/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240126.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, January 26, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 20
Headlines
216 5TH AVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ponce Suit Alleges
A.J. BLOSENSKI: All Fact Discovery Due Sept. 4 in Salyers
ADVANCED PEDIATRICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barandica Says
AG MORGAN: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in B & T Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Quackenbush Files Appeal in Vehicle Defect Case
APPLE INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended to April 16
AST SPACEMOBILE: Taylor Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
BANK OF AMERICA: Bid For Leave to File Reply OK'd in Philadelphia
BIONTECH SE: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements
BIOVIE INC: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 19
BRITISH AMERICAN: May Face Class Suit Over Misleading Business Info
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court OK's Bid to Continue Pretrial Deadlines
CAMINO NATURAL: Monarch Minerals Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
CARVANA LLC: Cribier Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Hearing Modified to April 29
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: TOMI Wins Summary Judgement Bid vs De Lacour
CUMMINS INC: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 15
FORD MOTOR: API Seeks Stay of Proceedings to Compel Arbitration
FRESH ORGANICS: Sequeira FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
FUTURE FINTECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 18
GENERAL MOTORS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 6
GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Seal in Rodriguez Suit Partly OK'd
HAPPY HEAD: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Story Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
HOME DEPOT: Class Settlement in Almanzar Suit Gets Final Nod
HOME PARTNERS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to Feb. 21
J.B. HUNT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Alleges
JANCO FS 3: Garcia-Ortiz Suit Removed to N.D. California
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Alleges
KANDI TECH: Must Opposes Class Cert Bid in Venkataraman by Jan. 26
KAY IVEY: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due Jan. 31
KENTUCKY: Kennedy Files Suit in E.D. New York
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Ruling on Second Joint Status Report Entered
KIA AMERICA: Allowed to Seal Portions of Opposition
LA PLAZA MARKET: Santos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LEVEL 3: Conditional Class Certification Hearing Reset to Feb. 2
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Reply by Jan. 30
MAISON SOLUTIONS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 4
MONSANTO COMPANY: Koller Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
MOTORO CARS: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages
MR BAEZ METAL: Chavez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MWI VETERINARY SUPPLY: Haley Suit Removed to E.D. California
OLD DOMINION: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California
OTO DEVELOPMENT: Baxley Suit Removed to C.D. California
POLLO CAMPERO: Chavez Sues to Recover Damages
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Class-Action Suits Over Data Breaches
QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Salmonella Contamination
SCRIBEAMERICA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Balan Alleges
SMG EXTOL: Court Tosses Initial OK Bid of Class Action Settlement
TD BANK: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Illegal Bank Fees for $15.9-M
TRANSUNION LLC: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Manuela Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Rancher's Bid to Intervene
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Seek Appeal on Aldrich Ch. 11 Dismissal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trustee's Attempt to Recover $59.7MM Sparks Debate
*********
216 5TH AVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ponce Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO ANGEL PONCE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff V. 216 5TH AVE. FOOD CORP.; ABDU
ALOMARI (a/k/a Abdo Alomari); IBRAHIM ABDULA; and AHMED ALOMARI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00262 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2024) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Ponce was employed by the Defendants as a stocker.
216 5TH AVE. FOOD CORP. owns and operates a supermarket known as
"Associated Fresh of Park Slope" located at Brooklyn, NY 11215.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0048
Email: Jason@levinepstein.com
A.J. BLOSENSKI: All Fact Discovery Due Sept. 4 in Salyers
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY SALYERS, v. A.J.
BLOSENSKI, INC., WASTE CONNECTIONS, INC., AND WASTE CONNECTIONS US,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04802-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy
Beetlestone entered an order as follows:
1. All fact discovery shall be completed by September 4, 2024.
2. Any expert reports relating to class certification are due
no
later than Sept. 18, 2024. Any rebuttal reports relating to
class certification are due on Oct. 2, 2024.
3. Any discovery depositions of expert witnesses relating to
class
certification shall be completed by October 16, 2024.
4. Any motions for class certification and/or Daubert motions
regarding expert witnesses relating to class certification
shall
be filed and served on or before November 13, 2024.
5. Any expert reports relating to the merits of the case are due
no
later than 120 days after the Court's disposition of any
motions
for class certification.
6. Any party expecting to offer opinion testimony from lay
witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701 with
respect
to the issues of liability and damages shall, at the time
required for submission of information and/or reports for
expert
witnesses, serve opposing parties with details and/or
documents
covering the lay opinions of the Rule 701 witnesses.
A.J. is a full service garbage disposal and recycling company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48RaHfa at no extra charge.[CC]
ADVANCED PEDIATRICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barandica Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NISET BARANDICA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED PEDIATRICS, P.C.; and YOLANDA
SABOGAL; GONZALO SABOGAL; and WILFREDO LAO, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00245 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2024) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Barandica was employed by the Defendants as a
housekeeper.
ADVANCED PEDIATRICS, P.C. is a medical group practice that
specializes in Pediatrics and Pediatric Nursing (Nurse
Practitioner). [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
AG MORGAN: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in B & T Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as B & T SUPPLIES, INC., et
al., v. AG MORGAN TAX & ACCOUNTING, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-11241-GHW-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order
regarding general pretrial management as follows:
-- 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.
-- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
(including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
deadline
must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of
Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for
adjournments or extensions will not be entertained.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tQSsaV at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN HONDA: Quackenbush Files Appeal in Vehicle Defect Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARY QUACKENBUSH, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in
the lawsuit entitled Mary Quackenbush, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-05599-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed two class claims against the Defendants for Honda's failure
to disclose a vehicle defect in violation of consumer protection
statutes under California and Illinois state law, namely
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA).
The Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint in August 2020,
then a first amendment in November 2020, the operative complaint. A
motion to dismiss failed in its entirety in February 2021.
Discovery ensued for several months, and plaintiffs moved for class
certification in October 2021. In December 2021, after full
briefing and additional discovery disputes, an order certified
three classes. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration. An
order dated April 27, 2022, redefined the certified classes and
clarified the operative class claims.
In her individual capacity, Plaintiff Anne Pellettieri also pursues
a breach of implied warranty claim in violation of Section 2-316 of
the Illinois Commercial Code.
The Defendants moved for summary judgment on all named Plaintiffs'
individual implied warranty claims, Pellettieri's Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and fraudulent omission
claims, the California Repair Class's fraudulent omission claim,
and various damages arguments under both Illinois and California
law.
On Jan. 13, 2023, Judge Alsup resolved the Defendants' summary
judgment motion as follows: (1) Feeney's and Pellettieri's
individual implied warranty claims were dismissed; (2)
Quackenbush's individual implied warranty claim under Section 2314
was dismissed (3) the Illinois New and Used Purchaser Class's
fraudulent omission and ICFA claims were dismissed. Summary
judgment as to all remaining claims and arguments was also denied.
On Aug. 25, 2023, American Honda Motor Company filed a motion to
decertify class, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge Alsup on Dec. 1, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Quackenbush, et al. v. American
Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 24-33, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 3, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Appeal Transcript Order was due on January 17,
2024;
-- Appellants Appeal Transcript is due on February 16, 2024;
and
-- Appellants Appeal Opening Brief is due on March 27, 2024;
-- Appellees Appeal Answering Brief is due on April 26, 2024;
-- Appellants Cross Appeal First Brief is due on March 27,
2024;
-- Appellees Cross Appeal Second Brief is due on April 26, 2024;
and
-- Appellants Cross Appeal Third Brief is due on May 28, 2024.
[BN]
APPLE INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended to April 16
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL FRIEND, DAPHNE
PAREAS, SCOTT SEVELAND, PATRICE SHERMAN, NESTOR ALMEIDA, ADELINA
LAVECCHIA, DAN HENDERSON, MARITZA ANGELES, TIM INSELMANN, MAGDALA
CASIMIR, WILLIAM WEST-DAVIS, PATRICIA MEDBERRY, and AZARA
COLINDREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-07109-AMO (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin entered an order extending
class certification deadlines:
1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class
certification is continued from January 17, 2024 to April 16,
2024.
2. The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition to
Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is continued from March 20,
2024
June 18, 2024.
3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in support of their
motion for class certification is continued from April 30,
2024
to July 29, 2024.
4. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
will
now be held on September 12, 2024.
Apple is a multinational technology company that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SkoyFu at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
388 Market St., Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 489-7004
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David R. Singh, Esq.
Morgan D. Macbride, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 6th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
Telephone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
E-mail: david.singh@weil.com
morgan.macbride@weil.com
AST SPACEMOBILE: Taylor Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------
AST SpaceMobile, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for January 16,
2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January
18, 2024, that on December 27, 2023, one of those stockholders
filed a putative class action lawsuit, "Taylor v. Coleman, et al.
(C.A. No. 2023-1292) in the Delaware court of Chancery against the
company, certain current and former directors of the Company and
its predecessor entity, New Providence Acquisition Corp., and Abel
Avellan.
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of investors and
alleges that the company aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary
duty by its former directors and purported former controllers, and
breaches of fiduciary duty by the former directors and purported
former controllers, in connection with a previous merger deal. The
complaint seeks equitable relief and monetary damages.
AST SpaceMobile is a publicly traded satellite designer and
manufacturer based in Midland, Texas. Alexander Coleman serves as
member of the boards of directors.
BANK OF AMERICA: Bid For Leave to File Reply OK'd in Philadelphia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Philadelphia et
al. v. Bank of America et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01608-JMF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order
granting the Defendants' letter-motion seeking leave to file a
reply.
The Court said, "The Defendants' original letter-motion – seeking
"a pre-motion conference to address constitutional and statutory
issues associated with the inclusion of states and certain other
governmental entities in the Class" and an associated stay on the
deadline to send, and the sending of, class notices -- is denied,
substantially for the reasons set forth in Sections A and B of
Plaintiffs' response at ECF No. 495.
Put simply, the issues raised by the Defendants -- on which the
Court reserves judgment -- are interesting and complex, but could
have and should have been raised in connection with Defendants'
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (or in
connection with the proposed notice).
Not only did Defendants not raise the issues at those times, but
when non-party Edelweiss Fund LLC did, the Defendants affirmatively
argued that the time to "litigate the preclusive effect of a final
judgment" is "at the conclusion of this action" by way of
litigation between the actual parties to any such future dispute.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vEUuLN at no extra charge.[CC]
BIONTECH SE: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Company Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Longview News Journal reports that the law firm of Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) informs investors that a
securities class action lawsuit has been filed against BioNTech SE
("BioNTech") (NASDAQ: BNTX). The action charges BioNTech with
violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions and
fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's business,
operations, and prospects. As a result of BioNTech' s materially
misleading statements and omissions to the public, BioNTech's
investors have suffered significant losses.
Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field as well as the firm itself which is continuously
awarded for the successful results we've achieved. We are proud to
have recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes
of shareholders we represent.
In addition to representing investors in cases where the fraud has
been revealed, Kessler Topaz also represents whistleblowers -
persons who expose wrongdoing to those in positions of authority or
to the public - in cases brought under federal and state qui tam
statutes, and through financial fraud whistleblower programs, such
as those run by the SEC, CFTC and IRS. If you have information
about fraud against government programs (such as Medicare), or
violations of federal securities, commodities, tax or anti-foreign
bribery laws, contact Kessler Topaz at (866) 369-7779 or at
wbinfo@ktmc.com or go to https://www.ktmc-whistleblower.com.
DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
The Class Period begins on March 30, 2022, when BioNTech issued a
press release during pre-market hours announcing the company's
fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results. That same day,
BioNTech also filed its annual report with the SEC wherein the
company discussed Comirnaty, its COVID-19 vaccine in collaboration
with Pfizer, and Comirnaty's widespread adoption and use in
commercial markets, while simultaneously touting the vaccine's
continued demand prospects
On August 8, 2022, during pre-market hours, BioNTech issued a press
release announcing its second quarter 2022 financial results. Among
other things, BioNTech's reported earnings-per-share and revenue
both missed consenus estimates. BioNTech attributed the result, in
part, to the "dynamic" development of the pandemic, which "caus[ed]
a re-phasing of orders and . . . le[d] to fluctuations in quarterly
revenues." According to BioNTech, "[t]his revenue fluctuation
caused by the re-phasing of orders is expected to remain over the
rest of the financial year with an uptake in demand in key markets
in the fourth quarter of 2022 related to the Omicron-adapted
bivalent vaccine, subject to regulatory approval." Following this
news, BioNTech's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell
$13.81 per ADS, or 7.54 percent, to close at $169.30 per ADS on
August 8, 2022.
Then on March 27, 2023, during pre-market hours, BioNTech issued a
press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2022
financial results. In the results, BioNTech forecasted
approximately EUR5 billion in COVID-19 vaccine revenues for the
2023 financial year, significantly below market estimates of over
EUR8 billion. Following this news, BioNTech's ADS price fell $4.60
per ADS, or 3.59 percent, to close at $123.60 per ADS on March 27,
2023.
On Friday, October 13, 2023, during after-market hours, Pfizer
issued a press release announcing, among other things, that due to
lower-than-expected utilization for its COVID products, Pfizer was
recording a non-cash charge of $5.5 billion to Cost of Goods Sold
in the third quarter of 2023 which consisted of inventory
write-offs and other charges relating to Comirnaty. Pfizer also
reduced its full-year 2023 revenue expectations for Comirnaty by
approximately $2.0 billion.
On Monday, October 16, 2023, during pre-market hours, BioNTech
issued a press release disclosing that, as a result of Pfizer's
inventory write-offs and other charges related to Comirnaty,
BioNTech, too, would likely recognize up to EUR0.9 billion in
inventory write-offs and other charges related to Comirnaty in the
third quarter of 2023. The company also reported that "[a]ny such
write-offs will reduce the revenues the Company would report for
2023." According to BioNTech, Pfizer indicated "that the majority
of the write-offs relate to raw materials, mainly
formulation-related lipids, purchased during the pandemic, as well
as COVID-19 vaccine doses adapted to other, non-XBB.1.5 variants
produced at risk." Following this news, BioNTech's ADS price fell
$6.61 per ADS, or 6.38 percent, to close at $96.97 per ADS on
October 16, 2023.
BioNTech investors may, no later than March 12, 2024, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP encourages BioNTech investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information. The class action complaint against BioNTech, Ladewig
v. BioNTech, et al., Case No. 24-cv-00337, is filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Jonathan Naji, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: (484) 270-1453
Email: info@ktmc.com [GN]
BIOVIE INC: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 19
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against BioVie Inc. ("BioVie" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
BIVI) in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired BioVie securities between August 5, 2021 and
November 29, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until March 19, 2024 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On November 29, 2023, BioVie, Inc. issued a press release
accompanying an investor presentation disclosing top line data from
its clinical trial of NE3107 for the treatment of mild to moderate
Alzheimer's Disease. The press release stated that the trial
started during the COVID-19 pandemic when access to clinical sites
was limited and enrolled a total of 439 patients through 39 sites.
Upon trial completion, the Company found significant deviation from
protocol and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) violations at 15 sites.
This highly unusual level of suspected improprieties led the
Company to exclude all patients from these sites and to refer them
to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Scientific
Investigations (OSI) for further action.
On a conference call that same day, Defendants announced that the
Phase 3 clinical trial did not achieve statistical significance due
to the number of patients being excluded from the trial that the
Company believed engaged in improper practices.
On November 29, 2023, the Company's share price fell $3.03 per
share, or more than 60%, to close at $1.96 per share, on unusually
high trading volume.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, it is alleged that
Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that (1) BioVie
was not conducting proper oversight of its Phase 3 clinical trial;
(2) that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly and negatively
impacted the Company's ability to adequately conduct proper
oversight of the Phase 3 clinical trial; (3) that due to lack of
proper oversight and reliance on contract research organizations,
the data from Defendants' Phase 3 clinical trial faced a greater
risk of being unreliable and that the majority of patients would
have to be excluded from the clinical trial; (4) that, as a result
of the significant exclusions from the trial results, the Phase 3
clinical trial would fail to meet its primary endpoints; and (5)
statements about BioVie's business, operations, prospects, and
compliance with current good clinical practices ("cGCP") were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired BioVie shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email
at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
Phone: (212) 355-4648
Email: investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
BRITISH AMERICAN: May Face Class Suit Over Misleading Business Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of British American Tobacco p.l.c. (NYSE: BTI) resulting from
allegations that British American Tobacco may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
If you purchased British American Tobacco securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20894 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
On December 6, 2023, British American Tobacco posted an
announcement on its website which stated, in pertinent part, "in
2023, we will take an accounting non-cash adjusting impairment
charge of around EUR25bn. This accounting adjustment mainly relates
to some of our acquired U.S. combustibles brands, as we now assess
their carrying value and useful economic lives over an estimated
period of 30 years."
On this news, the price of the British American Tobacco's American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell by $2.68 per ADR, or 8.49%, to
close at $31.54 on December 6, 2023.
Rosen Law encourages investors to select qualified counsel with a
track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing
notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court OK's Bid to Continue Pretrial Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN BRIGHT, as Curator
of the ESTATE OF LEONARD FOOTE, and BARBARA J. ADAMS, as Power of
Attorney for DAVID G. ADAMS, on their own behalf and all others
similarly situated, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William L. Campbell, Jr.
entered an order granting the motion to continue pretrial
deadlines.
-- Pretrial deadlines will be reset to correspond to the new trial
date following the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification.
The Court previously continued the trial date to eleven months
after the Court rules on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
but did not specifically address pretrial deadlines.
Brookdale owns and operates retirement homes across the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O6vVxD at no extra charge.[CC]
CAMINO NATURAL: Monarch Minerals Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camino Natural
Resources LLC. The case is styled as Monarch Minerals LLC, on
behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Camino Natural Resources LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00039-PRW (W.D.
Okla., Jan. 12, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Camino Natural Resources -- https://www.caminoresources.com/ -- is
an independent oil and natural gas company that applies technical
analysis and operational integration.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hammons P. Hepner, Esq.
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Phone: (913) 901-0505
Fax: (913) 901-0419
Email: hhepner@midwest-law.com
rsharp@midwest-law.com
sgoodger@midwest-law.com
CARVANA LLC: Cribier Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carvana LLC. The case
is styled as Michael Cribier, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Carvana LLC, Case No.
3:24-cv-00094-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 12, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Carvana, LLC -- https://www.carvana.com/ -- sells cars online. The
Company offers new and used cars and vehicles. Carvana serves
clients in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex S. Madar, Esq.
11510 Eaglesview Court
San Diego, CA 92127
Phone: (925) 548-5322
Email: alex@madarlaw.net
- and -
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Hearing Modified to April 29
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL
SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all
aggrieved employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William B. Shubb
entered an order modifying the case schedule as follows:
Event Deadline
Hearing on class certification motion April 29, 2024
Motion due Mar. 1,
2024
Response due Apr. 1,
2024
Reply due Apr. 19,
2024
Disclose expert witnesses May 17, 2024
Disclose rebuttal expert witnesses June 7, 2024
Discovery cut-off July 12, 2024
Motions cut-off for filing July 19, 2024
Final pretrial conference Nov. 18, 2024
Jury trial Jan. 28, 2025
Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company
with services branded as Spectrum.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U2kVFk at no extra charge.[CC]
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: TOMI Wins Summary Judgement Bid vs De Lacour
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNE DE LACOUR, ANDREA
WRIGHT, and LOREE MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., and TOM'S OF MAINE
INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-08364-KMW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kimba
M. Wood entered an order granting Tom's motion for summary
judgment:
-- The Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of Sowers is
granted.
-- The Defendants' motion to decertify the classes is granted,
and
the Defendants' remaining motions are denied as moot.
Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products company.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 3, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47whZE9 at no
extra charge.[CC]
CUMMINS INC: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 15
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Cummins Inc. (NYSE: CMI),
and Mobileye Global Inc. (NASDAQ: MBLY). Stockholders have until
the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.
Cummins Inc. (NYSE: CMI)
Class Period: April 30, 2019 - December 21, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 15, 2024
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
(1) Contrary to its post-April 2019 Announcement assurances
about its commitment to compliance, Cummins continued to produce
engines with unlawful emission defeating devices from 2019 to 2023;
(2) accordingly, Cummins understated its legal and regulatory
risk, and overstated its commitment to environmental protection;
and
(3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the Cummins class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CMI
Mobileye Global Inc. (NASDAQ: MBLY)
Class Period: January 26, 2023 - January 3, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 18, 2024
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors:
(1) that, to avoid the shortages experienced amid supply chain
constraints in 2021 and 2022, the Company's Tier 1 customers had
purchased inventory in excess of demand during fiscal 2023;
(2) that, as a result, the Company's customers had excess
inventory on hand, including approximately 6-7 million units of
EyeQ SoCs;
(3) that, due to the build-up of inventory, there was a
significant risk that the Tier 1 customers would buy less product,
thus adversely impacting the Company's fiscal 2024 financial
results; and
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Mobileye class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MBLY
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
Phone: (212) 355-4648
Email: investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
FORD MOTOR: API Seeks Stay of Proceedings to Compel Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD W. GLEASON, v.
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, and AL PACKER, INC., d/b/a AL
PACKER FORD LINCOLN, Case No. 9:23-cv-81466-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to
dismiss and stay proceedings to compel arbitration or alternatively
motion to strike the Plaintiff's demand for jury trial and dismiss
demand for class certification.
The parties agreed, that either party may choose, at any time,
including after a lawsuit is filed, to have any claim, decided by
arbitration. Defendant, Al Packer made that choice from the outset
and asks this Court to submit this case to binding arbitration.
Alternatively, Al Packer moves to strike Plaintiff's demand for a
jury trial and demand for class certification.
Ford Motor is the financial services arm of Ford Motor Company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 3, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48AjFOf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq.
Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
Alex Kruzyk, Esq.
PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
501 Congress Avenue, Suite 150
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (561) 726-8444
E-mail: bgiribaldo@pkgleal.com
lpardell@pkglegal.com
akruzyk@pkglegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Dale L. Friedman, Esq.
CONROY SIMBERG
3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Second Floor
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 961-1400
Facsimile: (954) 518-8652
E-mail: dfriedman@conroysimberg.com
- and -
Jessica Marie Kennedy, Esq.
MCDONALD TOOLE WIGGINS, P.A.
111 Magnolia Ave. Suite 1200
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 246-1800
Facsimile: (407) 246-1895
E-mail: jkennedy@mtwlegal.com
FRESH ORGANICS: Sequeira FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Griselda Griselda Duarte Sequeira, Keyleen
Lizbeth Lopez Duarte and all others similarly situated v. Fresh
Organics and More LLC, Case No. 23SL-CC05176 was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Jan.
15, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20164-XXXX to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Actt.
Fresh Organics and More LLC offer organic fruits and vegetables,
local and tropical specialties and also conventional products.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Todd William Shulby, Esq.
TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
1792 Bell Tower Lane
Weston, FL 33326
Phone: (954) 530-2236
Fax: (954) 530-6628
Email: tshulby@shulbylaw.com
FUTURE FINTECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Future FinTech Group Inc. (NASDAQ: FTFT) between
March 10, 2020 and January 11, 2024, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action has already been filed. If you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 18, 2024 in the securities class action commenced by the
Firm.
If you purchased Future FinTech securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
To join the Future FinTech class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21786 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 18,
2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.
Rosen Law firm encourages investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have
been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
(1) Defendant Shanchun Huang ("Huang") manipulated the price
of Future FinTech stock;
(2) Defendant Huang and Future FinTech lied to the Securities
and Exchange Commission about the nature of Defendant Huang’s
ownership of Future FinTech stock;
(3) Future FinTech understated its legal risk;
(4) Future FinTech did not disclose the unlawful measures
Defendant Huang took to prop up the price of its stock; and
(5) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Future FinTech class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21786 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel
unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You
may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this
point. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm’s attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of securities of General Motors Company (NYSE: GM)
between February 2, 2022 and October 26, 2023, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the February 6, 2024 lead plaintiff
deadline.
If you purchased GM securities during the Class Period you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
To join the GM class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21020 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
6, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Rosen Law Firm encourages investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
(1) GM downplayed concerns with its vehicles' airbags and the
need to record additional warranty accruals for related product
recalls;
(2) GM overstated the extent and efficacy of its efforts to
analyze defects in its vehicles' airbag inflators;
(3) Cruise LLC's ("Cruise") autonomous vehicles ("AV") and/or
AV technology were less safe and well-developed than defendants had
led investors, regulators, and the general public to believe;
(4) accordingly, regulatory approval of Cruise's AV products
was unsustainable and the prospects for widespread regulatory
approval and adoption of Cruise's AV products were overstated;
(5) all the foregoing subjected GM to an increased risk of
governmental and/or regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action,
significant legal liabilities, product recalls, and reputational
harm; and
(6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the GM class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21020 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel
unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You
may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this
point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com[GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Seal in Rodriguez Suit Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04688-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting in part and denying
in part motion to seal:
The Plaintiffs and Google are ordered to file public versions of
the records above in compliance with this order.
Google requests to seal what it characterizes as commercially
sensitive information, internal code names, and non-public employee
email addresses. Google asserts that it seeks to seal excerpts of
internal studies and research because they contain "competitively
sensitive materials."
Google invokes Algarin v. Maybelline as an example of a case where
a study that contained consumer research and sales data and was
sealed because it could be subject to improper use by a competitor.
However, much of the information Google seeks to seal will not
actually harm its competitive standing and, unlike in Algarin,
simply reflects the opinions of the Plaintiffs' experts, resulting
in no danger of "improper use by competitors who may circumvent
expending their own resources in obtaining information at
[Google's] expense."
The following records attached to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification may be sealed:
Exhibit No. Bates No./Pages with Parts to be sealed
Designations
Exhibit 1 GOOG-RDGZ00117318 All columns except
“Summary”
Exhibit 2 GOOG-RDGZ-00209974 Internal terms may be
sealed only
GOOG-RDGZ-00209975 Employee PII may be sealed
only
GOOG-RDGZ-00209976 Employee PII may be sealed
only
In this privacy action, the Plaintiffs and Defendant have filed an
omnibus motion to seal various portions of materials related to the
parties' class certification and Daubert briefing.
Specifically, the parties request to seal portions of briefing
related to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, expert
reports and related appendices, as well as Google's Daubert Motion
and related appendices.
Google is an American multinational technology company focusing on
artificial intelligence, online advertising, search engine
technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing,
e-commerce, and consumer electronics.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4bbskZh at no extra charge.[CC]
HAPPY HEAD: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Happy Head, Inc. The
case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Happy Head, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-00291 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Happy Head -- https://www2.happyhead.com/home -- is a
custom-formulated telemedicine brand for customized hair medicine
and treatments.[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
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Story Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX STORY, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00724-TJC-JBT
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- Certifying the class;
-- Appointing proposed class counsel and representatives; and
-- Directing the parties to submit a class notice plan within 30
days
of its order.
Heartland has suggested that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
regarding the claims of non-Florida class members. This is
incorrect. As then-Judge Barrett explained, absent class members
need not establish personal jurisdiction.
The case is a class action on behalf of parents who paid "Program
Fees" to the Defendant Heartland Payments Systems through its
"MySchoolBucks Program."
The Plaintiffs assert that
(1) the Program Fees violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
(NJCFA) because they are impermissible fees under the binding
rules issued by the major card networks; and
(2) Heartland breached its contracts with the parents because
Heartland promised the Program Fees would go to the schools,
but
kept the Fees for itself.
Heartland disagrees: on its telling, the Fees do not violate the
network rules or Heartland's contractual commitments. This is a
fundamental dispute between the Parties, to be sure, but it is a
binary one. The contracts are materially identical.
Heartland violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) or its
contractual commitments for all proposed class members or none.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to certify NJCFA
and breach of contract claims under Rule 23(b)(3) for the following
class:
"All natural persons who enrolled in MySchoolBucks, and paid
fees
to Heartland on credit or debit card transactions between June
18,
2013 and July 31, 2019."
The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Max Story and Nancy
Murrey-Settle as class representatives; Jason L. Lichtman, Janet
Varnell, Brian Warwick, and Andrew R. Kaufman as class counsel; and
Kenneth S. Byrd as lead trial counsel.
Heartland is a U.S.-based payment processing and technology
provider.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aRPWSx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
Reilly T. Stoler, Esq.
Jacob H. Polin, Esq.
Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com
rstoler@lchb.com
jpolin@lchb.com
kbyrd@lchb.com
akaufman@lchb.com
- and -
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
HOME DEPOT: Class Settlement in Almanzar Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE ALMANZAR, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00699-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Kendall J. Newman entered an order granting final approval of class
action and PAGA settlement:
-- The certification of the settlement class as defined in this
court's order of July 6, 2023 is hereby confirmed for purposes
of
the settlement of this action.
-- 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.
-- 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.
-- The Defendants are discharged from all further liability for
the
released claims to settlement class members.
-- Class counsel's request for fees is granted in the modified
amount
of $187,500, subject to the fee division agreement of counsel.
-- Class counsel's request for costs of $7,398.72 is fair and
reasonable and is hereby granted.
-- The request for an enhancement award of $15,000 to the named
plaintiff is fair and reasonable and is hereby granted.
The Plaintiff filed this putative class action against defendant
Home Depot on April 3, 2020, alleging defendant failed to: 1)
provide class members with compliant meal periods; 2) provide class
members with compliant rest periods; 3) pay class members overtime
wages; 4) reimburse class members necessarily incurred business
expenses; 5) timely pay all class members wages due upon
termination; 6) furnish timely and accurate wage statements to
class members; and thus
violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (count 7); for which
plaintiff seeks PAGA penalties (count 8).
Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances,
and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O3tV9f at no extra charge.[CC]
HOME PARTNERS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to Feb. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK RICHMOND et al., v.
HOME PARTNERS HOLDING LLC et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05704-DGE (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order granting
stipulated motion to extend case deadlines:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Jan. 11, 2024 Feb. 21,
2024
Certification
Defendants' Opposition to Feb. 23, 2024 Apr. 3, 2024
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support March 15, 2024 Apr. 24,
2024
of Motion for Class
Certification
Motion for Summary Jan. 29, 2024 March 11,
2024
Judgment filed-by deadline
Plaintiffs' Opposition to Feb. 29, 2024 April 11,
2024
Summary Judgment
Defendants' Reply to March 21, 2024 May 1, 2024
Summary Judgment
In addition, the parties shall jointly file no later than January
12, 2024 a bullet-point summary of the discovery each party
believes necessary to complete the motion for class certification
and the motion for summary judgment.
Home Partners provides responsible households that cannot obtain a
mortgage a transparent path to home ownership.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TUDqLU at no extra charge.[CC]
J.B. HUNT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 24STCV00796 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Jan.
11, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Alexander was employed by the Defendant as a driver.
J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC. provides transportation services. The
Company offers logistics management, trucking, warehousing, freight
forwarding, brokerage, cargo, storage, shipping, supply chain
management, and distribution services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
Nidah Farishta, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Telephone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
Email: Roman@OLFLA.com
Nidah@OLFLA.com
JANCO FS 3: Garcia-Ortiz Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dulce Garcia-Ortiz, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. JANCO FS 3, LLC, A Delaware Limited
Liability Company, JANCO FS3, LLC (DBA VELOCITI SERVICES), a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC-23-610930 was removed from the Superior
Court of California in and for the County of San Francisco, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan.
12, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00239.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges eleven causes of action against
Velociti: failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; failure to pay all wages; failure to provide compliant
itemized wage statements; failure to pay all final wages; failure
to pay timely wages; failure to reimburse business expenses;
failure to pay overtime; failure to provide a safe and healthful
place of employment; unfair business practices; penalties pursuant
to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: +1.650.843.4000
Fax: +1.650.843.4001
Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
- and -
Joseph Lewis, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Phone: +1.415.442.1000
Facsimile: +1.415.442.1001
Email: joseph.lewis@morganlewis.com
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
FLORENCE AYALA; and CHRISTINE BAILEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00262 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11,
2024) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and
provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as flight
attendants.
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION provides non-stop passenger flight
services. The Company offers flights and vacation packages to
hundred plus destinations, legroom in coach, free wi-fi, live TV,
movies, snacks, and other related services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 847-8315
Email: canderson@gslawny.com
- and -
David R. Markham, Esq.
Maggie Realin, Esq.
THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
888 Prospect St., Suite 200
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (619) 399-3995
Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com
mrealin@markham-law.com
- and -
Jeffrey Hogue, Esq.
Tyler Belong, Esq.
HOGUE BELONG LAW
170 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-4720
Email: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com
tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com
- and -
Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH LLC
400 Broadacres Drive, Suite 260
Bloomfield, NJ 07003
Telephone: (973) 259-6990
Facsimile: (866) 848-1368
Email: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com
KANDI TECH: Must Opposes Class Cert Bid in Venkataraman by Jan. 26
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SRINIVASAN VENKATARAMAN,
v. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-08082-DEH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale E. Ho entered an
order adopting the parties' proposed timeline as follows:
-- The Defendants shall file an opposition Jan. 26, 2024
to motion for class certification:
-- The Plaintiff shall file a reply in March 22,
2024
support of motion for class
certification:
-- All expert discovery, including expert March 22, 2024
reports and depositions, shall be
completed no later than:
Kandi is a Chinese battery and electric vehicle manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O3MWZm at no extra charge.[CC]
KAY IVEY: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due Jan. 31
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT EARL COUNCIL AKA
KINETIK JUSTICE, et al., v. KAY IVEY, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-00712-CLM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Corey L. Maze
entered an order setting the following briefing schedule on the
motion for preliminary injunction:
-- The Defendants Governor Kay Ivey, Attorney General Steve
Marshall,
Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles Chair Leigh Gwathney, and
associate Parole Board members Darryl Littleton and Gabrelle
Simmons have until on or before January 22, 2024, to file their
response brief.
-- The Plaintiffs Lee Edward Moore Jr., Jerame Aprentice Cole,
Frederick Denard McDole, Michael Campbell, Arthur Charles
Ptomey
Jr., and Alimireo English's reply, if any, is due on or before
January 31, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TWbKWZ at no extra charge.[CC]
KENTUCKY: Kennedy Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kentucky Department
of Juvenile Justice. The case is styled as Jamiahia Kennedy, Willow
Neal, on Behalf of Themselves Individually and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice, Adair County
Youth Detention Center, Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family
Services, Kerry Harvey, Individually and in his capacity as
Secretary of the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet; Vicki
Reed, Individually and in her capacity as Commissioner of the
Department of Juvenile Justice; George Scott, Individually and in
his capacity as Executive Director Office of Program Operations
Services; James Sweatt, II, Individually and in his capacity as
Executive Director, Office of Detention, Department of Juvenile
Justice; David Kazee, Division Director; Tonya Burton, Individually
and in her capacity as Superintendent of Adair County Youth
Detention Center; Christopher Rakes, Individually and in his
capacity as Juvenile Facility Superintendent of Adair County Youth
Detention Center, Case No. 1:24-cv-00016-GNS (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 15,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
The Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) --
https://justice.ky.gov/Departments-Agencies/Pages/djj.aspx -- is
one of the five departments under the Kentucky Justice and Public
Safety Cabinet.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erin Stemle, Esq.
ALEX R. WHITE, PLLC
904 Minoma Ave.
Louisville, KY 40217
Phone: (502) 882-7552
Email: erin@arwhitelaw.com
- and -
John Saoirse Friend, Esq.
FRIEND LAW, PSC
P.O. Box 21035
Louisville, KY 40221
Phone: (502) 542-2455
Email: johnny@friendlawky.com
- and -
Laura E. Landenwich, Esq.
ADAMS LANDENWICH WALTON PLLC
517 W. Ormsby Avenue
Louisville, KY 40203
Phone: (502) 561-0085
Fax: (502) 415-7505
Email: laura@justiceky.com
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Ruling on Second Joint Status Report Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brayman v. Keypoint
Government Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00550 (D. Colo., Filed
March 08, 2018), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an
order re Parties' Second Joint Status Report.
Upon consideration of the Parties' positions, the Court is
convinced by Defendant's argument that "the Court should proceed
with option (a) from its November 30, 2023 Order."
Accordingly, the Court will issue a revised ruling on the
Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification in light
of the Tenth Circuit's order on appeal and based on the record
before it, and will allow no further briefing on said motion.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving
overtime wage.
KeyPoint provides security services.[CC]
KIA AMERICA: Allowed to Seal Portions of Opposition
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yandery Sanchez, Louise
Knudson, Andrea Reiher-Odom, Amber Witt, Mark Treston, Margaret
Ritzler, Hank Herber, Linda Wilbur, Thomas Rocco, Jerry Dubose,
April Fisher, and Tewana Nelson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Kia America, Inc. f/k/a Kia Motors
America, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01604-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order granting the Defendant
Kia's application for leave to file under seal portions of its:
1) opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification;
2) motion to exclude the report and testimony of the
Plaintiffs'
Expert witness Thomas Read;
3) motion to Exclude the report and Testimony of Darren Manzari;
and
4) certain Exhibits theretoeto.
Kia America provides a wide range of cars.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48yQgE5 at no extra charge.[CC]
LA PLAZA MARKET: Santos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Plaza Market, LLC.
The case is styled as Krismel Soto Dos Santos, individually an on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act v. La Plaza Market, LLC,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0000422 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., Jan. 12, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
La Plaza Market, LLC -- https://www.laplazasupermarket.com/ --
offers a refreshed shopping experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203
Glendale, CA 91203-4007
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
Email: arby@calljustice.com
LEVEL 3: Conditional Class Certification Hearing Reset to Feb. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Level 3
Communications, LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-81066 (S.D. Fla., Filed July
21, 2022), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Defendant's
unopposed motion to continue the Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification.
-- The Zoom Hearing (previously scheduled for Jan. 25, 2024) is
hereby reset for Feb. 2, 2024, at 11:00 AM before Magistrate
Judge
Bruce E. Reinhart.
-- Counsel shall use the Zoom link previously provided.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act.
Level 3 Communications was an American multinational
telecommunications and Internet service provider company.[CC]
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Reply by Jan. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aley v. Lightfire
Partners, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00330 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 7,
2022), the Hon. Judge Anne M. Nardacci entered an order granting
the Defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time to
respond to the Plaintiff's Motion to certify class.
-- The Defendant shall file a response to Jan. 23, 2024
the motion on or before:
-- The Plaintiff shall file any reply to Jan. 30, 2024
the response on or before:
The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
LightFire is a full-service, business-to-consumer marketing,
advertising and branding firm.[CC]
MAISON SOLUTIONS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of Maison Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ: MSS): (1) Class A
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with Maison Solutions' October
2023 initial public offering (the "IPO"); and/or (2) securities
between October 5, 2023 and December 15, 2023, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important March 4, 2024 lead plaintiff
deadline.
If you purchased Maison Solutions securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
To join the Maison Solutions class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21393 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 4,
2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.
Rosen Law Firm encourages investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
According to the lawsuit, in the Registration Statement and
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that:
(1) Maison's vendor XHJC Holdings Inc., is a related party;
(2) Maison's Chief Executive Officer and related entities were
alleged to have used supermarkets as a front to defraud the EB-5
visa program; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about Maison's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Maison Solutions class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21393 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel
unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You
may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this
point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
MONSANTO COMPANY: Koller Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT KOLLER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Scott Koller, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Monsanto Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04260-MMC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in the First
Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"), Plaintiffs Scott Koller,
Tim Ferguson, Ruby Cornejo, and John Lysek allege they each
purchased a concentrated form of Roundup, i.e., a Roundup product
that consists of more than 40% glyphosate in sizes at or below 6.8
lbs (the "Products"), which Products are designed to kill weeds.
The Plaintiffs allege that Bayer and Monsanto, as well as Defendant
Seamless Control LLC, manufacture, sell, market, and, through
third-parties, distribute the Products, and that Scotts sells,
distributes, and markets some of the Products.
The Plaintiffs note that "N-Nitrosoglyphosate ('NNG') is an
impurity inherent to glyphosate," the active ingredient of the
Products, and that glyphosate degrades into NNG when glyphosate
reacts with nitrites, which are prevalent in everyday environments,
such as city air, exhaust from cars, and water. They also allege
that NNG belongs to a class of chemicals called nitrosamines, that
the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") "presumes" nitrosamines
to be carcinogenic when they occur at certain levels, and that the
EPA sets a hard limit of 1 part per million ('ppm') of NNG in
pesticides, including glyphosate products.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants sold the Products
or caused the Products to be sold to consumers, even though they
knew or should have known at the time of those sales that the
Products were defective because the Products could never guarantee
they would stay below the 1 ppm safety limit for NNG through the
time a consumer uses the entirety of the Product.
Based on said allegations, the Plaintiffs assert, on their own
behalf and on behalf of a putative class, eleven Causes of Action:
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for Breach of Express
Warranties, violation of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act for Breach
of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Breach of Implied Warranty,
Breach of Express Warranty, Fraudulent Concealment, Common Law
Fraud, Deceit and/or Misrepresentation, violations of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising, Business and Professions
Code, unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent trade practices in violation
of Business and Professions Code and Unjust Enrichment.
By order filed Feb. 10, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the initial complaint. As set forth on the
record at the hearing on those motions, the Court dismissed the
Plaintiffs' initial pleading for failure to sufficiently allege NNG
is carcinogenic at any level and for failure to sufficiently allege
the Products they purchased are substantially certain to develop
NNG at a level above 1 ppm, a limit the Plaintiffs alleged had been
set by the EPA. By the same order, the Court afforded the
Plaintiffs leave to amend, which they subsequently did.
Moreover, the Court found the Plaintiffs' allegations insufficient,
the EPA notice being titled a "Proposed Policy" that had been
submitted for public comment and there being no allegation the
proposal had ever been adopted by the EPA. The Court also found the
Plaintiffs' allegation that most of the tested nitrosamines were
determined to be carcinogenic was not, in the absence of other
allegations, sufficient to support a finding that NNG itself was
carcinogenic.
In the FAC, the Plaintiffs have added allegations regarding the
EPA's proposed process, as well as other allegations pertinent to
the question of whether NNG is carcinogenic.
Having considered all of the allegations, the Court found, as to
the question of whether NNG is carcinogenic, the Plaintiffs have
alleged sufficient facts to nudge their claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible.
The next issue presented is what amount of NNG needs to be present
before it can be considered carcinogenic and whether any such
amount is present in the Products. The Court found the Plaintiffs'
allegations in the initial complaint were insufficient to support a
finding to that effect, and, as discussed, the Court finds the
allegations in the FAC likewise are insufficient to support such a
finding.
Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth in the Order, Judge
Chesney ruled that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently
allege that the Products they purchased are substantially certain
to form NNG in excess of 1 ppm, and, consequently, each of their
claims fails.
In their opposition, the Plaintiffs requested further leave to
amend in the event the Court finds they have again failed to a
state a cognizable claim. As the Plaintiffs fail, however, to
identify additional facts they could allege to state such a claim,
Judge Chesney pointed out that further leave to amend will be
denied.
For the reasons stated, the Court granted the Defendants' motions
to dismiss, and the First Amended Class Action Complaint was
dismissed without further leave to amend.
The appellate case is captioned Koller, et al. v. Monsanto Company,
et al., Case No. 24-43, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 3, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 8,
2024;
-- Appellant Appeal Opening Brief is due on February 12, 2024;
and
-- Appellee Appeal Answering Brief is due on March 13, 2024.
[BN]
Defendants-Appellees MONSANTO COMPANY, et al. are represented by:
Jeffrey J. Jones, Esq.
JONES DAY
150 W. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2100
Detroit, MI 48226
MOTORO CARS: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alvaro Flores, and other similarly situated individuals v. MOTORO
CARS INC., MOTORO CARS I, LLC, MOTORO CARS II LLC, MOTORO CARS III,
LLC, MOTORO CARS IV, LLC, and FELIX DIAZ, individually, Case No.
1:24-cv-20130-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2024), is brought to
recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under
the laws of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("the Act").
While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours
every week, but he was not paid for all his regular and overtime
hours worked. Plaintiff was unable to take bonafide lunchtime.
Plaintiff worked a total of 60 hours weekly. Plaintiff did not
clock in and out, but Defendants could track the number of days and
hours worked by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.
During his time of employment, Plaintiff did not receive his
regular wages. Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly, but he
was not paid for overtime hours. Plaintiff stayed working because
the owner of the business FELIX DIAZ promised to pay him all his
overdue wages and to give him an opportunity to become a partner of
the business. Defendant FELIX DIAZ did not honor his promises and
did not pay Plaintiff his wages. Therefore, Defendants willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages in violation of the Act. The
Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff
overtime wages at the rate of time and a half his regular rate for
every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the Act,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
full-time, hourly employee as a service clerk, customer service,
receptionist, and cashier.
The Defendants are full-service preventing maintenance and
automotive repair centers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
MR BAEZ METAL: Chavez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Mario E. Chavez, and other similarly situated individuals v. MR
BAEZ METAL, CORP., and ARSENIO V. BAEZ, Individually, Case No.
1:24-cv-20134-RAR (S.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2024), is brought to recover
monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under United States Laws
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA" or the
"Act").
The Plaintiff worked consistently and regularly 57 hours weekly,
but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by law. Every
week the Plaintiff was paid an average of $800.00, regardless of
the number of hours worked. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out,
but Defendants were in absolute control of Plaintiff's schedule and
activities. Defendants knew the hours that Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals were working. Plaintiff worked under
the supervision of the business owner ARSENIO V. BAEZ. Therefore,
Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the
rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour that he
worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt, full-time employee and
performed as a welder.
The Defendant is a fence contractor specializing in metal fence
manufacturing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
MWI VETERINARY SUPPLY: Haley Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Julissa Lenay Haley, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MWI VETERINARY SUPPLY
CO., an Idaho corporation; JEFF SMITH, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. VCU303095 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of
Tulare, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Jan. 12, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00060-NODJ-HBK.
The Complaint alleges nine causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff
and a putative class under California law: failure to pay overtime
wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties;
failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay
all wages; failure to pay vested vacation time at the final rate of
pay; and violation of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
Michelle L. Quach, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: +1.650.843.4000
Fax: +1.650.843.4001
Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
michelle.quach@morganlewis.com
OLD DOMINION: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Valentina Rodriguez, an individual and on
behalf of similarly situated Aggrieved Employees v. OLD DOMINION
FREIGHT LINE, INC., a Virginia corporation, JEFFREY DELPORT, an
individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
BCV-23-103666 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Kern, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 12, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00061-JLT-CDB.
On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC") in the State Court Action. The Plaintiff purports to assert
eight claims against Sham Defendant Delport. Seven of these claims
are based on purported wage-and-hour violations under the
California Labor Code: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay
Overtime Compensation; Failure to Pay Meal and Rest Break
Compensation; Failure to Pay Wages in a Timely Manner; Failure to
Maintain Payroll Records; Failure to Furnish Wage and Hour
Statements; and Waiting Time Penalties.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: 310.820.8800
Facsimile: 310.820.8859
Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com
abeverlin@bakerlaw.com
ksakaue@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Transamerica Pyramid
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94111-2806
Phone: 415.659.2600
Facsimile: 415.659.2601
Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com
OTO DEVELOPMENT: Baxley Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Houston Baxley, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. OTO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2023CUOE017203 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Ventura, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 12,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00343.
The Complaint alleges one cause of action which Plaintiff pursues
on a
class-wide basis: Violation of Labor Code Section 201-203.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel B Chammas, Esq.
Min K. Kim, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-237-2400
Facsimile: 213-237-2401
Email: dchammas@fordharrison.com
MKim@fordharrison.com
POLLO CAMPERO: Chavez Sues to Recover Damages
----------------------------------------------
Sonia Chavez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. POLLO CAMPERO HOLDING, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability
Company; POLLO CAMPERO OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; ADIR RESTAURANTS CORP., a California
Corporation; CAMPERO USA CORP., a Texas Corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV00947 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 12, 2024), is brought to recover damages on
behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals who
worked for Defendants in the State of California as hourly-paid
and/or non-exempt employees at any time from four years prior to
the date of this Complaint through final judgment, for violations
of the California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission ("IWC") Wage Order.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff and Class
Members but, among other things, failed to properly pay them all
wages owed for all time worked (including minimum wages, straight
time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide them with all
meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages to which
they were entitled, failed to timely pay them all wages due during
their employment, failed to timely pay them all wages due upon
termination of their employment, failed to provide them with
accurate itemized wage statements, failed to maintain accurate
payroll records, and failed to reimburse them for necessary
business expenses, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from November 2022 through
October 2023 as a Food Preparer.
POLLO CAMPERO HOLDING, LLC was and is, an employer who does
business in California, with locations throughout the state of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
Karen I. Gold, Esq.
Marissa A. Mayhood, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
Beverly Hills, CA 9021 1
Phone: (310) 622-4278
Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
kgold@blackstonepc.com
mmayhood@blackstonepc.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Class-Action Suits Over Data Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Rabb, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
Progressive Casualty Insurance and North Carolina-based Builders
Mutual Insurance Co. have been served with class-action lawsuits
over data breaches on their own computer systems in 2022, cyber
attacks that may have exposed the personal data of more than
411,000 people.
"Plaintiffs bring this class action against Builders Mutual for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other
similarly situated individuals' name, date of birth, Social
Security Number, and workers' compensation information . . . from
hackers," reads the amended complaint against Builders Mutual,
filed last week in federal court in North Carolina.
In federal court in South Carolina, plaintiff Dodie Waden, a
resident of Columbia, South Carolina, and others made similar
allegations about Progressive, which had learned of a data breach
in May 2023.
"Defendant knew or should have known that due the increasing number
of well-publicized data breaches that have occurred in the United
States, large data storage such as this require the highest level
of protection, which Defendant failed to provide," reads the
complaint.
While insurers worldwide in recent years have faced insured losses
from cyber attacks on their policyholders, as well as some thorny
litigation about the extent of coverage, relatively few carriers
have seen class actions over reported breaches in their own
computers. Marsh & McLennan Companies were famously sued by an
employee after a 2021 computer breach reportedly exposed personal
information to cyber criminals. That case is still pending, but an
appeals court ruling last fall opened the door for more U.S.
lawsuits alleging harm from cyber attacks, even when plaintiffs
provide no evidence that the data was improperly used.
Mapfre USA and its affiliate Commerce Insurance Co. also were hit
with class actions last September over a data breach that may have
exposed personal information on some 260,000 people.
Now, Progressive and Builders Mutual face their own litigation
after the 2022 breaches. Builders Mutual, with headquarters in
Raleigh and contractor coverage in several Southeastern states,
reported the attack to regulators in September 2023, but that was
well after after suspicious computer activity was discovered, the
plaintiffs said.
"Builders Mutual waited nine months to notify the public, including
Plaintiffs and Class Members, that they were at risk," the lawsuit
alleges.
The Builders Mutual plaintiffs, which include Matthew Kocher and
Mark Rogolino, of Florida, and James Jackson, of Virginia, is
asking for millions of dollars in damages. The suit contends that
more than 100 other plaintiffs could join the lawsuit. Altogether,
personal data on some 64,000 people may have been accessed by
criminals in the cyber attack, the suit said.
Builders Mutual, which turns 40 this year, provides workers'
compensation, general liability, builders' risk, auto, property and
other coverage to commercial clients, including several home
builders associations, according to its website. The firm employs
some 365 people and had about $384 million in annual revenue, the
lawsuit notes. Michael Gerber is president and CEO.
The mutual insurer failed to follow Federal Trade Commission and
other guidelines on cyber security, including removal of personal
data when it is no longer needed, and implementation of protections
against unauthorized access, the complaint reads.
One plaintiff, Rogolino, has already suffered from identify theft,
including fraudulent benefit claims submitted in his name,
unauthorized cellphone charges, and thousands of dollars in
unauthorized utility charges for services he never received, the
suit alleges. Kocher argued that cybercriminals have charged his
credit card for movie tickets and for purchases at retail stores.
Builders Mutual has yet to file an answer to the complaint or a
motion to dismiss the suit. The company could not be reached for
comment Sunday. It was not reported if Builders had secured its own
cyber insurance ahead of the 2022 attack or if it is self-insured.
In the Progressive suit, filed last week, the plaintiffs contend
that the insurer learned of the breach in May 2023 but did not
notify the 347,000 insureds and other victims until August of that
year. The complaint argues that Progressive was unjustly enriched
by accepting premiums but failed to use its revenue to secure its
data. Progressive has not yet answered the complaint.
Cyber attacks and related litigation will likely continue to be a
serious threat to insurers' bottom lines in the years ahead. A 2022
report from IntSights, a computer security firm, said that the
insurance industry is a target for ransomware and other cyber
attacks, partly because insurers possess a great deal of personally
identifiable information about policyholders. Insured companies
also may be targets of hackers due to the perception that those
policyholders may be more likely to pay ransoms if they are covered
by cyber insurance.
The market for cyber insurance took a hit during the pandemic, but
made a comeback in 2023, after significant premium increases,
according to news reports. [GN]
QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Salmonella Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Global News reports that a Vancouver-based law firm has filed a
proposed Canada-wide class-action lawsuit against The Quaker Oats
Company and PepsiCo Canada after its Quaker products were recalled
in Canada due to potential salmonella contamination.
Slater Vecchio LLP launched the lawsuit "on behalf of all persons
in Canada" who purchased any of the 38 Quaker products that were
recalled, or who believe they got sick after eating the products.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued the initial recall on
Jan. 11, 2024, for 38 Quaker products, including granola and
cereal, and then later recalled more than 30 yogurt and parfait
products that contained Quaker granola.
"Canadians trust manufacturers to produce packaged foods that can
safely be consumed without the risk of illness from contamination,"
Sam Jaworski, a partner at Slater Vecchio LLP, said in a
statement.
"Through a class-action, Canadians can access justice to hold
suppliers accountable through strength in numbers, even if it would
not be economical to pursue a lawsuit at the individual level."
Slater Vecchio LLP is seeking to identify those who believe they
got sick from the recalled products, and says it can be contacted
here.
The lawsuit alleges that Quaker "failed to implement
quality-control measures to detect and prevent contamination of the
(recalled products) with salmonella."
The plaintiff, B.C. resident Jessica Simpson, began experiencing
symptoms consistent with salmonella poisoning a few hours after
consuming a Dipps Granola Bar that her mother purchased and had
those symptoms for about two days, according to the lawsuit.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's recall included different
flavours of Harvest Crunch cereals, chewy and yogurt granola bars,
Cap'n Crunch treat bars. The recall did not include Quaker oats.
The best before dates for the recalled breakfast items are between
Jan. 11 and Oct. 7, 2024.
Canadians are urged not to consume these products and to throw them
out or return them to where they were bought.
As of Jan. 19, there have been no illnesses reported in Canada,
according to the federal government.
The CFIA said it was conducting a food safety investigation, which
may lead to other products being recalled.
Last month, Quaker Oats issued a recall of granola bars and granola
cereals across 50 U.S. states because of a potential salmonella
contamination, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Quaker Canada said in a statement on Jan. 11 that the recall was a
direct result of the U.S. recall, which was also expanded by the
Quaker Oats Company.
"This action is being taken in Canada out of an abundance of
caution and commitment to the wellbeing of our Canadian consumers,"
Quaker Canada said.
Customers can get reimbursement for the recalled products by going
to this website.
Salmonella is a bacterial infection commonly transmitted through
contaminated food and water and poses a significant health threat,
especially to children and older adults, as it can lead to severe
gastrointestinal symptoms, dehydration, and, in extreme cases,
death.
"Salmonella is one of the most prolific pathogens we know," Keith
Warriner, a food safety professor from the University of Guelph,
previously told Global News. "The reason why it's so successful is
that it can survive any environment. It can be passed from person
to person and passed into foods."
The Quaker recall came after at least seven Canadians died from a
salmonella outbreak linked to cantaloupe late in 2023. More than
100 Canadians were also infected.
The same law firm behind the Quaker class-action lawsuit also
recently filed two class-action lawsuits against the Mexican
company Malichita, which grew the cantaloupes, and two U.S. food
companies.
Symptoms of salmonella infection typically start between six and 72
hours after exposure and can last anywhere from four to seven days,
according to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).
They may include fever, chills, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea,
headache, or abdominal cramps.
If you suspect you have salmonella, PHAC recommends seeing a
health-care provider.
Most people recover on their own without any medical treatment, the
agency said.
However, because salmonella can lead to severe dehydration, an
emergency room visit may be necessary. There is also the risk of
severe illness if the infection has gone beyond the intestines, and
antibiotics may be needed. [GN]
SCRIBEAMERICA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Balan Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
KAITLYN BALAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCRIBEAMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
24STCV00872 (Cal., Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 11, 2024) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
Plaintiff Balan was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
SCRIBEAMERICA, LLC provides scribe training and management
services. The Company specializes in testimonials, emergency
medicine, hospital medicine, outpatient medicine, urgent care
centers, telescribes, and medical education services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
Gregg Lander, Esq.
Vanessa M. Ruggles, Esq.
D. LAW, INC.
1635 Pontius Avenue, Floor 2
Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
Telephone: (424) 320-6420
Facsimile: (424) 320-6454
SMG EXTOL: Court Tosses Initial OK Bid of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CESAR MADRIGAL, v. SMG
EXTOL, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-07351-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order denying motion for
preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement of the
classwide claims.
The parties have agreed to settle Madrigal's individual claims
separately for $50,000. The motion is suitable for disposition
without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and the
hearing set for January 11, 2024, is vacated.
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of the class
settlement is denied without prejudice. The Court defers ruling on
preliminary class certification until such a time as Plaintiff
submits a revised motion that merits preliminary approval.
The Plaintiff Cesar Madrigal brings both class claims alleging
violations of state wage and hour laws and individual claims
alleging retaliation and wrongful termination against the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff originally filed suit in Alameda Superior Court
seeking individual relief on various wage and hour claims as well
as claims for retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair
competition.
The proposed settlement agreement provides that Defendants will pay
a non-reversionarygross amount of $550,000 to the Settlement Class,
defined as "all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees of the Company who worked in the State of California at
any time between August 3, 2018, and July 18, 2023."
From this gross amount, the Plaintiff proposes to deduct
$183,333.33 in attorney fees, $20,000 in costs, $5,000 in a service
award for Madrigal, and $6,450 to cover settlement administration
costs. $45,000 has been designated as the "PAGA Payment," and
pursuant to California Labor Code section 2699(i), 75% shall be
paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.
SMG is a provider of infrastructure development and support
services to customers in the data center and information technology
sectors.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aYwd3j at no extra charge.[CC]
TD BANK: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Illegal Bank Fees for $15.9-M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Mae Jones, writing for CTV News, reports that a TD Bank
customer may be entitled to part of a $15.9 million settlement due
to a recent class-action lawsuit.
In December, the law firm Koskie Minsky LLP announced that a
proposed settlement had been reached for a class-action lawsuit
regarding repeated non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees.
The lawsuit alleged that customers were being charged multiple NSF
fees without proper notification that this was a possibility. TD
Bank has denied liability, but agreed to settle after mediation in
August.
The proposed settlement of $15.9 million hasn't been approved yet
-- on Feb. 12, a hearing will be held to decide if it will be
approved. If approved, TD will deposit funds owed directly into the
bank accounts of eligible class members, meaning that if you're
eligible, you don't have to do anything to collect your piece of
the pie.
Adam Tanel, a partner at Koskie Minsky, said that they were happy
class members wouldn't have to "jump through any additional
hoops."
"We believe that this is an excellent result for the class," he
said in a press release. "It took a lot of work, on both sides, to
get this deal done. We're pleased with the outcome."
An NSF fee is applied when a cheque bounces or a customer makes a
payment to the bank that is rejected because of insufficient
funds.
TD customers were charged $48 in this situation according to the
provision in the bank's "standard-form consumer banking agreement"
at the time of the lawsuit's launch, court documents laid out. But
in some situations, customers were finding themselves saddled with
a second NSF fee for the same rejected payment. The lawsuit argued
that the possibility of repeated NSF fees for one payment was not
something customers were properly informed of.
The class action was first launched in 2021 and was certified on
Dec. 7 by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. It includes those
in Canada who are or were holders of a personal deposit account
with TD Bank since Feb. 2, 2019, and whose account had been charged
with an NSF fee in that time.
Although funds will be deposited automatically if the proposed
settlement is approved, eligible class members are able to opt out
if they choose.
Koskie Minsky LLP has opt-out forms available on their website, as
well as forms to file an objection if you wish to remain a part of
the class, but object to the proposed settlement. Both forms are
due by Jan. 26. Objections will be heard at the approval hearing in
February. [GN]
TRANSUNION LLC: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Manuela Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAEND MANUELA, v.
TRANSUNION LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-10998-AT-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.
-- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
(including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
deadline
must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of
Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for
adjournments or extensions will not be entertained.
Transunion offers total credit protection all in one place from
credit score, credit report and credit alert.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aYAuDZ at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses Rancher's Bid to Intervene
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK FARMERS &
AGRICULTURALISTS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., v. THOMAS J. VILSACK,
SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02527-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl
H. Lipman entered an order denying Corey Lea's motion to
intervene.
The Plaintiffs brought this consolidated class action against the
Defendants. In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs seek
judicial review of a final agency action by the United States
Department of Agriculture ("USDA") in connection with the
implementation of Section 22007 of the Inflation Reduction Act
("IRA").
Lea, a Black rancher who resides in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, filed
a pro se Motion to Intervene on October 23, 2023.
The IRA made available $2.2 billion in financial assistance to
farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners who experienced
discrimination by a USDA farm-lending program before January 1,
2021.
The Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction suspending the January
13 application deadline, arguing that the deadline is "arbitrary
and capricious, violative of separation of powers, and Due
Process."
USDA is responsible for overseeing farming, ranching, and forestry
industries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tQqImP at no extra charge.[CC]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants Seek Appeal on Aldrich Ch. 11 Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald V. Miller, Jr., writing for Lawsuit-Information-Center.com,
reports that a group of asbestos claimants in North Carolina are
seeking permission to appeal a Bankruptcy Judge's decision to
reject their attempt to dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of
Aldrich Pump. They argue that the appeal could quickly resolve both
the ongoing bankruptcy case and significant legal issues.
Aldrich Pump filed for Chapter 11 protection in June 2020 due to
the asbestos liabilities inherited from Trane Technologies, its
parent company, following a complex merger. The asbestos claimants,
including an official committee and an independent group, moved to
dismiss Aldrich's bankruptcy case in spring 2023. They claimed the
filing was in bad faith, as Aldrich was not financially distressed,
and argued that granting bankruptcy protection to a non-distressed
company exceeded the court's constitutional powers.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trustee's Attempt to Recover $59.7MM Sparks Debate
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald V. Miller, Jr., writing for Lawsuit-Information-Center.com,
reports that in a case that underscores the challenges faced by
asbestos victims when companies restructure assets before
bankruptcy, The Nash Engineering Co., a bankrupt Connecticut
manufacturer, and its former shareholders are disputing a trustee's
attempt to recover $59.7 million in cash transfers. These
transfers, connected to asbestos liabilities and insurance claims,
were executed over a decade ago.
Nash Engineering, embroiled in asbestos litigation, filed for
bankruptcy in 2021, listing no significant assets beyond insurance
coverage while facing claims from nearly 1,700 creditors, primarily
related to asbestos injuries. The trustee's delayed investigation
into the bankruptcy and the subsequent lawsuit seeking to recoup
the funds highlight the difficulties asbestos victims face in
obtaining compensation.
According to Mr. Miller, this is particularly evident when
companies strategically shift assets to keep more money for
themselves by taking money out of the kitty before filing
bankruptcy. The Nash Engineering case illustrates the legal
complexities and potential injustices involving asbestos-related
claims and corporate financial maneuvers.
*********
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 ***