) 398-7753 Email: abarnett@cpmlegal.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 3550 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Fax: (612) 338-4692 - and - Adam J. Zapala, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Kleiman Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cathy Kleiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., Walgreen Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-00590 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09305-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Baker, Esq. THE BAKER LAW GROUP 89 E. Nationwide Blvd., Ste. 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 228-1882 Fax: (614) 228-1862 Email: andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.net - and - Paul Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN WILLEY & ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann St Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 614-8888 Email: pauld@akimlawfirm.com blake@akimlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Kendall Tappan Burchard, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 662-5131 Email: kburchard@cov.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Lee Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Lee, Toni Heuchan, Jonathan Brandman, Michelle Garza, Cece Davenport, individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Helen Of Troy Limited, Case No. 2:23-cv-21126 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09294-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 111 W. Washington, STE 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 750-1265 Email: katrina@lcllp.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Morgan Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cody Morgan, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-24628 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09266-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Andrew Burns, Esq. MOSTYN LAW-HOUSTON TX 3810 W Alabama Street Houston, TX 77027 Phone: (713) 714-0000 Email: epefile@mostynlaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Taylor Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joy Taylor, Anthony Coleman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Walmart, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04909 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09258-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Philip Pifko, Esq. Roland Tellis, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard Encino Plaza, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 839-2333 Fax: (818) 986-9698 Email: mpifko@baronbudd.com rtellis@baronbudd.com PROVIDENCE HEALTH: More Time to File Class Cert Bid OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE ANGULO, et al., v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES – WASHINGTON, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00915-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered an order granting the parties' stipulated motion for an extension of time and granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to amend. The Clerk is directed to re-note Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for January 19, 2024. Providence is a not-for-profit Catholic health care system operating multiple hospitals and medical clinics across seven states. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47Xm9G4 at no extra charge.[CC] PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE ANGULO, a single person, ERIC KELLER, a single person, ISABEL LINDSEY and CHARLES LINDSEY, a married couple, and CHRISTINE BASH, individually and as a personal representative of the ESTATE OF STEVEN BASH, v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES – WASHINGTON, a non-profit Washington corporation, also d/b/a PROVIDENCE ST. MARY MEDICAL CENTER; DR. JASON A. DREYER, D.O., and JANE DOE DREYER, husband and wife and the marital community thereof; DR. DANIEL ELSKENS, D.O., and JANE DOE ELSKENS, husband and wife and the marital community thereof; and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, and any martial communities thereof, Case No. 2:22-cv-00915-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the parties agree and stipulate as follows: 1. The Defendants will not oppose Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and for substitution, and the filing of Plaintiffs' proposed Third Amended Complaint (subject to Court approval); 2. The Plaintiffs agree (subject to Court approval) to extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Third Amended Complaint until the later of three weeks after filing and service of the Third Amended Complaint or January 12, 2024; 3. The Plaintiffs agree to remove their Motion to Certify Class (currently noted for December 22, 2023) to January 19, 2024. The Plaintiffs agree that Defendants shall have until January 12, 2024, to file responses to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. Providence is a not-for-profit Catholic health care system operating multiple hospitals and medical clinics across seven states. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v6y3i6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth M. Bollinger, Esq. William A. Gilbert, Esq. GILBERT LAW FIRM, P.S. 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 353 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 321-0750 E-mail: bill@wagilbert.com beth@wagilbert.com The Defendants are represented by: Ross Siler, Esq. Kenneth E. Payson, Esq. Caleah Whitten, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 E-mail: kenpayson@dwt.com ross.siler@dwt.com caleahwhitten@dwt.com - and - Ryan M. Beaudoin, Esq. Jeffrey R. Galloway, Esq. James A. McPhee, Esq. Bryce J. Wilcox, Esq. Steven J. Dixson, Esq. WITHERSPOON BRAJCICH MCPHEE, PLLC 601 W. Main Avenue, Suite 1400 Spokane, WA 99201-0677 Telephone: (509) 455-9077 E-mail: rbeaudoin@workwith.com jgalloway@workwith.com jmcphee@workwith.com bwilcox@workwith.com sdixson@workwith.com - and – Stephen M. Lamberson, Esq. Ronald A. Van Wert, Esq. ETTER, MCMAHON, LAMBERSON, VAN WERT & ORESKOVICH, P.C. 618 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 210 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 747-9100 E-mail: lambo74@ettermcmahon.com rvw@ettermcmahon.com RB HEALTH: Murdock Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lateef Murdock, Gwen Lewi, Marcel Perez Pirio, Layne Barter, Jose Cortez Hernandez, Robert Lundin, Jaedon Daniels, Mychael Willon, Amy Weinberg, Dimitri Lamdon, Elie El Rai, Tatyana Dekhtyar, Olivia Rodesta, Lauren Debeliso, Lorette Kenney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RB Health (US), LLC, Bayer Healthcare L.L.C., Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Kenvue Inc., Procter & Gamble Company, Haleon PLC, Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-05846 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09279-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. RB Health (US) -- https://www.reckitt.com/ -- is home to the world's most loved and trusted hygiene, health and nutrition brands.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reagan Charleston Thomas, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS, AND OVERHOLTZ 17 E. Main Street #200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (985) 778-8134 Email: rthomas@awkolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jasmine Wei-Ming Wetherell, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP (LA-CENTURY CITY) 1888 Century Park East, Ste. 1700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-1721 Phone: (310) 788-9900 Fax: (310) 788-3399 Email: jwetherell@perkinscoie.com - and - Ross E. Bautista, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 720-5700 Fax: (858) 720-5799 Email: rbautista@perkinscoie.com RB HEALTH: Scoffier Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Richard Scoffier, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-20529 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09288-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. RB Health (US) -- https://www.reckitt.com/ -- is home to the world's most loved and trusted hygiene, health and nutrition brands.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ruben Honik, Esq. Golomb & Honik, PC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 985-9177 Fax: (215) 985-4169 Email: rhonik@golombhonik.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory Joseph Hindy, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP Four Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 622-4444 Email: ghindy@mccarter.com RB HEALTH: Striegel Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Annette Striegel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-20552 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09289-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. RB Health (US) -- https://www.reckitt.com/ -- is home to the world's most loved and trusted hygiene, health and nutrition brands.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip Furia, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (201) 744-0064 Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory Joseph Hindy, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP Four Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 622-4444 Email: ghindy@mccarter.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Grimsley Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Darrell Wayne Grimsley, Jr., Van Gandy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare L.L.C., RB Health (US) LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-24588 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09265-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Reckitt Benckiser LLC -- https://www.reckitt.com/ -- manufactures cleaning products. The Company produces cleaners, disinfectants, and deodorizers for household use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter J. Mougey, Esq. LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY - PENSACOLA FL 316 S. Baylen Street Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 435-7000 Fax: (850) 436-6068 Email: pmougey@levinlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP - MIAMI FL 600 Brickell Ave., Ste. 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 459-6633 Fax: (305) 459-6550 Email: alvin.lindsay@hoganlovells.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Jones Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mari Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-04807 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09256-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Reckitt Benckiser LLC -- https://www.reckitt.com/ -- manufactures cleaning products. The Company produces cleaners, disinfectants, and deodorizers for household use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Kanner, Esq. KANNER AND WHITELEY LLC 701 Camp St New Orleans, LA 70130-3504 Phone: (504) 524-5777 Fax: (504) 524-5763 Email: a.kanner@kanner-law.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Nyanjom Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Harold Nyanjom, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare L.L.C., Case No. 2:23-cv-02426 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09277-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Reckitt Benckiser LLC -- https://www.reckitt.com/ -- manufactures cleaning products. The Company produces cleaners, disinfectants, and deodorizers for household use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth K. Jones, Esq. Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. Barton and Burrows, LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Phone: (913) 563-6256 Email: seth@bartonburrows.com stacy@bartonburrows.com The Defendants are represented by: Adrienne L. Byard, Esq. SHOOK HARDY LLP - Kansas City 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 474-6550 Fax: (816) 421-5547 Email: abyard@shb.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Silva Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joanne Silva, on behalf of herself and all others Moreno similarly situated v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Procter & Gamble Company, GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Kenvue Inc., Walgreens Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-24112 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09268-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Reckitt Benckiser LLC -- https://www.reckitt.com/ -- manufactures cleaning products. The Company produces cleaners, disinfectants, and deodorizers for household use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cristina M. Moreno, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 99 NE 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 961-9180 - and - Scott Brian Cosgrove, Esq. Derek Eduardo Leon LEON COSGROVE LLP 255 Alhambra Circle-8th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 740-1975 Fax: (305) 437-8158 Email: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com dleon@leoncosgrove.com RED HOOK TAVERN: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Hook Tavern, LLC. The case is styled as Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Red Hook Tavern, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09368 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Red Hook Tavern, LLC -- https://www.redhooktavern.com/ -- is a classic American plates inspired by iconic NYC haunts are served in a warm, wood-accented space.[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 RITE AID: Parker Suit Transferred to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rachel Parker, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, GSK Consumer Healthcare Inc., Walgreen Co., GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, Bayer Healthcare L.L.C., Case No. 2:23-cv-03663 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09311-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Rite Aid Corporation -- http://www.riteaid.com/-- is an American drugstore chain based in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ruben Honik, Esq. Golomb & Honik, PC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 985-9177 Fax: (215) 985-4169 Email: rhonik@golombhonik.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory T. Sturges, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1717 Arch Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 988-7820 Email: sturgesg@gtlaw.com - and - Karl Gunderson, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2379 Email: karl.gunderson@kirkland.com - and - Ilana H. Eisenstein, Esq. DLA Piper LLP (US) 1650 Market Street, Suite 5000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 656-3300 RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Crews Wins Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibits -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LARRY CREWS, JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' application for leave to file partially under seal certain portions of certain exhibits in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The following documents or portions of documents shall be maintained under seal: Document Portion to Be Filed Under Seal Ex. 3: Deposition transcript of FE-1 Name of FE-1 Ex. 4: Deposition transcript of FE-3 Name of FE-3 Ex. 5: Deposition transcript of FE-4 Name of FE-4 Rivian is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive technology and outdoor recreation company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48d1RYE at no extra charge.[CC] ROBINSON ECONOMIC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Loans ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action claims the companies behind ClearAirLending.com have issued "predatory and unlawful" loans to Illinois residents while fraudulently hiding behind tribal sovereign immunity to sidestep state interest rate caps. The 19-page case was filed by an Illinois resident who, in August 2023, obtained a $500 loan from the online lender with an annual percentage rate of more than 699 percent. As the lawsuit tells it, the companies in charge of making, funding and collecting on Clear Air Lending loans -- including defendants Robinson Economic Services, Robinson Economic Development Corporation and CT2022 -- regularly issue loans to individuals in Illinois at excessively high interest rates. However, the filing alleges that the defendants lack the proper licensure from the state Department of Financial and Professional Regulations that would otherwise allow them to make loans to Illinois residents with interest rates that exceed nine percent. Under state law, loans made by an unlicensed entity with interest rates that surpass nine percent are "void and unenforceable," and those made with interest rates higher than 20 percent are considered a felony, the suit says. According to the complaint, the defendants have attempted to evade prosecution under Illinois usury laws by engaging in a so-called "rent-a-tribe" scheme, which is an "elaborate charade" frequently adopted by online lenders whereby they claim their otherwise illegal businesses are entitled to the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes. Although Robinson Economic Development Corporation purports to be "an economic development arm" of the Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, the Native American Indian tribe has, in reality, "no meaningful control over the business, how it is operated, who it lends to, and so forth," the case alleges. "Any tribal involvement does not go beyond the hiring of a handful of tribal members to work as phone customer service representatives or similar low-level jobs," the filing says, claiming that Clear Air Lending is overwhelmingly run by and for the benefit of non-tribal members. "Where non-tribal individuals and entities control and manage the substantive lending functions, provide the lending capital necessary to support the operation, and bear the economic risk associated with the operation, they are not in fact 'operated' by Native American tribes and, therefore, are not shielded by sovereign immunity," the complaint says. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Illinois to whom a loan was made through ClearAirLending.com at more than nine percent interest and which has yet to be paid in full. [GN] SAN FRANCISCO, CA: E.J. Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City and County of San Francisco, et al. The case is styled as E. J., through his mother and guardian Sophia Chumley; L. R., through her mother and guardian Gwen Lee; C. L., through her mother and guardian Naomi Lopez; J. T., through her father and guardian Samer Tawasha; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. City and County of San Francisco, William Scott, Thomas Harvey, Matt Sullivan, Case No. 3:23-cv-06524-LJC (N.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights Act. San Francisco -- https://www.sf.gov/ -- officially the City and County of San Francisco, is the commercial, financial, and cultural center of Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mara E. Verheyden-Hilliard, Esq. PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 617 Florida Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 232-1180 Email: mvh@justiceonline.org - and - Rachel Lederman, Esq. PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 1720 Broadway, Suite 430 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 508-4955 Email: rachel.lederman@justiceonline.org SANYO FOODS: Shin Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sue Shin, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Sanyo Foods Corp. of America, Takeo Sato, Does 1 through 10, Case No. 23STCV27571 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 14, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10485-SVW-MRW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Sanyo Foods America -- https://sanyofoodsamerica.com/ -- offers an ever expanding line of instant soups and noodles to delight consumer tastes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Hong, Esq. JUAN HONG LAW OFFICES 4199 Campus Drive Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (949) 334-7710 Fax: (949) 335-6647 Email: jhong48@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley Song, Esq. Caitlin Comstock Blanche, Esq. K AND L GATES LLP 1 Park Plaza, 12th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 253-0900 Fax: (949) 253-0902 Email: ashley.song@klgates.com Caitlin.Blanche@klgates.com SAVVY BISTRO: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Savvy Bistro and Bar, Inc. The case is styled as Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Savvy Bistro and Bar, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09356 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Savvy Bistro and Bar -- https://savvybistro.com/ -- is an authentic Caribbean fusion cuisine featuring an intricate blend of spices, meats, and seafood.[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 SELENE FINANCE: Court to Set New Deadline for Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTEL ENGLAND, KAREN MEYERS, and ANGELA JOYNERPERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Case No. 1:23-cv-00847-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake entered an order granting Plaintiffs motion pursuant to Local Rules 6.1(a), 7.3(j) and 23.1(b) for relief from the 90-day class certification deadline set forth in the Local Rules. -- The time for performance has not yet expired and Plaintiffs have shown good cause therefore in the motion. -- The Plaintiffs are granted relief from the 90 deadline for filing class certification and the Court will set a new date along with the proposed scheduling order to be submitted following the Rule 26(f) conference. Selene Finance operates as a residential mortgage company. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47WYC80 at no extra charge.[CC] SHARED IMAGING: Court Certifies Settlement Deal in Ranger Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONICA RANGER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SHARED IMAGING, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00401-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kendall J. Newman entered an order that: -- The Settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, and so the Settlement Agreement is certified. Settlement terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement are approved; -- John T. Stralen and Joshua H. Watson of Clayeo C. Arnold, PC are appointed as class counsel and Plaintiff Monica Range is appointed as class representative for purposes of concluding the Settlement in accordance with the Order and the Settlement Agreement; -- The class defined in the for settlement purposes; -- All Settlement Class Members are bound by this Settlement Order and Judgment and by the Settlement embodied, including the Releases provided for in the Settlement and this Settlement Order and Judgment. -- Class Counsel's application for an award of fees of $192,000 and costs of $1,815 are granted; -- Plaintiff Monica Ranger's request for Service Award in the amount of $10,000.00 is granted; -- The $8,500 administrator fees of the Settlement Administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., are approved pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; -- Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this action is dismissed with prejudice; and -- Without affecting the finality of this Settlement Order and Judgment, the Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties to the Settlement, including Defendant and Settlement Class Members, to administer, supervise, construe and enforce the Settlement in accordance with its terms for the mutual benefit of the Parties. The Plaintiff alleges in the Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") she worked for defendant Shared Imaging part-time from January 2019 through the present as a nuclear medicine technologist "safely conduct[ing] positron emission tomography ("PET") scans" for Kaiser health physicians. She alleges that due to the nature of the work, including defendant’s setting of her work schedule and her patients’ inefficiencies, it was impossible for her to take meal or rest breaks despite regularly working 13+ hour shifts. She alleges defendant failed to pay overtime wages and required her to use her personal phone for business purposes without compensation. Shared Imaging provides healthcare services. The Company offers diagnostic imaging including CT, MRI, PET, DR, and clinical support solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v0hFQs at no extra charge.[CC] SLOPE GROUP: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Slope Group, LLC. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Slope Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09352 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Slope -- https://slopepay.com/ -- is a B2B financial platform that offers a variety of payment alternatives while being paid immediately.[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 SN SERVICING: Koontz Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Koontz, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated v. SN Servicing Corporation, Land Home Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 23-C-98 was removed from the Circuit Court of Marshall County, WV, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00363-JPB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. SN Servicing Corporation -- https://www.snsc.com/ -- is a loan acquisition, servicing, and real estate investment company in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Denali Skye Hedrick, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 940-9809 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Email: dhedrick@baileyglasser.com jmarshall@baileyglasser.com - and - Jason E. Causey, Esq. BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC 1358 National Rd Wheeling, WV 26003 Phone: (304) 242-8410 Fax: (304) 242-3936 Email: jcausey@bordaslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Alex J. Zurbuch, Esq. Blake N. Humphrey, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD, LLC 500 Virginia Street E., Suite 1100 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 614-3349 Email: azurbuch@fbtlaw.com bhumphrey@fbtlaw.com - and - Nicholas P. Mooney, II, Esq. Tai Shadrick Kluemper, Esq. SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE PLLC 300 Kanawha Blvd. E. P. O. Box 273 Charleston, WV 25321-0273 Phone: (304) 340-3860 Fax: (304) 340-3801 Email: nmooney@spilmanlaw.com tshadrick@spilmanlaw.com SOLID WASTE: Jones Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER JONES, v. SOLID WASTE SERVICES, INC., d/b/a J.P. MASCARO & SONS, Case No. 5:23-cv-02648-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class action and designating his counsel as class representative. 1. Lead Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant programmatically fails and refuses to pay overtime to its employees while requiring them to work more than forty hours every workweek. 2. Lead Plaintiff, Jennifer Jones, therefore sues under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for Defendant's failure to pay overtime to its employees who were required to work or have worked more than forty hours in each workweek, and under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") for the same, on behalf of all class members who are similarly situated, in that they: a. work or worked as employees (as that term is defined in FLSA) for Defendant; b. within the last three years (the statute of limitations under FLSA); c. work or worked in a position other than as "drivers" or " "driver's helpers," both positions being exempt from FLSA under federal law; d. worked more than forty hours in any given workweek; and e. were not paid overtime in addition to their base salary for each week in which they worked more than forty hours. Solid Waste provides solid waste treatment services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RDnU5o at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel A. Ready, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM, LLC 8500 Allentown Pike, Suite 3 Blandon, PA 19510 Telephone: (610) 926-7875 STAT COURIER: Plaintiff's Expert Reports Due May 25 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN JEMISON, v. STAT COURIER, INC. d/b/a ATM AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT & DESIGN, AARON TOMCZAK, BRUCE TOMCZAK, and ARON PUPI, individually, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:22-cv-01322-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered a case management order as follows: -- Initial disclosures required by Rule Dec. 29, 2023 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be made by: -- Any motions to amend the pleadings or Dec. 27, 2023 add new parties shall be filed by: -- The Plaintiff's expert reports as to May 25, 2024 class certification shall be disclosed on or before: -- The Defendant's expert reports as to May 25, 2024 class certification shall be disclosed by: -- Depositions of class certification May 25, 2024 experts shall be completed by: -- Telephonic Status Conference is set for: June 3, 2024 -- The Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition July 24, 2024 to Class Certification and all supporting evidence shall be filed by: STAT offers a full range of courier services and specializes in same-day courier deliveries. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4andRsI at no extra charge.[CC] SUEZ WATER: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 29 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLLS et al v. Suez Water Environmental Services, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-30034 (D. Mass., Filed March 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order granting assented to motion to extend deadlines. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment. -- Dispositive motions, if any, shall be Dec. 29, 2023 filed by: -- Oppositions shall be filed by: Jan. 29, 2024 -- Replies, if any, shall be filed by: Feb. 12, 2024 -- Plaintiffs shall file any motion for Dec. 29, 2023 class certification by: -- The Defendants' opposition shall be Jan. 29, 2024 filed by: -- Plaintiffs' reply brief, if any, shall Feb. 12, 2024 be filed by: -- A hearing on any filed dispositive April 16, 2024 motions and/or motion for class certification will be held on:[CC] TABLE 87: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Table 87, Frozen, LLC. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Table 87, Frozen, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09344 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Table 87, Frozen, LLC -- https://www.table87.com/ -- is a shop for frozen pizzas.[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 TARGET CORPORATION: Rampalli Suit Transferred to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Krystal Rampalli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 0:23-cv-02915 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09318-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Target -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake G. Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com - and - Chad C Alexander, Esq. SIEBEN POLK, P.A. 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 50 Eagan, MN 55121 Phone: (651) 437-3148 Fax: (651) 437-2732 Email: calexander@siebenpolklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ann Elizabeth Motl, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3500 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 259-9753 Email: motla@gtlaw.com TESLA INC: Cobb Files Suit in E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tesla, Inc. The case is styled as April Cobb, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 231202254 (Pa. Philadelphia Ct. of Common Pleas, Dec. 19, 2023). Tesla, Inc. -- https://www.tesla.com/ -- is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew M. Milz, Esq. JODY THOMAS LOPEZ-JACOBS 450 North Narberth Avenue, Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Phone: (610) 822-0782 TIP-TOP ROOFING: Vriens Suit Removed to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Vriens, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tip-Top Roofing & Construction LLC, Pacific Contractors LLC, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated roofing contractors, D.R. Horton Inc., Case No. 2023CP1005346 was removed from the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 19, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06797-DCN to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Tip Top Roofing & Construction -- https://tiptoproofingandconstruction.com/ -- is among the top roofing contractors and gutter installation companies based in beautiful Lake Country WI.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Nicole Funai, Esq. Justin O'Toole Lucey, Esq. JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY LAW FIRM PO Box 806 Mt Pleasant, SC 29465 Phone: (843) 849-8400 Email: mfunai@lucey-law.com jlucey@lucey-law.com - and - Jason E. Causey, Esq. BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC 1358 National Rd Wheeling, WV 26003 Phone: (304) 242-8410 Fax: (304) 242-3936 Email: jcausey@bordaslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David Lee Paavola., Esq. KENISON DUDLEY AND CRAWFORD LLC 1122 Barnwell Street, Suite B Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: (864) 242-4899 Email: paavola@conlaw.com - and - Jason M. Imhoff., Esq. John T. Crawford, Jr., Esq. Kimila L. Wooten, Esq. KENISON DUDLEY & CRAWFORD 704 East McBee Avenue Greenville, SC 29601 Phone: (864) 501-3208 Email: imhoff@conlaw.com crawford@conlaw.com wooten@conlaw.com TORRID HOLDINGS: Faces Waswick Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------- Torrid Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended October 28, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2023, that in November 2022, a class action complaint was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California captioned "Sandra Waswick v. Torrid Holdings Inc., et al." An amended complaint was filed in May 2023. The amended complaint alleges that certain statements in the company's registration statement on Form S-1 related to its IPO and in subsequent SEC filings and earnings calls were allegedly false and misleading. Two shareholder derivative complaints were filed in September and October 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the company (as a nominal defendant) and certain officers and directors, captioned "Allegra Morgado v. Lisa Harper, et al." and "Nicole Long v. Lisa Harper, et al." The derivative complaints similarly allege that certain statements were allegedly false and misleading and that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties. Torrid Holdings Inc. owns a direct-to-consumer brand of apparel, intimates and accessories in North America aimed at fashionable women who are curvy and wear sizes 10 to 30. It generates revenues primarily through its e-Commerce platform www.torrid.com and stores in the United States of America, Puerto Rico and Canada. TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Suit Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate ----------------------------------------------------------- Staff of New England Biz Law Update reports that Tyson Foods is facing a new class action lawsuit alleging that the company failed to properly consider religious accommodation requests and automatically placed employees with religious objections to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on unpaid leave. Filed in federal court in Arkansas, the lawsuit centers on plaintiff Sarah Pearson, a 20-year Tyson employee. A senior controller, Pearson had worked remotely since February 2020. Vaccine exemption for religious reasons In August 2021, Tyson announced all U.S. employees must be vaccinated but stated religious and disability accommodations would be granted. Pearson requested an exemption due to her religious beliefs and asked to keep working from home. However, the complaint alleges Tyson "predetermined" it would place religious objectors on unpaid leave before assessing individual accommodation requests. Pearson claims Tyson failed to evaluate if she could perform her remote job functions unvaccinated. After months unpaid leave, Pearson filed an EEOC charge in March 2022. At that point, Pearson claims, she was asked to "demonstrate conduct" that proves the sincerity of her faith and show how her faith was connected to her decision not to get vaccinated. According to Pearson's complaint, she requested reinstatement after the company ended its vaccine mandate in October 2022. However, the company offered her a "significantly different" on-site job which would have required her to relocate, Pearson claimed. She declined the position and was terminated in December 2022. Tyson under fire Tyson Foods faced numerous lawsuits alleging inadequate COVID-19 safety measures at its meat processing plants during the pandemic, including wrongful death and personal injury cases. Other suits sought injective relief from the company's vaccine mandate or alleged religious discrimination. Select cases are ongoing, and others have settled out of court. Takeaways for employers The Pearson case signals increased scrutiny of how employers managed religious exemptions to COVID vaccine policies, especially for remote workers. It underscores the need to conduct individualized assessments of each accommodation request rather than blanket decisions. As remote work persists post-pandemic, courts may doubt undue hardship arguments for functions that can be performed from home. Furthermore, employers must be ready to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in a substantial increase in costs. [GN] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in G Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as G. et al v. United States of America et al., Case No. 4:23-CV- (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' 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/3NzmiaD 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-02206 (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/4audHzF at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in CCWP Suit Set for Jan. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as California Coalition for Women Prisoners et al v. United States of America Federal Bureau of Prisons et al., Case No. 4:23-CV-04155 (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/4as8rfQ 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-03390 (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/486WVF8 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in DV Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as D V v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02135 (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/48p8yqH at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in F Suit Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as F. v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04437 (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/484ZSpU at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in H Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as H. v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04317 (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/3RQhJLp at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in J Suit Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-02201 (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/482unMZ at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in JF Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.F. v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04434 (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/3NC1oHQ at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in JO Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.O. v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-03700 (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/48qUaOC at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in JR Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.R. v. U.S.A. et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-03994 (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/3Rnweos at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in M Suit Set for Jan. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons) et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04283 (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/3Rtx8QE at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in MJR Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.J.R. v. USA et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-05821 (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/3NzjKcm at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in MR Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.R., ET AL., v. THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL., Case No. 4:23-cv-05137 (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/3v4EhPQ at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in NE Suit Set for Jan. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.E. v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Case No. 4:23-cv-03641 (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/4aGUOd9 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Evidentiary Hearing in Reyes Set for Jan. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reyes v. United States of America (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Case No. 4:23-cv-07704 (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/4amTzj3 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Marden's Ark Alleges TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- MARDEN’S ARK CORPORATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00708-M (E.D.N.C., December 11, 2023) alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant made repeated prerecorded telephone calls to cellular telephone subscribers without consent and after consumers have expressly requested that the calls stop. In response to Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff files this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease violating the TCPA, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes under the TCPA as wells as costs. UnitedHealth provides healthcare coverage and benefits services to consumers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Duffy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN P. DUFFY, PLLC 1213 W. Morehead Street Suit 500, Unit #450 Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone: (704) 741-9399 E-mail: ryan@ryanpduffy.com - and - Avi R. Kaufma, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com UNIVERSAL STANDARD: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Standard, Inc. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Universal Standard, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09350 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Universal Standard -- https://www.universalstandard.com/ -- is a New York-based womenswear brand offering elevated essentials in sizes 00 to 40.[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 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lyman Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- ORION LYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00887 (D. Utah, December 8, 2023) seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages the Defendant owes Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Since at least 2021, the University has used Kronos timekeeping software. On or about December 11, 2021, the Kronos system suffered a disruption in service due to a ransomware attack. The Kronos outage interfered with the ability of Kronos users, including the University, to use Kronos to track hours and pay employees. However, the University failed to correctly pay Plaintiff Lyman and similarly situated workers for the hours that it did track, or for hours that were not tracked. As a result of the University's failure to accurately track the actual hours worked each week, employees who were non-exempt were in many cases paid less than the hours they worked in the workweek, including overtime hours, says the suit. Located in Salt Lake City, UT, University of Utah is a public research university that offers over 100 undergraduate and more than 90 graduate programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Galvez, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 222 S. Main Street, Suite 537 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (689) 216-7762 Facsimile: (689) 216-7812 E-mail: jgalvez@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999 5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law US COACHWAYS: Khen et al. Allege Racial Discrimination Against Jews ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELIE KHEN, DORON ORBACH and BEN'S INTERNATIONAL LUXURY TRANSPORTATION, LLC, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. US COACHWAYS, INC. and JOHN DOE NOS. 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10762-JLR (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendants for breach of contract, negligence, and for violations of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Federal Transit Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the Connecticut Public Accommodations Law. On or about November 14, 2023, various bus driver/employees and/or agents and/or servants and/or contractors in the employ of Coachways refused to transport Plaintiffs, members of the Jewish faith and/or Israeli nationals, and others similarly situated, to the aforesaid rally being held in Washington, D.C. on the basis that they would not transport Jewish individuals or Israeli nationals to said rally. The various drivers communicated by text message and other means so as to coordinate their efforts to prevent Jews and/or Israelis from being transported to said rally, says the suit. Headquartered in Staten Island, New York, US Coachways, Inc. is a nationwide transportation company engaged in various aspects of bus services, both local and interstate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc J. Held, Esq. HELD & HINES, L.L.P. 2004 Ralph Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 531-9700 E-mail: mheld@heldhines.com US NURSING CORP: Gilmore Sues Over Late Payments ------------------------------------------------ Rayshawnda Gilmore and Taneisha McClymont, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. NURSING CORPORATION, d/b/a U.S. NURSING, a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-03345 (D. Colo., Dec. 20, 2023), is brought for late payments and waiting time penalties under the California Labor Code ("Labor Code"). Strike nurses, much like travel nurses, take on short-term contracts at facilities. Strike nurses are distinct because they fill positions in facilities that are facing staffing shortages due to staff nurses going on strike. The Plaintiffs arrived in Southern California for their strike assignment duties at Kaiser Permanente South Bay Medical Center on October 1, 2023, and spent the next three days attending mandatory induction, orientation, training, and onboarding. The Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiffs $68.00 per hour for time worked during the in-person orientation and for their strike assignment shifts. The strike assignment included "Daily Pay" – meaning that Defendant was obligated to pay Plaintiffs and the similarly situated healthcare professionals at the end of each workday. Due to technical issues associated with Defendant's electronic timekeeping technology, Plaintiffs' electronic timesheets understate the number of hours that Plaintiffs worked for Defendant. Due to technical issues associated with Defendant's electronic timekeeping technology, Plaintiffs were not paid all wages owed at the end of each workday. In fact, even though Plaintiffs' strike assignment ended on October 6, 2023, Plaintiffs have still not been paid for all their compensable work time. The Plaintiffs have persistently and repeatedly contacted Defendant's payroll department by phone and email regarding their unpaid work, but Defendant has willfully failed or refused to rectify the situation, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were temporarily employed by the Defendant as strike nurses. The Defendant is a Colorado corporation and is the premier strike nurse agency provider of job action services in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rod M. Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON LAW, PLLC 6911 Duchess Court Troy, MI 48098 Phone: (586) 321-8466 Email: rod@johnstonlawflsa.com VAN VLIET: Ganeo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Alfred Ganeo, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees v. VAN VLIET & TRAP LLC, CAS TRAP and REMCO VANVLIET, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-11040 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR") as a resulf ot the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However, despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants only compensated Plaintiff at a rate of $25 and $35 per hour and failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that period from September 2015 until November 16, 2023, where he worked well in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants maintain a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act for Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of said laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from September 2015 until November 16, 2023, where his primary work duty was as a driver. Van Vliet & Trap LLC is engaged in interstate commerce, in that they rely heavily on products that have been transported across state lines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com VERU INC: Faces Securities Suit Over Disclosures on COVID Drug -------------------------------------------------------------- Veru Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2023, that on December 5, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in federal district court for the Southern District of Florida against the company, certain of its current officers and directors. The amended complaint alleges that certain public statements about "sabizabulin" as a treatment for COVID-19 between March 1, 2021 and March 2, 2023 violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks monetary damages. Veru is a late clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel medicines for the treatment of metabolic diseases, oncology, and viral-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome. VIKY ARACELY: Padilla Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bioskin Laser LLC, et al. The case is styled as Maria Pastora Castillo Padilla, Lician Dayana Matute Mercado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Viky Aracely Sanchez Munoz, Case No. 726845/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., Dec. 19, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Mikhail Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: (718) 263-9591 Email: avshalumovr@yahoo.com VISA INC: Micamp Sues Over Unreasonable Penalties and Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- MICAMP SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-06351 (N.D. Cal., December 8, 2023) seeks to effectuate the remedial purposes of various Constitutional, federal, and state antitrust and competition laws to protect the process of competition for the benefit of independent sales organizations and to recover damages and to obtain injunctive relief for past and ongoing anticompetitive conduct by Visa. According to the complaint, Visa's dominant market power has allowed it to assess unreasonable penalties and fees against ISOs and merchants that it deems Non-Compliant with its rules, and also allowed it to maintain Interchange Fees on General Purpose Credit Card and Debit Card transactions at supra-competitive levels. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Visa is a Delaware corporation that maintains the card networks and promulgates and enforces rules related to electronic payment processing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Huber, Esq. Nathan A. Shaman, Esq. GLOBAL LEGAL LAW FIRM 322 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 200 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (888) 846-8901 Facsimile: (888) 846-8902 E-mail: jhuber@attorneygl.com nshaman@attorneygl.com VISION HOSPITALITY: Moran Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ CHASITY MORAN, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. VISION HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. and MITCHELL PATEL, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00287 (E.D. Tenn., December 8, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages under Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by and worked as an hourly-paid housekeeping employee for Defendants at one of the hotels they managed in Nashville, TN. Allegedly, the Defendants had a common policy and practice of disallowing overtime work for Plaintiff and similarly situated housekeeping employees. However, due to a shortage of housekeeping staff and other issues, Defendants' management members were forced to work Plaintiff and other similarly situated housekeeping employees in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods in order to meet their operational needs. The Plaintiff was unlawfully discharged from her employment with Defendants in retaliation for complaining to management members about Defendants' failure to pay her and potential plaintiffs full overtime compensation for the overtime hours they had earned within weekly pay periods, says the suit. Headquartered in Chattanooga, TN, Vision Hospitality Group, Inc. is a hotel management and development company that manages operations, including housekeeping functions, at more than 40 hotels in the state Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, Colorado and California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com WALGREEN CO: De Priest Suit Transferred to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hannah De Priest, Frizell Johnson, Ruben Varela, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., Publix Super Markets, Inc., Kenvue Inc., McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Procter & Gamble Company, CVS Pharmacy Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-14060 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09272-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Walgreens -- https://www.walgreens.com/ -- is an American company that operates the second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United States, behind CVS Health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John E. Tangren, Esq. Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn St., Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 214-7900 Email: jtangren@dicellolevitt.com alevitt@dicellolevitt.com The Defendant is represented by: William Francis Northrip, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 111 South Wacker Drive, Ste. 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 704-7700 Fax: (312) 558-1195 Email: wnorthrip@shb.com WALGREEN CO: DeRosa Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anthony DeRosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., Publix Super Markets, Inc., Kenvue Inc., McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Procter & Gamble Company, CVS Pharmacy Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-14558 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09275-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Walgreens -- https://www.walgreens.com/ -- is an American company that operates the second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United States, behind CVS Health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 741-1019 Fax: (312) 264-0100 Email: beth@feganscott.com WALMART INC: Holmes Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jamieka Holmes, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WalMart, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-05165 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-09255-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob White, Esq. TAYLOR KING LAW, PA 410 N Thompson St, Suite B Springdale, AR 72764 Phone: (479) 208-4780 Fax: (870) 568-0141 Email: jacobwhite@taylorkinglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brandon B. Cate, Esq. QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC 4100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 310 Springdale, AR 72762 Phone: (479) 444-5200 Fax: (479) 444-5255 Email: bcate@qgtlaw.com WALMART INC: Potters Sues Over Inadequate Anti-Fraud Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- RISA POTTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC.; BLOCK, INC.; and DOES 1–10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10335-WLH-MAR (C.D. Cal., December 8, 2023) arises from the Defendants' inadequate and poorly enforced anti-fraud measures and readily facilitate fraudulent transfers that drain financial resources of the elderly and most vulnerable in the society and alleges claims against the Defendants for negligence, breach of the covenant of good faith dealing and fair dealing, and for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law. Between March 31 and April 1, 2023, Plaintiff was victimized by a caller who identified himself as a police officer. The caller directed Plaintiff to make a series of deposits into Cash App accounts using barcodes purportedly associated with a bond account belonging to a court. Plaintiff did not know, and Walmart did not inform her, that these were Cash App barcodes. As a result of Walmart's and Cash App's failures to take appropriate steps to mitigate fraudulent deposits and transfers, consumers like Plaintiff have lost substantial sums to fraud effectuated at Walmart stores and through the Cash App service, says the suit. Walmart operates department and grocery stores throughout the United States and abroad. Walmart provides financial services including Walmart MoneyCards, check printing, check cashing, cash deposit and withdraw, and certain types of installment lending. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Strange, Esq. John Ceglia, Esq. Brianna J. Strange, Esq. STRANGE LLP 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 420 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-5055 E-mail: brian@strangellp.com john@strangellp.com WELLTOK INC: Cooper-Leonard Sues Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- CANDACE COOPER-LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLTOK, INC., VIRGIN PULSE, INC., SUTTER HEALTH, and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-13052-ADB (D. Mass., December 12, 2023) arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and exfiltrated highly-sensitive consumer data belonging to Plaintiff and more than 845,000 class members, asserting claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, bailment, and breach of fiduciary duty. According to notices posted on Defendant Welltok's website, Defendant Sutter Health’s website, and an October 31, 2023 notice letter sent to Plaintiff Cooper-Leonard by Welltok on behalf of Sutter Health, Defendant Welltok uses software made by Defendant Progress Software Corporation (MOVEit), which was subject to a cybersecurity attack that allowed unauthorized parties to access and compromise Plaintiff and Class members’ private information between May 28 and 29, 2023. Headquartered in Colorado and Rhode Island, Welltok is a software company owned by Virgin Pulse. It operates an online contact-management platform that enables its healthcare clients, including Sutter Health, to provide patients with important notices and communications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven B. Rotman, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 207-0600 Facsimile: (617) 830-8312 E-mail: srotman@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com WHITEFISH, MT: Plaintiffs Seek to Adopt Proposed Class Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BECK, individually; et al., v. CITY OF WHITEFISH, a Montana municipality; and DOES 1-50, Case No. 9:22-cv-00044-KLD (D. Mont.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order The Plaintiffs have developed the Class notice and procedure mechanisms and respectfully request the Court adopt them in directing Class notice and adjudicating this matter as a Class action. Since the Court granted class certification, it is the Plaintiffs' understanding that the City has directed potential Class members who have requested information on matters related to this class action to Class counsel. The Plaintiffs and Class counsel request that the City continue this practice over the course of the remaining litigation. On October 16, 2023, the Whitefish City Council voted to enact Whitefish Resolution No. 23-34 which, effective January 1, 2024, sets new impact fee rates in the City of Whitefish–including new rates for water and wastewater impact fees. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 12, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3thU7pN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark M. Kovacich, Esq. Caelan G. Brady, Esq. KOVACICH SNIPES JOHNSON, P.C. Great Falls, MT 59403 Telephone: (406) 761-5595 E-mail: mark@justicemt.com caelan@justicemt.com - and - Cory R. Laird, Esq. Lindsay A. Mullineaux, Esq. Riley M. Wavra, Esq. LAIRD COWLEY, PLLC Missoula, MT 59806 Telephone: (406) 541-7400 E-mail: claird@lairdcowley.com lmullineaux@lairdcowley.com rwavra@lairdcowley.com WINO(T) INC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wino(T), Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wino(T), Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09373 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.[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 ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Jacobson Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY L. JACOBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and DOLLAR TREE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01164 (M.D. Fla., December 11, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' personally identifiable information. According to the Notice Letter, Zeroed-In first discovered suspicious activity in its systems on August 8, 2023, and completed its investigation and a review of the contents of the systems to what information was present at the time of the incident and to whom the information relations on August 31, 2023. Nevertheless, it took an additional three months, until November 27, 2023, to notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendants' failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendants' inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendants' conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes. Zeroed-In is a limited liability company that sells workforce analytics software . On its website, it advertises it has more than 30,000 registered users, and 2.7 million "work lives" in its databases. One of Zeroed-In’s clients is Dollar Tree, which owns the Dollar Tree & Family Dollar chain of low-price retail stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com ZUORA INC: Court OK's Settlement Deal in IPO Dispute ---------------------------------------------------- Zuora, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2023, that in August 2023, the combined settlement of pending federal and state class actions received preliminary court approval. The hearing for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for January 2024. In June 2019, a putative securities class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming Zuora and certain of its officers as defendants, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. In November 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same claims, which was captioned "Roberts v. Zuora, Inc.," Case No. 3:19-CV-03422. In April and May 2020, two putative securities class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed and later consolidated in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants Zuora and certain of its current and former officers, its directors and the underwriters of Zuora's initial public offering (IPO), and seeking unspecified damages and other relief. In July 2020, the court entered an order consolidating the two lawsuits, and the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same claims. The consolidated class action litigation was captioned "Olsen v. Zuora, Inc.," Case No. 20-civ-191. In March 2023, Zuora entered into an agreement to settle the federal class action without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by Zuora or the named defendants. In June 2023, Zuora reached an agreement to settle the state class action without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by Zuora or the named defendants, and agreed to resolve the litigation as part of a combined resolution with the Federal Class Action. Zuora provides a cloud-based subscription management platform, built to help companies monetize new services and operate dynamic, recurring revenue business models. ********* 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 ***