/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240201.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 1, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 24 Headlines 1-800-GOT-JUNK? LLC: Records Telephonic Communications, Serna Says 10 WEST FERRY: Lundeen Sues Over Staff's Unpaid Wages 23ANDME HOLDING: Faces Another Suit Over Unprotected Genetic Info ADF ENTERPRISES: Michel Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses AF LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Business Practices AJ BELLA: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Nonpayment of Overtime ALLOVIR INC: Zerbato Sues Over 67.38% Decline of Stock Price AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Berry Suit Transferred to E.D. California AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal AMERICAN MOTOR: Hessee Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ANKER INNOVATIONS: Court Partially Dismisses Privacy Claims Suit ANNA JAQUES HOSPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Info APPLE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss $1-Bil. App Store Class Suit ARCHDIOCESE OF QUEBEC: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Sexual Assault ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Class Action Over Executive Compensation AVEN FINANCIAL INC: Waden Files Suit in D. South Carolina B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Fraud BATH SAVER INC: Rawlings Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania BIONTECH SE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 12 BIOVIE INC: Olmstead Alleges Securities Law Breaches BLUETRITON BRANDS: Slowinski Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana BMO INVESTORLINE: Bid for Certification of Trailer Fee Suit Denied BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Court Authorizes $2.4M Award in ERISA Suit BRITISH AMERICAN: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 25 BROWN UNIVERSITY: Settles Antitrust Admissions Suit for $19.5M BYD COACH & BUS: Bonito Suit Removed to C.D. California CHICK-FIL-A INC: Agrees to Settle Delivery Fees' Suit for $4.4MM CHIRO INC: Zepeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CINEPLEX INC: Faces Class Action Over Movie Tickets' Booking Fees CITRIX SYSTEMS: Clark Files Suit in S.D. Florida COLE HAAN LLC: Bunkley Suit Removed to E.D. California COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles Financial Aid Class Suit for $24M COMCAST CABLE: McCauley Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania COMCAST CABLE: Smith Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania COMCAST CORPORATION: Roseman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania COMMCARE CORPORATION: Bowie Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana CORTECH INTERNATIONAL: Vazquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. D'ORE JEWELERS NY: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DEACON CONSTRUCTION: Watson Suit Removed to S.D. California DIEHLUX LLC: Faces Wasley Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. DOLLAR GENERAL: Hartline Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma DORA MAAR USA: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Carter Suit Transferred to E.D. New York EQUIFAX INC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Tribal Loan Accounts EXACT SCIENCES: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIGS INC: Court Dismisses Ryan Suit Over Securities Violations FIRST ENERGY: Frand Seeks to Clarify Class Certification Order FIRST ENERGY: Owens Seeks Clarification of Class Cert Order FKA DISTRIBUTING: Mitchell Sues Over Undisclosed Product Defects FLY JAMAICA: Court Approves Settlement in Aircraft Accident Suit FRONT GENERAL STORE: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York FULL SAIL LLC: Beckwith Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida GEICO GENERAL: Court Approves Amended Class Notice in Lanzillotta GROVESTARS MOVING: Errante Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida H.F. COX: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Rawles Claims HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS: Meek Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements HEALTH-ADE LLC: Beverages Contain Toxic Chemicals, Morton Says HEALTHEC LLC: Cappas Files Suit in D. New Jersey HEALTHEC LLC: Figurel Files Suit in D. New Jersey HEALTHEC LLC: Marano Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info HEALTHEC LLC: Roach Files Suit in D. New Jersey HEART OF TEXAS: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach HERTZ CORP: Retherford Seeks Conditional Status of Collective HMG HEALTHCARE: Townsend Files Suit in S.D. Texas HOME DEPOT: Floyd Suit Removed to C.D. California HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Certifies Four Classes in Airquip Lawsuit HOUSE OF ELEVEN: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HUME SUPERNATURAL: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HUNAN MANOR: Taste of Mao Appeals Ruling in Chen FLSA Suit IC MARKETS: Misleads Investors Over Financial Products, Suit Says IMA FINANCIAL GROUP: Zerbe Files Suit in D. Kansas INDIANA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Gender Affirming Care Ban INLINE PLASTICS: Crawley Files Suit in D. Connecticut INMATE CALLING SOLUTIONS: Israelson Files Suit in D. Kansas INTEGRIS HEALTH: Johnston Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma J.M. SMUCKER: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Humphrey Due April 25 J.M. SMUCKER: Parties Wants April 25 Deadline for Class Cert Bid JAMES LEBLANC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 30 JENNIFER FISHER: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York JETBLUE AIRWAYS: La Grow Suit Removed to C.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Neutrogena Shampoo False Ads JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morris Suit Transferred to E.D. New York KAY IVEY: Feb. 8 Provisional Class Cert Hearing in Kinetic OK'd KEEP YOUR CADENCE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LAND O'LAKES: Arana Suit Removed to E.D. California LAZER SPOT: Faces Class Suit Over "Yard Jockeys" Unpaid Overtime LIBERTY INSURANCE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 18 LIQUID LAB: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says LIVE WELL: Class Suit Settlement in Mass Layoffs Suit Gets Final OK LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Opposition Deadline Continued to Feb. 2 MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies 401(k) Class Action Suit MANTL INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Class Action Over IPO False Information MARATHON REFINING: Butel Seeks to Certify Two Classes MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Lopez Suit Removed to D. Colorado MARTIN LUTHER: Fails to Properly Pay Healthcare Staff, Roldan Says MASTER LOCK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pan Suit Due March 5 MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Jones Suit Removed to C.D. California MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod MDL 2918: EUPs Consider Sealing Class Cert Materials ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Stock Due April 19 MEDITERRANEAN FOODS: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MENZIES AVIATION: Douglass Suit Removed to S.D. California MIAMI IM REST: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida MINNESOTA: Mount Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 8th Cir. MODERNISTIC II: Murphy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime MONROW LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MOTT'S LLP: "Preservative-Free" Mix Claims Misleading, Suit Says N.IO INNOVATION: Court Sets Class Certification Schedule in Karaba NATIONAL DEBT: Vincent Sues Over Unauthorized Collection of IPs NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sunday Ticket Package Suit to be Heard June 2024 NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Class Settlement in Woodard Gets Final Nod NEW INDY: Higher Court Hears Arguments in Class Suit Over Foul Odor NEW LONDON PHARMACY: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Doe Moves to Certify Sex Discrimination Suit NEW YORK, NY: Miller Suit Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal NEW YORK, NY: Police Officers Get Conditional Class Certification OFF HOURS SPIRITS: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OPENAI INC: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Briefing Schedule OSLO COFFEE ROASTERS: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York PACCAR INC: 10th Gear Files Suit in W.D. Washington PACCAR INC: Long Files Suit in S.D. Illinois PACIFIC MARITIME: Hill Suit Removed to N.D. California PALOMA POINTE: Palacio-Grant Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Murphy Sues Over Unpaid Compensations PATRIOT PICKLE: Mayer Suit Removed to W.D. New York PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP: Torres Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. PHARMERICA PS: Thao Suit Removed to S.D. California PLOW & HEARTH: Langston Files Suit in D. Utah PRECISION PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Suit Says PROVIDENT TITLE: Agito Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Camoras Files Suit in D. Utah PURPLE INNOVATION: Julian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. QUAKER WINDOW PRODUCTS: Byrd Files Suit in W.D. Missouri QUAKER WINDOW PRODUCTS: Noakes Files Suit in W.D. Missouri REJOICE DELIVERS: Amazon Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Webb REJOICE DELIVERS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Webb Suit RENAL TREATMENT: Leon Suit Removed to C.D. California RENTGROW INC: Szewczyk Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes RESURGENT CAPITAL: Haston Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal RETENTION BRANDS: Bongiovi Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York RHODE ISLAND: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Inmates RUMPL INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RXO LAST: May File Third-Party Complaint in Mejia Suit S. CAROL MASSIE: Paiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SALESFORCE INC: Roy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAMPSON BLADEN: Gbete Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 29 SAUCE VENTURES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SBARRO LLC: Filing for Class Certification Due April 12 SCHRADER MECHANICAL: Brazeau Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SEASONS RECOVERY: Mangus Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Torres Files Suit in D. Kansas SHOP-ALEXIS.COM: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SITE SAFE TRAFFIC: Gilbert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SL GREEN REALTY: Newman Files Suit in S.D. New York SLEEP NUMBER: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California SMARTE CARTE: Facio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SMARTY LLC: Foster Suit Removed to S.D. California SUTTER HEALTH: Copans Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts T&T FARMS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification Bid TAPESTRY INC: Parties Seek May 24 Extension for Class Cert Filing THUNDER CARRIER: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Sancruzado Claims TIMES PUBLISHING: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Suit TURQUOISE HILL: Lead Plaintiff Allowed Leave to File TAC U.S. STEEL: Settles Class Suit Over Fire, Power Outages UNITED INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Over Hot Shot Bedbug UNITED INDUSTRIES: Martin Sues Over Product's Deceptive Labeling UNITED STATES: Muhumed Seeks Certification as Class Rep UNITED STATES: Settles Discrimination Class Action Suit for $6M VERIZON WIRELESS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Illegal Fees for $100M VICTORIA: Faces Class Suit Over Public Housing Demolition Plan VIRGINIA: Hatcher Must File Reply to Opposition by Feb. 5 VISA INC: Bids to Decertify Class Suit Over Transaction Fees VISION LOGISTICS: Morley Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations WEST VILLAGE: Plaintiffs Seek Extension of Discovery Deadlines WORKDAY INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over AI Applicant Screening Tool YOSHINOYA AMERICA: Mendoza Sues Over Labor Law Breaches [*] Emergencies Act Ruling Affirms Claims in Proposed Class Action ********* 1-800-GOT-JUNK? LLC: Records Telephonic Communications, Serna Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN SERNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800-GOT-JUNK? LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00047 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2024) is a class action suit brought against the Defendant for surreptitiously monitoring and recording the telephonic communications between consumers and its customer service representatives without first providing notice or obtaining the customer's consent in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant provides support to customers over the phone and provides quotes and scheduling appointments for its junk removal services. The Defendant allegedly monitors and records these interactions. What Defendant fails to do, however, is disclose this fact to customers, including Plaintiff, who receive calls initiated by Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of all persons whose telephonic communications were surreptitiously recorded by the Defendant. 1-800-GOT-JUNK? LLC is a waste management company that provides junk removal services to residential customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 10 WEST FERRY: Lundeen Sues Over Staff's Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- GRAHAM LUNDEEN, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. 10 WEST FERRY STREET OPERATIONS LLC (d.b.a. Logan Inn), Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00109 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 9, 2024) is a class/collective action lawsuit brought against the Defendant seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a bartender and server at the Inn from approximately September 2021 until approximately December 2022. He alleges that the Defendant pays the Inn's bartenders an hourly wage of either $2.83 plus tips or $5 plus tips. Plaintiff Lundeen asserts that Defendant violated the FLSA and PMWA by distributing tip pool proceeds to bar manager (and, possibly, other management-level employees). 10 West Ferry Street Operations LLC owns and operates the Logan Inn in New Hope, Pennsylvania, which includes, inter alia, a restaurant and bar areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 23ANDME HOLDING: Faces Another Suit Over Unprotected Genetic Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Benzinga reports that genetic testing company 23andMe Holding Co. (NASDAQ:ME) is under fire in a class action lawsuit, accused of inadequately protecting the privacy of nearly 7 million customers whose personal information was compromised in a data breach last year. The lawsuit, filed yesterday in federal court in San Francisco, alleges that the company failed to notify customers with Chinese and Ashkenazi Jewish heritage about being specifically targeted, reported The New York Times. Their genetic information was reportedly compiled into "specially curated lists" that were shared and sold on the dark web, the report added. The legal action was initiated following 23andMe's submission to the California Attorney General's Office, revealing a data breach spanning five months, from late April 2023 to September 2023. The company became aware of the breach on Oct. 1, when a hacker claimed to have customer data and posted a sample on a 23andMe subreddit. The company disclosed the breach on Oct. 6, attributing it to the use of recycled login credentials. Data Breach Details And Fallout The breach reportedly exposed information from 5.5 million "DNA Relatives" profiles, including geographic location, birth year, family tree and uploaded photos. An additional 1.4 million customers' profile information was accessed through a feature called "Family Tree." The lawsuit underscores concerns about the use of breached data, particularly amid rising antisemitic hate speech and violence, the report added. On Oct. 1, a hacker named "Golem" leaked the personal data of over 1 million 23andMe users with Jewish ancestry in an online forum. This included full names, home addresses and birth dates. Subsequently, Golem provided profile information of 100,000 Chinese customers, raising fears about potential misuse of the exposed data, according to the report. Representative Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) has called for an FBI investigation into the breach, expressing concerns about the leaked data's possible use by extremist groups. "The leaked data could empower Hamas, their supporters, and various international extremist groups to target the American Jewish population and their families," Gottheimer wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, according to The New York Times. [GN] ADF ENTERPRISES: Michel Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS MICHEL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. ADF ENTERPRISES, INC., and DAIN F. FUNDERBURG, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00063 (W.D. Tex., January 19, 2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to reimburse delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately January 2013 to October 2022 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store located in Fredericksburg, TX. Allegedly, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the Plaintiff. ADF Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates numerous Domino's franchise stores in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Serrano, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 fax E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com AF LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Business Practices -------------------------------------------------------- SooLeader Staff of SooLeader.com reports that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel served a class action lawsuit upon a Mississippi man and his limited liability company (LLC) AF LLC, operating as ACF Wholesale, alleging statutory conversion and other illegal business practices in violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). The lawsuit was filed in the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County. Benjamin Moody, of Columbus, MS, sells furniture via ACF Wholesale as a drop-shipping model business. A drop-shipper acts only as an intermediary between a customer and a manufacturer, typically another retailer or wholesaler, who ships the product directly to the buyer. The typical drop-shipper is positioned between the customer and supplier, does not maintain a stock of merchandise, places orders to suppliers after items are ordered from their storefront, charges in excess of the price they pay for the merchandise as profit, and never sees or handles the products they sell. Drop-shipping itself is not illegal, but potential pitfalls exist for both buyers and sellers, and the Attorney General has previously issued a consumer alert advising residents on precautions to take when purchasing from such operations. In November of 2023, the Department of Attorney General received dozens of Michigan consumer complaints from the Better Business Bureau (BBB) against ACF Wholesale dating from mid-2020 to 2023. The BBB website details approximately 2,000 complaints against the company over that period of time, more than half filed in the last year. The complaints demonstrate a clear pattern showing ACF Wholesale taking orders and payment for furniture and failing to deliver the product, fabricating excuses for delay and non-delivery, and in many instances failing to provide refunds despite promises to do so. BBB complaints from Michigan cover every region of the state. In December of 2023, the Attorney General sent ACF Wholesale and Moody a Notice of Intended Action, requesting documentation identifying all Michigan consumers still owed refunds and the amounts owed to each. This was never provided. The Department of Attorney General was meanwhile contacting BBB complainants to identify such Michigan consumers. The lawsuit specifically seeks monetary damages for individual customers in Suttons Bay, Norton Shores, and Midland who have been denied refunds for undelivered furniture purchases in the amounts of $281, $624, and $1,153 respectively. ACF Wholesale's website is presently not operational, though no legal barrier prevents the company from soliciting future purchases from Michigan consumers. "When a business completely fails to deliver products, and further abandons refund requests, my department will continue to rise to the defense of Michigan consumers," said Nessel. "ACF Wholesale still wrongfully holds thousands of dollars, maybe more, owed back to the people of our state and others. I strongly encourage any Michigan residents who have been harmed by this company to file a complaint with my consumer protection team. We know there are more victims out there and we want to help." The Attorney General alleges unlawful violations of four distinct subsections of the MCPA, including "failing, in a consumer transaction that is rescinded, canceled, or otherwise terminated...to promptly restore to the person or persons entitled to it a deposit, down payment, or other payment." Additionally alleged is statutory conversion, based on failing to return money for canceled orders. The Attorney General's complaint seeks as relief: -- an order finding Moody and his LLC jointly and severally liable; -- an award of monetary damages to the three specified complainants, as well as, all similarly situated Michigan consumers; -- injunctions prohibiting ACF from engaging in further transactions with Michigan consumers; -- injunctions against Moody and any entity he creates, owns, or manages from engaging in business with Michigan consumers; and -- civil fines, and enforcement costs and fees. Concerning the class action status, the lawsuit claims, "The class of consumers to which these claims relate consists of all Michigan consumers who have placed and paid for orders with ACF Wholesale for goods that were not delivered, and who did not receive a refund." Any Michiganders who have been similarly treated by Moody and ACF Wholesale and have not filed complaints with the BBB are strongly encouraged to file complaints with the Department of Attorney General's Consumer Protection Team. Furthermore, Michigan consumers who believe they have been defrauded by any drop-shipper, or suspect they are the victims of illegal or predatory business practices, are encouraged likewise. [GN] AJ BELLA: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Nonpayment of Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- VIDIEK RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff v. AJ BELLA CONTRACTORS INC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-14015-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 19, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, seeking to recover money damages from the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as driver from 2015 until his wrongful termination on November 14, 2023. The Plaintiff worked between 60-73 hours per week with no payment for overtime. AJ Bella Contractors Inc. is a construction company based in St Lucie County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julisse Jimenez, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com ALLOVIR INC: Zerbato Sues Over 67.38% Decline of Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER ZERBATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLOVIR, INC., DIANA M. BRAINARD, and VIKAS SINHA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10152 (D. Mass., January 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding AlloVir's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade AlloVir securities at artificially inflated prices between March 22, 2022 and December 21, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the posoleucel Phase 3 Studies were unlikely to meet their primary endpoints; (ii) as a result, it was likely that the Company would ultimately discontinue the posoleucel Phase 3 studies; (iii) accordingly, AlloVir overstated the efficacy and clinical and/or commercial prospects of posoleucel; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the suit. When the truth emerged, AlloVir's stock price fell $1.57 per share, or 67.38 percent, to close at $0.76 per share on December 22, 2023. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant damages. AlloVir, Inc. is a clinical-stage cell therapy company, with principal executive offices located at 1100 Winter Street, Waltham, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily C. Finestone, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: efinestone@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Berry Suit Transferred to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cheyenne Berry, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, SERVICES LLC; AMAZON.COM, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03614 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 19, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00093 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights. Amazon.com Services LLC -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lindsay Hutner, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 655-1300 Facsimile: (415) 707-2010 Email: Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com - and - Timothy J. Long, Esq. Samuel S. Hyde, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 442-1111 Facsimile: (916) 448-1709 Email: longt@gtlaw.com hydes@gtlaw.com - and - Matthew J. Weber, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Phone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 Email: Matthew.Weber@gtlaw.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs LISA JOHNSON and GALE MILLER ANDERSON filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 7, 2023 and Final Judgment dated January 4, 2024 entered in the lawsuit entitled LISA JOHNSON AND GALE MILLER ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00685, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the Northern District of Illinois on February 3, 2023. On behalf of herself and a putative class, Plaintiff Anderson asserted causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for alleged unpaid wages arising from time spent passing through required "COVID-19 screenings" before starting shifts at an Amazon warehouse. On December 7, 2023, Amazon's motion to dismiss was granted. The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed without prejudice. On January 4, 2024, Final Judgment was entered and the case was closed. The appellate case is captioned as LISA JOHNSON and GALE MILLER ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 24-1028, in the United States Court for Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on January 8, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appellants' brief is due on February 20, 2024.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LISA JOHNSON AND GALE MILLER ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com AMERICAN MOTOR: Hessee Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Motor Car Consulting, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Hessee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Motor Car Consulting, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00224 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. American Motors Corporation was an American automobile manufacturing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Lynn Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq. GINSBURG LAW GROUP, P.C. 1012 N. Bethlehem Pike, Suite 103, Box 9 Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (855) 978-6564 Fax: (855) 777-0043 Email: Efilings@ginsburglawgroup.com ANKER INNOVATIONS: Court Partially Dismisses Privacy Claims Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and Tyler Zmick, who write for Duane Morris, report that in Sloan, et al. v. Anker Innovations Ltd., No. 22-CV-7174 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2024), Judge Sarah Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part a motion to dismiss privacy claims brought against the companies that manufacture and sell "eufy" security products. The Court dismissed the claims asserted under the federal Wiretap Act because Defendants were "parties" to the communication during which the eufy products sent security recordings to Plaintiffs' mobile devices (notwithstanding that the products also sent the data to a server owned by Defendants). In addition, the Court partially dismissed Plaintiffs' claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and under four state consumer protection statutes, thereby allowing Plaintiffs to proceed with their case only with respect to some of their claims. For businesses who are embroiled in facial recognition software and related privacy class actions, this ruling provides a helpful roadmap for fracturing such claims at the outset of the lawsuit. Case Background Plaintiffs were individuals from various states who purchased and used Defendants' "eufy" branded home security cameras and video doorbells. The eufy products can, among other things, detect motion outside a person's home and apply a facial recognition program differentiate "between known individuals and strangers by recognizing biometric identifiers and comparing the face template against those stored in a database." Eufy products sync to a user's phone through eufy's Security app, which notifies a user of motion around the camera by sending the use a recorded thumbnail image or text message. Defendants advertised that the video recordings and facial recognition data obtained through eufy cameras are stored locally on user-owned equipment owned and that the data would be encrypted so that only the user could access it. Media reports later revealed, however, that the eufy products uploaded thumbnail images used to notify users of movement to Defendants' cloud storage without encryption, and that users could stream content from their videos through unencrypted websites. Claiming they relied to their detriment on Defendants' (allegedly false) privacy-related representations when purchasing the eufy products, the eight named Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against corporate Defendants involved in the manufacture and sale of "eufy" products. In their complaint, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants violated: (1) the Federal Wiretap Act; (2) the Biometric Information Privacy Act (the "BIPA"); and (3) the consumer protection statutes of Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and Florida. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court's Decision The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion, holding that: (1) the Wiretap Act claim should be dismissed because Defendants were a party to the relevant communication (i.e., the transmission of data from eufy products to Plaintiffs via the eufy Security app); (2) the BIPA claims should be dismissed as to non-Illinois resident Plaintiffs; and (3) the claims brought under the relevant consumer protection statutes should be dismissed only to the extent they were premised on certain of Defendants' public-facing privacy statements. Wiretap Act Claims The Court first addressed Plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claims, explaining that the statute "empowers a private citizen to bring a civil claim against someone who 'intentionally intercepts [or] endeavors to intercept . . . any wire, oral, or electronic communication.'" Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Wiretap Act because the statute does not apply to a party to the relevant communication. Specifically, the Wiretap Act exempts a person who intercepts an electronic communication "where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d). The Court agreed with Defendants and thus dismissed Plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claim. The Court described the relevant "communication" as the transmission of data from eufy products to Plaintiffs' devices and explained that the transmission "is not between the eufy product and Plaintiffs, but rather between the eufy product and the eufy Security app, which Defendants own and operate. As such, the communication necessarily requires Defendants' participation, even if Plaintiffs did not intend to share their information with Defendants." The Court thus held that Defendants were parties to the communication, and Defendants also uploading the data to their own server (without Plaintiffs' knowledge) did not change that conclusion. BIPA Claims Regarding Plaintiffs' BIPA claims, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to allege that the relevant data (which Defendants described as "thumbnail images") qualifies for protection under the BIPA because photographs are not biometric data under the statute. The Court rejected this argument since Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants uploaded thumbnail information and facial recognition data (namely, "scans of face geometry") to their server. The Court agreed with Defendants' second argument, however, which asserted that Plaintiffs' BIPA claim failed to the extent it was brought by or on behalf of Plaintiffs who are not Illinois residents. The BIPA applies only where the underlying conduct occurs "primarily and substantially" in Illinois. The Court determined that the relevant communications between Plaintiffs and Defendants "occurred primarily and substantially in the state of residency for each Plaintiff." Id. at 12-13. And the End User License Agreement for eufy Camera Products and the Security App stating that the agreement is governed by Illinois law did not change the result that the BIPA claim brought by non-Illinois residents must be dismissed. Statutory Consumer Protection Claims Finally, the Court turned to Defendants' contentions relative to the alleged violations of the four state consumer protection statutes. In beginning its analysis, the Court explained that "[t]o state a claim for deceptive practices under any of the alleged state consumer fraud statutes, Plaintiffs must allege a deceptive statement or act that caused their harm." Moreover, "a statement is deceptive if it creates a likelihood of deception or has the capacity to deceive." Defendants argued in their motion to dismiss that Plaintiffs did not allege cognizable deceptive statements because the statements at issue constitute either puffery or are not false. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' statutory fraud claims in part. Specifically, the Court held that Defendants' advertising in the form of certain "statements relating to privacy" (e.g., "your privacy is something that we value as much as you do") constituted nonactionable "puffery." The Court therefore dismissed Plaintiffs' statutory fraud claims insofar as they were premised on the similarly vague "statements relating to privacy." However, the Court denied Defendants' attempt to dismiss the claims premised on their more specific statements about (1) end-user data being stored only on a user's local device, (2) the use of alleged facial recognition, and (3) end-user data being encrypted. Defendants argued that these were "accurate statements" and thus could not serve as the basis for consumer fraud claims. The Court disagreed, ruling that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the storage, encryption, and facial recognition statements may have misled a reasonable consumer. Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Implications For Corporate Counsel The most significant aspect of Sloan v. Anker Innovations Limited is the Court's analysis of Plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claims, given the rapidly emerging trend among the plaintiff class action bar of using traditional state and federal laws -- including the Wiretap Act -- to seek relief for alleged privacy violations. In applying modern technologies to older laws like the Wiretap Act (passed in 1986), courts have grappled with issues such as the determination of who is a "party to the communication" such that an entity is exempt from the statute's scope. As data exchanges and data storage become more complex, the "party to the communication" determination reciprocally becomes more nebulous. In Sloan, the "communication" was the eufy products transmitting data to Plaintiffs' device and "contemporaneously intercept[ing] and sen[ding] [the data] to [Defendant's] server." Because Plaintiffs had to use the eufy Security app to access the data, and because Defendants owned and operated the app, the Court determined that Defendants necessarily participated in the communication. But the result may have been different if, for instance, Plaintiffs could use a different app (one not owned by Defendants) to access the data, or if unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, the eufy Securty app was actually owned and operated by a third-party entity. The upshot is that corporate counsel should keep these principles in mind with respect to any data-flow processes regarding end-user or employee data. [GN] ANNA JAQUES HOSPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Info ------------------------------------------------------------ CyberTalk.org reports that in the U.S. state of Massachusetts, Anna Jaques Hospital experienced a shutdown of its electronic record systems and networked computers late last year. The attack forced administrators to redirect ambulances to other hospitals until service was restored two days later. A ransomware extortion group known as Money Message publicly admitted that it catalyzed the breach. Neither the hackers nor the hospital disclosed how much of a ransom was demanded. The lawsuit The proposed class action lawsuit alleges negligence and breach of implied contract and good faith on the part of the hospital, as it failed to effectively safeguard data. The suit seeks $5.4 million, or $200 each, in damages for an assumed class of 27,000 plaintiffs. At this time, the actual number of individuals whose personal data was compromised remains unknown – it could be far above the estimated figure. The complaint also requests for the court to order the hospital to improve its data security system. The hospital allegedly concealed " . . . the existence and extent of the data breach for an unreasonable duration of time" and is said to have failed to provide accurate notice of the breach. The lawsuit claims that the hospital has still not yet notified its patients about the data breach. A hospital spokesperson has stated that if it finds that data has been impacted by the incident, it will send required notifications in accordance with state and federal laws. The data that may have been exposed or stolen through this incident includes personal health information, such as medical records and history, test results, procedure descriptions, diagnoses and personal or family medical histories. It's also possible that personally identifiable information (PII), such as social security numbers, passport numbers, driver's license numbers and financial account numbers were breached. The individual who initiated the lawsuit claims that he only found out about the breach from local news reports and asserts that it's "likely" that some of the exposed information has already been misused. [GN] APPLE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss $1-Bil. App Store Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- William Gallagher of AppleInsider reports that a UK tribunal is considering a bid by Apple to have a $1 billion lawsuit over App Store fees be dismissed on the grounds that the case's argument is "unsustainable." In July 2023, a class action suit was brought against Apple on behalf of 1,566 UK-based developers. It argued that Apple is abusing its monopoly position, and charging excessive fees. According to Reuters, the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has now heard from Apple's lawyers. They contend that the case's argument is "unsustainable," because 85% of developers on its App Store do not pay any commission fees at all. Further, Apple's lawyer Daniel Piccinin argues that developers cannot have a claim in the UK unless it were over purchases customers made in the UK's version of the App Store. Piccinin says that would only apply to a small minority of the case's claimants. However, the claimants' lawyer Paul Stanley, has reportedly said in court filings that Apple "has come to the UK to offer services to UK businesses on a UK market and has abused its position by overcharging them." The lawsuit was brought by Sean Ennis, a professor at the Centre for Competition Policy at the University of East Anglia and a former economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD.) Previously he has said that "Apple's charges to app developers are excessive, and only possible due to its monopoly on the distribution of apps onto iPhone and iPad." "The charges are unfair in their own right, and constitute abusive pricing," he continued when the lawsuit was filed. "They harm app developers and also app buyers." At the time of the original filing, an Apple spokesperson told AppleInsider that the company has never increased fees in the (then) 15 years of the App Store. That point is disingenuous since the fee is a percentage of app costs which have risen, though. Apple did further say that it has added exemptions and overall reduced fees for developers. The company also called out how it had created jobs in the UK, the most recent figures for which now say Apple supports over half a million workers in the country. The case is not expected to come to trial until 2025. [GN] ARCHDIOCESE OF QUEBEC: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Sexual Assault ------------------------------------------------------------------- Antoni Nerestant, writing for CBC News, reports that as part of an ongoing class-action lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Quebec, a high-ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church in the province is now facing allegations of sexual assault. The class action lawsuit targeting the archdiocese was authorized in June 2022. Cardinal Gerald Cyprien Lacroix has now also been named in court documents that were presented Thursday morning. The class action now also names the Seminaire de Quebec, a revered institution responsible for creating Universite Laval, the first francophone university in North America. The alleged incidents involving Lacroix took place between 1987 and 1988 in Quebec City when the plaintiff was 17. Lacroix is accused of touching her without her consent. The woman is not named in the court documents. From 1982 to 1987, Lacroix served as the secretary-general of the Pie-X secular institute in Quebec City. From 1985 to 1987, he was also the director of the Maison du Renouveau du Quebec, which is described on its website as a gathering place for prayer open to people of all walks of life. Lacroix was ordained as a priest in 1988. Lacroix, who is now 66, became archbishop of Quebec in February 2011. He was appointed as a cardinal by Pope Francis in 2014. Last year, he was elevated to the Council of Cardinals, a group of cardinals who serve as advisers to the Pope. Alain Pronkin, a columnist who specializes in religious affairs, expects the Pope to stand by the cardinal. "For sure the Pope will defend him because he's a cardinal," Pronkin said. "In the past, he's defended every cardinal he's had [who faced similar accusations]." Pronkin also said this latest development will hit church members hard because it shows that sexual assault and misconduct allegations within the Catholic Church's ranks aren't going away anytime soon. "And that's what profoundly will hurt people," he said. Allegations against archdiocese piling up Lacroix is the latest high-ranking member of the Catholic Church in the province of Quebec to face sexual assault allegations stemming from the class-action lawsuit. In August 2022, Marc Ouellet, a prominent Vatican cardinal, was named in the lawsuit for allegedly assaulting a woman between 2008 and 2010, while she was doing an internship as a pastoral agent. The woman, Pamela Groleau, was 24 at the time. Ouellet then launched a lawsuit of his own, accusing Groleau of defaming him. Since August 2022, 46 more alleged victims have come forward to be part of the class-action lawsuit against the archdiocese, bringing that total up to 147, according to the Arsenault Dufresne Wee Avocats law firm. And since then, 15 more people with ties to the archdiocese have been named in court documents. At least seven people allege they were sexually assaulted by priests either at the Seminaire or on grounds it controlled. A person speaking on behalf of the Seminaire declined to comment on the allegations. Neither Lacroix nor Ouellet has been charged in criminal court. [GN] ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Class Action Over Executive Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Feed & Grain reports that Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC has filed a class action lawsuit against Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) due to the revelations about the company's nutrition division, which is under investigation for its accounting practices. Reporting for Fortune by Tarso Veloso, Anders Melin and Bloomberg shined light on how this division accounts for less than 10% of ADM's revenue but has had a disproportionate influence on recent executive bonuses. Influence on executive compensation Records indicate that in 2020 and 2021, ADM's board significantly linked a portion of senior executives' stock award payouts to the profitability growth of its nutrition unit. The company's success in surpassing goals for the first round of these awards led to executives receiving shares collectively worth more than $70 million. The payouts for the second round were to be determined early this year. This scrutiny emerged alongside the lawsuit filed by Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, which accuses ADM of making misleading statements and failing to disclose information about the Nutrition segment's performance and accounting practices. Stock awards and performance metrics ADM's executives, like those at many large public companies, receive a substantial part of their compensation in stock awards. About half of these awards vest over three years based on specific performance metrics, while the remainder vests as long as the executive remains employed. Shift in performance metrics In a significant shift in 2020, ADM's board replaced the adjusted earnings metric with a more targeted one: the growth of average operating profit in the nutrition segment. This change meant that executives would receive their target payout if this segment's three-year average growth exceeded 10%, with the potential to double their shares if growth reached 20%. Impact of the investigation: The investigation into ADM's nutrition unit, disclosed earlier, has significantly affected the company's market standing. The revelation of the CFO's suspension and the probe into the unit's accounting practices led to a major selloff in ADM's shares, erasing nearly a quarter of its market value. ADM has declined to comment on the situation. The lawsuit by Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, continues to gather attention, especially as it highlights the intersection of corporate governance, executive compensation, and shareholder interests. Affected investors are encouraged to join the lawsuit, with the firm representing on a contingency fee basis.[GN] AVEN FINANCIAL INC: Waden Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aven Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Dodie Waden, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aven Financial, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00266-MGL (D.S.C., Jan. 18, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Aven -- https://www.aven.com/ -- provides the most cost-effective, convenient, and transparent access to capital.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Coan v. B. Riley Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-662, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired B. Riley Financial, Inc. ("B. Riley" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RILY) common stock between May 10, 2023 and November 9, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. In May 2023, B. Riley entered into an agreement to assist its client, Brian Kahn, in leading a management buyout of Franchise Group, Inc. ("FRG"). Kahn is CEO of FRG. The $2.8 billion deal was completed on August 21, 2023. On November 2, 2023, Kahn was implicated as the unnamed coconspirator in a conspiracy to defraud investors of $294 million in funds. Specifically, the Department of Justice announced that Prophecy Asset Management ("Prophecy") president John Hughes ("Hughes") had pled guilty to the charge with two unnamed co-defendants, and the SEC filed a complaint against Hughes for the same misconduct. Bloomberg reported on that same day that Kahn had been identified by "a person familiar with the matter" as one of the unnamed conspirators. On November 3, 2023, after the market closed, The Friendly Bear tweeted, doubting whether B. Riley knew of Kahn's involvement and disclosed the same to Nomura. The Friendly Bear also commented that the DOJ's "charging document clearly implicates him [i.e., Kahn] in Hughes' crime. There is a high chance of indictment here." On this news, the Company's stock price dropped $9.02, or 22%, to close at $32.54 per share on the next trading day, November 6, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. On November 9, 2023, after the market closed, the Company revealed significant details concerning the FRG transaction and the years-long series of complex financial transactions between B. Riley, Kahn, and the Company's respective subsidiaries, which culminated in the August 21, 2023 transaction. Analyzing these complex transactions, The Friendly Bear reported that "B Riley ended up funding 281MM of what was around a 560MM equity check. That's over 50% ownership. Yet they claim to have only 31% voting rights. It looks like B Riley engaged in some funny business to avoid consolidation and placed control of FRG in the hands of the star of 'Prophecy' -- Brian Kahn." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.47, or 15%, to close at $25.60 per share on November 10, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's stock price continued to fall $4.59, or 14%, over the next consecutive trading session to close at $22.01 per share on November 13, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that 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 Brian Kahn had been credibly implicated in a conspiracy to defraud investors of millions of dollars; (2) that, in spite of this involvement, B. Riley continued to finance the transaction enabling Kahn and others to take FRG private through complex arrangements; (3) that the foregoing was reasonably likely to draw regulatory scrutiny to B. Riley; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased B. Riley common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased B. Riley common stock, have information or 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 Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] BATH SAVER INC: Rawlings Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bath Saver, Inc. The case is styled as Meira Avauni Rawlings, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bath Saver, Inc. doing business as: Bath Fitter, Case No. 1:24-cv-00073-CCC (M.D. Pa., Jan. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Bath Fitter -- https://www.bathfitter.com/ -- offers top-quality, customized bathroom remodeling products & services installed in as little as 1 day.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 260 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-863-5700 Email: croberts@butschroberts.com - and - Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq. Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 E. Butler Ave Ambler, PA 19002 Phone: (267) 468-7638 Fax: (877) 600-2112 Email: kimmel@creditlaw.com jginsburg@creditlaw.com BIONTECH SE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California 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. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/biontech-se?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=bntx&mktm=r LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: MARCH 12, 2024 CLASS PERIOD: MARCH 30, 2022 THROUGH OCTOBER 13, 2023 CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS: Jonathan Naji, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com 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%, 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 €5 billion in COVID-19 vaccine revenues for the 2023 financial year, significantly below market estimates of over €8 billion. Following this news, BioNTech's ADS price fell $4.60 per ADS, or 3.59%, 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 €0.9 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%, to close at $96.97 per ADS on October 16, 2023. WHAT CAN I DO? 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: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Jonathan Naji, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (484) 270-1453 Email: info@ktmc.com [GN] BIOVIE INC: Olmstead Alleges Securities Law Breaches ---------------------------------------------------- ERIC OLMSTEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIOVIE INC., CUONG DO, JOANNE WENDY KIM, and JOSEPH PALUMBO, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00035 (D. Nev., January 19, 2024) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff Olmstead brings this class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded BioVie securities from August 5, 2021 through November 29, 2023, inclusive. During the said period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that material adverse facts, including: (1) that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic caused "limited access" to clinical trial sites, significantly affecting the Company's ability to conduct proper oversight of the clinical trial; and (2) due to the "limited access" to the clinical trial sites, the trial was at higher risk of having "significant deviation from protocol and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) violations" and "anomalous data;" (3) that the Company was already experiencing issues with the contract research organization it had retained, creating greater risk of the trial being in non-compliance with GCPs; and (4) the Company had already identified “higher than expected levels of deviations" in the data, says the suit. Headquartered in Carson City, NV, BioVie is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that purports to engage in the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative drugs therapies, including for treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative disorders and advanced liver disease. The company's stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "BIVI." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David O'Mara , Esq. O'MARA LAW FIRM, PC 311 E. Liberty St. Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 323-1321 BLUETRITON BRANDS: Slowinski Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christine Slowinski and David Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC., Case No. 2023LA001376 was removed from the 18th Judicial Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of Illinois on Jan. 19, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00513. The Plaintiffs allege the claim "100% Natural Spring Water" on the label of Ice Mountain bottled water is false, misleading, and deceptive because the water contains microplastics. The Plaintiffs allege the following claims for relief: violation of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ILCFA"); common law fraud; and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brienne Letourneau, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 881-5400 Fax: (312) 881-5450 Email: brienne.letourneau@whitecase.com BMO INVESTORLINE: Bid for Certification of Trailer Fee Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Langton of Investment Executive reports that a proposed class action against several major discount brokers over the payment of mutual fund trailer fees has suffered another blow. An Ontario court again declined to certify the case as a class action, finding that there was nothing wrong with the firms collecting the fees before regulators outlawed the practice. The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) banned the payment of trailer fees to discount brokers in June 2022 on the basis that the fees are paid, at least partly, for ongoing advice that discount firms can't provide under the limitations of their registration. A proposed class action against seven of those brokers -- BMO Investorline Inc., CIBC Investor Services Inc., Credential Qtrade Securities Inc., Desjardins Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (Canada) Inc., Scotia Capital Inc. and TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. -- alleged that they harmed investors when they collected trailer fees for advice they didn't provide in the years prior to the CSA's ban. In January 2023, an Ontario judge dismissed a motion seeking to certify the case as a class action, finding that the plaintiffs couldn't establish evidence that the firms violated securities laws by receiving the trailers before the CSA changed the rules and banned the practice. On appeal, the proposed plaintiffs argued that the motion made several errors of law, including that the judge improperly demanded evidence of wrongdoing at the certification stage, and that the allegations against the firms don't rely on whether the conduct was legal or not. However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected those arguments and sided with the firms, dismissing the appeal. In its decision on appeal, the court said "the motion judge was correct that, in order to perform his necessary screening function at the certification stage, it was necessary for him to examine the evidentiary record with a view to determining whether there was some basis in fact for the proposition that the receipt of trailing commissions by online brokers was contrary to applicable Canadian securities law." It found that the motion judge's "weighing of the evidence on this issue is entitled to considerable deference from this court and is not being challenged by the plaintiffs." Similarly, the court found that the motion judge's decision on whether it was illegal for the discount brokers to accept trailer fees was relevant to the plaintiffs' other claims alleging that the brokers were negligent and knowingly took improper fees. "The motion judge considered the evidence of the standards of conduct in securities industry rules and legislation that could possibly underpin a negligence action and found no basis in fact for their existence, as he was entitled to do," the court said. The appeal was dismissed and the court ordered costs of $50,000 to the defendants in the case. [GN] BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Court Authorizes $2.4M Award in ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley and Kathryn R. Brown of DuaneMorris.com report that on January 16 and 17, 2024, in Messer v. Bristol Compressors International, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00040 (W.D. Va.), on remand from a Fourth Circuit decision, Judge James P. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia issued an opinion and order entering judgment in the amount of $2,407,471.90 for severance pay benefits owed under an ERISA employee benefits plan based on violations of the 60-day notice requirement of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), 29 U.S.C. Section 2102(a)(1). The multi-million dollar ruling stems from a 2018 WARN-covered "plant closing" and follows an earlier award on November 23, 2021 of $1.39 million to certain class members for damages including back pay and interest owed pursuant to the WARN Act for the same notice violation underlying the recent ruling. The decision highlights the extremely technical nature and high stakes of WARN Act litigation in the class action context. Case Background On July 31, 2018, Bristol Compressors International (BCI) notified employees that it would close its manufacturing facility in Bristol, Virginia, and their employment would terminate on or before September 30, 2018. BCI implemented several rounds of terminations over the next three and a half months, beyond the originally anticipated date of September 30, 2018 for the final terminations. However, BCI did not issue additional notice under the WARN to those whose employment ended after September 30, 2018. The manufacturing facility ultimately closed on November 16, 2018. On October 19, 2018, a group of former employees sued BCI under the WARN Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to provide 60 days' notice of their terminations in accordance with the specific requirements of the WARN Act. On June 20, 2019, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of three sub-classes of former employees terminated due to the plant closing under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Sub-class One included employees involuntarily terminated between July 31, 2018 and August 31, 2018. Sub-class Two included employees involuntarily terminated after August 31, 2018 who signed a stay bonus agreement that included an express waiver of claims under the WARN Act. Sub-class Three included employees involuntarily terminated after August 31, 2018 who had not signed a stay bonus agreement. Following a bench trial, the Court in 2020 granted summary judgment to BCI on the plaintiffs' claim for benefits owed under a company severance pay plan. The Court found that BCI validly terminated its severance pay plan before the employment terminations. In a separate 2020 opinion, the Court dismissed upon summary judgment the WARN Act claims of four class members whose employment ended on October 19, 2018. The Court reasoned that BCI’s July 31, 2018 notification was adequate to prepare them for their later job losses. The plaintiffs appealed those prior rulings to the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit's Ruling On April 3, 2023, the Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, reversed and remanded parts of the 2020 rulings. Messer v. Bristol Compressors International, LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 7826 (4th Cir. Apr. 3, 2023) (per curiam). The Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of severance pay benefits to the class, concluding the company did not terminate the severance pay plan in accordance with the ERISA's requirements for modifying or terminating an ERISA-governed benefits plan. As a result, the severance pay plan was in effect when the employment terminations occurred. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision upholding the release of claims under the WARN Act to members of Sub-class Two. However, because the release of claims in the stay bonus agreements those class members signed explicitly carved out claims for vested benefits under the company's "written benefit plans," members of Sub-class Two did not waive their claims for severance pay benefits owed to them under the ERISA-governed employee benefit plan. The Fourth Circuit also vacated the grant of summary judgment to BCI on the WARN Act claims of the four plaintiffs whose employment ended on October 19, 2018. The Fourth Circuit pointed to the regulation under the WARN Act providing that, if an employer postpones a covered plant closure for 60 days or more, additional 60 days' notice under the WARN Act is owed to affected employees. See 20 C.F.R. Section 639.10. Because the company issued no additional notice to those four individuals after July 31, 2018, but terminated their employment after September 30, 2018, the Fourth Circuit opined that a WARN Act violation was established. The District Court's Decision On remand, the Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for summary judgment on the two issues on which the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded. Consistent with the Fourth Circuit's ruling, the Court held that all class members were entitled to severance pay benefits under the severance pay plan, plus interest, and the four plaintiffs whose employment ended on October 19, 2018 were in addition owed back pay and prejudgment interest for a 60-day period. On January 17, 2014, the Court ordered the case closed, with leave granted to class counsel to file a supplemental motion for attorneys' fees and costs within 30 days. Implications For Employers The Messer case is illustrative of the many decisions in recent years in which plaintiffs have recovered multi-million dollar judgments following class certification of WARN Act claims. Employers should remain vigilant to the WARN Act, and the potential exposure to 60 days' worth of back pay, lost benefits and prejudgment interest in the event of violations, well before implementing any mass layoff or plant closure that may trigger its strict notification requirements. [GN] BRITISH AMERICAN: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 British American Tobacco p.l.c. (NYSE: BTI) between February 9, 2023 and December 6, 2023, 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 25, 2024 in the securities class action commenced by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased British American Tobacco 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. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the British American Tobacco 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. 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 25, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage 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. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) British American Tobacco materially understated the risks and potential likelihood of an impairment to its Premium American Cigarette Brands as a result of longstanding headwinds and; (2) 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 British American Tobacco 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. No Class Has Been Certified. 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 Emai: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BROWN UNIVERSITY: Settles Antitrust Admissions Suit for $19.5M -------------------------------------------------------------- Owen Dahlkamp of The Brown Daily Herald reports that Brown University has agreed to pay $19.5 million to settle an antitrust admissions lawsuit filed against the University and 16 other co-defendants, according to a Jan. 23 press release. The class action lawsuit, filed in January 2022, alleges Brown colluded with institutions in the 568 Presidents Group -- a consortium of colleges with need-blind admission policies -- to set financial aid calculation methodologies that "artificially inflated net prices of attendance." The plaintiffs claim these colleges did not practice need-blind admission as it was intended under federal law. Section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 allows schools who make admission decisions "without regard to the financial circumstances of the student involved or the student's family" to collaborate on financial aid calculations. But the lawsuit filed against the University stated that members of the 568 Presidents Group gave preference to applicants who were children of donors. As such, they claim these institutions were not need-blind as the Act defined and are not permitted to collaborate on these calculations. Brown was a member of the Group from 2003 to 2012, a decade before it disbanded in Nov. 2022. Previous Herald reporting also found evidence that Brown's need-blind admission policies may allow admission officers to give preference to applicants from low-income households. When the lawsuit was filed, University Spokesperson Brian Clark told The Herald that the filing "has no merit" and affirmed that "Brown is prepared to mount a strong effort to make this clear." In the statement released on January 23, 2024, the University also made clear they believe there is no merit to the case. "Given the time and financial resources required to take this case to trial, we determined that our resources are better spent resolving this matter and supporting the education of our students," Clark wrote. "At all times before, during and after its participation, Brown made financial aid decisions independently guided by its own institutional methodologies," the statement added. Brown's settlement follows earlier settlements by the University of Chicago, Emory University, Rice University and Vanderbilt University, according to court and financial documents reviewed by The Herald. Columbia, Duke and Yale also agreed to settle, according to court filings on January 23, 2024 reported on by the New York Times. As additional schools agreed to settle, the pressure mounted for Brown to do the same. "In general, the defendants who settle the earliest get the most favorable settlement terms from the plaintiffs," wrote Spencer Weber Waller, director of the Loyola Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies, in an email to The Herald. "Defendants who agree to cooperate with the plaintiffs in providing evidence and access to documents/witnesses to help the plaintiffs going forward may also get more favorable settlement terms." The $19.5 million settlement contrasts both UChicago's $13.2 million settlement in April 2023 and Rice's settlement for $33.7 million in October, which are record lows and highs in the case so far. "Brown's settlement agreement does not include any obligation to provide information about other defendants," Clark wrote in an email to The Herald. "The settlement agreement expressly limits Brown's discovery obligations going forward, and Brown will continue to adhere to the court's orders regarding discovery." If any of these universities continue to trial, they risk "having their admissions policies exposed," said Harry First, professor emeritus of law at New York University in an interview with The Herald. "They have probably had enough bad publicity by now." Such an occurrence is not uncommon: Details of Harvard's admission policies were made public in the recent Supreme Court case that outlawed affirmative action. Much of the evidence demonstrated a preference for applicants with connections to high-dollar donors. Brown faced a similar lawsuit in the 1990s in which the U.S. government alleged that MIT and the eight Ivy League universities violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by "collectively determining the amount of financial assistance awarded to students." In that case, Brown and its Ivy counterparts settled almost immediately. MIT litigated the allegations and attained a partial victory. According to the press release, Brown's settlement will be "distributed to eligible current and former students from the 17 defendant institutions, in accordance with a plan that will be submitted for court approval." [GN] BYD COACH & BUS: Bonito Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Bonito, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BYD COACH & BUS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; BYD MOTORS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; BYD MOTORS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 23STCV30810 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 19, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00538. The Plaintiff seeks penalties pursuant to the California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") for the following alleged violations of the California Labor Code: failing to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of California Labor Code; failing to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all earned overtime compensation in violation of California Labor Code; failing to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all legally required meal periods, and failure to pay meal period premium wages to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees at their regular rate of pay, in violation of California Labor Code; failing to authorize and permit Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees to take all lawful rest periods to which they are entitled, and failing to pay rest period premium wages to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees at their regular rate of pay, in violation of Labor Code; failing to furnish Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with complete, accurate, itemized wage statements, in violation of Labor Code; failing to timely pay final wages to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees in violation of Labor Code; failing to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all earned wages at least twice during each calendar month, in violation of Labor Code; and failing to maintain accurate records on behalf of Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees, in violation of Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Natalie R. Alameddine, Esq. Nicole N. Wentworth, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 424.239.3400 Facsimile: 424.239.3434 Email: natalie.alameddine@BlankRome.com nicole.wentworth@blankrome.com CHICK-FIL-A INC: Agrees to Settle Delivery Fees' Suit for $4.4MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBS New York Team of CBS News reports that some Tri-State Area residents who have ordered Chick-Fil-A in recent years could be eligible for a refund. A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of customers in New York, New Jersey, California and Florida. Chick-fil-A agreed to pay $4.4 million to settle the suit for overcharging customers for delivery during the pandemic. The lawsuit alleges the restaurant chain promised low delivery fees on its app and website, but later increased menu prices by 30%. Eligible customers will receive a $30 gift card. [GN] CHIRO INC: Zepeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chiro, Inc. The case is styled as Yasmin Maldonado Zepeda, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Chiro, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0000575 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 17, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Chiro, Inc. retails janitorial services. The Company provides concrete polishing, sealing and restoration of polished concrete floors, and maintenance services.[BN] CINEPLEX INC: Faces Class Action Over Movie Tickets' Booking Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joey Chini of CTVNews reports that Cineplex is facing a pair of proposed class-action lawsuits in two Canadian provinces for allegedly not disclosing additional booking fees when customers buy movie tickets on its website. The movie theatre giant is accused of not being upfront with its customers "in a transparent and meaningful way during the purchasing process." The class actions allege customers who were not members of the company's CineClub program were charged an additional $1.50 or $1 when buying tickets online or through the mobile app. The actions were filed in Quebec and British Columbia by Slater Vecchio LLP and allege that Cineplex's failure to disclose booking fees "constitutes false and misleading advertising." The allegations have not been proven in court. "The two actions seek to represent all Canadians who purchased a Cineplex movie ticket and were charged an online booking fee," the law firm said in a statement posted to its website. Slater Vecchio characterized the booking fees as "price dripping," meaning they were new mandatory fees that were not government-imposed and not included in the first price that was advertised to customers. The law firm asserts that by charging these fees and not properly informing the customer about them, Cineplex is "in violation of" the Competition Act. A spokesperson for Cineplex told CTVNews.ca the company is confident its online booking fee is not misleading and "fully complies with the spirit and letter of the law." "Our online booking fee is an entirely optional service that provides consumers with instantaneous advanced seat selection. Cineplex's guests also have the option of purchasing their tickets at their local theatre without paying this modest fee. All of this information is on our website in a clear and conspicuous manner," Michelle Saba, vice-president of communications at Cineplex said. Plaintiffs in the actions are seeking their money back on those fees plus taxes. "To ensure fairness and transparency in the online marketplace, it is of paramount importance that companies accurately display the price they are charging Canadians from the moment these prices are first shown to consumers," Sam Jaworski, a partner at Slater Vecchio, said in a statement. The law firm added anyone who is thinking of joining one of the class actions should keep any receipts they have that show they paid an online booking fee. CTVNews.ca has reached out to Cineplex for comment. In May 2023, the Competition Bureau sued Cineplex these same booking fees, calling the added charges "junk" and "harmful." Cineplex introduced the fees in June 2022, according to the federal government. The company said the legal action from the competition watchdog should be dismissed because it is based on a "mischaracterization." "Cineplex denies each and every allegation in the application," the company said at the time. "Cineplex denies any wrongdoing at all." [GN] CITRIX SYSTEMS: Clark Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citrix Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michelle Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Citrix Systems, Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-60118-RS (S.D. Fla., Jan. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Citrix Systems, Inc. -- http://www.citrix.com/-- is an American multinational cloud computing and virtualization technology company that provides server, application and desktop virtualization, networking, software as a service, and cloud computing technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Buckner, Esq. BUCKNER AND MILES, P.A. 2020 Salzedo Street, Suite 302 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 964-8003 Fax: (786) 523-0485 Email: David@bucknermiles.com - and - James A. Barry, Esq. POGUST GOODHEAD LLC 505 S. Lenola Rd., Suite 126 Moorestown, NJ 08057 Phone: (610) 941-4204 - and - Meghan J. Talbot, Esq. POGUST GOODHEAD LLC 161 Washington St., Ste. 250 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 941-4204 - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C. 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Phone: (856) 596-4100 COLE HAAN LLC: Bunkley Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Keith Bunkley, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. COLE HAAN, LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. FCS052197 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Solano, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00068. The Complaint alleges ten state law class action claims: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final wages not timely paid; wages not timely paid during employment; non-compliant wage statements; failure to keep requisite payroll records; unreimbursed business expenses; and violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Catherine Dacre, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: cdacre@seyfarth.com - and - Michael W. Kopp, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: mkopp@seyfarth.com COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles Financial Aid Class Suit for $24M -------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Spurr and Joseph Zuloaga of Columbia Spectator report that Columbia settled for $24 million on January 23, 2024 in a five-university settlement totaling $104.5 million to resolve a class-action lawsuit over an alleged conspiracy to price fix when determining financial aid eligibility. The suit, filed in January 2022, accuses 17 universities of conspiring in a way that disadvantages students with financial need by offering them less aid. University spokesperson Ben Chang wrote in a statement to Spectator that "While Columbia disputes the merit of this case, the University has determined to put this matter behind us," adding that the decision to settle "is not an admission of wrongdoing." Among the defendants are peer Ivy League institutions Cornell University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Pennsylvania. All three, along with Columbia, were members of the 568 Presidents Group, a group of universities that say they practice need-blind admissions and were protected under Section 568 of the 1994 Improving America's Schools Act, affording them immunity from antitrust legislation. The special protection expired on Sept. 30, 2022, and the 568 Presidents Group was dissolved on Nov. 4, 2022. "Columbia denies the allegations and stands by its position that plaintiffs' claims are without merit," Chang wrote. "The University's participation in the 568 Group was intended to benefit our students. Columbia's mission is to help all students admitted, regardless of individual financial circumstances, achieve their goal of pursuing a world class education at our university." The lawsuit claims that Columbia failed to qualify for the Section 568 exemption from antitrust laws because of its need-aware admissions process at the School of General Studies, which has a less wealthy student body than Columbia College and the School of Engineering and Applied Science. "The burden of supporting Columbia's preservation of prestige and financial accumulation therefore falls on those who can least afford it," the lawsuit states. Columbia, Brown University, Duke University, Emory University, and Yale University comprise the five universities in the settlement. The University of Chicago settled for $13.5 million in August 2023, according to The Chicago Maroon, and Rice University settled for $33.75 million in October 2023, per a university financial statement. Vanderbilt University reported last year that it planned to settle, according to the New York Times. The suit alleges that the 17 universities do not abide by their commitments to not consider an applicant's financial background during the admissions process. It further calls into question whether the named institutions do as much as they can to lower tuition costs for students. The suit begins by acknowledging the prestige of the involved universities, citing their long-standing presence in the top 25 of the U.S. News & World Report rankings. "[T]hese elite institutions occupy a place of privilege and importance in American society," the suit reads. The plaintiffs further stated that the universities "participated and are participating in a price-fixing cartel that is designed to reduce or eliminate financial aid as a locus of competition," thus "artificially inflating" the net price of attendance for students receiving financial aid. Last April, the Office of the Provost announced a 4.3 percent increase in the term bill, which became effective at the start of this academic year. The cost of attendance rose to a record $85,200—the highest in the Ivy League—but at a rate "below the inflationary cost increases experienced by the University" and "in light of significant cost pressure," according to the announcement. The lawsuit detailed the economic background of Columbia's undergraduate student body, which it called "generally wealthy and privileged" with a median undergraduate family income of $150,900. According to the lawsuit, 13 percent of undergraduates come from the top 1 percent of the country's income distribution, 62 percent come from the top 20 percent, and 5.1 percent come from the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution. It also cited the size of Columbia's endowment which, at the end of fiscal year 2023, was $13.6 billion. Senior Staff Writer Cameron Spurr can be contacted at cameron.spurr@columbiaspectator.com. Follow Spectator on X @ColumbiaSpec. Staff Writer Joseph Zuloaga can be contacted at joseph.zuloaga@columbiaspectator.com. Follow him on X @josephzuloaga. [GN] COMCAST CABLE: McCauley Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al. The case is styled as David McCauley, Jodi Wolfson, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a Xfinity, Citrix Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00280-JMY (E.D. Pa., Jan. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Comcast Corporation -- http://corporate.comcast.com/-- incorporated and headquartered in Philadelphia, is the largest American multinational telecommunications and media conglomerate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG PC One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (215) 399-4770 Email: achristina@lowey.com COMCAST CABLE: Smith Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Robert Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a Xfinity, Citrix Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00258-CFK (E.D. Pa., Jan. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Comcast Corporation -- http://corporate.comcast.com/-- incorporated and headquartered in Philadelphia, is the largest American multinational telecommunications and media conglomerate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com COMCAST CORPORATION: Roseman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comcast Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Robert M. Roseman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comcast Corporation d/b/a Xfinity, Case No. 2:24-cv-00271-JMY (E.D. Pa., Jan. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Default. Comcast Corporation -- http://corporate.comcast.com/-- incorporated and headquartered in Philadelphia, is the largest American multinational telecommunications and media conglomerate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Macoretta, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-0300 Fax: (215) 496-6611 Email: jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com COMMCARE CORPORATION: Bowie Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as La Tisha Bowie, on behalf of decedent Juanita Bowie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMCARE CORPORATION d/b/a OLD BROWNLEE COMMUNITY CARE CENTER AND COMMCARE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Case No. C-171752 was removed from the 26th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Bossier, State of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on Jan. 19, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00077. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants fraudulently represented that they had sufficient nursing personnel under the federal and state standards and allegedly concealed facts to the contrary As remedies, Plaintiff seeks rescission, damages, a mandatory injunction, and attorney's fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas A Casey, Jr., Esq. JONES WALKER LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, 49th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: 504-582-8294 Facsimile: 504-589-8294 Email: tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com - and - Blair Bright, Esq. THE BRIGHT LAW FIRM, LLC 110 Veterans Blvd Suite 525 Metairie, LA 70005 Phone: 504-322-3945 Facsimile: 504-322-3946 Email: blair@cblairbright.com CORTECH INTERNATIONAL: Vazquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cortech International LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lidia Santoyo Vazquez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Cortech International LLC, Divine Pasta Co., Case No. 24STCV01523 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Cortech International LLC -- http://www.cor-tech.net/-- providing temporary staffing and direct hire services across the United States, Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, United Kingdom and Germany.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com D'ORE JEWELERS NY: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against D'ore jewelers NY, Inc. The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. D'ore jewelers NY, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00426 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. D'Ore Jewelry -- https://dorejewelry.com/ -- is an upscale, full service jewelry store.[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 DEACON CONSTRUCTION: Watson Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Diana Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEACON CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1 - 20, Case No. 23-2-24901-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court for King County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00082. Based on the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint and facts known to Deacon, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sheryl J. Willert, Esq. Sean D. Leake, Esq. WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2380 Phone: (206) 628-6600 Fax: (206) 628-6611 Email: swillert@williamskastner.com sleake@williamskastner.com DIEHLUX LLC: Faces Wasley Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW WASLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIEHLUX, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00418 (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Wasley worked for Diehlux as an Environmental Monitor, a Quantity Surveyor, and a Field Compliance Manager in Queens, Troy, and Albany, New York from approximately September 2021 until September 2023. Diehlux, LLC is an environmental consultant headquartered in Bloomfield, Ontario County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlop, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Hartline Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar General Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Lori Hartline, on behalf of herself and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Dollar General Corporation doing business as: Dollar General, individually, jointly, severally, or in the alternative; DolGenCorp, LLC doing business as: Dollar General, individually, jointly, severally, or in the alternative; Case No. 6:24-cv-00027-GLJ (E.D. Okla., Jan. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Dollar General Corporation -- https://www.dollargeneral.com/ -- is an American chain of variety stores headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com DORA MAAR USA: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dora Maar USA, Inc. The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dora Maar USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00424-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dora Maar -- https://dora-maar.com/ -- is a curated marketplace for luxury fashion.[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 DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Carter Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Tremain Carter, Annemarie Lespinasse, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-04761 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Jan. 19, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-09613-SIL-ARL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Employment Discrimination. Designer Shoe Warehouse -- https://www.dsw.com/ -- offers brand name and designer dress, casual and athletic footwear and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Alesandro, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW 1 Old Country Road Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Fax: (516) 747-5024 Email: aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey Howard Ruzal, Esq. Christopher Dyess, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 351-3762 Email: jruzal@ebglaw.com CDyess@ebglaw.com - and - Kathleen Barrett, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, PC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 3250 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 499-1400 Email: kbarrett@ebglaw.com - and - Wayne A Graver, Esq. LAVIN, O'NEIL, CEDRONE & DISIPIO 420 Lexington Avenue Graybar Building, Suite 335 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (215) 351-7912 Fax: (212) 319-6932 Email: wgraver@lavin-law.com EQUIFAX INC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Tribal Loan Accounts ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Equifax agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it improperly reported tribal loan accounts. The settlement benefits individuals Equifax identified as having a loan issued by Plain Green, Great Plains Lending or MobiLoans based on information from Midwest Recovery and/or CACi between Oct. 4, 2019, and Aug. 21, 2023. According to the class action lawsuit, Equifax reported Great Plains Lending, Plain Green and MobiLoans debts to creditors. The plaintiffs contend the company also allowed debt collectors to change the dates related to these loans to make them appear more recent. Equifax is one of the three credit bureaus that report on consumer debts and creditworthiness. Equifax hasn't admitted wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class action lawsuit. Under the settlement terms, each class member who files a claim form can receive a $500 payment. The settlement also includes non-monetary benefits. Equifax will delete any accounts on consumer reports pertaining to a Plain Green, Great Plains Lending or MobiLoans loan furnished to the credit bureau by Midwest Recovery and/or CACi. The company also agreed to make business practices to better serve class members and other consumers. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 25, 2024. The final approval hearing for the Equifax class action settlement is scheduled for April 26, 2024. In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 20, 2024. Who's Eligible Individuals Equifax identified as having a loan issued by Plain Green, Great Plains Lending or MobiLoans based on information from Midwest Recovery and/or CACi between Oct. 4, 2019, and Aug. 21, 2023. Potential Award $500 Proof of Purchase N/A Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 02/20/2024 Case Name Meeks v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-07727-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 04/26/2024 Settlement Website TribalReportingSettlement.com Claims Administrator Meeks v. Equifax c/o Settlement Administrator PO Box 16 West Point, PA 19486 questions@TribalReportingSettlement.com Tel: (833) 537-1794 Class Counsel Craig C Marchiando Leonard A Bennett CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC 763 J Clyde Morris Blvd Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: +1 757-930-3660 GUPTA WESSLER PLLC 2001 K Street, NW, Suite 850 North Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 888-1741 Kristi C Kelly Andrew Guzzo KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Rd STE 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7570 Defense Counsel Zachary A McEntyre John C Toro Robert D Griest KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 572 4600 [GN] EXACT SCIENCES: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION d/b/a Cologuard, Defendant, Case No. 500851/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January 9, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated visually-impaired and legally blind individuals, after Defendant denied them full and equal access to its website, www.cologuard.com, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, Cologuard.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs. Yet, cologuard.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Exact Sciences' policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Plaintiff for having been subjected to alleged unlawful discrimination. Exact Sciences Corporation is a molecular diagnostics company based in Madison, Wisconsin specializing in the detection of early stage cancers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com FIGS INC: Court Dismisses Ryan Suit Over Securities Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on January 17, 2024, Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against a medical apparel company, certain of its officers, and the underwriters of its stock offerings. Ryan v. FIGS, Inc., 2024 WL 187001 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made misrepresentations about the company's performance and capabilities. The Court dismissed the Exchange Act claims for failure to plead scienter and dismissed the Securities Act claims for failure to plead falsity, while also granting leave to replead those claims. With respect to the Exchange Act claims, the Court assessed five theories plaintiffs offered regarding: (a) the "core operations" theory, (b) access to contradictory data, (c) misleading statements made on two earnings calls, (d) defendants' stock sales, and (e) executive departures. The Court determined that each theory failed to adequately support a strong inference of scienter. Id. at *8. With respect to the "core operations" theory -- which can in some circumstances allow an inference of scienter based on an individual defendant's role in the company -- the Court noted that plaintiffs only alleged two of the individual defendants had stated they were "deeply involved" in or otherwise managed the day-to-day operations of the company. Id. *8. The Court held that these amounted to "blanket public statements of involvement" that did "not rise to the level of specificity required to establish a strong inference of scienter." Id. The Court further concluded that the "core operations" theory did not apply to the remaining defendants, for whom plaintiffs failed to allege that they had responsibility for or control over the company's day-to-day operations. Id. at *9. The Court further rejected plaintiffs' attempt to allege scienter based on the allegation that defendants had access to data analyses that allegedly were inconsistent with the company's public statements. The Court explained that plaintiffs only alleged that certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have made statements suggesting knowledge of those analyses, and that even for those defendants, plaintiffs failed to identify any data that they supposedly learned that was inconsistent with the company's public statements. Id. at *10. With respect to certain challenged statements the company's CEO and CFO made on an earnings call -- which plaintiffs argued were misleadingly positive -- the Court reviewed the call transcript and concluded that defendants had provided risk disclosures, the "existence [of which] negates any strong inference of fraudulent intent or deliberate recklessness." Id. at *10. As for defendants' alleged stock sales, the Court found that allegations about two defendants who sold shares for approximately $97 million and $60 million did not raise a strong inference of scienter because the total amounts were not "astronomical figures" and were less than 15% of their total holdings. Id. at *11. The Court concluded, however, that as to two other defendants, who allegedly sold stock worth a combined $821 million, their sales were on their face "suspicious." Id. Nevertheless, the Court noted that this suspicion alone was not enough to raise a strong inference of scienter because plaintiffs alleged only the combined stock sales by these two defendants, rather than the amount each sold individually. Id. The Court further explained that the timing of a certain defendant's stock sales was not suspicious because the sales were "tax related." Id. For another defendant, the Court noted that the timing was suspicious because the sale occurred near the date of an alleged corrective disclosure; however, the Court explained that this factor alone was not enough to plead a strong inference of scienter. Id. at *12. Moreover, the Court observed that stock sales can be suspicious only when "dramatically out of line with prior trading practices," but plaintiffs had not alleged that information for certain defendants, and that certain other defendants' sales were not suspicious where they followed a lock-up period during which those defendants were prohibited from trading. Id. With respect to allegations concerning executive departures, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to allege facts indicating that these departures were under suspicious circumstances. Id. at *12–13. Moreover, while plaintiffs also pointed to third-party websites with anonymous posts suggesting high employee turnover at the company, the Court treated these as "tantamount to confidential witness statements," emphasizing that plaintiffs failed to allege any facts supporting that these sources were reliable and possessed knowledge of the company's alleged fraudulent conduct. Id. at *13. Turning to plaintiffs' Securities Act claims, the Court first held that, for Securities Act defendants against whom plaintiffs had also asserted Exchange Act claims, those claims sounded in fraud because they were based on the same underlying facts and course of conduct alleged in the Exchange Act claims. Id. at *15. Applying the heightened pleading standard for allegations of fraud, the Court explained that plaintiffs "fall short in their explanation on 'why' a particular statement is false or misleading under Rule 9(b)." Id. at *15–16. As for claims against the remaining Securities Act defendants, the Court held plaintiffs failed to explain the involvement of two defendants in the company's offerings and failed to identify any statements the underwriters provided in the company's offering materials that were false and misleading. Id. at *16. The Court also rejected claims based on alleged violations of Items 105 and 303 of Regulation S-K, holding that plaintiffs failed to provide any factual allegations suggesting that adverse undisclosed facts were known to management. Id. at *16–18. [GN] FIRST ENERGY: Frand Seeks to Clarify Class Certification Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frand v. First Energy Corp et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04287-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order clarifying its findings in the March 30, 2023 Opinion & Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the Class. FirstEnergy is an electric utility headquartered in Akron, Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O7ewFe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph F. Murray, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murray@mmmb.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Mark Solomon, Esq. Tor Gronborg, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com marks@rgrdlaw.com torg@rgrdlaw.com FIRST ENERGY: Owens Seeks Clarification of Class Cert Order ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03785 (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff ask the Court to enter an order clarifying its findings in the March 30, 2023 Opinion & Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the Class. FirstEnergy is an electric utility headquartered in Akron, Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OziV43 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Murray, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Road Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 488-0400 Facsimile: (614) 488-0401 E-mail: murray@mmmb.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Mark Solomon, Esq. Tor Gronborg, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com marks@rgrdlaw.com torg@rgrdlaw.com FKA DISTRIBUTING: Mitchell Sues Over Undisclosed Product Defects ---------------------------------------------------------------- Connie Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FKA DISTRIBUTING CO., LLC d/b/a HoMedics, Case No. 2:24-cv-00241-BHH (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2024), is brought on behalf persons who purchased any HoMedics (a brand owned by Defendant) Therapist Select Percussion Personal Massagers ("Recalled Massagers", "Class Massagers", or "the Massagers"), with a date code ending in 20, 21, or 22 as a result of the Defendants' failure to disclose defects in their product. The Plaintiff brings this action to remedy various violations of law in connection with Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, and warranting of the Recalled Massagers. Specifically, these Recalled Massagers have dangerously defective charging mechanisms whereby the massagers can overheat while charging, posing fire and burn hazards ("the Defect"). The Defect can and has overheated as evidenced by seventeen reports received by HoMedics. On January 4, 2024, Defendant recalled nearly 46,000 of the Recalled Massagers in the United States. When a manufacturer sells a product, it has a duty to ensure that the product functions properly and safely for its advertised use, free from any defects. Upon discovering a defect, a manufacturer must explicitly disclose the defect and take corrective action or cease selling the product. Additionally, when a product manufacturer provides a warranty, it must stand by that warranty. The present class action lawsuit arises from Defendant's breach of these stated duties and obligations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Massager, with the Model Number of HHP-715 and date code 1120 from Defendant in 2020. The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, imports, distributes, and sells personal health and wellness products, including the subject "Therapist Select Percussion Personal Massagers."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Blake G. Abbott, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: 803-222-2222 Fax: 843-494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com FLY JAMAICA: Court Approves Settlement in Aircraft Accident Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Dino of Law Times reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has recently approved the settlement in the class action related to the 2018 incident at an airport in Guyana, where an aircraft's passengers sustained physical injuries and other losses. The Fly Jamaica Flight OJ 256 was en route to Toronto Pearson International Airport when it turned back for an emergency landing after developing problems with the plane's hydraulic system. Upon touching down, the Boeing 757-23N aircraft went off the runway, sustained substantial damage, and passengers suffered physical injuries and other losses. After years of negotiations, the parties reached a settlement in December 2023, culminating in the execution of a settlement agreement. The defendants have agreed to pay a lump sum of $5,550,000.00 to settle the action, with the settlement funds expected to be delivered to class counsel by March 1. The settlement agreement covers all legal fees, noticing costs, and claims administration costs, ensuring the class members are adequately compensated. The court noted that no class member has objected to the terms of the settlement agreement. The class, defined to include passengers aboard Flight OJ256 and family claimants, will receive compensation based on individualized assessments of damages. The court noted that the settlement agreement was designed to leave no class member uncompensated or undercompensated. The settlement also accounted for seven minor passengers in the class, who are expected to receive settlements ranging from $8,000.00 to $15,000.00. Under the Children's Law Reform Act, these funds are not required to be paid into court as the total amount is $35,000 or less. The funds may be paid to the child's parent if the child resides with the parent. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice explained that the key question in evaluating the merits of a proposed settlement is whether its terms lie within a range of reasonableness. In making this assessment, the court must balance the need to scrutinize the settlement against the recognition that there may be several possible outcomes within the range of reasonableness. Class counsel emphasized the fairness of the settlement terms, considering factors such as the likelihood of success, extent of investigation, representation by experienced counsel, and the risks associated with airline liability. The proposed settlement, they argued, is within the range of reasonableness. The court considered the likelihood of success in the action, the extent of the investigation and evidence in the case, the representation of the class by experienced counsel, the likely expense of continued litigation, and the engagement of the parties in good faith, arm's-length bargaining. The court concluded that the proposed terms and conditions of the settlement are very reasonable and are in the best interests of the class for the settlement to be approved. [GN] FRONT GENERAL STORE: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Front General Store, LLC. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Front General Store, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00413-DG-JAM (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Front General Store -- https://frontgeneralstore.com/ -- provides every categories from vintage to brand new: dry goods, stationary, vintage clothing, vintage designer bags/purses, gift cards, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com FULL SAIL LLC: Beckwith Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Full Sail, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kristy Beckwith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Full Sail, LLC d/b/a Full Sail University, The Office Gurus, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00136 (in M.D. Fla., Jan. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Full Sail, LLC doing business as Full Sail University -- https://www.fullsail.edu/ -- is a private for-profit university in Winter Park, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com GEICO GENERAL: Court Approves Amended Class Notice in Lanzillotta ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY LANZILLOTTA, individually on her own behalf and representatively on behalf of a class of plaintiffs similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01465-DLI-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James R. Cho entered an order as follows: a) Approving the proposed amended class notice attached to plaintiff's reply brief with the modifications and with the proviso that the dates set forth therein comport with the dates set forth in this Order; b) Authorizing the plaintiff to retain RG/2 Claims Administration LLC as claims administrator, on the terms set forth in the proposal dated May 10, 2023; c) Directing theg Defendant to provide the plaintiff a list that encompasses all class members, from March 13, 2013 to the present, and which contains the names, addresses, and, if known to defendant, the e-mail addresses of all persons on the list, in Excel format, no later than April 10, 2024; e) Directing that the notice be sent to all individuals on the list on or before May 10, 2024; and f) Establishing July 10, 2024 as the opt-out date. In this class action, the plaintiff Lanzillotta seeks damages, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly-situated plaintiffs, alleging defendant GEICO General Insurance Company improperly reduced the insurance benefits to which she and other covered persons were entitled under New York's Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act, N.Y. Ins. The Honorable Dora L. Irizarry certified a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), and plaintiff now moves for approval of the class notice and related procedures. On August 27, 2016, the plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. At the time, the plaintiff held a motor vehicle insurance policy with defendant, which provided coverage in accordance with New York's No-Fault Statute. Judge Irizarry certified the class according to the following class definition: "All "Eligible Injured Persons," as that term is defined by 11 NYCRR sections 65-1.1–65-1.3, covered under a policy of insurance issued or administered by GEICO General Insurance Company, subject to the provisions of Insurance Law section 5102, who earned gross monthly wages in excess of two thousand dollars per month at any point during the period in which they were covered, who have submitted First Party Benefit claims to and received payment from GEICO General Insurance Company for First Party Benefits that included claims for lost wages, and which, after paying at least one month of First Party wage benefits, GEICO General Insurance Company claimed fully exhausted coverage on or after March 13, 2013." Excluded from the Class are the defendant company; any entity that has a controlling interest in the defendant company; current or former directors, officers and counsel of the defendant company; and any Eligible Injured Persons who received full compensation under the applicable insurance policy. GEICO is a private American auto insurance company. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aZE2pL at no extra charge.[CC] GROVESTARS MOVING: Errante Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grovestars Moving, LLC. The case is styled as David Errante, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grovestars Moving, LLC doing business as: Best American Movers, Case No. 1:24-cv-20212-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 18, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. GroveStars Moving, LLC -- http://www.grovestarsmoving.com/-- provides long distance moving in 48 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com H.F. COX: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Rawles Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- TYLYN RAWLES, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H.F. COX, INC., a California corporation dba COX PETROLEUM TRANSPORT; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01482 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 19, 2024) alleges violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, and the California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a dispatcher based out of Defendants' Bakersfield, California facility. She generally worked 40 to 48 hours per week, four days per week, which resulted in shifts of approximately twelve hours in duration. During the course of her employment with Defendants, she was not paid all wages she was entitled to, says the Plaintiff. Based in Bakersfield, CA, H.F. Cox, Inc. is a California corporation that operates several transportation terminals within Los Angeles County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. Tania Fonseca, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: emil@d.law d.yeremian@d.law a.lindsay@d.law t.fonseca@d.law HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS: Meek Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN MEEK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC., PETER R. INGRAM, LAWRENCE S. HERSHFIELD, WENDY A. BECK, EARL E. FRY, JAYNE HRDLICKA, MICHAEL E. MCNAMARA, CRYSTAL K. ROSE, CRAIG E. VOSBURG, RICHARD N. ZWERN, DANIEL W. AKINS, MARK D. SCHNEIDER, and DUANE E. WOERTH, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00031-DKW-KJM (D. Haw., January 19, 2024) alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asserting claims against the Individual Defendants for violations of their duty of candor under Delaware law. The Plaintiff's claims arise in connection with the proposed merger between Hawaiian and Alaska Air Group, Inc. On December 2, 2023, Hawaiian entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which Hawaiian shareholders will receive $18.00 in cash for each share of Hawaiian common stock they own. On January 9, 2024, to convince Hawaiian stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A with the Section 14(a)/Rule 14a-9 and their fiduciary duty of candor. In particular, the Proxy contains materially omissive and misleading information concerning the financial projections prepared for Hawaiian during its negotiations with Alaska and the valuation analyses prepared by Hawaiian's financial advisor, Barclays Capital Inc. Notably, Hawaiian management prepared three sets of long-term financial projections during discussions with Alaska: the August, September, and November Long Term Plans. However, instead of fully disclosing all three Projections -- and in stark contrast to the more fulsome disclosure provided to shareholders regarding the November Long Term Plan -- the Proxy only provides minimalistic summaries of the August and September Long Term Plans, says the suit. Headquartered in Honolulu, HI, Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. is the parent company of Hawaiian Airlines, which operates 150 daily flights to four Hawaiian islands, 15 gateway cities on the U.S. mainland, and 10 international destinations in American Samoa, Tahiti, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodney P. Bridgers, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RODNEY BRIDGERS, L.L.L.C. 707 Richards Street, Suite 526 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 536-3255 E-mail: rod@helpingemeployyeshi.com HEALTH-ADE LLC: Beverages Contain Toxic Chemicals, Morton Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ALANNA MORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH-ADE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00173-CS (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for manufacturing, marketing and distributing beverage products that contain dangerous levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as "forever chemicals." According to the complaint, independent laboratory testing has revealed that Health-Ade products tested positive for PFAS chemicals. These PFAS chemicals are all dangerous to human health if ingested, even at very low levels. PFAS are known as "forever chemicals" due to their extended half-life and extreme persistence and bioaccumulation in human bodies, says the suit. No reasonable consumer would expect that a product marketed for one's health would contain dangerous PFAS, which are indisputably linked to harmful health effects in humans. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class members suffered economic injuries as a result of purchasing the products. In August of 2023, Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Health-Ade Kombucha Ginger Pineapple Belly Reset at a gas station in Liberty, New York. Health-Ade is a beverage company that sells kombucha and other soft beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com HEALTHEC LLC: Cappas Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthec, LLC. The case is styled as Caroline Cappas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Healthec, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00312 (D.N.J., Jan. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Default. HealthEC -- https://www.healthec.com/ -- develops and delivers end-to-end technology solutions for exchanging healthcare information and managing population health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Furia, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (201) 744-0064 Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com HEALTHEC LLC: Figurel Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HEALTHEC, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kathleen Figurel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Healthec, LLC, Oakwood Accountable Care Organization, LLC d/b/a Beaumont Aco, Case No. 2:24-cv-00300 (D.N.J., Jan. 18, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. HealthEC -- https://www.healthec.com/ -- develops and delivers end-to-end technology solutions for exchanging healthcare information and managing population health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com HEALTHEC LLC: Marano Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- BREE MARANO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. HealthEC LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00153 (D.N.J., Jan. 9, 2024) is a class action arising from the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach at Defendant that lost control of sensitive personal information of Plaintiff and more than 4.5 million Class Members that includes personally identifying information and protected health information. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security protocols, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. HealthEC LLC operates as a population health management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Barry, Esq. POGUST GOODHEAD, LLC 505 S. Lenola Rd., Suite 126 Moorestown, NJ 08057 Telephone: (610) 941-4204 E-mail: jbarry@pogustgoodhead.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca K. Burne, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 222-4795 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com fburne@forthepeople.com HEALTHEC LLC: Roach Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HEALTHEC, LLC. The case is styled as Trunetta Roach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHEC, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00281-JKS-ESK (D.N.J., Jan. 17, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Default. HealthEC -- https://www.healthec.com/ -- develops and delivers end-to-end technology solutions for exchanging healthcare information and managing population health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael M. Weinkowitz, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com HEART OF TEXAS: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Tommy Witherspoon of Gray News reports that a Waco woman is seeking more than $1 million and class-action status for her lawsuit against the Heart of Texas Behavioral Health Network over a November cyber breach that potentially left patient personal health information vulnerable to misuse. Frances Neese is alleging officials at the network, formerly known as Heart of Texas Region MHMR, were negligent by allowing the data breach, which potentially exposed patients' names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical record numbers, health insurance policy numbers and medical and treatment information. Neese and her attorneys, Roger Mandel, of Fort Worth, and Jibrael Hindi and Manuel Hiraldo, both of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, are asking 474th State District Judge Alan Bennett of McLennan County to grant class-action status to the lawsuit on behalf of the 63,255 patients affected by the data breach incident. Mandel declined comment Thursday on the lawsuit. Vince Erickson, HOTBHN division director for community and governmental relations, said the agency's attorney has informed them about the lawsuit but officials have not been served. He declined additional comment. HOTBHN officials alerted the public and their patients to the cyber breach in early December, reporting then that they had no reason to believe that any individual's information had been misused. The agency reported that "an unauthorized party" gained access to its network and that they had shut off all access to the network and engaged a "specialized third-party forensic incident response firm" to assist in securing its system. The lawsuit alleges that the intruder gained access to the agency's network on Oct. 22, 2023, and that the agency didn't notify Neese and the "class members" of the incident until Dec. 6. "Plaintiff's and class members' (personal identifiable information and financial information) and (protected health information) that was acquired in the data breach incident can be sold on the dark web," the lawsuit alleges. "Hackers can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII and PHI to criminals. Plaintiff and class members face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers." The lawsuit also alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by the agency, a health care provider covered under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). "Defendant disregarded the rights of plaintiff and class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their PH and PHI was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use," according to the lawsuit. No hearing has been set on whether the lawsuit will be given class-action status. If it is, those patients affected by the breach will be sent notices that they are plaintiffs in the lawsuit unless they opt out of the litigation. [GN] HERTZ CORP: Retherford Seeks Conditional Status of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDY RETHERFORD, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00719-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (a) Conditionally certifying the nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective of Operations Managers; (b) Requiring Hertz to produce in an electronic or computer- readable format the full name, address(es), dates of employment, work, personal, and cellular telephone number(s), and email address(es) (including personal email addresses to the extent they are available) for each member of the FLSA Collective; (c) authorizing notice and Consent to Join form to the members of the FLSA Collective, disseminated by U.S. Mail, email, text message, and via website (returnable via mail, email, fax, or via website); (d) authorizing a reminder postcard notice halfway through the 60- day notice period; and (e) granting any further relief that this Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs file their request for the entry of an Order conditionally certifying this action to proceed collectively and permitting Plaintiffs to issue Courtsupervised notice to: "All similarly situated salaried, exempt-classified Operations Managers ("OMs") who worked for Defendant The Hertz Corporation at any location in the United States and its territories for at least one workweek from June 10, 2021 to the present (the "FLSA Collective")." The Plaintiffs includes Brandy Retherford and Opt-In Plaintiffs namely Kevin Gross, Christopher Williams, Jamarkis Mitchell, Kaya Black, Falicia Foster, Joseph Persons, Chris Gunnarson, Ayele Foley, Chanekia Kilpatrick, Leslie Moran-Vaquero, Matthew Bianco, Kareem Chery, Denielle Heckman, Jessica Chapman, Kevin Valencia, Elijah Leyva, Maria Martinez, Jeron Ledbetter, Miguel Llull, Zachery Korb, and Angela Burton. The named Plaintiff and the 21 Opt-In Plaintiffs worked for Hertz as OMs at a combined total of over 14 locations in 10 different states. Hertz classifies all OMs as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements, notwithstanding the fact that OMs primarily perform the same duties as hourly-paid and overtime-eligible employees, and without regard to any individual OM's job duties. Hertz has a common corporate policy not to pay OMs overtime wages. Hertz operates its vehicle rental business through multiple brands, including Hertz, Dollar, and Thrifty. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47wtdsc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Mitchell Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Avenue, Suite #101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com HMG HEALTHCARE: Townsend Files Suit in S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HMG Healthcare, LLC. The case is styled as Monica Townsend, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HMG Healthcare, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00156 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 16, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. HMG -- https://www.hmghealthcare.com/ -- provides Health Information Management and Medical Consulting centered around Project Management.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. HOME DEPOT: Floyd Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Andrae Floyd, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2305845 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00127. The Plaintiff alleges that Home Depot failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to provide wages when due at termination, failed to indemnify employees for expenditures, and that Home Depot violated California's unfair competition law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara J. Miller, Esq. John D. Hayashi, Esq. Matthew M. Arnold, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com john.hayashi@morganlewis.com matthew.arnold@morganlewis.com HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Certifies Four Classes in Airquip Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order: -- Granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; -- Certifying a Nationwide Misappropriation Class, defined as: "All persons and entities who are/were Traditional SPs since July 13, 2015, (a) who were charged for a HomeAdvisor membership (including for HomeAdvisor's Pro ConnectTM, Total ConnectTM, and/or for the predecessor or subsequent HomeAdvisor home service professional membership programs) within the 50 United States or the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, (b) who terminate or terminated their home service professional membership with HomeAdvisor, (c) for whom HomeAdvisor does not have express assent to use their names, likeness, or trademark on HomeAdvisor’s website or any HomeAdvisor affiliate website." -- Appointing Kourtney Ervine, Iva Haukenes, Brad McHenry, and Linda McHenry as representatives for the Nationwide Misappropriation Class; -- Certifying a Colorado Misappropriation Class, defined as: "All persons and entities who are/were Traditional SPs since July 13, 2015, (a) who were charged for a HomeAdvisor membership (including for HomeAdvisor's Pro ConnectTM, Total ConnectTM, and/or for the predecessor or subsequent HomeAdvisor home service professional membership programs) within the state of Colorado, (b) who terminate or terminated their home service professional membership with HomeAdvisor, (c) for whom HomeAdvisor does not have express assent to use their names, likeness, or trademark on HomeAdvisor's website or any HomeAdvisor affiliate website." -- Appointing the plaintiffs Brad McHenry and Linda McHenry as class representatives for the Colorado Misappropriation Class; -- Certifying a Florida Misappropriation Class defined as: "All persons and entities who are/were Traditional SPs since July 13, 2014, (a) who were charged for a HomeAdvisor membership (including for HomeAdvisor's Pro ConnectTM, Total ConnectTM, and/or for the predecessor or subsequent HomeAdvisor home service professional membership programs) within the state of Florida, (b) who terminate or terminated their home service professional membership with HomeAdvisor, (c) for whom HomeAdvisor does not have express assent to use their names, likeness, or trademark on HomeAdvisor's website or any HomeAdvisor affiliate website;" -- Appointing the plaintiff Kourtney Ervine as class representative for the Florida Misappropriation Class; -- Certifying an Idaho Misappropriation Class defined as: "All persons and entities who are/were Traditional SPs since July 13, 2016, (a) who were charged for a HomeAdvisor membership (including for HomeAdvisor's Pro ConnectTM, Total ConnectTM, and/or for the predecessor or subsequent HomeAdvisor home service professional membership programs) within the state of Idaho, (b) who terminate or terminated their home service professional membership with HomeAdvisor, (c) for whom HomeAdvisor does not have express assent to use their names, likeness, or trademark on HomeAdvisor's website or any HomeAdvisor affiliate website;" -- Appointing the Plaintiff Iva Haukenes is appointed class representative for the Idaho Misappropriation Class; -- Appointing Chimicles Schwartz Kriner and Donaldson-Smith ("CSKD") and Sherman and Howard ("S&H") as class counsel; and -- Denying the plaintiffs' request to certify a Nationwide Deceptive Practices Class, a California Deceptive Practices Class, a Colorado Deceptive Practices Class, a Florida Deceptive Practices Class, an Idaho Deceptive Practices Class, an Illinois Deceptive Practices Class, an Indiana Deceptive Practices Class, a New Jersey Deceptive Practices Class, a New York Deceptive Practices Class, and an Ohio Deceptive Practices Class. The Plaintiffs bring this class action suit on behalf of themselves and proposed classes of similarly situated home service professionals against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that HomeAdvisor misrepresents the quality of the leads it sells to SPs. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that HomeAdvisor advertises that its leads are from high quality, "project-ready" customers. The Plaintiffs allege that HomeAdvisor consistently conveyed a "brand promise" during the putative class period that the leads were "from serious, legitimate, and real homeowners, who were serious about engaging with an SP to have work performed." The Plaintiffs allege that HomeAdvisor conveyed the brand promise to SPs through advertising and marketing statements directed to SPs as well as during HomeAdvisor's enrollment calls with SPs. HomeAdvisor is an online marketplace that helps connect home service professionals with homeowners in need of home improvement services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47OIwwq at no extra charge.[CC] HOUSE OF ELEVEN: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against House of Eleven, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. House of Eleven, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00308-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. House of Eleven, LLC -- https://houseofeleven.com/ -- is an online fashion and clothing brand founded by Darcey and Stacey Silva in honor of their brother Michael Silva.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com HUME SUPERNATURAL: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hume Supernatural, Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hume Supernatural, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00313 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hume Supernatural -- https://humesupernatural.com/ -- is a personal care company that offers chemical-free deodorants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com HUNAN MANOR: Taste of Mao Appeals Ruling in Chen FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Defendants A TASTE OF MAO, INC. and Zhenqi Xiao filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Decision and Order and Judgment dated December 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled SHI MING CHEN, et al. v. HUNAN MANOR ENTERPRISE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00802-GBD-GWG, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs Shi Ming Chen, Lianhe Zhou, Yong Kang Liu, Jixiang Wang, Wei Min Zhu, Baojun Tian, Xinlong Liu, Qifang Chen, and Pingjin Fan are former employees of Defendants' restaurants who brought suit seeking unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended that the following motions be denied: -- the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for their New York Labor Law claims; and -- a purported cross-motion to dismiss brought by Defendants A Taste of Mao, Inc., and Zhenqi Xiao. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have 14 days (including weekends and holidays) from service of the Report and Recommendation to file any objections. A party may respond to any objections within 14 days after being served. Any objections and responses shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. Any request for an extension of time to file objections or responses must be directed to Judge Daniels. If a party fails to file timely objections, that party will not be permitted to raise any objections to the Report and Recommendation on appeal. The Court reviewed three motions for reconsideration of the Court's Opinion: one filed by Plaintiffs on August 29, 2023; one filed by Defendants Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc., Hunan Manor LLC, Hunan House Manor Inc., Hunan House Restaurant, Inc., Hunan House Restaurant NY LLC, Hunan House. Inc., Zhida Li, and Jingchao Li on September 20, 2023; and one filed by Defendants A Taste of Mao, Inc. and Zhenqi Xiao, also on September 20, 2023. On December 5, the Court entered a Memorandum Decision and Order holding that the Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED; Hunan Manor Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART as to its request to amend the damages calculation and DENIED as to its other requests; and Taste of Mao Defendants' Motion is DENIED. The appellate case is captioned as Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise, Case No. 24-73, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 8, 2024.[BN] Defendant-Appellant ZHENQI XIAO is represented by: Michael R. Curran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. CURRAN, ESQ. Main Street, Suite 9B-2 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (347) 549-2079 IC MARKETS: Misleads Investors Over Financial Products, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nassim Khadem, writing for ABC, reports that one of Australia's richest men, Andrew Budzinski, faces a class action over allegations that he and his company, IC Markets, misled thousands of everyday investors who may have collectively lost hundreds of millions of dollars trading in risky financial products. Echo Law filed a class action against Mr Budzinski and IC Markets in December, expecting that thousands of investors who lost money trading the products -- known as contracts for difference (CFDs) -- could come forward. CFDs are financial products that allow people to trade on how much assets -- such as cryptocurrencies, shares and commodities -- will increase or decrease in value. They are illegal in the United States and Hong Kong but can be traded in Australia, although the corporate regulator imposed strict conditions on these products in 2021. The class action alleges that, by offering these highly risky and unsuitable financial products to retail investors (before the ASIC restrictions came into force on March 29, 2021), IC Markets engaged in misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct. IC Markets was in 2007 founded by Andrew Budzinski, who in 2022 ranked number 50 on Australia's Richest 250, worth $2.5 billion. The 49-year-old has grown his fortune from foreign exchange and cryptocurrency trading. IC Markets has its headquarters in Sydney, although Mr Budzinski now reportedly lives in a luxury marina on the southern coast of Cyprus. IC Markets reaped almost $1 billion in net profits in three years and court documents, lodged by the applicants, state that Mr Budzinski paid himself at least $939 million in dividends through his holding company Bud Corporation. These constituted 99 per cent of the profits made by IC Markets in the three years to September 30, 2020, the documents state. The allegations against the company covered investors who acquired CFDs with IC Markets between December 2017 and March 28, 2021. The court documents allege Mr Budzinski maintained "extensive control and management over, IC Markets's operations and business; and considered himself to be the 'owner'." The court documents also include emails Mr Budzinski sent to employees of the company in 2022, after the period of the alleged conduct, suggesting the money paid by IC Markets to its staff was "his" money and threatening to not pay staff their wages. The court documents state that on February 16, 2022, Mr Budzinski sent an email stating "the company does not employ faggots (gay people) . . . I pay your wages and that of others and I would fund the lifestyles of faggots . . . Why did you not inform me that you had intended to offer a gay a job who was subsequently employed and has now been terminated" and that he was disgusted "that my money has been given to such a human being." They also state that in September 2022, Mr Budzinski directed IC Markets not to approve or pay any wages to employees in Australia pending his review of the employee's performance. Mr Budzinski's direction, according to the court documents, was: "Payroll approval. Just a reminder that all employee payroll is to come past me this month for approval for all offices, including AU. Four employees will have their pay withheld until such a time they complete the task assigned to them in a professional manner, these people know who they are. Upon satisfactory completion of the assigned task, their pay will be released. This is not a threat. THIS WILL HAPPEN". An IC Markets spokesman told ABC News: "The claims in this case are entirely meritless and will be vigorously defended." It said its "CFD products have consistently complied with all regulations, and we pride ourselves on providing efficient, honest and fair services to our clients". "This case is simply the latest in a series of copy-cat class actions against, it seems, any and all CFD brokers in Australia, driven by plaintiffs' lawyers and litigation funders," the spokesman said. "It has absolutely no bearing on our current operations and will have no impact on our clients or our broader business." CFDs 'akin to gambling' Idil Mohamud, senior associate at Echo Law, said retail investors who acquired CFDs with IC Markets between December 2017 and March 28, 2021, could learn more about the class action and register their interest. "CFDs are highly volatile and have historically been highly leveraged products, exposing investors to rapid losses," she told ABC News. On March 29, 2021, corporate regulator the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) issued a product intervention order imposing strict conditions on providers to protect retail investors. The limits followed a series of ASIC reviews in 2017, 2019 and 2020 finding most retail clients lose money trading CFDs, noting that they are "confusing" along with characteristics "akin to gambling". In documents filed with the Federal Court, covering a three-year period before the ASIC restrictions came into force, it's alleged that IC Markets set "the buy and sell price for its CFDs in a way that was not transparent to retail clients". It states that the company sold "highly leveraged CFDs to retail investors that were complex, highly risky and unsuitable for those investors". The company's website and operating platform "facilitated poor decision-making and encouraged continuous trading, notwithstanding significant or repeated losses". IC Markets, the applicants allege, "made it easy for retail investors to open an account and start trading; emphasised the ease and quickness of trading and minimised the risks". The company, it's alleged, "used language that made new users feel comfortable, such as representations that users could 'trade with the world's largest Forex CFD provider' and 'trade with the most trusted CFD provider in the world' and did not contain prominent warnings of the risks of CFDs." ASIC's August 2019 review found CFDs were generally marketed to and traded by retail investors, of whom 70 per cent earn an annual income of $80,000 or less. After ASIC imposed new rules around the issue and distribution of CFDs in 2021, investor losses were curtailed. Immediately after the new rules were introduced, losses plunged to an average of $33 million per quarter, well below the average $371 million per quarter in the year prior. ASIC has successfully prosecuted three cases against CFD providers AGM Markets, OT Markets and Ozfin for breaching the Corporations Act after Federal Court judge Jonathan Barry Beach in October 2020 handed them a combined penalty of $75 million for "engaging in systemic unconscionable conduct". Judge Beach at the time had described CFDs as "financial heroin hits" sought by unsophisticated investors. Investors 'still picking up pieces of their life' Ms Mohamud said the investors in their class action were impacted before the ASIC limits came into force. She said one of the investors the law firm was representing had lost about $50,000 and was financially devastated. "The investors were not being properly informed about the nature of the transactions," she said, noting tens of thousands of investors potentially lost hundreds of millions of dollars during the period and that many of them traded with debt such as credit cards. "They're still picking up pieces of their life . . . and still servicing the debt they incurred," she said. She added that while some investors felt shame and guilt for investing with IC Markets, "they didn't know the odds were stacked against them". The company does make investors carry out a questionnaire when they invest but the court documents allege IC Markets did not take sufficient steps to warn people of the risks they faced. Lead applicant Nathaniel (who has asked that his surname not be used) says he doesn't feel he was adequately warned of the risks. He was 26 at the time of the investment. In early 2020, he had been temporarily stood down during COVID lockdowns from his job as an assistant director in the film industry. He says in October 2020 he lost $10,600 because of acquiring contracts for difference via the IC Markets trading system. While he had some experience in trading corporate stocks on the ASX, he says he "within two and a half weeks, the money I invested pretty much disappeared -- around 90 per cent was wiped out." Nathaniel says had there been clear warnings before he invested about the risks of the trade, he wouldn't have jumped in. He was watching an IC Markets trader he was following on a Facebook group, which he thought was reputable. This trader, Nathaniel says, had appeared to over a 30-day period double his money, and many others in the Facebook group were also making investments with IC Markets as a result. "We set it to copy someone's trades actions," he says. "I watched and waited for a month before jumping in -- you'd be a fool to jump in straight away on a whim. "I figured that it was an account that was doing well and . . . took that as a sign." But Nathaniel feels he was misled into joining a platform that he thought was safe and regulated. He says he lost part of the deposit that he'd saved to buy a home with his girlfriend at the time. "Financially, it was a hit. Emotionally, it was very distressing. It had an impact on my relationship at the time. Because it's a lot to lose. "It would be nice to get (the money) back." [GN] IMA FINANCIAL GROUP: Zerbe Files Suit in D. Kansas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IMA Financial Group, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Zerbe, Mark Masterson, Jessica Abel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. IMA Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02026-KHV-GEB (D. Kan., Jan. 18, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The IMA Financial Group, Inc. -- https://imacorp.com/ -- is a diversified financial services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq. BOULWARE LAW, LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416 Kansas City, MO 64102 Phone: (816) 492-2826 Fax: (816) 492-2826 Email: brandon@boulware-law.com jeremy@boulware-law.com INDIANA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Gender Affirming Care Ban ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brendan Pierson of Reuters reports that a lawsuit by families and healthcare providers challenging an Indiana law that would ban the use of puberty blockers and hormones for transgender children under the age of 18 can go forward as a class action, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge James Hanlon in Indianapolis, who previously blocked the law from taking effect as scheduled last year while he considers the lawsuit, certified three classes, encompassing minor patients, parents and providers. The order clears the way for the judge to issue a broad final order applying to everyone in the state. Indiana had opposed class certification, arguing that any final order would need to address the specific circumstances of each plaintiff. "We're pleased that the district court granted our motion for class certification and look forward to defeating this dangerous law on the merits," Harper Seldin of the American Civil Liberties Union, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. The office of Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Four minor transgender patients, their families, a doctor and a clinic sued the state last April, soon after the state passed a law banning the use of puberty blockers, hormones or surgery for the purpose of gender transition for minors. Such treatments are known as gender-affirming care. They said the law discriminates against transgender people, violating the guarantee of equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs have said they are not challenging a part of the law banning gender reassignment surgery for minors because no Indiana providers perform them. Hanlon, who was appointed to the federal bench by Republican former President Donald Trump, last June issued a preliminary order stopping the law from taking effect the following month, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claims. He wrote at the time that the state had shown "legitimate reasons" for wanting to regulate medical treatment of transgender minors, but had not shown that a total prohibition was justified. He said the plaintiffs had shown "some likelihood" of success, and that they risked irreparable harm if the law were to take effect. The state is currently appealing that ruling. In opposing class certification, Indiana said differences between plaintiffs — for example, the fact that some patients received only puberty blockers, and others hormones — meant the case could not go forward as a class action. Hanlon, however, said the constitutionality of the law did not depend on those differences. "There are therefore common questions central to the classes' and subclasses' claims, and a shared legal analysis will determine whether plaintiffs are entitled to any of the injunctive relief they seek," Hanlon wrote. Indiana is one of more than 20 Republican-led states that have sought to restrict gender-affirming care. Courts have been divided on legal challenges to such measures. Most lower level courts to consider the bans have blocked them so far, but appeals courts have sided with states. The case is K.C. v. The individual members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, No. 1:23-cv-00595. For plaintiffs: Chase Strangio and Harper Seldin of the ACLU For the state: Solicitor General James Barta [GN] INLINE PLASTICS: Crawley Files Suit in D. Connecticut ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inline Plastics Corp. The case is styled as Milton Crawley, III, on behalf of himself and all oher similarly situated v. Inline Plastics Corp., Case No. 3:24-cv-00068 (D. Conn., Jan. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Inline Plastics Corp. -- https://www.inlineplastics.com/ -- is a packaging and containers company providing clamshell, tamper-resistant, and plastic packaging solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole L. Barber, Esq. VENTURA LAW 235 Main Street Danbury, CT 06810 Phone: (203) 800-8000 Email: nicole@venturalaw.com INMATE CALLING SOLUTIONS: Israelson Files Suit in D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inmate Calling Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Israelson, Donna Levan, individually and all for others similarly situated v. Inmate Calling Solutions, LLC doing business as: IC Solutions, Case No. 2:24-cv-02027-HLT-BGS (D. Kan., Jan. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Inmate Calling Solutions, LLC doing business as ICSolutions -- https://www.icsolutions.com/ -- provides inmate telecommunications services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Wyatt, Esq. MANN WYATT TANKSLEY 201 East 1st Avenue PO Box 1202 Hutchinson, KS 67501 Phone: (620) 662-2400 Fax: (620) 662-2443 Email: mike@mannwyatt.com - and - Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Phone: (913) 901-0505 Fax: (913) 347-4819 Email: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com INTEGRIS HEALTH: Johnston Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc. The case is styled as Teresa Johnston, individually as parent and natural guardian of M.J., a minor and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integris Health, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00069-HE (W.D. Okla., Jan. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501 not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in the state of Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry D. Lahman, Esq. Roger L. Ediger, Esq. MITCHELL & DECLERCK 202 W Broadway Ave Enid, OK 73701 Phone: (580) 747-3114 Email: ldl@mdpllc.com rle@mdpllc.com J.M. SMUCKER: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Humphrey Due April 25 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN HUMPHREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order regarding class certification schedule as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class April 25, 2024 Certification will be due by: 2. The Defendants' Opposition will be June 20, 2024 due by: 3. The Plaintiff’s Reply will be Aug. 1, 2024. due by: 4. The hearing will be reset to: Sept. 4, 2024 J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48QQAON at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Emily A. Horne, Esq. Jonathan L. Wolloch BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com ehorne@bursor.com jwolloch@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq. Ethan W. Weber, Esq. Bart L. Kessel, Esq. Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 592-5000 Facsimile: (216) 592-5009 E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com Ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com Anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com J.M. SMUCKER: Parties Wants April 25 Deadline for Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN HUMPHREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification schedule: 1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class April 25, 2024 Certification will be due by: 2. The Defendants' Opposition will June 20, 2024 be due by: 3. The Plaintiff's Reply will be Aug. 1, 2024 due by: 4. The hearing will be reset to: Sept. 4, 2024 J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tSsnZ5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Emily A. Horne, Esq. Jonathan L. Wolloch BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com ehorne@bursor.com jwolloch@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq. Ethan W. Weber, Esq. Bart L. Kessel, Esq. Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 592-5000 Facsimile: (216) 592-5009 E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com Ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com Anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com JAMES LEBLANC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED, ET AL., v. JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL. Case No. 3:23-cv-01304-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes entered an order that in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), the following deadlines are established: 1. The deadline to join other parties or to amend the pleadings is Jan. 31, 2024. 2. Discovery must be completed as follows: a. Exchanging initial disclosures required by F.R.C.P. 26(a)(1): 7 days before the scheduling conference by Local Civil Rule, unless otherwise ordered. b. Class related discovery deadline June 17, 2024 (except expert discovery): c. Opening class expert reports: July 1, 2024 d. Rebuttal class expert reports: July 22, 2024 e. Class expert depositions: Aug. 16, 2024 f. Class certification motion due: Sept. 30, 2024 g. Opposition to Class Certification: Oct. 31, 2024 h. Filing all discovery motions April 15, 2025 and completing all discovery except experts: i. Disclosure of identities and resumes of experts: Plaintiff(s): April 15, 2025 Defendant(s): May 15, 2025 j. Expert reports must be submitted to opposing parties as follows: Plaintiff(s): June 15, 2025 Defendant(s): July 15, 2025 k. Rebuttal reports, if any, due 14 days after the initial expert report. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Smpb07 at no extra charge.[CC] JENNIFER FISHER: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jennifer Fisher, LLC. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jennifer Fisher, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00419-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jennifer Fisher -- https://jenniferfisher.com/ -- is an American Jewelry Designer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com JETBLUE AIRWAYS: La Grow Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Stephanie La Grow, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation and DOES 1-50, Case No. 23STCV28880 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 19, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00518. The Complaint alleges eight causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class under California law: violation of the Unfair Competition Law; failure to pay all state minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods and pay meal period premiums; failure to provide rest periods and pay rest period premiums; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse required business expenses; and failure to pay sick pay wages.[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 - Mecole L. Tate, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: mecole.tate@morganlewis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Neutrogena Shampoo False Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- Georgina Caldwell of Global Cosmetics News reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed in a New York federal court alleging that Neutrogena's T/Sal Therapeutic Shampoo is being falsely marketed as 'preservative free'. According to a report published by Top Class Actions, the product contains citric acid, which is known to serve as a preservative. The suit charges the brand with violating New York General Law, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. The Kenvue-owned brand stands accused of 'capitalizing on consumers' preference for products with no preservatives'. The plaintiff is seeking redress in the form of damages for them and other shoppers similarly affected. [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morris Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rethea Morris, Robert Haid, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., The Procter & Gamble Company, Procter & Gamble Distributing, LLC, Walmart Inc., and John Does 1-200, whose true name is unknown, Case No. 1:23-cv-03409 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Jan. 18, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00269-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending for Product Liability. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin S. Hannon, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLC 1641 North Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Phone: (720) 704-6028 Fax: (619) 255-1515 Email: khannon@singletonschreiber.com KAY IVEY: Feb. 8 Provisional Class Cert Hearing in Kinetic OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 a motion hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and provisional class certification for Feb. 8, 2024, at 9:00 AM Central in Courtroom 2-F, Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama before Judge Corey L. Maze. The court directs the Clerk of Court to provide a court reporter. Kay Ivey is an American politician who is the 54th governor of Alabama. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ht5wq0 at no extra charge.[CC] KEEP YOUR CADENCE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keep Your Cadence, Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Keep Your Cadence, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00302-ER (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Keep Your Cadence, Inc. -- https://keepyourcadence.com/ -- offers customizable, leakproof, magnetic travel containers.[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 LAND O'LAKES: Arana Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sandra Becerra Arana, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated v. LAND O'LAKES, INC.; KOZY SHACK ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CV-23-007421 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Stanislaus, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 19, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00273-DJC-DB. The Complaint alleges claims for: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at the minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked; failure to authorize or permit meal periods; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at the time of separation of employment; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5840 Phone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 Email: jfife@winston.com - and - Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq. Zarouhi Papazyan, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Ave., 38th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Phone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-175 Email: ewoodhead@winston.com zpapazyan@winston.com LAZER SPOT: Faces Class Suit Over "Yard Jockeys" Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cook County Record reports that Trucking company Lazer Spot, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly failing to pay overtime wages to its "yard jockeys", thereby violating federal and state wage laws. The named plaintiffs, Nate Ruthven and Danielle Harmon, have accused the Georgia-based corporation of categorizing its yard spotters as exempt from overtime requirements under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois and Missouri state law. According to the complaint, Ruthven and Harmon, who were employed by Lazer Spot as yard spotters in Illinois and Missouri respectively, allege that they regularly worked between 10-12 hours a day, five to six days a week. Despite frequently working over 40 hours per week, the plaintiffs claim they were not paid time-and-a-half their regular rate for overtime work. The case was filed in Chicago federal court on Jan. 15. It seeks compensation under the FLSA as well as under Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Missouri Minimum Wage Law for the named plaintiffs and for all others who may have worked at Lazer Spot facilities in Illinois and Missouri. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys James B. Zouras, Ryan F. Stephan, Anna M. Ceragioli and Justin M. Carparco, of the firm of Stephan Zouras LLP, of Chicago. [GN] LIBERTY INSURANCE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 18 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE WHITING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-04169-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Douglas Harpool entered a class certification scheduling order: 1. Any motion to join additional parties shall April 10, 2024 be filed on or before: 2. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be April 10, 2024 filed on or before: 3. Class and fact discovery will close: Nov. 18, 2024 4. All class discovery motions shall be Oct. 15, 2024 filed by: 5. The Plaintiff shall file all motions Dec. 18, 2024 seeking class certification by: 6. The Defendant shall file any responsive Feb. 3, 2025 motions objecting to class certification by: 7. The Plaintiff shall reply to Defendant's Feb. 18, 2025 response to Plaintiff's motion seeking class certification no later than: 8. The Plaintiff will designate any expert Oct. 18, 2024 witnesses as to class certification by: 9. The Defendants will designate any expert Dec. 2, 2024 witnesses as to class certification by: Liberty operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48DXMxm at no extra charge.[CC] LIQUID LAB: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. LIQUID LAB NYC LLC, Defendant, Case No. 500849/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January 9, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated visually-impaired and legally blind individuals, after Defendant denied them full and equal access to its website, www.liquidlabnyc.com, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, Liquidlabnyc.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs. Yet, the website contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Exact Sciences' policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Plaintiff for having been subjected to alleged unlawful discrimination. LIQUID LAB NYC LLC provides to the public the website, liquidlabnyc.com, which offers consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to schedule and book in-person cocktail making classes and view the large variety of apparel and barware and cocktail making equipment for the home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com LIVE WELL: Class Suit Settlement in Mass Layoffs Suit Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Clow of Housingwire reports that a cohort of former employees at now-defunct reverse mortgage lender Live Well Financial has been granted final settlement approval in a class action lawsuit brought against the company's estate in May 2019. Monica Williams, a former loan account manager in Live Well's Richmond, Va. headquarters, initially filed the suit days after Live Well had halted funding for new loans and subsequently ceased operations entirely. "After reviewing the terms of the settlement agreement, the court has determined that the legal and factual bases [outlined] in the motion establish just cause for the relief granted herein," the order reads based on court filings reviewed by RMD. The class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware seeking 60 days of wages and benefits, alleging termination without cause and notice as required by law. Live Well initially announced its intent to challenge the suit a month after its filing. Williams brought the suit on behalf of herself and other former Live Well employees who were terminated "without cause, as part of, or as the result of, mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by [Live Well] on or about May 3, 2019," the initial court complaint said. After dragging on for the better part of four years while an adjacent criminal case against former executive leaders was playing out in the U.S. Southern District Court of New York, the class in the Delaware suit received pending approval for a $1.1 million settlement last November. At that time, attorneys for Williams and the class at large said the figure "provides for payment more than sixty-six (66) percent of the maximum priority [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN)] damages and eliminates any further accrual of litigation expenses in prosecuting the action against [Live Well], including trial and possible appeals." In a 92-minute court hearing held on Jan. 18, presiding Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein gave final approval for the settlement to Williams' attorneys and David Carickhoff, the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee overseeing the estate of Live Well Financial. Alongside the preliminary approval, court filings indicated that the settlement would cap the payment at $13,650 per employee. This included all counsel fees and expenses, making the class consist of roughly 81 people. A class of 125 people was initially estimated when the suit was filed in 2019. RMD reached out to attorneys for Williams but did not hear back before this article was published. This is the latest chapter in the saga of Live Well Financial. The government indicted three former company executives over what prosecutors called a reverse mortgage bond pricing scheme, with the company's former CFO and former portfolio manager avoiding prison time after consideration of their cooperation with authorities. A dispute over restitution continues to play out in court between the government and counsel for the lender's former CEO, who remains free on bond pending an appeal of a prison sentence. [GN] LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Opposition Deadline Continued to Feb. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krizia Berg, et al., v. County of Los Angeles, etc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07870-DMG-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order approving joint stipulation to continue deadlines for motion for class certification by one week: Matter Current Date New Date Opposition deadline (Class Jan. 26. 2024 Feb. 2, 2024 Certification) Reply deadline (Class Feb. 23, 2024 Mar. 1, 2024 Certification) Hearing on Class Mar. 15, 2024 Mar. 22, 2024 Certification Motion A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S3OMux at no extra charge.[CC] MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies 401(k) Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that a lawsuit challenging Magna International of America Inc.'s retirement plan fees was certified as a class action by a federal judge who denied an earlier bid for class status based on problems with the workers tapped to lead the case. Judge Nancy G. Edmunds on January 25, 2024 certified a class of more than 20,000 people covered by Magna's 401(k) plan since 2014. Edmunds said the proposed class representatives -- Scott Vollmar, Cory Harris, and Bobby Garrett -- were equipped to lead the case because they were familiar with the facts of the lawsuit and their roles as class representatives, had prepared and sat for depositions. [GN] MANTL INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mantl, Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mantl, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00300 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mantl -- https://www.mantl.com/ -- is a banking technology company that provides workflow management and automation tools for banks and credit unions.[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 MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Class Action Over IPO False Information ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart ("Instacart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CART) and certain officers and directors. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 24-cv-00465, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Instacart common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about September 19, 2023 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) Instacart securities between September 19, 2023 and October 1, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Instacart common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO and/or Instacart securities during the Class Period, you have until March 25, 2024 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Instacart provides online grocery shopping services to households in North America. The Company sells and delivers a range of products in the food, alcohol, consumer health, pet care, and ready-made meals categories, in addition to others. The Company offers its services through a mobile application and website, while also providing software-as-a-service solutions to retailers. On August 25, 2023, Instacart filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on September 18, 2023 (the "Registration Statement"). On September 19, 2023, pursuant to the Registration Statement, Instacart's common stock began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "CART". On September 20, 2023, Instacart filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Instacart and other selling stockholders identified in the Prospectus sold 14.1 million and 7.9 million shares of the Company's common stock to the public, respectively, at the Offering price of $30.00 per share for total proceeds of approximately $400 million and $224 million to Instacart and the selling stockholders, respectively, after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions. The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. In addition, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Instacart had overstated the extent to which online grocery shopping and delivery habits among consumers were accelerating; (ii) Instacart had downplayed the extent of the competition that it faced in the online grocery shopping and delivery market; (iii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the Company's post-IPO growth, business, and financial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 22, 2023, Reuters published an article noting, among other things, that Instacart's stock price was falling after "lukewarm analyst reports" indicated that the Company would struggle from heavy competition. For example, the article noted that "BTIG analyst Jake Fuller gave Instacart a 'neutral' rating and warned that the company faces heavy competition from DoorDash (DASH.N) and Uber Technologies (UBER.N) in the slowly expanding market of grocery delivery." On this news, Instacart's stock price fell $0.65 per share, or 2.12%, to close at $30.00 per share on September 22, 2023. Then, on October 2, 2023, investment research firm Gordon Haskett initiated coverage of Instacart with a "hold" rating, stating that it "ha[s] doubts that online grocery delivery adoption will continue to materially increase at a time when consumers are becoming increasingly cautious about spending", while similarly citing the competitive environment in the online grocery shopping and delivery market as a headwind to the Company's business. On this news, Instacart's stock price fell $2.73 per share, or 9.2%, to close at $26.96 per share on October 2, 2023. As of the time the complaint was filed, Instacart's common stock continues to trade below the $30.00 per share Offering price, damaging investors. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton Pomerantz LLP dpeyton@pomlaw.com 646-581-9980 ext. 7980 MARATHON REFINING: Butel Seeks to Certify Two Classes ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS BUTEL and PAM MOCHERNIAK, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees, v. MARATHON REFINING AND LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-04547-DSF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Louis Butel and Pam Mocherniak move to certify two classes of employees pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes: a "standby class" and a "travel time class." The proposed standby class includes: "All current and former operators of Marathon (or any of its affiliates or successors) who worked at the Los Angeles Refinery, and who have been assigned primary relief shifts, since November 25, 2019." The proposed travel time class includes: "All current and former employees of Marathon (or any of its affiliates or successors) who worked at the Los Angeles Refinery, were required to wear personal protective equipment, and who were not paid for time between the time they entered the facility and the time they clocked in for work, and were not paid for time between the time they clocked out and the time they exited the facility, since November 25, 2019." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48Yt4z0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay Smith, Esq. Joshua F. Young, Esq. Nicole Grinstein, Esq. Emily Olivencia-Audet, Esq. GILBERT & SACKMAN 3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 938-3000 Facsimile: (323) 937-9139 E-mail: js@gslaw.org jyoung@gslaw.org ngrinstein@gslaw.org eolivencia@gslaw.org - and - Randy Renick, Esq. Cornelia Dai, Esq. Sarah Cayer, Esq. HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI, LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103-3645 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Fax: (626) 577-7079 E-mail: rrr@hadsellstormer.com cdai@hadsellstormer.com scayer@hadsellstormer.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Lopez Suit Removed to D. Colorado --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Esteban Camas Lopez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 2023CV30109 was removed from the District Court for the State of Colorado, Pitkin County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Dec. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03308. The Complaint alleges four causes of action: Violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (Fraudulent Internships); Violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (Human Trafficking); Violation of the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act; Violation of the Colorado Human Trafficking Statute.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael P. O'Day, Esq. Ellen E. Dew, Esq. William W. Reichart III, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 650 S. Exeter St., Suite 1100 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 580-3000 Fax: (410) 580-3001 Email: michael.oday@us.dlapiper.com ellen.dew@us.dlapiper.com wes.reichart@us.dlapiper.com - and - D. Rockwell Bower, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1900 N. Pearl St., Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 743-4585 Fax: (214) 665-5955 Email: rockwell.bower@us.dlapiper.com MARTIN LUTHER: Fails to Properly Pay Healthcare Staff, Roldan Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JESUS ROLDAN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. - LOS ANGELES (MLK-LA) HEALTHCARE CORPORATION dba MLK COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01475 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide second meal periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to pay all wages owed upon termination. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee for the Defendant in Los Angeles, California from approximately June 27,2022 until August 16,2023. Martin Luther King Jr. - Los Angeles (MLK-LA) Healthcare Corporation, doing business as MLK Community Healthcare, is a healthcare services provider in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. KARASIK LAW FIRM 16021 Aiglon St. Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Telephone: (310) 463-9761 Facsimile: (310) 943-2582 E-mail: greg@karasildawfirm.com - and - Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: saliagii@aol.com garen@majarianlawgroup.com MASTER LOCK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pan Suit Due March 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY PAN, an individual; v. MASTER LOCK COMPANY, LLC., a Delaware corporation; Case No. 2:22-cv-08943-JLS-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order granting stipulation to extend filing deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- Last Day to File a Motion for Class March 5, 2024 Certification: -- Last Day to File an Opposition to May 15, 2024 Motion for Class Certification: -- Last Day to File a Reply to Motion July 3, 2024 for Class Certification: Master Lock is an American company that develops padlocks, combination locks, safes, and related security products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41WFS6B at no extra charge.[CC] MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Jones Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Misty D. Jones, Robert Lipton, Elliot Ivins, Rebecca Lien, Renee Alice Watroba, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mastercard International Incorporated, Does 1 through 200 inclusive, Case No. 23STCV28742 was removed from the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 18, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00458-FLA-AGR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Mastercard Inc. -- https://www.mastercard.com/global/en.html -- is the second-largest payment-technology corporation worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Ross Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew Daniel Bluth, Esq. John R. Ternieden, Esq. Trent J. Nelson, Esq. YuQing Min, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP 1414 K Street Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 248-8478 Fax: (619) 255-1515 Email: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com abluth@singletonschreiber.com jternieden@singletonschreiber.com tnelson@singletons.chreibet.com emin@sirtgletortschreiber.com - and - Thomas A. Leary, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS LEARY APC 3023 First Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 291-1900 The Defendants are represented by: Jessica Megan Leano, Esq. Faisal M Zubairi, Esq. DORSEY AND WHITNEY LLP 600 Anton Boulevard Suite 2000 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (714) 800-1400 Fax: (714) 800-1499 Email: leano.jessica@dorsey.com zubairi.faisal@dorsey.com MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OREGON LABORERS EMPLOYERS PENSION TRUST FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES INC., HOWARD L. LANCE, and ANIL WIRASEKARA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order granting the Lead plaintiff's motions for final approval of class action settlement and for attorneys' fees and expenses: 1. Lead Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement and approval of Plan of Allocation and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof is granted; 2. Lead Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Award to Lead Plaintiff Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(a)(4) and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof is granted; 3. The Stipulation of Settlement is approved; and 4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the interpretation and implementation of the Settlement Agreement. Oregon Laborers sued the Defendants for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Logan Durant filed this securities class action on Jan. 14, 2019. On Aug. 7, 2019, the Court consolidated this action with a later-filed "lawsuit that was substantially the same as Durant's action but had a longer proposed class period." Maxar Technologies is a space technology company, specializing in manufacturing communication, Earth observation, radar, and on-orbit servicing satellites, satellite products, and related services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48NhW7U at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2918: EUPs Consider Sealing Class Cert Materials ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the End-user plaintiffs' administrative motion to Consider whether another Party's material should be Sealed pursuant to civil local Rule 79-5(f). EUPs are required to file these documents under seal pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, because materials contained therein are derived from documents and other information designated "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" by third party Western Digital. Sealing is sought for the material or documents identified in the chart below. Material/Document – Page/Ex. No. Designating Party EUPs' Supplemental Memorandum in Support Western Digital of Class Certification: gray highlighting on pages i-iii, 1-5, and 8-9 Declaration of Janet S. Netz, Ph.D., in Western Digital Support of EUPs' Supplemental Memorandum: gray highlighting on pages 1-5 A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O83jEi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq. Qianwei Fu, Esq. ZELLE LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1230 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770 E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com qfu@zellelaw.com - and - William V. Reiss, Esq. Ellen Jalkut, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com ejalkut@robinskaplan.com ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Stock Due April 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOCK v. ME&I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES USA, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00064 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order extending the deadlines for the remainder of the class certification phase as follows: -- The Defendant's Expert Report shall March 1, 2024 be filed on or before: -- The Plaintiff's Expert Report shall March 22, 2024 be filed on or before: -- The class discovery deadline shall be: March 22, 2024 -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class April 19, 2024 Certification shall be filed on or Before: -- The Defendant's Response to said May 17, 2024 Motion shall be filed on or before: -- The Plaintiff's Reply to said Response June 7, 2024 shall be filed on or before: The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment. ME&hgeI is a full-service maintenance and construction services company.[CC] MEDITERRANEAN FOODS: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mediterranean Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mediterranean Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00421-RER-PK (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mediterranean Food, Inc. -- http://www.medfoodinc.com/-- are a wholesale company that specializes in importing and distributing food and beverage commodities across North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MENZIES AVIATION: Douglass Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Richard Douglass, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. MENZIES AVIATION (USA) INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AIR MENZIES INTERNATIONAL (USA) INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 37-2023-00049985-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 17, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00115-JO-DDL. The Complaint alleges eight causes of action premised on the following alleged violations of the California Business and Professions Code and California Labor Code: Unlawful Business Practices; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Pay Wages When Due; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Ward, Esq. Kaleb N. Berhe, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418 Phone: 213.972.4500 Facsimile: 213.486.0065 Email: cward@foley.com kberhe@foley.com MIAMI IM REST: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carlos Giovani De Jesus Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Miami IM Rest, LLC and Brian Galligan, Case No. 2023-182124-CC-24 was removed from the County Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Jan. 16, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20182-XXXX. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: 305.865.6766 Facsimile: 305.865.7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com Secondary: assistant.jhzidell@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Miguel A. Morel, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305.400.7500 Facsimile: 305.603.2552 Email: mamorel@littler.com - and - Justin O. Scott, Esq. 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1750 Orlando, FL 32801.2366 Phone: 407.393.2900 Facsimile: 407.393.292 Email: juscott@littler.com MINNESOTA: Mount Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 8th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jeremy David Mount filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated August 2, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled JEREMY D. MOUNT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WARDEN J. FIKES, individually and in his official capacity as Warden of FCI Sandstone of PINE County; D. DRILLING, individually and in his official capacities as correctional officer for the mail room of FCI‐Sandstone PINE County; and J. BEST, individually and in his official capacities as Correctional Officer of FCI‐Sandstone Mail Room of PINE County, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-01489-NEB, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On June 28, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Jeremy D. Mount sued several Defendants over constitutional violations in connection with mailroom practices at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota. On January 9, 2023, the Defendants, who work at the Sandstone facility, moved to dismiss the case. On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff Mount moved for partial summary judgment. On February 6, he moved for an extension of time to seek settlement or resolution. In a Report and Recommendation dated April 4, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying Mount's motions as moot. On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff Mount filed an objection to the R&R. On August 2, 2023, Judge Nancy E. Brasel entered an Order overruling the objection, accepting the R&R, granting the motion to dismiss, and denying the remaining motions as moot. The appellate case is captioned as Jeremy Mount v. J. Fikes, et al., Case No. 24-1047, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on January 8, 2024.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Jeremy David Mount, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees Warden J. Fikes, individually and in his official capacity as Warden of FCI Sandstone of PINE County, et al., are represented by: Lucas B. Draisey, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 600 U.S. Courthouse 300 S. Fourth Street Minneapolis, MN 55415-0000 Telephone: (612) 664-5600 MODERNISTIC II: Murphy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------ Cleo Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MODERNISTIC II, LLC; MODERNISTIC, LLC; MODERNISTIC CARPET CLEANING CO., LLC; MODERNISTIC LANSING, LLC; LBK, LTD, LLC; SCHUSTER'S LLC; TITANS CARPET, LLC; MODERNISTIC RUGOLOGY, LLC; MODERNISTIC WATER RESTORATION, LLC; MODERNISTIC PRODUCTS & SUPPLY SERVICES, LLC; MODERNISTIC DUCT CLEANING, LLC; and MODERNISTIC LEASING, LLC, d/b/a Modernistic, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:24-cv-10119-PDB-CI (E.D. Mich., Jan. 16, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants maintained a corporate policy and practice of willfully refusing to pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees the legally required amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the FLSA. In particular, Defendants failed to include non-discretionary on-call bonuses and commission payments into the regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated when calculating their overtime rates. As a result of Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees at a rate not less than 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, Defendants have violated and continue to violate the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for Modernistic as a non-exempt, hourly employee since April 5, 2021. The Defendants jointly own and operate "Michigan's #1 Cleaning and Restoration company."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7501 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: pkennedy@sommerspc.com MONROW LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monrow, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Monrow, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00316 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Monrow -- https://www.monrow.com/ -- is inspired by the finest fabrics to create stylish staples that complement women and men wardrobes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com MOTT'S LLP: "Preservative-Free" Mix Claims Misleading, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action claims the companies behind Mr & Mrs T Original Bloody Mary mix have misled consumers by advertising the product as preservative-free when it, in fact, contains the additive citric acid. The 30-page lawsuit alleges that although defendants Mott's and parent company Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc. "unequivocally and boldly" claim the Bloody Mary mix contains "No Added Preservatives," the product's ingredients list reveals the presence of citric acid -- an additive commonly used as a preservative in foods and beverages. The suit contends the product's label claim is misleading because citric acid functions as a preservative regardless of whether it is added for a separate purpose. Per the case, the alleged misrepresentation is meant to attract health-conscious consumers seeking products free from artificial or chemical additives like preservatives. The complaint argues the companies are well aware that shoppers are willing to pay premium prices for "clean," less processed products that are perceived to be healthier than others. By falsely labeling the Bloody Mary mix as preservative-free, the defendants have capitalized on the increasing preference for "clean" products at the expense of "hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting consumers," the filing alleges. The lawsuit looks to represent any California or New York residents who purchased Mr & Mrs T original Bloody Mary mix within those states during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] N.IO INNOVATION: Court Sets Class Certification Schedule in Karaba ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRA KARABA, et al., v. N.IO INNOVATION, INC., et al. Case No. 2:23-cv-08047-FMO-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order setting class certification schedule as follows: 1. Counsel for the parties shall attend a scheduling conference on February 22, 2024, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 6D of the 1st Street Courthouse. 2. No later than February 1, 2024, counsel for all appearing parties and all unrepresented appearing parties, if any, shall meet, in person, telephonically or via video conference, and discuss the matters set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) ("Rule 26(f)") as well as those items identified in paragraph 4, below. 3. No later than February 8, 2024, counsel for all appearing parties, and all unrepresented appearing parties, if any, shall file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report. 4. The Joint Rule 26(f) Report shall be drafted by plaintiff (unless the parties agree otherwise) but shall be submitted and signed jointly. N.IO Innovation is a company that provides Software, Data integration, Computer hardware and more. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47JC2id at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL DEBT: Vincent Sues Over Unauthorized Collection of IPs --------------------------------------------------------------- GILDA VINCENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00440-LJL (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in unlawful collection of website visitors' IP addresses using the Claritas TRKN Tracker that it installed on Website visitors' internet browsers. By installing and using the Tracker without the Plaintiff's and similarly situated visitors' prior consent and without a court order, the Defendant violated CIPA. National Debt Relief LLC is a company that owns and operates the website, nationaldebtrelief.com, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sunday Ticket Package Suit to be Heard June 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Sports reports that for years, the NFL's Sunday Ticket package has walked, talked, and quacked like an antitrust violation. Later this year, a lawsuit aimed at proving that fact will come to a head. Via Ben Fischer of Sports Business Journal, a class action attacking the Sunday Ticket approach will go to trial in June. If the league loses, the damages award could be more than $6 billion -- or the cost of the Commanders at its recent sale. Earlier this month, the NFL took an "L" in its effort to have the case dismissed by summary judgment, a common tool for corporate defendants to avoid juries by arguing there's nothing for a jury to resolve. The judge denied the NFL's motion. Trial had been set for February 22; it has since been delayed to June. The core argument is that the NFL and the Sunday Ticket provider (previously, DirecTV) have created a "premium product" that must be purchased in a full-season, every-game bundle, with no option to buy the ability to buy a smaller package, such as the games featuring one specific out-of-market team. Indeed, Sunday Ticket is regularly marketed to fans who live in one market and who want to watch a team that plays in a different market. To watch, for example, all Packers games if you live in Pittsburgh, you have to plunk down the trumped-up price for the entire package, covering every team and every week. The end result is an alleged monopoly for the Sunday Ticket provider and an alleged conspiracy to create it. The presiding judge rejected a long list of arguments from the NFL as to why it should win the case without a trial. The question now becomes whether the league will want to allow this case to go to trial in open court. Even with a win, it could create a P.R. problem for the league and its teams. A settlement is always possible. It's an important test to the limits of the league's desire to do whatever it wants, however it wants, whenever it wants. When it comes to Sunday Ticket, it has always relied on consumers caring enough about seeing all games of one specific out-of-market team to pay full freight for all games of all out-of-market teams. Football is family, right? In this case, football is more like forcing fans to dig deeper into the family's budget than necessary to watch only the games they want to see. If the end result is that a Packers fan in Pittsburgh can pay a lower price for only the Green Bay games instead of full price for all of them, it will be good for fans. It will be bad for the NFL, but it will be good for fans. [GN] NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Class Settlement in Woodard Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH JOSEPH WOODARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 8:23-cv-00301-RFR (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. entered an order granting the Woodard's motion for final approval of class action settlement: -- The settlement class is certified under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). -- Woodard's motion to Accept Late-Filed Claims is granted. -- Class counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Class Representative Service Awards granted in part and denied in part. -- Class counsel are awarded $10,750,000 in attorney fees, to be paid from the common fund and allocated appropriately among themselves. -- Class counsel are awarded $86,562.76 in litigation fees and expenses, to be paid from the common fund and allocated appropriately among themselves. -- Class counsel are awarded $500,000 in notice and settlement administration costs, to be paid from the common fund. -- Class representatives Kenneth Joseph Woodard, Stephanie Mazloom, Kelly K. Coyle, Oscar D. Teran, Michael Shahbazi, and Robert and Molly Crandall are each awarded $15,000, to be paid from the common fund, for their service in the proceedings against Navient. The parties' stipulation of settlement in this matter represents the resolution of years-long disputes over the defendants allegedly unlawful collection of dischargeable student-loan debt. Navient provides financial services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vBqZui at no extra charge.[CC] NEW INDY: Higher Court Hears Arguments in Class Suit Over Foul Odor ------------------------------------------------------------------- Shaquira Speaks of Carolina's Own Queen City News reports that Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals judges listened to arguments in the case of U.S. v. Enrique Lizano on January 25, 2024 morning. Lizano is one of thousands who live or have lived within 15 miles of the New Indy Containerboard Plant in Lancaster County. Attorneys at the hearing are arguing about a 2023 case in a U.S. District Court in Columbia. The legal team representing community members against New Indy filed the lawsuit. The EPA's Clean Air Act Emergency Order against the New Indy containerboard plant -- outlined evidence that the mill's operations "are emitting hydrogen sulfide into the air." It also states that if owners were allowed to continue the same operations, they would present "an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and the environment." Residents want more help in fight Attorneys for the class action lawsuits against the New Indy claim that's not enough from the EPA to keep them safe. "The essential question before the court is whether the victims of new Indy's violations of the Clean Air Act should have a right to intervene in an enforcement action brought by EPA for the very purpose of protecting their health," said the attorney representing class action lawsuit. They claim that despite the issued Clean Air Act emergency order -- and New Indy's acceptance of the order -- plant operators have continually violated the agreement. Now, neighbors want to intervene on their own behalf. "They should be able to intervene, and federal law expressly authorizes them to do so," class action lawyers stated. Homeowners' lawyers say the EPA disagrees on whether New Indy met the standards for intervention under the law. Attorneys argue that neighbors have a right to intervene if they meet that standard. Several parts of the Clean Air Act grant citizens the right to bring a claim against anyone they believe is violating the act. "It was therefore entirely appropriate for the interveners to seek to intervene to join in that action, particularly when they became concerned that EPA was allowing the mills to get away with a prolonged delay in implementing and coming into compliance with the terms of the order," said the class action lawyers. EPA lawyers argue New Indy followed the 2021 agreement that the plant was not permitted to exceed a certain level of emissions. They argue the district court judge who ruled on the case -- got it right. "Congress said that citizen plaintiffs could sue for violations of standards, limitations, and orders, except when the United States is bringing a suit already for a violation of the same standard, a limitation or order with respect to such," said the attorney representing the EPA. EPA attorneys argue that because the original order expired, the intervention suit isn't applicable here. Regulators say if homeowners want to sue -- they can, but not under the 2021 order. That's why they agree with the district court judge who rejected the initial intervention motion. There's no date for when appeals court judges will issue their ruling. [GN] NEW LONDON PHARMACY: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New London Pharmacy, Inc. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. New London Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00414 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New London Pharmacy -- https://www.newlondonpharmacy.com/ -- is to provide maximum health-care benefits through traditional medical services, homeopathy, and natural remedies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Doe Moves to Certify Sex Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Sloan of Reuters reports that the anonymous plaintiff in a race and sex discrimination lawsuit challenging the selection process for New York University School of Law's flagship law review is seeking class action status for all current and future white, heterosexual male students who hope to participate. John Doe, as the plaintiff is called in court filings, on January 24, 2024 asked a federal judge to certify the case as a class action before May 10, when the law review's writing competition begins to determine membership for the following academic year. Student editor and other law review staff positions are prestigious credentials that can open doors to sought-after legal jobs. Doe's lawsuit, filed in October in Manhattan federal court, claims the NYU Law Review gives preference to women and minorities in violation of Title VI and Title IX, which prohibit racial and sex discrimination in education programs that receive federal funds. A judge in November allowed him to proceed with the case anonymously for now. NYU has hired prominent attorney Roberta Kaplan of Kaplan Hecker & Fink to fight the case. Kaplan, who was in federal court in Manhattan on January 26, 2024 representing E. Jean Carroll in her defamation trial against former Republican President Donald Trump, could not be reached for comment. An NYU Law spokesperson declined to comment on Doe's class action bid. NYU's motion to dismiss the case is due January 29, though the school called Doe's suit "baseless" in a motion opposing expedited discovery. Doe is represented by America First Legal, an organization headed by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller. Conservative lawyer Jonathan Mitchell, who unsuccessfully sued both the NYU Law Review and the Harvard Law Review in 2018 for discrimination, is also on Doe's legal team. Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment on January 26, 2024. Doe's lawsuit is the first legal challenge to law review diversity policies following the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision that prohibited race-conscious college and university admissions. It asks the court to enjoin the NYU Law Review from considering "race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity" when selecting editors or staffers. According to the motion for class action status, figures from the American Bar Association show there are 96 white men in NYU Law's current class of first-year students. Doe claims that most of those students are "likely to intend to apply" to the law review. The case is John Doe v. New York University, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:23-cv-10515. For Doe: Ronald A. Berutti of Murray-Nolan Berutti LLC; Christopher Mills of Spero Law LLC; Jonathan F. Mitchell of Mitchell Law PLLC; Gene P. Hamilton of America First Legal Foundation. For New York University: Roberta A. Kaplan, Gabrielle E. Tenzer, Amit Jain, Raymond P. Tolentino of Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Miller Suit Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAHKEEM MILLER; JOSE GUITY; TRAVIS BUTLER; ARIAN PERALTA; GARY GARCIA, JR.; BOBBY DEE CRUZ, and ISAIAH MUHAMMAD, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; CYNTHIA BRANN; TIMOTHY FARRELL; HAZEL JENNINGS; and BRENDA COOKE, Case No. 1:21-cv-02616-PKC-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and 54: (1) granting final approval of the settlement Stipulation; (2) finally certifying the proposed settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); (3) finally appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel; (4) approving the requests for Class Representative service awards; and (5) approving an award of attorneys' fees and costs. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u4PcJ5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Hecker, Esq. John R. Cuti, Esq. Alexander Goldenberg, Esq. Daniel Mullkoff, Esq. Jazly Liriano, Esq. CUTI HECKER WANG LLP 305 Broadway, Sixth Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 620-2600 E-mail: ehecker@chwllp.com jcuti@chwllp.com agoldenberg@chwllp.com dmullkoff@chwllp.com jliriano@chwllp.com The Defendant are represented by: Sylvia O. Hinds-radix, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 NEW YORK, NY: Police Officers Get Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURBRAN PIERRE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05116-ALC-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., entered an order: -- granting the Patties' motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, Certification of the Settlement Class, Appointment of Class Counsel, and Approval of Plaintiffs Notice of Settlement and Claim Form; -- Conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only, a Rule 23 class consisting of all current and former Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, and Lieutenants who provided services at any B&H location in New York State at any time from July 3, 2014 through the date of this order through the Paid Detail Program; -- Appointing, for settlement purposes only, Plaintiff Burbran Pierre to represent the Class; -- Appointing the following firm as Class Counsel because they meet all of the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g): Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com -- Adopting the settlement approval process as set fo1th in the Settlement Agreement. On, Nov. 9, 2023, the Plaintiff Pierre, with the consent of the Defendants filed his motion for preliminary approval of a settlement between the Parties. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48Tra2q at no extra charge.[CC] OFF HOURS SPIRITS: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Off Hours Spirits, Inc. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Off Hours Spirits, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00305 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Off Hours -- https://drinkoffhours.com/ -- is a modern bourbon made for the moments in between.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com OPENAI INC: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Authors Guild et al., v. OpenAI Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08292-SHS (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting extension of briefing schedule on any motion(s) filed in response to amended complaints in the Authors Guild and Alter cases as follows: Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Last Day for Defendants to Jan. 12, 2024 Jan. 26, 2024 Answer or Move In Response to Amended Complaints Last Day for Parties to File Jan. 12, 2024 Jan. 26, 2024 Their Positions on Which Should Proceed First, Summary Judgment or Class Certification Last Day for Plaintiffs to Jan. 26, 2024 Feb. 9, 2024 Respond to Any Motion In Response to the Amended Complaints Last Day for Defendants to Feb. 2, 2024 Feb. 16, 2024 File a Reply to any Motion In Response to the Amended Complaints OpenAI is a U.S. based artificial intelligence research organization. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/491rdcv at no extra charge.[CC] The Parties are represented by: Joseph C. Gratz, Esq. MORRISON FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: JGratz@mofo.com OSLO COFFEE ROASTERS: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oslo Coffee Roasters, Inc. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Oslo Coffee Roasters, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00422 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oslo Coffee Roasters -- https://oslocoffee.com/ -- is Brooklyn's first specialty coffee shop.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 14749 71st Ave. Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com PACCAR INC: 10th Gear Files Suit in W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paccar, Inc. The case is styled as 10th Gear LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Paccar, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01933 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Paccar Inc. -- http://www.paccar.com/-- is an American company primarily focused on the design and manufacturing of large commercial trucks through its subsidiaries DAF, Kenworth and Peterbilt sold across markets worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sally W. Harmeling, Esq. JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD Po Box 1688 Wenatchee, WA 98801 Phone: (509) 662-3685 Fax: (509) 662-2452 Email: sallyh@jdsalaw.com PACCAR INC: Long Files Suit in S.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paccar, Inc. The case is styled as Joel Long, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Ensign Peak Advisers, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-03950-NJR (S.D. Ill., Dec. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Contract Default. Paccar Inc. -- http://www.paccar.com/-- is an American company primarily focused on the design and manufacturing of large commercial trucks through its subsidiaries DAF, Kenworth and Peterbilt sold across markets worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY & DANIS, L.L.C. 8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 725-7700 Fax: (314) 721-0905 Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com PACIFIC MARITIME: Hill Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Pamela Hill, Jeri Stewart, Rhonda Johnson, Shyraun Ruffin, Sheila Seals, La Tina Blackmon, Derrick Young, Cory Brown, and Stephen Johnson, individually, on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, a California corporation; APM TERMINALS NORTH AMERICA INC., a corporation; APM TERMINALS PACIFIC LLC, a Limited Liability Company; COSCO SHIPPING TERMINALS (NORTH AMERICA) INC., a California corporation; EVERGLADES COMPANY TERMINAL, INC., a corporation; EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., a corporation; FENIX MARINE SERVICES, LTD., a Limited Company; INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; LBCT, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; MAERSK A/S, a corporation; MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION, a corporation; METRO CRUISE SERVICES LLC, a California corporation; METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY, a California corporation; PACIFIC TERMINAL SERVICE COMPANY, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; PASHA STEVEDORING & TERMINALS, INC., a California corporation; PASHA STEVEDORING & TERMINALS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership; PORTS AMERICA CRUISE, INC., a corporation; SSA CONTAINERS, INC., a corporation; SSA MARINE, INC., a corporation; SSA PACIFIC, INC., a corporation; SSA TERMINALS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; STEVEDORING SERVICES OF AMERICA 811-WA, an unknown business entity; TOTAL TERMINALS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; TRAPAC, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; WEST BASIN CONTAINER TERMINAL, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; YANG MING (AMERICA) CORPORATION, a corporation; YUSEN TERMINALS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-23-609661 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 19, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00336. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the California Labor Code and/or the Los Angeles Municipal Code and assert seven causes of action: Violation of California Labor Code (California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 or "PAGA") failure to provide sick pay wage compensation; Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code; failure to pay wages due after demand; Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code; failure to provide accurate wage statements; Violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay all earned wages during employment and upon termination; Violation of Labor Code; failure to pay sick pay wages due after demand; Violation of Labor Code; and failure to provide accurate wage statements; Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christian J. Rowley, Esq. Kent M. Roger, Esq. Jesse L. Miller, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: crowley@seyfarth.com kroger@seyfarth.com jmiller@seyfarth.com - and - Clifford D. Sethness, Esq. 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: csethness@seyfarth.com PALOMA POINTE: Palacio-Grant Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Malva Mae Palacio-Grant, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. PALOMA POINTE ON THE BOULEVARD LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01195 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for iolation of California Labor Code as a result of unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law. The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving accurate overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from January 2020 to August 2021, in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. PALOMA POINTE ON THE BOULEVARD LLC is a California limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 Email: aa@calljustice.com PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Murphy Sues Over Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------------- Kenny Jerome Murphy, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; STEVEN SCHROEDER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01127 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2024), is brought pursuant to, including but not limited to, Labor Code, and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11040, seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, waiting time penalties, wage statement penalties, failure to indemnify work related expenses, failing to pay vested vacation time at the proper rate of pay, other such provisions of California law, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and Class Members working over 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of 8 per day in a work day, forty 40 per week in a work week, and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee. Paramount is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware and doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Henry G. Glitz, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com henry@tomorrowlaw.com PATRIOT PICKLE: Mayer Suit Removed to W.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dennis Mayer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PATRIOT PICKLE INC., ARKK FOOD COMPANY, and WAHLBURGERS I, LLC, Case No. 814871/2023 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York on Dec. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01299-LJV. The Plaintiff filed an unverified Complaint which alleged eight causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages upon termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kathleen Barnett Einhorn, Esq. GENOVA BURNS LLC 115 Broadway, 15th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (973) 533-0777 Fax: (856) 533-1112 Email: keinhorn@genovaburns.com - and - Jacob D. Radecki, Esq. 300 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1400 Chicago, IL 60605 Phone: (312) 280-0111 Email: jradecki@mcdonaldhopkins.com PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP: Torres Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Performance Food Group, Inc. The case is styled as Julio Torres, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated v. Performance Food Group, Inc., Case No. 2479CV00042 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Jan. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Contract / Business Cases for Employment Contract. Performance Food Group Company -- https://www.pfgc.com/ -- is an American company that was founded in 1885 in Richmond, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Ryan B. Guers, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA AND DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 PHARMERICA PS: Thao Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brandon Thao, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PHARMERICA PS, LLC dba PHARMERICA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RES-CARE, INC. dba BRIGHTSPRING AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM HEALTH SERVICES, a Kentucky corporation; PHARMERICA CORPORATION, ; PHARMERICA, INC., an entity of unknown form; RX RELIEF dba RX RELIEF, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23CECG05086 was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-at-00053. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he was an employee of Defendants and alleges various wage and hour violations. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages and overtime, meal period and rest period liability, failure to pay vacation wages, failure to comply with Labor Code, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to keep required payroll records, Labor Code penalties and violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Theodore E. Bacon, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLP 235 Pine Street, Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 624-8665 Fax: (415) 391-1751 Email: tbacon@fbtlaw.com PLOW & HEARTH: Langston Files Suit in D. Utah --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plow & Hearth LLC. The case is styled as Teresa Langston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Plow & Hearth LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00909 (D. Utah, Dec. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Plow & Hearth -- http://www.plowhearth.com/-- is a United States retailer based in Madison, Virginia, specializing in hearth and fireplace accessories, furniture and home furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber Weekes, Esq. Alexander Cyclone Covey, Esq. Kevin Michael Kneupper, Esq. KNEUPPER AND COVEY PC 17011 Beach Boulevard Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone: (215) 999-9767 Email: lorraine@kneuppercovey.com cyclone@kneuppercovey.com kevin@kneuppercovey.com PRECISION PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- AYLIN RAMIREZ aka AILEEN NAVARRETE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION PARTNERS, INC., a California corporation; PRECISION PARTNERS RESTAURANTS, LLC., a California corporation; PRECISION PARTNER RESTAURANTS INC., a California corporation; PRECISION PARTNERS RANCHO, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01466 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 19, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the California Labor Code, costs, interest, and liquidated damages. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly non-exempt employee from in or around 2020 to the date of this complaint. Allegedly, Defendants paid Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees similarly situated for their scheduled hours instead of properly keeping track of their time. As a result, Defendants failed to properly track the actual hours Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees worked. Otherwise, Defendants unlawfully rounded down or shaved Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees' hours worked at the time of their clock-in and clock-out to the nearest quarter of an hour and failed to properly compensate them for time spent working in a given shift, says the suit. The Plaintiff also accuses the Defendants of violating the California Business and Professions Code in connection with their unfair business practices. Precision Partners, Inc. operates restaurants in Los Angeles County, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. Arie Ebrahimian, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (213) 213-0000 Facsimile: (213) 213-0025 E-mail: dlavi@ebralavi .com arie@ebralavi.com PROVIDENT TITLE: Agito Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Robyn F. Agito, an individual, on behalf of herself and in her representative capacity as private attorney general v. PROVIDENT TITLE COMPANY, a California corporation, PROVIDENT TITLE COMPANY, INC, a California business entity, BRIAN LENOX, an individual, MITCH BADER, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01404 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 18, 2024), is brought for Violation of The Private Attorneys General Act Of 2004 ("PAGA") and seeks to obtain all applicable relief for Defendants' violations, including all available relief under PAGA and the applicable Labor Code as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay compensation. The Defendants have implemented a uniform policy to willfully misclassify its California Assistant Marketing Director and/or Marketing Director and upon information and belief other management employees ("Aggrieved Employees"), as exempt when they are plainly non-exempt employees under California law, and to pay employees improperly under the applicable California Wage Orders. Going back many years, Defendants have blatantly and intentionally misclassified Plaintiff and, upon information and belief, other Aggrieved Employees as exempt employees when they are plainly non-exempt, hourly employees under California law. Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees as an exempt employee by, among other things, wantonly and inexplicitly failing to meet the minimum salary threshold required for her to be classified as "exempt." This misclassification has deprived, and continues to deprive, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees of various protections under the California Labor Code, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendants as an Assistant Marketing Director and/or Marketing Director from November 2019, through the present. The Defendants operate a real estate escrow and title company doing business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle C. Worrell, Esq. WORRELL LAW FIRM, APC 1717 Old Tustin Avenue, Unit E Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone: (657) 232-1450 Fax: (657) 232-1430 Email: kcw@worrell-law.com PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Camoras Files Suit in D. Utah -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Publishers Clearing House, LLC. The case is styled as James Camoras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Publishers Clearing House, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00903 (D. Utah, Dec. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Publishers Clearing House -- http://www.pch.com/-- is an American company founded in 1953 by Harold Mertz.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS SCOFIELD 7430 Creek Rd., Ste. 303 Salt Lake City, UT 84093-6160 Phone: (801) 322-2002 Email: dws@psplawyers.com PURPLE INNOVATION: Julian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purple Innovation, LLC. The case is styled as Mason Julian, Alexander Tat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Purple Innovation, LLC, Case No. CGC24611689 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 17, 2024). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." Purple Innovation, LLC -- https://purple.com/ -- operates as a technology company. The Company designs and manufactures cushions, pillows, and other comfort products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1900 California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (206) 491-2207 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com QUAKER WINDOW PRODUCTS: Byrd Files Suit in W.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quaker Window Products Co. The case is styled as Kevin Byrd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quaker Window Products Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-04007-WJE (W.D. Mo., Jan. 21, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Quaker Windows & Doors -- https://www.quakerwindows.com/ -- is a leading manufacturer of residential and commercial window and door products in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL 308 Hutchinson Road Ellisville, MO 63011 Phone: (314) 541-0317 Fax: (855) 710-7706 Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com QUAKER WINDOW PRODUCTS: Noakes Files Suit in W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quaker Window Products Co., et al. The case is styled as Kylie Noakes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quaker Window Products Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-04006-WJE (W.D. Mo., Jan. 18, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Quaker Windows & Doors -- https://www.quakerwindows.com/ -- is a leading manufacturer of residential and commercial window and door products in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC 308 Hutchinson Road Ellisville, MO 63011-2029 Phone: (314) 541-0317 Fax: (855) 710-7706 Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com REJOICE DELIVERS: Amazon Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Webb --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants AMAZON LOGISTICS and AMAZON LOGISTICS filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated December 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled Ian Webb, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. REJOICE DELIVERS LLC, a California limited liability company; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-07221-BLF, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the Northern District of California on Nov. 16, 2022. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage statements; unreimbursed business expenses; collection of due and unpaid wages; violation of Business & Professions Code. On May 18, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, dismiss class claims, and dismiss or stay action. On December 5, Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that 1) Defendants' motion to compel individual arbitration is DENIED; 2) Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Webb's class claims is DENIED; and 3) Defendants' motion to stay this action pending completion of individual arbitration is DENIED. The appellate case is captioned as Webb v. Amazon Logistics, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-120, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 8, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due on January 16, 2024; -- Appeal Transcript Order for Appellant was due on January 19, 2024; -- Appeal Transcript for Appellant is due on February 19, 2024; -- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on March 29, 2024; -- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellant is due on April 29, 2024; and -- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN] REJOICE DELIVERS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Webb Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- REJOICE DELIVERS LLC filed an appeal from a District Court Order dated December 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled Ian Webb, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. REJOICE DELIVERS LLC, a California limited liability company; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-07221-BLF, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the Northern District of California on Nov. 16, 2022. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage statements; unreimbursed business expenses; collection of due and unpaid wages; violation of Business & Professions Code. On May 18, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, dismiss class claims, and dismiss or stay action. On December 5, Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that 1) Defendants' motion to compel individual arbitration is DENIED; 2) Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Webb's class claims is DENIED; and 3) Defendants' motion to stay this action pending completion of individual arbitration is DENIED. The appellate case is captioned as Webb v. Rejoice Delivers LLC, et al., et al., Case No. 24-123, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 8, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due on January 16, 2024; -- Appeal Transcript Order for Appellant was due on January 19, 2024; -- Appeal Transcript for Appellant is due on February 19, 2024; -- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on March 29, 2024; -- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellant is due on April 29, 2024; and -- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN] RENAL TREATMENT: Leon Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Osvaldo Leon, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RENAL TREATMENT CENTERS - CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; DAVITA INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. CVRI2305646 was removed from action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02570-SSS-DTB. The Plaintiffs Complaint alleges seven causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages: Meal Periods Violations; Rest Period Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Omar M. Aniff, Esq. Catherise L. Brackett, Esq. OGLETREE DEAX'KS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.c. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Email: aaron.cole@ozletree.com omar.aniff@ozletree.com catherine.bracketta@ozletree.com RENTGROW INC: Szewczyk Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN SZEWCZYK, individually and on Behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. RENTGROW, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-10734-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying his class claims; -- Approving him as the class representative; and -- Appointing DHF Law, P.C. as counsel for the class. The Plaintiffs contend that the superiority requirement is satisfied. The Defendant has violated the rights of large number of geographically dispersed persons to such an extent that the cost of pursuing individual litigation to seek recovery against a well-financed adversary is not feasible. Thus, the alternatives to a class action are either no recourse for thousands of consumers, or even in the unlikely event that they all become aware of their rights and could locate counsel, a multiplicity of scattered suits resulting in the inefficient administration of litigation. Accordingly, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this matter. Finally, this case presents no manageability difficulties that would preclude class certification because only statutory damages, not individual actual damages, will be sought. Accordingly, the Plaintiff to certify the following three classes: -- Class I "All consumers for whom Defendant, in the two years predating the filing of the Complaint sold a consumer report disclosing the sex offender records of a consumer which do not appear on the National Sex Offender Registry. -- Class II "All consumers for whom Defendant, in the two years predating the filing of the Complaint sold a consumer report disclosing the sex offender records where the name of the offense is not specified." -- Class III "All consumers for whom Defendant, in the two years predating the filing of the Complaint sold a consumer report disclosing Colorado sex offender records where the name of the offense is not RentGrow provides resident screening services to property owners and managers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SqUXdp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy R. Bombard, Esq. BOMBARD LAW OFFICE, PC 2 Summer St, Suite 307 Natick, MA 0160 E-mail: jbombard@bombardlaw.com - and - Devin H. Fok, Esq. DHF LAW 2304 Huntington Drive, Suite 210 San Marino, CA 91108 Telephone: (888) 651-6411 Facsimile: (818) 484-2023 E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com RESURGENT CAPITAL: Haston Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY HASTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:20-cv-01008-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff Haston seeks preliminary approval of the Parties' proposed Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff requests that the Court grant: -- preliminary approval of the Agreement; -- certify the Class defined in the Agreement for purposes of settlement and proving notice of the Agreement to the Class; and -- approve the content, form, and method of delivering notice to the Class as set forth in the Agreement; and schedule a final approval hearing in accordance with the deadlines proposed in the Agreement. Resurgent manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U1DKbC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Kevin Tucker, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com - and - Eugene D. Frank, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE D. FRANK, P.C. 3202 McKnight East Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15237 Telephone: (412) 366-4276 Facsimile: (412) 366-4305 E-mail: efrank@edf-law.com RETENTION BRANDS: Bongiovi Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retention Brands WV LLC. The case is styled as Rita Bongiovi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Retention Brands WV LLC doing business as: Beachly, Case No. 1:24-cv-00425 (S.D.N.Y.., Jan. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Beachly -- https://beach.ly/ -- offers premium surf subscription boxes that will keep you in style for every season at the beach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com RHODE ISLAND: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Inmates --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Inmates of Rhode Island, Department of Corrections, v. Rhode Island General Assembly et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00018-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying class of inmates pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(B)(2). Rhode Island General Assembly is composed of the lower Rhode Island House of Representatives and the upper Rhode Island Senate. A copy of the dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u2I4Ni at no extra charge.[CC] RUMPL INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rumpl, Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rumpl, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00311 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rumpl, Inc. -- https://www.rumpl.com/ -- offers versatile and durable outdoor blankets for hiking, picnics, beach, and more.[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 RXO LAST: May File Third-Party Complaint in Mejia Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYNOR MEJIA, v. RXO LAST MILE, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-08976-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for leave to file a third-party complaint. The Court finds that granting RXO's motion will not impact key case management deadlines, the class certification hearing, or trial. In addition, allowing the third-party complaint to be filed does not mean RXO will necessarily prevail on it. Whether RXO can prevail on the indemnification claim remains to be seen. Consequently, the Court does not find that the prejudice to plaintiff factor weighs against permitting impleader. In sum, construing Rule 14(a) liberally in favor of impleader, to the extent RXO has an actionable claim against ABC Logistics, that claim belongs in this Court. Resolving all disputes arising from plaintiff's alleged misclassification in one litigation will further judicial economy, outweighing any prejudice to plaintiff and additional complications that may result. RXO provides managed transportation and last-mile logistics. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O7Mycp at no extra charge.[CC] S. CAROL MASSIE: Paiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Paiz, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. S CAROL MASSIE, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 24STCV01283 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 17, 2024), is brought arising out of the following illegal employment practices committed by Defendants with respect of their failure to pay wages, meal period violations, rest break violations, failure to pay vested vacation benefits, sick and covid period/benefits violations, failure to produce employee records, unreimbursed business expenses, release of claims for wage violations, reporting time violations, untimely payment of wages, failure to timely pay wages at separation, wage statements violations, unfair business practices. The Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay their employees (including Plaintiff and the putative class members), their vested vacation pay at the time of separation. Defendants were required to pay said employees their vacation pay as wages at the final rate. The Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay their employees (including Plaintiff and the putative class members), all the wages they were due at the time of their termination or separation from employment with Defendants, in violation of California state wage and hour laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 10/2021 through 09/28/2023, the date of her termination. The Defendants have been engaged in the business of restaurant & food services from McDonald's restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. Andrina G. Hanson, Esq. Haik Hacopian, Esq. Nanor C. Kamberian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 487-1998 Facsimile: (888) 783-1030 Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com andrina@mooradianlaw.com haik@mooradianlaw.com nanor@mooradianlaw.com SALESFORCE INC: Roy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salesforce, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Dr. Lisbeth W. Roy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public v. Salesforce, Inc., Does 1-5, Case No. CGC23611156 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 15, 2023). The case type is stated "Business Tort." Salesforce, Inc. -- http://www.salesforce.com/-- is an American cloud-based software company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 855-786-6355 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com SAMPSON BLADEN: Gbete Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 29 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANNE LYLIANE GBETE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SAMPSON BLADEN OIL COMPANY, INC., d/b/a HAN-DEE HUGO'S, Case No. 5:23-cv-00355-BO-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Swank entered a scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. Phase I discovery shall commence in time June 28, 2024 to be concluded by: 2. The Defendant shall provide to Plaintiff's Feb. 8, 2024 counsel a redacted Excel spreadsheet identifying putative class and collective members in the format more particularly described in Section C(3)(e) of the parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report on or before: 3. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for July 29, 2024 Rule 23 class certification or conditional certification as a 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) collective action no later than: 4. Motions to join additional parties or to March 15, 2024 amend pleadings must be made promptly after the information giving rise to the motion becomes known and in no event later than: Sampson is a family owned full-line petroleum & petrochemical marketer. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48KjnV8 at no extra charge.[CC] SAUCE VENTURES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sauce Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sauce Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00304 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sauce Ventures LLC doing business under the Truff Moniker -- https://www.truff.com/ -- manufactures a wide array of premium condiments with truffle at their core.[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 SBARRO LLC: Filing for Class Certification Due April 12 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karina Flanagan v. Sbarro LLC, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-02074-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered scheduling order regarding the Parties' joint 26(f) report and class certification motion and hearing deadlines: Event Deadline Deadline to Complete Class Apr. 12, 2024 Certification Discovery Deadline to File Motion for Class Apr. 12, 2024 Certification Deadline to File Opposition to Motion May 24, 2024 for Class Certification Deadline to File Reply to Motion for June 21, 2024 Class Certification Class Certification Hearing July 19, 2024 Sbarro is an American fast food restaurant that specializes in New York–style pizza sold by the slice and other Italian-American cuisine. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U8Hicn at no extra charge.[CC] SCHRADER MECHANICAL: Brazeau Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schrader Mechanical, Inc. The case is styled as Cory Turner Brazeau, an Individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Schrader Mechanical, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0000482 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 16, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Schrader Mechanical, Inc. -- https://www.smiwest.com/ -- provide a true single-source solution for project engineering, design, manufacturing, fabrication, construction, and service support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 400 N Brand Blvd., Fl. 7 Glendale, CA 91203-2364 Phone: 818-875-2008 Fax: 818-722-3974 Email: emil@d.law SEASONS RECOVERY: Mangus Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Krystal Mangus, an individual, and all persons similarly situated v. SEASONS RECOVERY CENTERS LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, DON VARDEN, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01307 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 18, 2024), is brought as a result of the Defendants failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Labor Code, Wage Order No. 5 OF THE IWC; failure to furnish wage and hour statements; failure to maintain payroll records; failure to provide meal and rest period compensation; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to pay wages in a timely manner; waiting time penalties; unfair competition; retaliation in violation of labor code (whistleblower retaliation); and wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy. Throughout Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, Defendants routinely required Plaintiff to work shifts that exceeded eight hours of work per day. Additionally, many, if not most, of Plaintiff s weekly hours totaled over 40 hours per week. Defendants routinely failed to pay Plaintiff an overtime rate of pay for all hours worked, exceeding eight in one day and 40 in one week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a site manager on January 10, 2021. SEASONS RECOVERY CENTERS was and is a California Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan p. LaCour, Esq. Lisa Noveck, Esq. Jameson Evans, Esq. Amanda M. Thompson, Esq. EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C. 1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91 105 Phone: (310) 853-3461 Facsimile: (949) 743-5442 Email: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com lisan@pienelacour.com jamesone@pierrelacour.com amandat@pierrelacour.com SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Torres Files Suit in D. Kansas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SelectQuote Insurance Services. The case is styled as Valerie Torres, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SelectQuote Insurance Services, SelectQuote Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02020-EFM-GEB (D. Kan., Jan. 17, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Selectquote Insurance Services -- https://www.selectquote.com/ -- provides insurance agent and broker services. The Company offers auto and home, life, and medical insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucy McShane, Esq. Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY LLC 1656 Washington Street Suite 140 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com SHOP-ALEXIS.COM: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shop-alexis.com, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Shop-alexis.com, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00320 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shop-Alexis.com, LLC doing business as ALEXIS -- https://www.shopalexis.com/ -- is a fashion design company that sells womenswear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 287-3458 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com SITE SAFE TRAFFIC: Gilbert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Site Safe Traffic Safety and Signs, et al. The case is styled as Todd Gilbert, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Site Safe Traffic Safety and Signs, et al., Case No. 24CV000666 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 16, 2024). Site Safe -- https://sitesafetrafficsafety.com/ -- is a one-stop source for traffic control signs & equipment.[BN] SL GREEN REALTY: Newman Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SL Green Realty Corp., et al. The case is styled as Joel Newman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SL Green Realty Corp., Summit OVA Tenant LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00335-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. SL Green Realty Corp. -- http://slgreen.com/-- is a real estate investment trust that primarily invests in office buildings and shopping centers in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com SLEEP NUMBER: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Miltita Casillas, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION, a Delaware entity d/b/a www.SLEEPNUMBER.com, Case No. 23STCV28330 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10540-WLH-MAR. In the Complaint Plaintiff asserted a single cause of action for a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Chad Fuller, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130-2092 Phone: 858.509.6000 Facsimile: 858.509.6040 Email: chad.fuller@troutman.com SMARTE CARTE: Facio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smarte Carte, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Facio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Smarte Carte, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-02294-H-MMP (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Smarte Carte -- https://smartecarte.com/ -- is the leading provider of self-serve vended luggage carts, electronic lockers, commercial strollers and massage chairs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Tyler Porter, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 963-2345 Email: jordan@nshmlaw.com SMARTY LLC: Foster Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Catherine Foster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SMARTY, LLC, Case No. 37-2023-00054414-CU-NP-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 17, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00113-BAS-BGS. The Plaintiff alleges that Smarty violated California and Massachusetts law by allegedly charging consumers monthly fees after the consumers have attempted to cancel their membership. Smarty denies liability, denies that plaintiff or any punitive class member suffered any damages by reason of any allegation in the complaint, and denies that any class can or should be certified.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ari N. Rothman, Esq. Allison C. Nelson , Esq. Abigail C. Zeimis, Esq. VENABLE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 229-9900 Facsimile: (310) 229-9901 Email: anrothman@venable.com acnelson@venable.com aczeimis@venable.com SUTTER HEALTH: Copans Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Amanda Copans, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. SUTTER HEALTH, and WELLTOK, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02619 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13098-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Sutter Health facilities -- https://www.sutterhealth.org/ -- are conveniently located across Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie C. Erickson, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE 44 Tehama Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 635-0631 Fax: (415) 599-8088 Email: julie@eko.law T&T FARMS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PORTER, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. T&T FARMS, INC., an Indiana Corporation, and THOMAS HALLECK, JR., an individual, Case No. 3:21-cv-00529-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a 120-day extension of the deadline to engage in mediation, and a 60-day extension of the deadline for the Plaintiff to move for class certification and the discovery deadline. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is presently due January 19, 2024, and the current discovery deadline is February 5, 2024. The deadline to engage in mediation be extended by 120 days, to and including March 9, 2024. The class certification motion deadline be extended by 60 days, up to and including March 19, 2024. The discovery deadline be extended by 60 days, up to and including April 5, 2024. T&T Farms is an active interstate freight carrier. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aZDeBf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com - and - Robert S. Boulter, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. BOULTER 1101 5th Ave. 310 San Rafael, CA 94901 E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Dina M. Cox, Esq. Janelle P. Kilies, Esq. LEWIS WAGNER, LLP 1411 Roosevelt Avenue, Suite 102 Indianapolis, IN 46201 E-mail: dcox@lewiswagner.com jkilies@lewiswagner.com mwatkins@lewiswagner.com TAPESTRY INC: Parties Seek May 24 Extension for Class Cert Filing ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA REED, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC. which will do business in California as COACH LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-04546-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file joint stipulation to continue class certification briefing schedule: Event Original Proposed New Deadline Deadline Deadline to file motion for Feb. 27, 2024 May 24, 2024 class certification Deadline to file opposition Apr. 23, 2024 July 19, 2024 to motion for class certification Deadline to file reply to May 21, 2024 Aug. 16, 2024 motion for class certification Tapestry is an American multinational luxury fashion holding company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U6xFuA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001 E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Sehreen Ladak, Esq. Jennifer J. Mcdermott, Esq. SABRINA REED PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557-2193 E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com sladak@proskauer.com jmcdermott@proskauer.com THUNDER CARRIER: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Sancruzado Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SANCRUZADO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THUNDER CARRIER SERVICES, LLC d/b/a THUNDER FUNDING, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00129-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal., January 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sends out text messages to consumers in order to solicit business for its goods and services without prior consent. The Plaintiff's phone number is also registered to the National Do-Not-Call Registry and it never consented to receive calls or messages from the Defendant regarding solicitations, says the suit. Thunder Carrier Services, LLC, doing business as Thunder Funding, is a trucking and freight carrier services company, with its principal place of business located at 2433 Impala Drive, Suite A, Carlsbad, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Boadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (952) 336-2940 E-mail: Pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Kevin M. Cox, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 496-1880 E-mail: kcox@thelyonfirm.com TIMES PUBLISHING: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Dan Sullivan, writing for Tampa Bay News, reports that The Times Publishing Co. has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the Tampa Bay Times of disclosing to Facebook its online customers' identities and video viewing histories. The company announced Thursday that it expects to pay $950,000 to resolve the matter. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of subscribers to the Times' digital products and involved allegations that a code embedded in tampabay.com, known as Facebook Pixel, shared subscriber information with Facebook. "Privacy is of the utmost importance to us," said Conan Gallaty, the Times Publishing Co.'s chairman and chief executive officer. "No customer information was shared at any point in time. We disagree completely with the plaintiff's points in this case." The lawsuit was filed last year in federal court in Tampa. The plaintiff, Jennifer Waller, was described in the civil complaint as a digital subscriber to the Times. A similar lawsuit was filed on behalf of two other subscribers, Lewis Darden and Sal Rivera. The cases were later combined. The complaints alleged that the Times website included the Facebook Pixel, which collected data about videos that subscribers watched on tampabay.com that was then shared with Facebook. The Times chose to resolve the case to avoid a protracted and expensive litigation, Gallaty said. The settlement will have no long-term impact on the company's business or finances, he said. Most of the settlement funds will be paid through the company's insurance policy. Those eligible to receive a portion of the settlement will be contacted beginning in February. "To move on with business, we're settling this case," Gallaty said. "And we will continue to produce great journalism. That's our goal." Many similar legal actions have in recent years targeted businesses, including the Boston Globe, NASCAR, Chick-fil-A, the National Football League and General Mills. The lawsuits invoke a 1988 federal law known as the Video Privacy Protection Act, which was designed to prevent video stores from sharing their customers' rental history and personal information. Courts have reached differing conclusions about whether the law can apply in cases that deal with online privacy. [GN] TURQUOISE HILL: Lead Plaintiff Allowed Leave to File TAC --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order: -- Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (TAC) is granted. -- Lead Plaintiff and Defendants' Letter Motions to Seal are granted in part and denied in part. The Court will stay the effect of this Order for a period of seven days to allow the parties to bring to its attention any basis for continued sealing the Court may have overlooked. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O64MLh at no extra charge.[CC] U.S. STEEL: Settles Class Suit Over Fire, Power Outages ------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Varine of The Mon Valley Independent reports that U.S. Steel officials have entered into a consent decree with the Allegheny County Health Department and two environmental groups to address a 2018 fire at its Clairton facility that crippled the plant's pollution controls and caused power outages at the plant in 2019 and 2022. The agreement will include nearly $20 million of investment in upgrades to coke-oven gas cleaning infrastructure, $4.5 million in contributions to support local communities affected by the incidents, and the permanent idling of one of the Mon Valley Works "batteries," which is a group of coke ovens connected by common walls. To read the rest of the story, please see a copy of Saturday's Mon Valley Independent, call 724-314-0035 to subscribe or subscribe to our online edition at http://monvalleyindependent.com.[GN] UNITED INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Over Hot Shot Bedbug -------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action accuses the makers of Hot Shot Bedbug & Flea Fogger of false advertising, given that the product is allegedly ineffective in killing bedbugs. The 19-page lawsuit centers around a 2012 study conducted by researchers at the Ohio State University's Department of Entomology that tested the effectiveness of the bedbug fogger. The study concluded that the Hot Shot product, which is designed to eradicate the pests by dispersing insecticides known as pyrethrins and pyrethroids through an aerosol mist, showed "little, if any," impact on modern-day bedbugs commonly found in homes, the case relays. According to the complaint, defendants United Industries Corporation and Spectrum Brands continue to misrepresent on the fogger's front label that it "KILLS BED BUGS" despite knowing the product has been scientifically proven ineffective. By doing so, the companies have unlawfully tricked consumers into buying or significantly overpaying for the Hot Shot Bedbug & Flea Fogger, the filing alleges. The suit specifies that in the 2012 study, researchers tested the Hot Shot fogger in vacant office rooms on the Ohio State campus to analyze its effect on five different types of bedbugs collected from homes within the surrounding area. In the first round of experiments, the insects were directly exposed to the aerosol mist in "open, unprovisioned" Petri dishes, the case explains. Per the lawsuit, another set of bedbugs were placed in Petri dishes with a "filter paper disc" they could hide underneath while exposed to the insecticide. "The optional harborage experiment is more analogous to use in a home setting," the complaint says, explaining that bedbugs often hide in hard-to-reach areas like under furniture, in the walls or in cracks and crevices. The filing shares that in both experiments, all five field-collected bedbug populations exhibited "low mortality" even when assessed several days after exposure. Even a bedbug population particularly susceptible to pyrethroids, which the researchers used as an internal control for the experiment, showed "significantly reduced acute mortality" when given the option to hide, the suit says. "In other words, bedbugs with pyrethroid resistance are the ones that would commonly be found in a consumer's home, rendering the product ineffective," the case claims. What's more, the Hot Shot fogger only treats areas where its insecticide lands, which is limited to exposed surfaces, the filing points out. Since bedbugs tend to hide in protected spaces, the product is "completely ineffective for real-world use," the complaint alleges. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased the Hot Shot Bedbug & Flea Fogger. [GN] UNITED INDUSTRIES: Martin Sues Over Product's Deceptive Labeling ---------------------------------------------------------------- JON MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED INDUSTRIES CORPORATION and SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-00433 (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2024) arises from the Defendants' deceptive labeling of the Hot Shot Bedbug & Flea Fogger and asserts claims for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, fraud, and for violations of New York's General Business Law. The said product prominently advertises on the front panel of the packaging that it kills bed bugs. However, a 2012 study conducted by researchers at the Department of Entomology at the Ohio State University, titled Ineffectiveness of Over-the-Counter Total-Release Foggers Against the Bed Bug (Heteroptera: Cimicidae), found that there was “strong evidence that Hotshot Bedbug and Flea Fogger was ineffective as a bed bug control agent, says the suit. Headquartered in Earth City, MO, United Industries Corporation is a subsidiary of Spectrum Brands and a leading manufacturer of consumer pest control products in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32 Fl. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com UNITED STATES: Muhumed Seeks Certification as Class Rep ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHA MUSE MUHUMED, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, V. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 9:24-cv-00007-MJT (E.D. Tex.), Muhumed moves the Court to certify her as the representatives of a class consisting of: "All persons whose facially valid Medical Certifications for Disability Exemptions (Form N-648) have been or will be rejected by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) without USCIS obtaining medical evidence controverting the Certification, and in support of such Motion would show: On information and belief, over 200 people per year have their Medical Certifications For Disability Exemptions rejected by USCIS without USCIS obtaining medical evidence controverting the Certification. The proposed class is therefore so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, the Plaintiff contends. United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HsMHDy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Fischer, Esq. FISCHER AND FISCHER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 114 South Pecan Street Nacogdoches, TX 75961 Telephone: (936)564-2222 Facsimile: (936)564-1346 UNITED STATES: Settles Discrimination Class Action Suit for $6M --------------------------------------------------------------- Elliot Johnson of Consumer Finance Monitor reports that after nearly a decade of litigation, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has approved the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's $6.0 million settlement of class claims of alleged discrimination by the CFPB against 85 Black and Hispanic employees. The class consists of all "minority employees and women who work or worked as Consumer Response Specialists and have been subjected to and harmed by the Bureau's agency-wide pattern or practice of discrimination and retaliation and discriminatory policies and practices," according to the complaint. The settlement fund will be distributed to the 85 class members. In addition to the $6.0 million settlement fund, the settlement provides for an award of $1.5 million in attorney's fees for class counsel. The class action lawsuit was filed in 2018 against the CFPB's former Acting Director Mick Mulvaney. Class representatives alleged that they were consistently paid less than their White male colleagues, unfairly denied promotions since 2011, and faced retaliation for making discrimination complaints. The CFPB does not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement. In a statement, the CFPB said it remains committed to ensuring all employees are treated fairly. The CFPB recently updated its pay structures, but advised that the compensation reform is independent of the discrimination allegations. We view as ironic that the CFPB, which has been vigorously, and sometimes zealously enforcing fair lending laws, would be sued for employee discrimination and pay out $6.0 million in damages and 1.5 million in attorney's fees. The optics are not very pleasant. [GN] VERIZON WIRELESS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Illegal Fees for $100M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Jones-Gorman, writing for The Daily News, reports that if you were a Verizon Wireless customer between Jan. 1, 2016, and Nov. 8, 2023, you may be eligible for a class action payout. A lawsuit, recently filed in New Jersey, alleges that customers who had some of the network's monthly plans were charged undisclosed administration fees in a "deceptive and unfair manner." "As part of this settlement, Verizon will amend its Customer Agreement to include revised Administrative Charge disclosures," according to the settlement agreement posted to www.verizonadministrativechargesettlement.com. And while Verizon has denied any wrongdoing, or that the lawsuit has any merit, the company has reached a proposed settlement to resolve the issue on a class action basis. So who will receive payments and how much will they get? According to the website, the $100 million settlement should net all current and former individual consumer account holders in the United States who received postpaid wireless or data services from Verizon over the past seven years a maximum payment of about $100. By agreeing to the receive payment, the settlement class, as well as Verizon, make no admission that Verizon is liable or that the allegation and defense in this case has any merit. Those who opt into the lawsuit cannot sue Verizon over the issue in the future. Verizon will continue to charge the administrative charge in question, according to the settlement website reads and contends that it has the right to increase the charge. Those who qualify will either receive a letter in the mail or an email with instructions on how to get paid. Eligible customers must file a claim by April 15, 2024, to receive a settlement payment. If you do nothing, you will not receive any settlement payment and will lose any rights to sue Verizon over these issues. If you’d like to opt-out of the lawsuit, you must mail a signed request for exclusion to: Verizon Administrative Charge Settlement Administrator, Attn: Exclusions, P.O. Box 58220, Philadelphia, PA 19102, by Feb. 20, 2024. [GN] VICTORIA: Faces Class Suit Over Public Housing Demolition Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- The Greens Victoria reports that The Victorian Greens have welcomed reports of a class action being launched against the Victorian Labor Government's plan to demolish 44 public housing towers. The plan -- which was announced last year as part of Labor's Housing Statement -- would see all of the towers demolished and the majority of the land privatised, leaving thousands of public housing residents displaced. Leader of the Victorian Greens, Samantha Ratnam, said she'd spoken to dozens of residents in recent weeks who were confused and heartbroken, and wanting answers. She added that the upcoming class action would likely be one of many actions the community would take to stop this devastating plan in its tracks. Quotes attributable to Leader of the Victorian Greens, Samantha Ratnam MLC: "Labor's mass privatisation of public housing is making the housing crisis worse." "There are over 120,000 people on the public housing wait list in Victoria yet this government's solution is to knock down all of our towers and hand the majority of the land over to private developers with no commitment to rebuild public housing." "I've spoken with dozens of residents since this devastating plan was announced who are confused, heartbroken and want answers. People who have called these towers home for decades and do not want to be displaced from their community." "The Greens won't accept the contempt Labor is showing for public housing. If this demolition and privatisation goes ahead it could mean the end of public housing in Victoria." [GN] VIRGINIA: Hatcher Must File Reply to Opposition by Feb. 5 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER HATCHER, individually on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAVID R. HINES, SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF HANOVER, VIRGINIA AND THE COUNTY OF HANOVER, VIRGINIA, Case No. 3:23-cv-00325-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge John A. Gibney entered an order extending class certification dates: -- Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion Jan. 12, 2024 For class certification from Jan, 12, 2024 to: -- Plaintiff's reply: Feb. 5, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OennF8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Counsel of the County of Hanover, Virginia David P. Corrigan, Esq. Melissa Y. York, Esq. HARMAN CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMA P.O, Box 70280 Richmond, Virginia 23255 Telephone: (804) 747 5200 - and - Counsel for Davids R. Hines, Sheriff of the County of Hanover, Virginia William W. Tunner, Esq. William D. Prince, IV, Esq. Peter S. Askin, Esq. THOMPSON MCMILLAN P.C. 100 Shockoe Slip, Third Floor Richmond, VA 23210-4140 Telephone: (804) 649 7545 E-mail: wtnner@t-mlaw.com wprince@t-mlaw.com The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samanthan R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648 4848 Facsimile: (804) 237 0413 E-mail: craig@butlecurwood.com samantha@butlecurwood.com VISA INC: Bids to Decertify Class Suit Over Transaction Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Visa (V.N) and Mastercard (MA.N) have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a judge's order allowing consumers and a group of ATM operators to band together in class actions seeking billions of dollars in damages over transaction fees. The two payment card giants in a filing at the high court argued that a Washington, D.C., federal judge was wrong to approve the class actions and that the decision would contribute to "rampant confusion" and "disarray" about what legal standard to use for class certification. Attorneys for Visa and Mastercard contend the trial judge failed to conduct a thorough review to determine whether the proposed class members had enough in common. The classes comprise hundreds of millions of plaintiffs, court records show. "The entirety of the district court's 'rigorous analysis' to certify the three classes in this case spans a handful of sentences," lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer told the Supreme Court. The petition, led by Kannon Shanmugam of Paul Weiss, will give the justices a new chance to weigh the contours of class action litigation, a topic the court has considered multiple times in recent years. Granting class action status can place extra pressure on a corporate defendant to settle, especially in cases where a company faces claims of billions of dollars. Representatives for Visa and Mastercard on January 26, 2024 did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a similar request. The underlying litigation dates to 2011, when individuals and operators of independent ATMs sued Visa, Mastercard and a group of banks for alleged violations of U.S. antitrust law. The plaintiffs argue that the rules for ATM transaction fees have caused them to pay artificially higher amounts. There are fees tied to all sides of an ATM transaction, from the consumer to the financial institutions involved. The class actions seek damages of more than $9 billion. Several banks have agreed to settle, paying tens of millions of dollars and leaving only Visa and Mastercard remaining in the case. Visa and Mastercard have faced other claims over transaction fees. A federal appeals court last year affirmed a $5.6 billion class-action settlement that resolved price-fixing claims against the two companies from 12 million retailers. The case is Visa Inc and Mastercard Inc v. National ATM Council et al, U.S. Supreme Court, unassigned. [GN] VISION LOGISTICS: Morley Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY MORLEY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFFS, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, Plaintiff, v. VISION LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00498 (N.D. Ill., January 19, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff Morley is a current employee who performs a variety of duties, including but not limited to, clerical, dispatch, and account representative duties for Defendant under the direction of Defendant's management, and who was and is compensated as an salary-exempt employee and denied overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Over the course of his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff Morley performed various non-exempt clerical work, including dispatching, such that Plaintiff did not qualify for any salary exemptions under the FLSA and should have been compensated as a non-exempt hourly employee, says the suit. Vision Logistics, LLC. provides logistics and other transportation services to its freight transport clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 WEST VILLAGE: Plaintiffs Seek Extension of Discovery Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kaloshi et al., v. West Village Oasis, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-04593-AS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending by 30 days all pending discovery and motion deadlines in this action, pursuant to rules 6(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Procedure. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aTsKTT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon Sherr, Esq. MKC LAW GROUP 1250 Broadway, 36th Fl. Ste. 300 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 726-1104 Facsimile: (212) 726-3104 E-mail: bsherr@mkclawgroup.com WORKDAY INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over AI Applicant Screening Tool ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph C O'Keefe , Evandro C Gigante , Hannah D. Morris of Proskauer Rose LLP-Law and the Workplace of National Law Review report that in a recent development in Mobley vs. Workday, Inc., the novel class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Workday's algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminate against job applicants based on race, age, and disability, the Court granted Workday's motion to dismiss on January 19, 2024, with leave for plaintiff to amend the Complaint. As we previously reported here, lead plaintiff Derek Mobley filed this lawsuit, alleging that all of his applications for 80-100 jobs with employers who use Workday's screening tool were rejected and that these tools allow Workday's customers to use "discriminatory and subjective judgments" when evaluating applicants and even allow for "preselection" of applicants not within certain protected categories. He further alleged that Workday's administration and dissemination of the screening tools constituted a "pattern or practice" of discrimination and that this conduct amounted to intentional and disparate impact discrimination. The Court agreed with Workday that Mobley's Complaint did not sufficiently allege facts showing that Workday qualifies as an "employment agency" that could be subject to liability under the anti-discrimination laws. Under Title VII and the ADA, an "employment agency" is defined as "any person regularly undertaking with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer or to procure for employees opportunities to work for an employer and includes an agent of such a person." The ADEA definition is slightly narrower, excluding the clause about procuring opportunities for employees. The Court found Mobley's allegations that Workday was an employment agency to be sparse and conclusory, noting that the Complaint alleged very few details about his application process and did not address whether Workday helps to recruit and select applicants. Moreover, Mobley never alleged whether the AI tools "perform[ed] screening based solely on employer criteria, Workday's own algorithm(s), or some combination of the two." Overall, the Court held that Mobley's allegations did not plausibly state that Workday was sufficiently involved in procuring employees to be held liable as an employment agency. However, the Court noted that Mobley could amend his Complaint to cure the pleading deficiency and to plead two additional theories of liability identified at the motion hearing and in his opposition brief—that Workday is covered as either an "indirect employer" or an "agent" under the relevant anti-discrimination statutes. In granting leave to amend, the Court also provided observations on how Mobley could strengthen his intentional discrimination and disparate impact claims. On intentional discrimination, the Court noted gaps in allegations about Mobley disclosing his protected traits to Workday and his qualifications for the numerous jobs he applied for. As to disparate impact, the Court found Mobley's reliance on his own experience insufficient to show a broad disparity caused by a specific employment practice. Although his Complaint focused on the AI screening tools, it was unclear "what or whose specific use of the tools is allegedly discriminatory." This Order allows Mobley's case to move forward if he can amend his Complaint to plead sufficient facts in support of his claims. Mobley has until February 20, 2024, to file an amended Complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in the Order. We will be monitoring this case for further developments. [GN] YOSHINOYA AMERICA: Mendoza Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees; Plaintiff v. YOSHINOYA AMERICA, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01461 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 19, 2024) arises from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Mendoza was hired by Defendants with the job title of cashier on or about March 24, 2023. While employed with Defendants, Plaintiff was regularly required to work off-the-clock, and/or during their rest and/or meal periods. She also regularly worked in excess of eight hours, and in excess of 12, hours in a workday and/or hours in a workweek. However, the Defendants willfully failed to pay her all the wages to which she was entitled, says the Plaintiff. Yoshinoya America, Inc. operates as Japanese-style rice bowl restaurant with over 3000 locations around the world, including Los Angeles, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com [*] Emergencies Act Ruling Affirms Claims in Proposed Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aedan Helmer, writing for Postmedia, reports that this week's Federal Court ruling that the Emergencies Act was "unreasonable and unjustified" won't harm a pending civil lawsuit against participants of the 2022 convoy protest in Ottawa, according to the lawyer who launched the proposed $300-million class action. Paul Champ, the Ottawa human rights lawyer who filed the civil lawsuit on behalf of downtown residents and businesses, said the recent federal court ruling would actually "affirm" some of the claims by the plaintiffs. Federal Court Justice Richard Mosely said in Tuesday's ruling he could not support a conclusion that the 2022 convoy created "a critical, urgent and temporary situation" that was national in scope and could not be dealt with effectively under any other Canadian law. Although the harm being caused to Canada's economy, trade and commerce was very real and concerning, the judge wrote, it did not constitute threats or the use of serious violence to persons or property. The ruling, Champ said Thursday, "will not harm the civil suit in any way because our claim is about what the trucks were doing in Ottawa: occupying and causing harm to downtown Ottawa. This federal court ruling is about whether the federal government over-reached in the way they brought that protest to an end. "That aspect doesn't harm us at all, and, if anything, this Federal Court judgment affirms what we've been saying: that the truck protests were not a legitimate form of protest . . . There was an unacceptable breakdown in public order," Champ said. The Federal Court ruling is far from a slam-dunk for the civil case, but Champ said it equated to one more judge who had reviewed the case and come to the conclusion that Ottawa residents and businesses were negatively impacted by the convoy protest. "That's what we've been saying, and the Federal Court in a couple of different passages says that the lives of residents and workers and businesses were impacted by the truckers. Clearly, the court was saying that's not acceptable," Champ said. "We can't just rely on this and say, 'Well, that's it, we win,' but this is yet another judge who reviewed the matter -- as has Justice Paul Rouleau (during the Public Order Emergency Commission), along with two other judges in preliminary motions on our civil claim -- to make findings that the truck protesters unreasonably interfered with the lives of residents in Ottawa. "So, to that extent, it just affirms yet again (there are merits to the civil case), and we'll keep moving it forward," Champ said. Champ said the judgments that would carry more weight in relation to the civil lawsuit would come in convoy-related criminal cases progressing through the court system. "Some of these cases have resolved with criminal convictions, some of the participants have pleaded guilty that what was happening in downtown Ottawa amounted to mischief," Champ said. In the closely-watched trial of accused convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, Champ said, the defence teams have already conceded there were "elements of mischief" in the convoy. In their ongoing criminal trial, defence teams for Lich and Barber said there were likely elements of mischief within the convoy as a whole, though they have denied their clients' involvement in any criminal mischief and have denied they counselled others to commit mischief. "The bigger point is that everyone is conceding that there was unlawful mischief," Champ said. "In the Criminal Code, mischief is a broad crime where people are causing significant disruption and disorder . . . We have convoy participants being convicted of mischief, organizers conceding there was mischief downtown, we have Justice Rouleau in the Public Order Emergency Commission who said it was 'unacceptable' what was happening downtown. And here's another Federal Court judge (with a similar finding)." When someone has been convicted of a criminal offence, Champ said, that person can't contest the issue in a civil action. "So, anyone who is convicted of mischief will have difficulty defending the civil claim," Champ said. "We can't rely on the Federal Court ruling, but with criminal convictions we can. And we will." The proposed class action seeks compensation for "private and public nuisance," alleging Ottawa residents suffered due to diesel fumes and the blaring of vehicle horns, while businesses and employees lost income during the three-week protest. The suit seeks $60 million in general damages "for pain and suffering and psychological distress," special damages of $70 million for business losses and $150 million for lost wages in addition to other punitive damages. Claims made by the plaintiffs have not yet been tested in court. Champ said the lawsuit was progressing with several lengthy motions and was still awaiting certification as a class action. [GN] ********* 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 ***