/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240207.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 7, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 28 Headlines 2200 RESTAURANT: Lorenzo Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices 23ANDME HOLDING: Faces Class Suit Over Privacy Breach ADENA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping AGAVE AZUL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Suit Alleges ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Feb. 14 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Engler Says AMERICAN HONDA: Files Motion to Dismiss Shattered Rear Window Suit AMIGOS HOSPITALITY: Faces Lander Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Consider Sealing of Docs BANK OF AMERICA: Bids to Seal Granted in Part in Nia Class Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Court Sets March 11 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline BETTER BRAND: Fails to Include Protein % Value in Panel, Myles Says BIOVENTUS INC: Class Cert Proceedings Stayed in Grogan Class Suit BIS BAS MEDITERRANEAN: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Labor Practices BLOCK INC: Fact Discovery Cut-Off in Thomas Due Sept. 30 BLUE DIAMOND: Mann Sues Over Smokehouse Almonds' Misleading Ads BOTTOM'S UP: McKenzie Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Overtime BT GROUP: GBP1.3-Bil. Class Suit Over Overcharged Landline Begins CEDARS MEDITERRANEAN: Moore Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Faces Smith Suit Over Drop in Share Price CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification COCA-COLA CO: Karabas Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Juices, Drinks CUMMINS INC: Baker Files Suit Over Share Price Drop D.M. BASS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chapman Alleges DEMARCO BROS: Faces Cruz Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination DRIVEN EQUITY: Taylor Sues Over Illegal CEO Approval Right DUNKIN DONUTS: Faces Suit Over Non-Dairy Milk Alternatives' Charges DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Seeks Feb. 9 Extension for Class Certification Bid EDGE OFS HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrick Alleges ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Ringgold Sues Over Branded Eyewear Conspiracy ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Rozo Sues Over Eyewear Market Monopoly FINCANTIERI MARINE: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Malvitz Says FLINT, MI: Court Refused to Block Targeted Ads in Water Crisis Suit HAUSBECK PICKLE: Henderson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT HERSHEY CREAMERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henriquez Alleges HONEYWELL INT'L: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Steward Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Court Certifies Child Transition Ban Class Suit INTRUSION INC: $3.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 3 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hall Suit LAKEVIEW LOAN: Agree to Settle Convenience Fee Class Suit LASALLE CORRECTIONS: Class Cert. Bid in Powell Due March 27 LAZER SPOT: Ruthven Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LUNDBECK LLC: MSP Recovery Appeals Ruling in RICO Suit to 4th Cir. MADONNA FOOD: Pineda Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Genesee v. Bank of America MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Harrison County v. BoA MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in IRS Antitrust Litigation MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Javelin v. Bank of America MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Kansas City v. BOA MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in LD Construction v. BoA MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Policemen v. BoA MEAD JOHNSON: Fails to Disclose Heavy Metals in Enfamil, Lopez Says MEDILODGE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bellenir Alleges NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Whaley Balks at Real Estate Market Conspiracy NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Issues Final Judgment in Woodard Suit PENSKE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Milam Says PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Andrew Suit Over Oil Monopoly PERRY JOHNSON: Jon Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Rehm Balks at Unprotected Personal, Health Info RELIANT REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Hinojos Claims ROTHY'S INC: Mackey Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages ROYALTY CARPET: Highest Court Barred PAGA Claims SIKA AG: Charles Sues Over Concrete Admixtures Monopoly SYSCO LOS ANGELES: Valdez Sues Over Underpaid Pension Funding TATTLE TAIL: Glessing Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip Retention TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Mott Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages TEMPUS UNLIMITED: Smolinski Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania TINTRI INC: $7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 15 TREMENDOUS LLC: Liou Files Suit in D. New Jersey TRIDANT SOLUTIONS: Scott Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRUEACCORD CORP: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi TSG INTERACTIVE US: Sykes Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class UNITED GROUND: Francis Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT UNITED GROUND: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Conduct UNLIMITED AMMO: Bolton Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida VALLEY, AL: Little Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling VANGUARD GROUP: Lardizabal Suit Removed to S.D. California VERTEX ENERGY: Levson Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas VERTEX ENERGY: Passmore Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas VICTORY AUTO: Polanco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices VICTORY STARTS NOW: Palmer Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages VITACUP INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WANABANA LLC: Food Products Contain Lead, Johnson Claims WARRIOR MET COAL: Gibson Files Suit in N.D. Alabama WAYFAIR LLC: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota WE OLIVE LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WEEE! INC: Jia Suit Transferred to S.D. New York WEIBEL INCORPORATED: Hunter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WELLS FARGO BANK: Xiong Suit Removed to C.D. California WELLTOK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Griffith-Sullivan Says WHITEPAGES INC: Klaneski Files Suit in W.D. Washington WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Mader Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime WILMAR OILS & FATS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. YESCOM USA INC: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York [*] Registration Now Open for 8th Annual Class Action Conference ********* 2200 RESTAURANT: Lorenzo Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- JULIAN LORENZO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 2200 RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a DUNE BY LAURENT TOURONDEL, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60078 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2024) is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and Art. X, Sec. 24 of the Florida Constitution. According to the complaint, the Defendant committed state and federal minimum wage violations because it: (1) compensated Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at the reduced wage for tipped employees, but failed to provide them with statutory notice of taking a tip credit; (2) required Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to perform non-tipped side duties and side work that exceeded 20% of all work performed in at least one workweek; (3) required Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to perform non-tipped duties and side work in excess of 30 continuous minutes in at least one shift; and (4) required Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to attend off-the-clock mandatory meal periods while still performing work for Defendant's benefit. Additionally, Defendant violated federal overtime wage requirements because it required Plaintiff and all other similarly situated to work off-the-clock during mandatory meal periods, which regularly caused them to work more than 40 hours in a single workweek. As a result, Plaintiff and all similarly situated have been denied federal and state minimum wages and federal overtime wages during various workweeks within the relevant time period, says the suit. Plaintiff Lorenzo worked for the Defendant as a bartender in Fort Lauderdale, Florida from January of 2022 through September of 2022. 2200 Restaurant Partners, LLC owns the DUNE by Laurent Tourondel restaurant located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com 23ANDME HOLDING: Faces Class Suit Over Privacy Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Nabaparna Bhattacharya of Benzinga reports that Genetic testing company 23andMe Holding Co. 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 on January 28, 2024 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] ADENA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping ------------------------------------------------- R.J., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADENA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00025-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 19, 2024) seeks to address the Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing the Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information, (collectively referred to as "Private Information") to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook") and Google, Inc., without consent, through the use of tracking software that is embedded in Defendant's website. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant installed tracking technologies onto its Website, including the MyChart page on Defendant's Website that navigates to the login page for the MyChart Portal. These Tracking Tools, including Meta Platforms, Inc.'s Tracking Pixel and Google, Inc.'s Google Analytics tool, track and collect communications with the Defendant via the Website and surreptitiously force the user's web browser to send those communications to undisclosed third parties, such as Facebook or Google. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain, (iii) diminution of value of their Private Information, (iv), and (v) the continued and ongoing risk to their Private Information. Adena Health System provides medical and surgical hospital services. The Company offers cancer care, heart and vascular treatment, orthopedics, women's health, pain management, radiology, robotic surgery, rehabilitation, and emergency care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. Clint Watson, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com cwatson@thelyonfirm.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court St., Ste. 530 Cincinnati, OH 4502 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Glen L. Abramson, Esq. Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com AGAVE AZUL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ANNA AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AGAVE AZUL, LLC d/b/a BLUE AGAVE; LUZ ALEJANDRA LOPEZ DE ALVAREZ; and ABEL LOPEZ DE ALVAREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00265-ELR-RDC (N.D. Ga., Jan. 19, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ayala was employed by the Defendants as a bartender. AGAVE AZUL, LLC operates as restaurant and bar called "Blue Agave", located at Douglasville, GA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan P. Drew, Esq. John L. Mays, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1355 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 Facsimile: (404) 873-8050 Email: edrew@pcwlawfirm.com jmays@pcwlawfirm.com ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Feb. 14 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW S. BEERS and KATHERINE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TERRY S. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as SHERIFF OF ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00367-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file the Plaintiffs' motion seeking Rule 23 class certification by 30 days, to and including Feb. 14, 2024. 1. The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on Oct. 16, 2023. 2. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 23.1(b), the Plaintiffs have 90 days from the date they filed their complaint in a class action to file a motion under Fed. R. Civ.P 23(c)(1). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YwWYSr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. Corey M. Stanton, Esq. GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC 14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325 Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 E-mail: phil@gibbonslg.com corey@gibbonslg.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Engler Says ----------------------------------------------------------- DALLAS ENGLER; and LUCKY AGUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00155 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Engler was employed by the Defendants as an assistant station manager. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Leah M. Beligan, Esq. BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 224-3881 Email: jbeligan@bbclawyers.net lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza – Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com - and - Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW 8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: Files Motion to Dismiss Shattered Rear Window Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com report that a 2023 Honda HR-V shattered rear window class action lawsuit alleges the back glass is defective due to the materials used for the window. The plaintiffs also claim the windows can shatter from structural defects in the HR-Vs. Six owners of 2023 Honda HR-V vehicles filed the class action by contending no external impacts are needed for the back windows to shatter. The plaintiffs also assert Honda refuses to cover the broken glass under the vehicle warranty and further refuses to recall the HR-V SUVs to repair or replace the shattered back windows. According to the Honda class action, the rear windows can shatter if the HR-Vs are in motion or parked, distracting drivers when the glass breaks. If the back window shatters and breaks when the HR-V is parked, there is nothing to prevent a thief from climbing into the vehicle. Though no recall has been issued for 2023 Honda HR-V shattered back windows, the lawsuit references documents sent to Honda dealerships asking that technicians be on notice for the problem. In May and June 2023, Honda sent messages to dealerships which said Honda was investigating HR-V shattered back windows. Honda told dealerships the automaker was "searching for certain 2023 HR-Vs with a customer complaint of rear windshield shattering" and "[t]o better understand the cause of this condition, [Honda] would like to collect specific parts from the vehicle prior to [dealers] attempting a repair of any kind." Motion to Dismiss: 2023 Honda HR-V Back Window Lawsuit Honda filed a motion to dismiss what it calls a "sweeping class action" that includes all 2023 Honda HR-V SUVs in the U.S. However, Honda argues what is missing from the allegations is "notable." Honda alleges the plaintiffs do not specify what information the automaker should have revealed about the back windows. And the plaintiffs also do not claim when Honda had knowledge of the alleged window defects. According to Honda, the earliest possible date the plaintiffs can point to in their class action lawsuit for Honda's knowledge is March 6, 2023, which is the date of the earliest complaint made to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But by that date, all the plaintiffs had already purchased their 2023 Honda HR-Vs. As for fraud-based claims, Honda argues the plaintiffs lack "factual details to support their conclusory and sweeping theories of liability." Fraud-based claims must be very specific to advance the claims in court. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim must allegedly be dismissed because the Act only allows class action claims if there are 100 or more named plaintiffs, but there are only six named plaintiffs in the HR-V shattered back window lawsuit. For a few plaintiffs, Honda says the express warranty claims must be dismissed because the plaintiffs fail to allege the mileage on their HR-Vs when the rear windows shattered. Honda further argues implied warranty claims of four plaintiffs must be dismissed because the plaintiffs had a relationship with Honda dealers, not directly with Honda. In other words, the plaintiffs purchased their HR-V vehicles from dealerships, not directly from the defendant, American Honda Motor Company. Honda recently announced what it is calling a "voluntary product update campaign," likely to begin in April or May 2024. The class action lawsuit alleges the structure of the HR-V or the materials of the back window glass cause the glass to shatter. But following an internal investigation, Honda says the rear windows can shatter due to the rear window defrosters. “American Honda has received a limited number of reports of rear-hatch glass breaking on 2023 Honda HR-V vehicles associated with rear defroster use. Our investigation has revealed that during the assembly process for some vehicles, the sealer used to secure the rear glass may come into contact with the heating elements of the defroster, leading to a hot spot and weakening of the glass over time as the defroster is used." — Honda The 2023 Honda HR-V shattered rear window class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania: Sherry Fry, et al., v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. The plaintiffs are represented by Lemberg Law, L.L.C. [GN] AMIGOS HOSPITALITY: Faces Lander Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY LANDER and SABRINA ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMIGOS HOSPITALITY LLC, AMIGOS HOSPITALITY GROUP 1 LLC, AMIGOS HOSPITALITY GROUP 2 LLC, ANTONIO TURBAY, ALAN DAHDAH SAYEGH, CIRO SAMPIETRO RICCI and HECTOR CLAVERIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00287 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiffs seeking to recover damages from the Defendants arising from minimum wage violations, tip credit notice violations, misappropriated tips, and retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs Lander and Rojas worked as waitresses from approximately January 2023 to June 2023. They assert that Defendants' unlawful conduct has been intentional, willful, and in bad faith and has caused significant monetary damage to them and the FLSA Collective. The Defendants are owners and operators of nightclubs under the common name "La Victoria." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 Facsimile: (718) 559-6517 E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Consider Sealing of Docs ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORSHAN, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:14-cv-05659-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to consider whether Apple's material should be sealed. The material is included within the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs reserve their right to oppose Apple’s request to seal. Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ueXwje at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. McShane, Esq. Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102-3275 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com - and - William H. Anderson, Esq. Matthew K. Handley, Esq. Nicholas J. Jackson, Esq. Rebecca P. Chang, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204 Boulder, CO 80303 Telephone: (303) 800-9109 E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com njackson@hfajustice.com rchang@hfajustice.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq. BARON & HERSKOWITZ 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-0101 Facsimile: (305) 670-2393 E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com - and - Charles J. Laduca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Bids to Seal Granted in Part in Nia Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMAD FARSHAD ABDOLLAH NIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a National Banking Association, Case No. 3:21-cv-01799-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting in part and denying in part parties' motions to seal. If Plaintiff or Defendant wishes to file a renewed motion to seal for the denied requests, they may do so no later than January 24, 2024, after the issuance of this order. The Plaintiff Nia brings a putative class action against Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA") for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, federal civil rights law, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Before the Court are five motions by Parties to file documents under seal. Bank of America is one of the Big Four banking institutions of the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=psoEAH at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Court Sets March 11 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ If, from February 1, 2008 through November 30, 2015, you paid interest on a VRDO that had rate resets on a daily or weekly basis, your rights may be affected JND Legal Administration reports that a class action suit has been filed against Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, the Royal Bank of Canada, and Wells Fargo ("Defendants") for allegedly conspiring to fix interest rates on Variable Rate Demand Obligations ("VRDOs") for VRDOs they remarketed during the period from February 1, 2008 through November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs have asserted claims for violation of federal antitrust law and various states' contract laws. The class action lawsuit is known as City of Philadelphia et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al, Case No. 19-cv-1608, and it is in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court has allowed this lawsuit to be a class action on behalf of a nationwide class and a sub-class that could include you. You are a potential class member if you directly paid the interest expenses on a VRDO that had interest rates reset on a weekly or daily basis pursuant to a remarketing agreement with any Defendant at any point from February 1, 2008 through November 30, 2015. You are a potential sub-class member if, in addition to meeting the class requirements, you were party to a remarketing agreement with any Counterparty Defendant that applies to a VRDO that had interest rates reset on a weekly or daily basis at any point from February 1, 2008 through November 30, 2015. The Counterparty Defendants are Banc of America Securities LLC; Barclays Capital, Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; RBC Capital Markets LLC; Wachovia Bank N.A.; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. If you are a member of the Class, you have to decide whether to stay in the lawsuit or ask to be excluded before March 11, 2024. There is no money available now and no guarantee there ever will be. The Court has made no decision as to the merits of the legal claims against Defendants, and Defendants deny all claims in this lawsuit. A trial date has not yet been set. YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS Do nothing. Stay in this lawsuit and await the outcome. Lose certain rights. If you remain in the Class, you keep the possibility of getting money or benefits that may come from a trial or settlement. You will be bound by any judgment in this case, whether favorable to Plaintiffs or Defendants. You may lose any rights to sue Defendants at your own expense over claims that arise from the same factual predicate alleged in this lawsuit. The Court has appointed the law firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, L.L.P., Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch L.L.P., and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as Class Counsel. You do not need to hire your own lawyer because Class Counsel is working on behalf of the Class. You may hire and appear through your own lawyer at your own expense. Exclude yourself. Get no benefits from this lawsuit. Keep certain rights. If you ask to be excluded from this lawsuit and money is later awarded, you will not be allowed to request payment. But, you keep your right to sue Defendants at your own expense and with your own attorney about the claims that arise from the same factual predicate alleged in this lawsuit. In order to exclude yourself from the lawsuit, you must send a letter requesting exclusion from City of Philadelphia et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al, Case No. 19-cv-1608, with your name, address, telephone number, email address, signature, and the CUSIP number(s) for your VRDO(s) to: VRDO Litigation Notice Administrator, c/o/ JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91484, Seattle, WA 98111. Your request for exclusion must be postmarked no later than March 11, 2024. This Notice is only a summary. Questions? Visit www.VRDOClassAction.com or call 1-877-595-0089. You can also contact Class Counsel. Please do not contact the Court. BETTER BRAND: Fails to Include Protein % Value in Panel, Myles Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ZOKWEZO MYLES AND ERIN SCOTT, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. A BETTER BRAND, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00495-KAW (N.D. Cal., Jan. 26, 2024) sues the Defendant for its unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing of the Better Brand consumer food products, which make protein claims on the front of the product packages but fail to include the percent of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel. The Products' front label protein claims, such as "25g PROTEIN," are unlawful because the Defendant did not: calculate the "corrected amount of protein per serving" based on the quality of the product's protein using the PDCAAS method; and provide a statement of that corrected amount of protein per serving in the NFP, expressed as %DV, the suit asserts. Had the Defendant included a statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving in the NFP, as they were required to do under the law, it would have revealed that the product contains low quality proteins and provides nutritionally as little as 50% of their total protein quantity. The Defendant's unlawful and misleading protein claims caused the Plaintiffs and members of the class to pay a price premium for The Better Brand products. In or around December 2023, the Plaintiff Myles purchased The Better Bagel Everything flavor from the William's Natural Foods store in Contra Costa, CA. The Plaintiff Myles made each of his purchases after reading and relying on the truthfulness of the Defendant's front labels that promised the Products provided 25 grams of protein per serving for The Better Bagel Everything flavor, the suit claims. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and sells food products, including bagels, buns, and rolls under the brand name "Better Brand."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-646 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com BIOVENTUS INC: Class Cert Proceedings Stayed in Grogan Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY GROGAN, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF BIOVENTUS INC., v. KENNETH M. REALI, MARK L. SINGLETON, GREGORY O. ANGLUM, SUSAN M. STALNECKER, WILLIAM A. HAWKINS, PATRICK J. BEYER, PHIL COWDY, MARY KAY LADONE, MICHELLE MCMURRY HEATH, GUIDO J. NEELS, GUY P. NOHRA, DAVID J. PARKER, and MARTIN P. SUTTER, the Defendants, and BIOVENTUS INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01099-RGA (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Andrews entered an order as follows: 1. Each of the Defendants to the extent not already served hereby accepts service. 2. All proceedings and deadlines in the Derivative Action, including discovery and Defendants’ obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, shall be stayed pending final resolution of the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Securities Class Action. 3. The stay shall remain in effect until the final resolution of the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Securities Class Action. 4. If any related derivative lawsuit is filed but not stayed for the same or longer duration as the stay of the Derivative Action, Plaintiff may lift the agreed-to stay upon 14 business days. 5. During the pendency of this stay, Plaintiff may file one amended or consolidated complaint in the Derivative Action; provided, however, that during the pendency of this stay, the Defendants shall consent to any motion by Plaintiff for leave to file an additional amended complaint in the Derivative Action. The Defendants shall be under no obligation to respond to any amended or consolidated complaint while the stay is in effect. on Oct. 4, 2023, the Plaintiff Grogan filed this putative stockholder derivative action on behalf of Bioventus, asserting claims against certain of Bioventus's current and former directors and officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, contribution, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Bioventus operates as a medical device company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pz8x5E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J Farnan, Esq. Brian E. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Timothy Brown, Esq. THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501 New York, BY 10017 Telephone: (516) 922-5427 E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com eitank@bgandg.com The Defendants are represented by: Kevin M. Coen, Esq. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 N. Market St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 351-9301 E-mail: kcoen@mnat.com - and - Colleen C. Smith, Esq. Michele D. Johnson, Esq. Kristin N. Murphy, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 12670 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 523-5400 E-mail: colleen.smith@lw.com michele.johnson@lw.com kristin.murphy@lw.com BIS BAS MEDITERRANEAN: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- OMAR HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff v. BIS BAS MEDITERRANEAN GRILL LLC and NORMAN ALSAIDI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00284 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants from approximately November 2022 up to the present date, where his primary work duty was as a kitchen assistant, in addition to other duties that involved cashiering, customer service, dishwashing, and unloading and storing merchandise. He alleges Defendants' failure to pay overtime, failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Bis Bas Mediterranean Grill LLC owns and operates a restaurant based in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 BLOCK INC: Fact Discovery Cut-Off in Thomas Due Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEMICA THOMAS, et al., v. BLOCK, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05015-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: 1. Trial Date: Oct. 6, 2025 2. Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 4, 2025 3. Dispositive Motions: Aug. 21, 2025 4. Last day to file dispositive June 1, 2025 motions: 5. Last day to be heard: Aug. 5, 2025 6. Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 30, 2024 7. Expert reports: -- Opening reports by: May 31, 2024 -- Rebuttal reports by: June 28, 2024 8. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Oct. 10, 2024 Block is a technology company with a focus on financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aMqI2B at no extra charge.[CC] BLUE DIAMOND: Mann Sues Over Smokehouse Almonds' Misleading Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER MANN and ELENI KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00114-WSH (W.D. Pa., Jan. 28, 2024) contends that the Defendant made false and misleading representations of its "Smokehouse Almonds" by describing the almonds' taste as deriving from a smokehouse. The labeling is allegedly false and misleading because despite the representations that the almonds were made in a smokehouse, their taste is provided entirely by liquid smoke flavoring. Though the ingredients include "Natural Hickory Smoke Flavor," a form of pyroligneous acid or synthesized liquid smoke, this information does not tell consumers the almonds were not subject to any smoking over hardwoods, the Plaintiffs add. Accordingly, the Defendant's deceptive and misleading statements deceived the Plaintiff and Class Members and a substantial segment of the target consumer audience and improperly influenced consumers' purchasing decisions, as the Plaintiff and Class Members relied on such misrepresentations in violation of the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately $3.19 for 12 oz pouches, $1.19 for 1.5 oz pouches, $9.99 for 40 oz pouches and $5.19 for 6 oz tins, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says the suit. Plaintiff Mann purchased the Blue Diamond Smokehouse Almonds with the statement, "Smokehouse," across a red ribbon with glowing orange borders, above a fiery orange polygon, evocative of fire, in one or more formats, such as cans or pouches, at stores in Allegheny County between December 2020 and December 2023. The Defendant is a California agricultural cooperative of almond growers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. THE KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S Commons, Ste. 102 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (888) 412-5291 E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com BOTTOM'S UP: McKenzie Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA MCKENZIE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOTTOM'S UP BEVERAGE OF FLORIDA, LLC and JULIANN PETTICREW, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-14403 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2023) is an action against the Defendant arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act for its failure to pay Plaintiff overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in one or more work weeks. The Plaintiff worked as a restaurant staff at the Defendant's Sand Ridge location from approximately May 2022 until approximately May 2023 and at The Manor location from approximately February 2023 through approximately May 2023. Bottom's Up, LLC, amongst other things, owns and operates restaurant facilities at two separate occasions: The Manor of Meadowwood and Sand Ridge Golf Club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 6231 PGA Blvd, Ste 104-1003 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 Telephone: (561) 822-3446 Facsimile: (305) 574-0132 E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com BT GROUP: GBP1.3-Bil. Class Suit Over Overcharged Landline Begins ----------------------------------------------------------------- Saf Malik of Capacity reports that the case begins on January 29, 2024 at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on behalf of over three million customers. More than three million people could receive GBP300-GBP400 if Justin Le Patourel, the man representing the consumers in court wins the case. In 2017, Ofcom said that BT charged too much for home phones since 2015 and the company were made to lower their prices after that. Le Patourel said: "We believe BT has been systematically overcharging millions of customers over many years, and those customers could be owed hundreds of pounds each." "Time really is of the essence. More than 40% of our claimants are aged over 70, and over 150 of them are dying every day. It really is vital that BT should refund every one of them as soon as possible." BT has denied that the pricing at the time was "anti-competitive" and would be "robustly defending our position at the trial". Recruitment drive This news comes as the firm announced it would recruit more than 500 more UK apprentices and graduates in 2024 - up from 400 in 2023. The roles will span across areas such as engineering 5G, FTTP, customer service, applied research, data analytics and cybersecurity. The new roles will be spread across a number of UK locations including Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Ipswich, Leeds, London, Manchester and Sheffield. "As one of the largest private sector employers of apprentices and graduates in the UK, we continue to recruit and attract brilliant people into our business and we offer unparalleled opportunities to those who join us," said Elaine Bergin, director of colleague experience at BT Group. "As we build a better BT Group, we're developing a pipeline of future talent to help grow our business, deliver great outcomes for our customers and to help underpin economic growth in the UK." [GN] CEDARS MEDITERRANEAN: Moore Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHAUN MOORE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEDARS MEDITERRANEAN FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-13106-ADB (D. Mass., Dec. 15, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, plus interest, liquidated damages and related penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Wage and Hour Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained a common policy of misclassifying its "last-mile" delivery drivers as independent contractors, thereby failing to pay them at time-and-a-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the position of delivery driver from approximately June 2020 until May 12, 2023. Cedars Mediterranean Foods, Inc. retails food products. The Company offers products such as hommus, tzatziki, wraps, salads, salsa, pita chips, spreads, dips, and yogurt. Cedars Mediterranean Foods serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq. STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC 10 Wendell Ave. Ext. Suite 208 Pittsfield, MA 01201 Telephone: (413) 418-4176 E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com - and - Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 E-mail: ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Faces Smith Suit Over Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- COLBY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS, INC.; PASQUALE ROMANO; and REX S. JACKSON, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00363 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2024) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ChargePoint securities between December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023, inclusive, seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint 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, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company was experiencing higher component costs and supply overruns for first generation DC charging products; (2) that, as a result, the Company was likely to incur impairment charges; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's profitability would be adversely impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. The Company's share price fell $1.11, or 35 percent, to close at $2.02 per share on November 17, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS, INC. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides electric vehicle charging solutions which enables the electrification of mobility for all people and goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: lucasg@hbsslaw.com reed@hbsslaw.com CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS CROCKER, DANIELLE AND JASON CHARLES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL CORP. (d/b/a AK STEEL DEARBORN WORKS), Case No. 4:21-cv-11937-SDK-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- Granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23; -- Appointing the Plaintiffs Louis Crocker, Danielle Charles, and Jason Charles as class representatives; and -- Appoint the Plaintiffs' Counsel at Liddle Sheets Coulson as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs request certification of a proposed class of: "all owner/occupants and renters of residential property residing within one and a half (1.5) miles of the Steel Facility's property boundary" pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(3), or in the alternative, (c)(4)." Cleveland-Cliffs is a flat-rolled steel producer and supplier of iron ore pellets. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SeH2Wr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura L. Sheets, Esq. Steven D. Liddle, Esq. D. Reed Solt, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON, PC 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207-3101 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: lsheets@lsccounsel.com COCA-COLA CO: Karabas Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Juices, Drinks --------------------------------------------------------------- METE KARABAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-09218 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged unfair and deceptive business practices and false advertising of its products in violation of the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and for breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Coca-Cola exploits and deceptively perpetuates the misperception that fruit juice is healthy by marketing and labeling its Minute Maid juice and drink boxes as being "Good for You!" and "Part of a Healthy, Balanced Diet." These and other representations, together with Coca-Cola's omissions of material facts are, however, false and misleading, because consuming fruit juices and drinks like the products actually increases the risk of chronic diseases, says the suit. Plaintiff Mete Karabas purchased the products in New York while residing in Brooklyn and is currently a resident of Hackensack, New Jersey. The Coca-Cola Company is an American multinational corporation that manufactures, sells, and markets non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups, as well as alcoholic beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com CUMMINS INC: Baker Files Suit Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------- TOM BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUMMINS INC., N. THOMAS LINEBARGER, JENNIFER RUMSEY, and MARK A. SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00369 (C.D. Cal., January 15, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Cummins securities between April 30, 2019 and December 21, 2023, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants materially made false and/or misleading statements because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Contrary to its post-April 2019 Announcement assurances about its commitment to compliance, Cummins continued to produce engines with unlawful emission defeating devices from 2019 to 2023; (2) accordingly, Cummins understated its legal and regulatory risk, and overstated its commitment to environmental protection; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit. On this news, the price of Cummins stock fell by $7.01 per share, or 2.87%, to close at $236.99 on December 22, 2023. As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. Cummins Inc. is an American multinational corporation that designs, manufactures, and distributes engines, filtration and power generation products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com D.M. BASS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chapman Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS CHAPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D.M. BASS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00196-JCZ-DPC (E.D. La., Jan. 19, 2024) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Chapman was employed by the Defendant as a laborer. D.M. BASS, INC. provides logistics and self-perform project sizes from residential to industrial applications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq. Adam R. Credeur, Esq. Natalie M. DeJean, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN 417 W. University Avenue P.O. Box 4325 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 235-5294 Facsimile: (337) 235-1095 Email: kwdejean@kwdejean.com adam@kwdejean.com natalie@kwdejean.com - and - Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com DEMARCO BROS: Faces Cruz Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Cruz, Mynor Polanco and Carlos Vasquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Demarco Bros Landscaping & Tree Service Corp d/b/a Frank Giovinazzo Tree Service d/b/a Frank Giovinazzo North Shore Tree Service d/b/a North Shore Tree Service, and Theodore Passelis, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09200 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law This complaint is filed by Plaintiffs against Defendants to recover: a) overtime premium pay as required by FLSA, NYLL, and the supporting New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, 12 NYCRR; b) statutory damages for wage statement violations of NYLL; c) statutory damages for wage notice violations under NYLL; and d) damages for national origin discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. Plaintiffs Cruz, Polanco, and Vasquez were employed by Demarco as drivers and laborers from approximately 2006 until July 15, 2023, from June 2022 until July 15, 2023, and from approximately March 2017 until July 15, 2023, respectively. Demarco Bros Landscaping & Tree Service Corp. offers tree cutting and removal services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven John Moser, Esq. MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C. 5 E Main Street Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 824-0200 E-mail: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com DRIVEN EQUITY: Taylor Sues Over Illegal CEO Approval Right ---------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE TAYLOR, Plaintiff v. DRIVEN EQUITY LLC, RC IV CAYMAN HOLDINGS LLC, NEAL K. ARONSON, JONATHAN FITZPATRICK, CATHERINE HALLIGAN, CHADWICK HUME, RICK PUCKETT, KAREN STROUP, PETER SWINBURN, MICHAEL THOMPSON, and JOSE TOMAS, Defendants, and DRIVEN BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC. Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2023-1256 (Del. Ch., Dec. 15, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public stockholders of nominal defendant Driven Brands, against the Director Defendants and Driven Brands' controlling stockholders due to alleged unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief invalidating a provision of the Stockholders Agreement between Driven Brands and RC IV Cayman ICW Holdings LLC ("RC IV" and collectively, with Driven Equity, the "Roark Entities") dated January 15, 2021 that requires the Company's board of directors to seek the Roark Entities' approval to hire or fire the Company's Chief Executive Officer -- effectively ceding to the Roark Entities a veto right over the Board's decision-making authority to control who serves as the Company's Chief Executive Officer (the "CEO Approval Right"). Driven Brands is named as nominal defendant in its capacity as signatory to the Stockholders Agreement. The complaint asserts that the CEO Approval Right violates Section 141(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Section 141(a) provides that the "business and affairs" of every Delaware corporation "shall be managed by or under the direction of a board of directors, except as may be otherwise provided in this chapter or in its certificate of incorporation." Driven Brands Holdings, Inc. is an automotive services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com lindsay@blockleviton.com robby@blockleviton.com - and - Joel Fleming, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 DUNKIN DONUTS: Faces Suit Over Non-Dairy Milk Alternatives' Charges ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lovebscott reports that according to Business Insider, a group of 10 plaintiffs across the U.S. have accused the coffee company of charging an extra $0.50 to $2.15 for non-dairy milk alternatives in drinks per a $5 million class action lawsuit filed last month in the District Court in Northern California. The plaintiffs — who are lactose intolerant and have milk allergies — have all ordered beverages that contained non-dairy milk such as soy, coconut, or almond milk from Dunkin' locations since 2018 and suggest that extra charges for the alternatives are discriminatory, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to ABC News, the plaintiffs paid surcharges in California, New York, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. "It is medically necessary for persons like Plaintiffs to avoid consuming drinks that contain milk," reads the lawsuit, per Business Insider. "Plaintiffs will suffer adverse health effects if they ingest milk or milk-containing products, including stomach pain, digestive tract inflammation, bloating, bowel irregularities and vomiting." The suit also states that Dunkin' doesn't charge for other accommodations to their customers. For example, the coffee giant won't charge extra for caffeine-free drinks for individuals with hypertension. The stores also have the option to remove sugar or use sugar-free alternatives at no additional cost for customers living with diabetes. "Defendant's Surcharge is the same for all Non-Dairy Alternatives, making no distinction among the costs of the various different Non-Dairy Alternatives. In fact, Dunkin created a separate, higher-priced menu, aimed at customers who cannot ingest milk," says the lawsuit. In addition to the $5 million in damages, the plaintiffs also demanded a jury trial, per ABC News. On January 26, 2024, the Massachusetts-based company reportedly filed a waiver that acknowledged the lawsuit and has until Mar. 4 to respond. First exploding toilets, now this? Dunkin' has been going through it. [GN] DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Seeks Feb. 9 Extension for Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDIS ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, v. DYCK-O'NEAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01029-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order enlarging the class certification deadline until February 9, 2024. Dyck O'Neal operates as a debt collection law firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pgC29P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. J. Patrick McNichol, Esq. Matthew Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com EDGE OFS HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrick Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BARRICK; and SCOTT WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EDGE OFS HOLDINGS LLC; and GLADIATOR ENERGY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00003 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 19, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as inspectors. EDGE OFS HOLDINGS LLC is an oilfield services platform that operates in North American oil and gas basins. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katherine Serrano, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Email: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Ringgold Sues Over Branded Eyewear Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pamela Ringgold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EssilorLuxottica S.A., Luxottica Group, S.p.A., Essilor International SAS, EssilorLuxottica USA Inc., Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., Essilor of America Holding Company, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., Essilor of America Inc., EyeMed Vision Care, LLC, Essilor Laboratories of America, Inc., and Vision Source, LP, Case No. 7:24-cv-00510 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2024) alleges that the Defendants conspired with Fashion Houses, other Competing Eyewear Entities, and Third-Party Sellers to raise, fix, and stabilize the price of Branded Eyewear in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants formed a scheme to create an illegal monopoly and to dominate the Eyewear market in the United States. The Defendants have entered into unlawful agreements to fix the price of Eyewear at supra-competitive rates. As a result of the Scheme and Defendants' unlawful agreements, patients and individuals in the United States have been overcharged by the Defendants and the Defendants have obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in supra-competitive, illegal profits. The suit claims that EssilorLuxottica has monopoly power in the market for Eyewear and it controls most Corrective Lens processing and Corrective Lens fabricating equipment. This is an action brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1 & 2, and Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. section 26 for injunctive relief and under certain state antitrust and consumer protection statutes based on EssilorLuxottica's anticompetitive conduct to remedy the harm this conduct has inflicted on hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of consumers. The Plaintiff purchased Ray-Ban frames and Essilor branded lenses, from Davis Visionworks located in Garden City, New York in October 2021. EssilorLuxottica is a vertically integrated, multinational, corporate conglomerate that designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells Eyewear, which is defined as eyeglasses, sunglasses, and corrective lenses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sahil S. Koul, Esq. Richard M. Paul, III, Esq. Laura C. Fellows, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: Sahil@PaulLLP.com Rick@PaulLLP.com Laura@PaulLLP.com ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Rozo Sues Over Eyewear Market Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICK ROZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESSILORLUXOTTICA S.A., LUXOTTICA GROUP, S.P.A., ESSILOR INTERNATIONAL SAS, ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA INC., LUXOTTICA U.S. HOLDINGS CORP., ESSILOR OF AMERICA HOLDING COMPANY, INC., LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., ESSILOR OF AMERICA INC., AND EYEMED VISION CARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-03822 (D. Minn., Dec. 15, 2023) is an action brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the federal Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act to restrain anticompetitive conduct by EssilorLuxottica and to remedy the harms of its anticompetitive scheme. According to the complaint, EssilorLuxottica has abused, and continues to abuse, its monopoly power by preventing, delaying, excluding, or otherwise restraining or suppressing retail competition in the Premium-Branded Eyewear Market, in the United States to impose supra-competitive prices in the Premium-Branded Eyewear Market. The Plaintiff and the Class have paid, and continue to pay, supra-competitive prices for Premium-Branded Eyewear purchased directly from EssilorLuxottica, says the suit. Through its unlawful conduct, EssilorLuxottica has insulated its Proprietary Brands, Licensed Fashion House Brands, and the brands of Premium-Branded Eyewear Competitors from price competition, allowing EssilorLuxottica to charge artificially high prices in the Premium-Branded Eyewear Market that has been, and continues to be, higher than it would be, but for its monopolization, restraint of trade, price coordination, and unlawful conduct, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with impending future harm in the form of additional overcharges if EssilorLuxottica's anticompetitive conduct is not enjoined. EssilorLuxottica S.A. engages in the design, manufacture, and sales of ophthalmic lenses and instruments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lindsey Davis, Esq. James S. Dugan, Esq. ZELLE LLP 500 Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 339-2020 Facsimile: (612) 336-9100 E-mail: ldavis@zellelaw.com jdugan@zellelaw.com - and - 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 FINCANTIERI MARINE: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Malvitz Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL MALVITZ, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FINCANTIERI MARINE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00238 (D.D.C., Jan. 26, 2024) is a class action arising out of the recent cyberattack and data breach that was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect employees' and their beneficiaries' personally identifiable information. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included the Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, dates of service, (insurance) participant IDs, and members numbers, the suit asserts. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and approximately 16,000 Class Members, suffered concrete injury, including invasion of privacy; lost or diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; experiencing an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII. Additionally, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a present and continuing risk of fraud and identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of the Class Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to that Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by the Defendant. The Defendant is a company that builds, repairs and sustains Maritime Vessels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com FLINT, MI: Court Refused to Block Targeted Ads in Water Crisis Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Beth LeBlanc of The Detroit News reports that a federal judge overseeing litigation against Flint water consultants hired prior to the city's water crisis has rejected a request to bar one of the companies, Veolia North America, from targeting jurors with social media communication regarding the case. U.S. District Court Judge Judith Levy acknowledged Jan. 22 that there was a concern by plaintiffs' lawyers that Veolia North America would target jurors with social media posts or advertisements about the case. But she declined to block the company from doing so, noting such an order may infringe on First Amendment rights and that, as of yet, she hadn't seen enough evidence to prove there was ever targeted advertising toward jurors, according to transcripts from a January 22, 2024 hearing. "I learned that they were not. That there isn't evidence to show that that happened," Levy said of allegations Veolia was targeting specific jurors with social media ads about the case. "And certainly there was nothing attached to this motion from plaintiffs that would add to the body of knowledge about that." Veolia celebrated the statement, arguing it cleared them of the "desperate attempt" to lay blame on the company after an initial bellwether trial against Veolia ended in a mistrial in 2022. "VNA will continue to use our First Amendment right to share the truth about this tragedy and the government officials who lied about, hid from, and ignored the crisis for nearly a year and a half," the company said in a January 24, 2024 statement. Levy's on January 22, 2024 statement came after The Detroit News reported in September 2022 that Veolia ramped up a digital advertising campaign to push information on the company's innocence in late 2021 ahead of jury selection in a multimillion-dollar civil lawsuit over the firm's culpability in the Flint water crisis. Plaintiffs' attorneys raised concerns about whether the timing was meant to target the prospective jury pool or judge, but Veolia denied targeting any specific state or region. A judge declared a mistrial in the bellwether case in August 2022 after jurors deadlocked on whether Veolia and Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam (LAN) carried some blame for Flint's water becoming tainted with lead in 2014-15. Jury selection is underway in a separate but related class-action lawsuit brought by adults and property owners in Flint. In preparation for the current trial, Levy was asked in November by plaintiffs' counsel to block Veolia North America or anyone acting on its behalf from "directing micro-focused social and digital media advertisement to potential jurors and empaneled jurors, including but no limited to a social media campaign addressing actions related to the Flint Water Crisis." "Class plaintiffs request that the court prohibit VNA from social and digital media advertising as to its views of the case in the counties from which jurors are summoned in this judicial division until trial's end," the request said. "The jury should reach its verdict based only on evidence and arguments made in court." In a hearing on the motion last January 22, 2024, attorney Theodore Leopold said he was concerned the defendant would "micro-target" the six counties from which jurors will be pulled for the case. "We're not seeking a broad brush total shutdown of their social media or anything of that sort, but in those particular areas, we are concerned about what is alleged at least from the earlier trial that they micro-targeted those particular areas in social media and other aspects," Leopold said. "And we would like to prevent that. We're just seeking a level playing field here." Kelly Kramer, an attorney for Veolia North America, argued case law dictated that the type of gag order plaintiffs were requesting couldn't be granted "without finding that there is a serious and imminent threat to a fair trial." The allegations brought by plaintiffs don't meet that standard, Kramer said. The only paid advertisement the company has, Kramer said, is a Google ad that's been running for several years all across North America and not concentrated to any region. The ads, the Veolia attorney argued, largely don't appear unless someone is researching the case, which jurors are instructed not to do. The exposure to the ad in the six counties at issue is minor, Kramer added. "I think the number is something like 600 clicks within the venire of the six counties all time, and only 83 during the bellwether trial," Kramer said. Levy ultimately ruled that she'd seen no evidence of targeted juror advertisement. And prohibitions on the types of advertisements Veolia could engage in, Levy said, stepped crosswise with free speech rights. "Imposing a gag order on general statements about the case or about the progress of the trial that specifically, if I understand it, are not coming from lawyers but are coming from the public relations people at VNA, I think would be an unconstitutional required restraint on speech," Levy said. The judge asked the lawyers to keep her updated on any actions that could prejudice a jury and said she'd "keep an eye on that throughout the case." Levy also said she planned to remind jurors repeatedly not to research the case. [GN] HAUSBECK PICKLE: Henderson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT ------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAUSBECK PICKLE COMPANY, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-10096-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., January 12, 2024) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated required overtime. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately June 2022 through October 24, 2023 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. He asserts that he and those similarly situated have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's non-discretionary bonuses as required by the FLSA. Hausbeck Pickle Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of pickles and peppers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com HERSHEY CREAMERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henriquez Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDEN HENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERSHEY CREAMERY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 601205/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Jan. 22, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Henriquez was employed by the Defendant as a staff. HERSHEY CREAMERY COMPANY manufactures ice cream, including hand-dipped, pre-packaged, and novelty items. The Company sells its products to consumers, retailers, schools, institutions, and other customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 HONEYWELL INT'L: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER STEWARD, SAUNDRA STEWARD, CLYDE SCHMIDT, JOAN SCHMIDT, TIM BECK, CHARLOTTE BECK, RANDY LANGFORD, BRENDA LANGFORD, TODD FAULKNER, KIM FAULKNER, Illinois residents, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. a Delaware corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to Allied-Signal, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01124-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file Exhibits 3 through 37 to their Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in Support under seal. In Nov. 2022, the Plaintiffs and Honeywell International entered into a Stipulated Revised Confidentiality and Export Control Order. The Plaintiffs and their attorneys agreed that documents produced pursuant to this Agreement and designated as confidential would be treated as confidential by the parties. Honeywell is an American publicly traded, multinational conglomerate corporation. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yb2Dpw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (312) 212-5919 E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com - and - James F. Clayborne, Jr., Esq. CLAYBORNE, SABO AND WAGNER LLP 525 W. Main Street, Suite 105 Belleville, IL 62220 Telephone: (618) 239-0187 Facsimile: (618) 416-7556 E-mail: jclayborne@cswlawllp.com - and - Richard Kruger, Esq. Paul Henry, Esq. KRUGER, HENRY AND HUNTER, LLC 110 W. Fifth Street Metropolis, IL 62960 Telephone: (618) 524-9302 Facsimile: (618) 524-9305 E-mail: khh@khhlaw.com phenry@khhlaw.com - and - Celeste Brustowicz, Esq. Stuart H. Smith, Esq. Stephen H. Wussow, Esq. Victor Cobb, Esq. COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC 1525 Religious Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 399-0009 E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com swussow@sch-llc.com - and - Kevin W. Thompson, Esq. David R. Barney, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON BARNEY 2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25311 Telephone: (304) 343-4401 Facsimile: (304) 343-4405 E-mail: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com drbarneywv@gmail.com - and - Ron A. Austin, Esq. Catherine Hilton, Esq. RON AUSTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC 920 Fourth Street Gretna, LA 70053 Telephone: (504) 227-8100 Facsimile: (504) 227-8122 E-mail: raustin@ronaustinlaw.com HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Steward Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER STEWARD, CLYDE SCHMIDT, JOAN SCHMIDT, TIM BECK, CHARLA BECK, RANDY LANGFORD, BRENDA LANGFORD, TODD FAULKNER, KIM FAULKNER, Illinois residents, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. a Delaware corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to Allied-Signal, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01124-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court that the case be certified as a class action under Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs and Putative Class Representatives move this Honorable Court to grant this motion to certify this matter as a Class Action, appoint Class Representatives and appoint James Clayborne, Jr., Katrina Carroll, Ron Austin, Paul Henry, Richard Kruger and Kevin Thompson as Class Counsel. This motion is brought on behalf of a putative property damage class and a putative medical monitoring class of persons who have a possessory interest or who occupy real property in the Class Area described in the Class Map. In addition to monetary and punitive damages, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to: 1) remediate their properties (2) implement medical monitoring, (3) independently monitor Honeywell’s emissions, 4) reduce emissions and 5) make relocation available. The Plaintiffs propose ascertainable classes pursuant to Rule 23: -- Property Damage Class "All non-governmental legal persons who currently own real property within the boundaries of the Class Area depicted by the Class Area Line on Exhibit 1 and who occupy or have a possessory interest in said property." The Plaintiffs Roger Steward, Clyde Schmidt, Joan Schmidt, Tim Beck, Charla Beck, Randy Langford, Brenda Langford, Todd Faulkner, and Kim Faulkner shall represent this class. -- Medical Monitoring Class "All real persons within the boundaries of the Class Area depicted by the Class Area Line on Exhibit 1 who currently own and occupy real property or who provide proof they occupied property within said boundaries for more than one year since the Defendant began operations." The Plaintiffs Roger Steward, Clyde Schmidt, Joan Schmidt, Tim Beck, Charla Beck, Randy Langford, Brenda Langford, Todd Faulkner, and Kim Faulkner shall represent this class. Excluded from both classes are 1) Honeywell (including Honeywell's officers, directors, agents, employees, and members of their immediate families), and any entity in which Honeywell has a controlling interest, and legal representatives, heirs, and assigns of Honeywell; and 2) judicial officers to whom this case is assigned, staff, and members of their immediate families. Honeywell is an American publicly traded, multinational conglomerate. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OmwbJ4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (312) 212-5919 E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com - and - James F. Clayborne, Jr., Esq. CLAYBORNE, SABO AND WAGNER LLP 525 W. Main Street, Suite 105 Belleville, IL 62220 Telephone: (618) 239-0187 Facsimile: (618) 416-7556 E-mail: jclayborne@cswlawllp.com - and - Richard Kruger, Esq. Paul Henry, Esq. KRUGER, HENRY AND HUNTER, LLC 110 W. Fifth Street Metropolis, IL 62960 Telephone: (618) 524-9302 Facsimile: (618) 524-9305 E-mail: khh@khhlaw.com phenry@khhlaw.com - and - Celeste Brustowicz, Esq. Stuart H. Smith, Esq. Stephen H. Wussow, Esq. Victor Cobb, Esq. COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC 1525 Religious Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 399-0009 E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com swussow@sch-llc.com - and - Kevin W. Thompson, Esq. David R. Barney, Jr., Esq. THOMPSON BARNEY 2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25311 Telephone: (304) 343-4401 Facsimile: (304) 343-4405 E-mail: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com drbarneywv@gmail.com - and - Ron A. Austin, Esq. Catherine Hilton, Esq. RON AUSTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC 920 Fourth Street Gretna, LA 70053 Telephone: (504) 227-8100 Facsimile: (504) 227-8122 E-mail: raustin@ronaustinlaw.com INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Court Certifies Child Transition Ban Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Bonilla Muñiz of Local Digital News reports that a federal judge has granted class action certification in a lawsuit challenging Indiana's recent ban on transition-related care for Hoosier youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria. U.S. District Court Judge James Patrick Hanlon certified three classes -- for minor patients, their parents, and their medical providers -- plus two subclasses for patients and providers using Medicaid. Hanlon, of the Southern District of Indiana, issued a preliminary injunction in June mostly blocking enforcement of the ban. He upheld a prohibition on surgical procedures, but court filings and public testimony at the Statehouse last year indicated Hoosier children aren't receiving such operations. Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb approved Senate Enrolled Act 480 in April 2023. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed suit almost immediately. The plaintiffs include four transgender children, their parents, Goshen-based family practice physician Dr. Catherine Bast, and her employer Mosaic Health and Healing Arts. The defendants are Indiana's Medical Licensing Board and a variety of state officials. Hanlon applied a four-part case law test in making his decision which you can read more about in this Indiana Capital Chronicle article, here. [GN] INTRUSION INC: $3.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE NATHAN PRAWITT, derivatively on behalf of INTRUSION, INC., Plaintiff JACK B. BLOUNT, MICHAEL L. PAXTON, B. FRANKLIN BYRD, P. JOE HEAD, GARY DAVIS, JAMES F. GERO, ANTHONY SCOTT, ANTHONY J. LEVECCHIO, KATRINKA B. MCCALLUM, JAMIE M. SCHNUR, GREGORY K. WILSON, Defendants, -and INTRUSION, INC., Nominal Defendant NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF INTRUSION, INC., EITHER OF RECORD OR BENEFICIALLY, AS OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 IF YOU HOLD COMMON STOCK OF INTRUSION, INC. FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of (i) the pendency of the above-captioned action (the "Action"), which was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Court") by a stockholder of Intrusion, Inc. ("Intrusion" or the "Company") asserting claims derivatively on behalf of the Company; (ii) the proposed settlement of the Action (the "Settlement"), subject to Court approval as provided for in a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement dated September 28, 2023 (the "Stipulation"), which was filed with the Court and is publicly available for review; and (iii) your right to participate in a hearing to be held on April 3, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Maryellen Noreika, at the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 N. King Street, Courtroom 4A, Wilmington, DE 19801-3555 (the "Settlement Hearing"). The purposes of the Settlement Hearing are to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice; (iii) enter an Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement; (iv) approve a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to counsel for plaintiff Nathan Prawitt ("Plaintiff") in the Action; (v) approve an application for a Plaintiff Service Award to Plaintiff in the Action; and (vi) hear and determine any objections to the Settlement, Plaintiff's counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or to Plaintiffs' application for a service award. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION REFERRED TO IN THE CAPTION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS OR ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS (AS DEFINED BELOW). The Stipulation was entered into as of September 28, 2023 by and among (i) Plaintiff; (ii) defendants Jack B. Blount, Michael L. Paxton, B. Franklin Byrd, P. Joe Head, Gary Davis, James F. Gero, Anthony Scott, Anthony J. Levecchio, Katrinka B. McCallum, Jamie M. Schnur, and Gregory K. Wilson (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and (iii) nominal defendant Intrusion (together with the Individual Defendants, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs and Defendants are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." This Notice describes the rights you may have in the Action and pursuant to the Stipulation and what steps you may take, but are not required to take, in relation to the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, the Parties will ask the Court at the Settlement Hearing to enter an Order and Final Judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation. This Action was brought as a shareholder derivative action on behalf of the Company. The benefits of the Settlement will go to the Company. Other than any award by the Court of attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff's counsel or service award to Plaintiff, there are no monetary payments under the Settlement. On April 16, 2021, a securities class action, Celeste v. Intrusion, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00307 (E.D. Tex.), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On May 14, 2021, a second securities class action, Neely v. Intrusion, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, also alleging violations of the Exchange Act. On November 23, 2021, the securities class actions were consolidated (the "Securities Action") and, on February 7, 2022, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities Action (the "Securities Complaint"). On April 13, 2022, the Securities Action was stayed to permit the parties to file a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint in the Action, alleging violation of the Sec. 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as state law claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets against the Individual Defendants on behalf of the Company. On December 16, 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas entered a Final Judgment approving the settlement of the Securities Action which, inter alia, provided for the payment of $3,250,000 in cash to the members of the class. On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively, the "Parties") filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Case to stay the Action for sixty (60) days to permit counsel for the Parties an opportunity to meet and confer about how to proceed and submit a proposed schedule for the Court's consideration. That Proposed Order was granted the same day. Thereafter, the Court entered Orders extending the stay to permit the Parties to discuss possible settlement of the Action. In or about January 2023, the Parties commenced arm's-length negotiations concerning a possible resolution of the Action. After approximately seven (7) months of arduous negotiations, the Parties reached an agreement-in-principle to fully resolve all claims in the Action on or about July 21, 2023. The Parties executed the Stipulation on September 28, 2023. Concurrent with seeking final approval of the Settlement, Plaintiff's Counsel intend to petition the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, which is no greater than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) (the "Fee and Expense Award"). Any Fee and Expense Award will be paid by Intrusion. Defendants and Intrusion will not object to or otherwise take any position on the Fee and Expense Application, provided that it does not seek an amount in aggregate in excess of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00). Plaintiff's Counsel also intend to apply to the Court for a service award to Plaintiff for the time and expenses they expended in the prosecution of the Actions of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for Plaintiff to be payable from the fees and expenses the Court awards to Plaintiff's Counsel in connection with the Fee and Expense Award (the "Plaintiff Service Award"). Defendants and Intrusion take no position on the Plaintiff Service Award. Any award to Plaintiff's Counsel for fees and expenses and any service award to Plaintiff shall be determined by the Court. The Court will consider the Settlement and all matters related to the Settlement at the Settlement Hearing. The Settlement Hearing will be held before The Honorable Maryellen Noreika on April 3, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., United States District Court, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building,844 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3555, Courtroom 4A, or as may be undertaken via a remote proceeding such as Zoom or by telephone. Any current shareholder who objects to the Settlement, the Attorneys' Fee and Expense Application by Plaintiff's Counsel, or Plaintiffs' Service Award Application, or who otherwise wishes to be heard, may appear in person or through his, her, or its attorney at the Settlement Hearing and present any evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant; provided, however, that no such person shall be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the Settlement, or, if approved, the Order and Final Judgment to be entered thereon, or the allowance of fees and expenses to Plaintiff's Counsel, or otherwise be heard with respect to the matters considered at the Settlement Hearing unless, no later than twenty (20) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, such person files with the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building,844 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3555, the following: (a) proof of ownership of the Company's stock as of October 14, 2020 and continuously to the present; (b) a written and signed notice of the Objector's intention to appear, which states the name, address and telephone number of the Objector and, if represented, his, her, or its counsel; (c) a detailed statement of the objections to any matter before the Court; and (d) a detailed statement of all of the grounds thereon and the reasons for the Objector's desire to appear and to be heard, as well as all documents or writings which the Objector desires the Court to consider. Any such filings with the Court must also be served upon each of the following counsel (by e-service, hand, or overnight mail) such that they are received no later than twenty (20) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing: Herbert W. Mondros Timothy J. MacFall RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 295-5310 hwm@rl-legal.com tjm@rl-legal.com Counsel for Plaintiff Nathan Prawitt Steven T. Margolin GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1600 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 661-7376 David Klaudt GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 665-3616 Email: David.Klaudt@gtlaw.com Counsel for Individual Defendant Jack B. Blount Andrew Dupre MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP Renaissance Centre 405 North King Street, 8th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-6328 Email: adupre@mccarter.com Counsel for Nominal Defendant Intrusion, Inc. and Individual Defendants Michael L. Paxton, B. Franklin Byrd, P. Joe Head, Gary Davis, James Gero, Anthony Scott, Anthony J. LeVecchio, Katrinka B. McCallum, Jamie M. Schnur, and Gregory K. Wilson Counsel for Intrusion BY ORDER OF THE COURT HONORABLE MARYELLEN NOREIKA Dated: December 21, 2023 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hall Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson & Johnson, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated December 29, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled FRANK HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01833-ZNQ-TJB, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit, filed on February 8, 2018, seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Johnson and Johnson talc products, such as its Baby Powder, allegedly include asbestos fibers and that the exposure to those fibers can cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. On this news, shares of Johnson and Johnson fell $7.29 per share or over 5% from its previous closing price to close at $130.39 per share on February 5, 2018, damaging investors, including the Plaintiff. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an Order on December 29, 2023, granting a motion for class certification. The court certified the class defined as "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded J&J equity securities, as defined in 15 U.S.C. section 78c(11) and 17 C.F.R. section 240.3a11-1, between February 22, 2013 and December 13, 2018." The following will be excluded from the class: defendants, present or former executive officers of defendants and members of their immediate families, present or former directors of defendants and members of their immediate families, any entity in which a defendant has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded party. The appellate case is captioned as Frank Hall, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 24-8001, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on January 12, 2024.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., are represented by: Neil H. Conrad, Esq. Robert N. Hochman, Esq. Kristen R. Seeger, Esq. John M. Skakun, II, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN One S Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 - and - Jack N. Frost, Jr., Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH 600 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 549-7338 Plaintiffs-Respondents SAN DIEGO CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM and FRANK HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 LAKEVIEW LOAN: Agree to Settle Convenience Fee Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that claimed Nationstar Mortgage, doing business as Mr. Cooper and Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC, violated the law by collecting an unauthorized convenience fee for mortgage payments made over the phone. The settlement class comprises all individuals in Maryland who paid a "convenience fee" collected in whole or in part by Mr. Cooper or Lakeview to make a payment on a residential mortgage debt from April 15, 2019, to the present. The term "convenience fee" was not specifically enumerated in the original agreement between class members and Mr. Cooper. The plaintiff alleges that this action violates the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). After the lawsuit was filed, the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation affirmed this sentiment, stating in a notice that these fees would be deemed illegal if they were not "specifically authorized by the applicable loan documents" before being charged. Mr. Cooper Group is an umbrella corporation that holds companies like Nationstar Mortgages LLC, one of the largest mortgage servicers in the country. As of September, Mr. Cooper had more than 4.3 million customers throughout the United States. Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC assists more than 1.4 million customers annually. It is the fourth-largest mortgage loan servicer in the country. Between April 15, 2019, and April 15, 2022, Mr. Cooper collected 65,894 instances of convenience fees, totaling $982,907.22. The company has denied all wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Customers may have already had certain amounts refunded to them. If the proposed settlement is approved, Mr. Cooper will donate $37,200 to Habitat for Humanity and the Housing Initiative Partnership; 50% will go to each charity organization. The company will also pay the class counsel's legal fees of $114,240. Class members will not receive any benefits for taking part in the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 14, 2024. A final approval hearing in the Mr. Cooper and Lakeview Loan Servicing settlement will take place March 15, 2024. Who's Eligible All individuals in Maryland who paid a "convenience fee" collected in whole or in part by Mr. Cooper or Lakeview to make a payment on a residential mortgage debt from April 15, 2019, to the present. Potential Award N/A Proof of Purchase N/A Address Change Form CLICK HERE TO UPDATE ADDRESS » NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. 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. Exclusion Deadline 02/14/2024 Case Name Tonda Baxter v. Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC, et al., Case No. C-02-CV-22-000654, in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas Final Hearing 03/15/24 Settlement Website BaxterConvenienceFeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator N/A Class Counsel Phillip R Robinson CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC David Hoskins LAW OFFICES OF E DAVID HOSKINS LLC Defense Counsel N/A [GN] LASALLE CORRECTIONS: Class Cert. Bid in Powell Due March 27 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEADRA POWELL, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. LASALLE CORRECTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00391-DCJ-KDM (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Kayla D. Mcclusky entered an order granting the Defendant LaSalle Corrections unopposed motion to continue preliminary discovery deadlines. The deadlines set for in this Court's Discovery Order are hereby reset as follows: -- Deadline for Completion of Pre-Notice Discovery: March 13, 2024 -- Deadline to Move for Class Certification: March 27, 2024 LaSalle is an established developer and operator of correctional centers throughout the States of Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Georgia. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6gQRSF at no extra charge.[CC] LAZER SPOT: Ruthven Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- NATE RUTHVEN and DANIELLE HARMON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAZER SPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00359 (N.D. Ill., January 15, 2024) is a class action brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law to recover Plaintiffs' unpaid earned overtime compensation and for other relief. According to the complaint, both Plaintiffs Ruthven and Harmon were paid by the Defendant on an hourly basis during their employment. The Defendant did not pay them time-and-a-half their regular rate of pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks, say the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were employed as yard spotters for the benefit and at the direction of Defendant whose duties include driving a spotter truck and/or day cab within the distribution center to and from loading doors. Lazer Spot, Inc. provides yard management services and solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq. Justin M. Carparco, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com aceragioli@stephanzouras.com jcarparco@stephanzouras.com LUNDBECK LLC: MSP Recovery Appeals Ruling in RICO Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, et al., filed an appeal from the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 3, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. LUNDBECK LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-422-HEH, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond. The case is brought by purported purchasers of third-party healthcare payors' claims. At issue is whether a pharmaceutical manufacturer, Lundbeck; a data analysis company, Theracom LLC; and a now defunct patient assistance nonprofit charity, Caring Voice Coalition, Inc. ("CVC") (collectively, "Defendants") worked in concert to artificially inflate the unit price and quantity dispensed of Xenazine -- a specialty drug used to treat symptoms associated with Huntington's Disease. Lundbeck manufactures specialty neuroscience medications including Xenazine, a medication used to treat chorea (involuntary muscle movement) associated with Huntington's Disease. Xenazine was the only drug specifically "indicated" to treat that disease until 2015, when generic competitors entered the market. CVC was a nonprofit charity created to assist qualifying patients afford the prescription co-pay obligations imposed by the patients' third-party insurance companies. CVC is now defunct. Adira was established in 2018 and is essentially a replica of CVC. While the Plaintiffs do not allege that Adira played a role in the alleged RICO enterprise, they assert that Adira is the successor corporation of CVC and thus jointly and severally liable to them. The Plaintiffs allege several counts in total -- five against all Defendants and two against only CVC and Adira. The five counts against all Defendants are: a substantive RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) (Count I); a RICO conspiracy claim under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) (Count II); consumer protection claims under the laws of twelve states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, and Wisconsin (Count III); an unjust enrichment claim "under state law" (Count IV); and a claim under Florida's state RICO law, the Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 7701, et seq. (Count V). The two counts against CVC and Adira are: a violation of Va. Stat. Section 55.1-400, et seq. (Count VI); and successor liability as to Adira (Count VII). As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 6, 2023, Judge Henry E. Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division: a. granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; b. denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction; and c. granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement the Complaint. On April 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to alter judgment or amend judgment or for relief from judgment. On January 3, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order signed by Judge Hudson denying Plaintiff's motion. The appellate case is captioned as MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Lundbeck LLC, Case No. 24-1043, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on January 12, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on February 21, 2024; and -- Response Brief is due on March 22, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware series limited liability company, et al., are represented by: Adam Shereef Akeel, Esq. Shereef Hadi Akeel, Esq. Daniel William Cermak, Esq. Emad Rashed Hamadeh, Esq. Hayden Eugene Pendergrass, Esq. Samuel Robert Simkins, Esq. AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLC 888 West Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48084-4736 Telephone: (248) 269-9595 - and - John William Cleary, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 South LeJeune Road Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 - and - Joseph Langone, Esq. David Hilton Wise, Esq. WISE LAW FIRM, PLC 10640 Page Avenue Fairfax, VA 22030-7409 Defendants-Appellees LUNDBECK LLC, a Delaware corporation, et al., are represented by: Kolya David Glick, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-3743 Telephone: (202) 942-6077 - and - Kristen Marie Ashe, Esq. REED SMITH, LLP 3 Logan Square 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 851-8100 - and - Douglas Edward Pittman, Esq. REED SMITH, LLP Riverfront Plaza, West Tower 901 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219-4069 Telephone: (804) 344-3400 - and - Douglas Edward Pittman, Esq. REED SMITH, LLP Riverfront Plaza, West Tower 901 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219-4069 Telephone: (804) 344-3400 MADONNA FOOD: Pineda Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE PINEDA, v. MADONNA FOOD SALES, INC. (DBA CHICKEN DELIGHT) and VINCENT J MADONNA, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-00526 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants were required to pay and compensate the Plaintiff at a minimum rate of $15.00 per hour; however, the Plaintiff was only compensated at a rate of $10 per hour at the beginning of his employment for 40 hours workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay the Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay when he worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit claims. From March 10, 2020, until December 31, 2020, the Plaintiff was paid $10 per hour, the underpayment per week was $262, and the total underpayment of that period of time was $11,025. From January 1, 2021, until December 31, 2021, the Plaintiff was paid $10 per hour, the underpayment per week was $262.50, and the total underpayment of that period of time was $13,650. The total amount of unpaid wages is approximately $38,582. The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act for the Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates violating said laws. Mr. Pineda was employed by the Defendant at its offices at 476 Maple Ave Westbury, NY 11590, from March 2020 until January 7, 2024, where he was employed as a kitchen assistant, delivery and also did some cleaning chores. Madonna Food is a chain of restaurants offering eat-in, take-out, and delivery service with a menu featuring chicken, pizza, and ribs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 E-mail: www.StillmanLegalPC.com MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Genesee v. Bank of America ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04089 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition," following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference. The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b) April 13, 2024, whichever is later. In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than 60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10, 2024 telephone conference. The Genesee suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and anti-competitive stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS) market. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QsvpgS at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Harrison County v. BoA --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harrison County, Mississippi, et al., v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-CV-04561 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition," following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference. The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b) April 13, 2024, whichever is later. In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than 60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10, 2024 telephone conference. The Harrison County suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and anti-competitive stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS) market. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J0uGPN at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in IRS Antitrust Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2704), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition," following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference. The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b) April 13, 2024, whichever is later. In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than 60 days from the Second Circuit's decisionrs on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10, 2024 telephone conference. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and anti-competitive stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS) market. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GYhHCX at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Javelin v. Bank of America ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Javelin Capital Markets LLC et al v. Bank Of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05361 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition," following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference. The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b) April 13, 2024, whichever is later. In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than 60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10, 2024 telephone conference. The Javelin suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and anti-competitive stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS) market. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JyGuEK at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Kansas City v. BOA ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kansas City, Missouri Employees' Retirement System v. Bank Of America Corporation et al Case No. 1:16-cv-04005 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition," following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference. The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b) April 13, 2024, whichever is later. In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than 60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10, 2024 telephone conference. The Kansas City suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and anti-competitive stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS) market. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BTTGVD at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in LD Construction v. BoA --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD Construction LLC, et al., v. Bank Of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04239 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition," following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference. The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b) April 13, 2024, whichever is later. In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than 60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10, 2024 telephone conference. The LD Construction suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and anti-competitive stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS) market. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ffePf at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Policemen v. BoA --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Bank of America Corporation et al Case No. 1:16-cv-04566 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition," following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference. The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b) April 13, 2024, whichever is later. In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than 60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10, 2024 telephone conference. The Policemen suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and anti-competitive stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS) market. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3v26TL at no extra charge.[CC] MEAD JOHNSON: Fails to Disclose Heavy Metals in Enfamil, Lopez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dominique Lopez, Bianca Raya, Laurie Thomas, and Amanda Seutter, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY and MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLC, Case No. (N.D. Ill., Jan. 26, 2024) sues the Defendants for its knowing, reckless, and/or intentional practice of failing to disclose the lack of quality controls in manufacturing its infant formula and also failing to disclose the presence of Heavy Metals in its Enfamil(TM) infant formulas. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant's packaging is designed to induce reasonable consumers to believe in the high quality and safety of its infant formula while omitting any information about the inclusion (or material risk of inclusion) of Heavy Metals and the utter failure to use quality control measures in its manufacturing. The Omissions allowed the Defendant to capitalize on, and reap enormous profits from, reasonable consumers who paid a premium price for Infant Formulas that did not disclose material information as to the Products' true quality and value. In August 2023, the FDA found that the Defendant ignored its duties to ensure proper quality control measures in its manufacturing facilities. This came after the Defendant voluntarily recalled two batches of infant formula products in February 2023 due to bacterial contamination. Independent testing also confirmed the presence of Heavy Metals, such as arsenic, cadmium, and lead, in two of the Defendant's Infant Formula. The Plaintiffs bring this proposed consumer class action individually and on behalf of all other members of the Classes, who, from the applicable limitations period up to and including the present, purchased for household use and not resale any of the Defendant's Infant Formulas. Plaintiff Lopez currently resides in Contra Costa County in the State of California. She purchased the Infant Formula, including Enfamil (TM) Nutramigen, Enfamil (TM) ProSobee, and Enfamil (TM) NeuroPro for household use. Mead Johnson is a producer of infant formula products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Krista K. Freier, Esq. Catherine A. Peterson, Esq. Develyn J. Mistriotti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com kkfreier@locklaw.com capeterson@locklaw.com djmistriotti@locklaw.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Kara A. Elgersma, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com kae@wbe-llp.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Catherine Sung-yun K. Smith, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com csmith@gustafsongluek.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. David J. George, Esq. Brittany L. Brown, Esq. Janine L. Pollack, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com DGeorge@4-Justice.com jpollack@4-Justice.com mliskow@4-Justice.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (312) 212-5919 E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com kyle@lcllp.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, PC 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 754-4443 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com MEDILODGE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bellenir Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CODY BELLENIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE MEDILODGE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-10153-JJCG-DRG (E.D. Mich., Jan. 19, 2024) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Bellenir was employed by the Defendant as a patient care employee. THE MEDILODGE GROUP, INC. owns and operates nursing homes and an assisted living center. The Company provides physical therapy services for various conditions, including stroke, head trauma, joint replacement, multiple sclerosis, and orthopedic injuries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, 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 cfitz@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, PC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Whaley Balks at Real Estate Market Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------- NATHANIEL WHALEY, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS; LAS VEGAS REALTORS; NEVADA REALTORS; SIERRA NEVADA REALTY; INCLINE VILLAGE REALTORS; ELKO COUNTY REALTORS; MESQUITE REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION; and NORTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL MLS, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00105 (D. Nev., January 15, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Plaintiff classes, alleging that Defendants have conspired to require home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes, and to pay an inflated amount, in violation of federal antitrust law, the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Nevada Antitrust Law. The Plaintiff, home sellers who listed their homes on one of seven Multiple Listing Services, bring this action against Defendants for agreeing, combining, and conspiring to impose and enforce an anticompetitive restraint that requires home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes, and to pay an inflated amount, in violation of Nevada Law. This commission structure has remained isolated from market forces because of a long running conspiracy among Defendants to implement and enforce anticompetitive restraints in the residential real estate market. The Defendants' conspiracy also forces home sellers to pay a cost that, in a competitive market and but for Defendants' anticompetitive restraint, would be paid by the buyer. The Defendants' conspiracy further compels home sellers to make blanket offers of compensation to buyer brokers regardless of the buyer broker's experience, the services provided, or any financial arrangement between the buyer broker and buyer. All of this is done so buyer brokers do not "steer" the seller's property away from prospective buyers, says the suit. National Association of Realtors is a lobbying group overseeing fifty-four state and territorial realtor associations and over 1,200 local realtor associations. NAR is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefany "Miley" Tewell, Esq. Ben Lehavi, Esq. BEN'S LAW 5940 South Rainbow Boulevard Las Vegas, NV 89118 Telephone: (702) 518-9236 E-mail: judgestefany@benslaw.com NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Issues Final Judgment in Woodard Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska issued a Final Judgment and Order in the lawsuit entitled KENNETH JOSEPH WOODARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-00301-RFR (D. Neb.). In accordance with the Memorandum and Order entered on Jan. 9, 2024, the Court enters this Final Judgment and Order, which incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation of Settlement (Bankr. D. Neb. Case No. 21-08023-TLS, Filing No. 77-3). By entering this Final Judgment and Order, the Court does not make any determination as to the merits of this case. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finally certifies this Action as a class action, with the Class defined as all Discharged Non-Title IV Borrowers on all Non-Title IV Covered Loans. The Court finds, for settlement purposes only, that class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate. The Court confirms the prior appointments of the Plaintiff Kenneth Joseph Woodard as Class Representative, and the law firms of Fishman Haygood LLP; Jones Swanson Huddell LLC; Boies Schiller Flexner LLP; Francis Mailman Soumilas, PC; and the Law Offices of James Michel as Class Counsel. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court approves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court further finds that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is the result of good faith, arm's-length negotiations between experienced counsel representing the interests of the Parties. Accordingly, Judge Rossiter holds that the Settlement embodied in the Stipulation is finally approved in all respects. Final Judgment is entered with respect to the Released Claims of all Settlement Class Members, and the Released Claims in the Action are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice and without costs. All claims in the Action are dismissed, and the case will be closed pursuant to the Final Judgment and Order. The order entered by the Court regarding Class Counsels' application for attorney fees, litigation expenses, Notice and Administrative Costs, and class-representative service awards will in no way disturb or affect this Final Judgment and Order and will be considered separate from this Final Judgment and Order. Judge Rossiter orders that no later than 30 days after the Effective Date (as defined in the Stipulation), the Settlement Administrator will file with the Court, under seal pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this litigation (in order to protect the names and addresses of Class Members), a list of the names and addresses of all Class Members to whom the Class Notice was sent. Upon the Effective Date, the Defendants will have no obligation to preserve documents and evidence with respect to Released Claims, and the Class Representative and Class Counsel may not pursue any spoliation claims or other actions or sanctions against the Defendants with respect to documents or evidence related to the Released Claims. Judge Rossiter directs the Clerk of the Court to close the Action. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated Jan. 11, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3bf586z7from PacerMonitor.com. PENSKE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Milam Says ------------------------------------------------------------- James Milam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penske Logistics LLC; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 4:24-cv-00506 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 26, 2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages when the Defendants required the Plaintiff and Class Members to work off-the-clock, in violation of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders. The suit contends that the Plaintiff and Class Members' workloads could not be reasonably completed within their scheduled hours, and the Defendants directed, pressured, compelled, and/or otherwise coerced the Plaintiff and Class Members to regularly perform their job duties while clocked out for their meal periods, and the Defendant improperly considered time spent by the Plaintiff and Class Members working through meal periods as non-compensable and failed to provide any remuneration. The Defendants often failed to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members meal period premiums and rest period premiums at their regular rate of compensation, including all non-discretionary bonuses. As a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members an additional hour of pay for each day a meal period was not provided and a rest period were not provided, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered and continue to suffer a loss of wages and compensation, the suit adds. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Material Handler. Penske provides supply chain management and logistics solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Zachary Gershman, Esq. Brielle D. Edborg, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Zachary@lebelaw.com Brielle@lebelaw.com PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Andrew Suit Over Oil Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW CAPLEN INSTALLATIONS LLC; and EDWARD ALLEGRETTI D/B/A ALFRED AUTO CENTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00150 (D. Nev., Jan. 22, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are engage in a conspiracy to coordinate, and ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production, which has had the purpose and effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil in and throughout the United States of America, and worldwide. The Defendants have also conspired with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries ("OPEC"), the international oil cartel that believes that it can escape U.S. antitrust law because its members are sovereign nations. Defendants agreed with OPEC to constrain production of crude oil worldwide, with the purpose and effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil in and throughout the United States of America, and worldwide, the suit says. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION operates as an oil and gas company. The Company focuses on the development of unconventional oil and associated liquid-rich natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin, as well as offers geology, engineering, and drilling services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert T. Eglet, Esq. Artemus W. Ham, Esq. Erica D. Entsminger, Esq. EGLET ADAMS EGLET HAM & HENRIOD 400 South Seventh Street, Suite 400 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 450-5400 Facsimile: (702) 450-5451 Email: eservice@egetlaw.com - and - Brent W. Johnson, Esq. Benjamin Brown, Esq. Robert W. Cobbs, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Email: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com bbrown@cohenmilstein.com rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com - and - Michael Eisenkraft, Esq. Christopher Bateman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 883-7797 Email: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com cbateman@cohenmilstein.com PERRY JOHNSON: Jon Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT JON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. and NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-10100-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich., Jan. 12, 2024) is a class action against Defendants for their failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifying information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class members and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Act. Between approximately March 27, 2023, and May 2, 2023, and specifically between April 7, 2023 and April 19, 2023, an unauthorized third party gained access to PJA's network system and obtained files containing information about Northwell Health's current and former patients. The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendants breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Northwell's patients' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure, including failing to implement industry standards for data security, and failing to properly train employees on cybersecurity protocols, resulting in the data breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New York and obtained healthcare or related services from Northwell. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. is a third-party vendor of health information technology solutions used by Northwell, Health, Inc., the largest health system in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes, Esq. MILLER LAW FIRM 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 791-9813 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com eeh@millerlawpc.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Rehm Balks at Unprotected Personal, Health Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER REHM and MATTHEW OLDANIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, WELLTOK LLC, and OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01014-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Jan. 15, 2024) seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and the Class' personally identifiable and private health information. On May 27, 2023, cyber criminals linked with the Russian cyber gang, Cl0p, exploited a well-known flaw in PSC's MOVEit file transfer service to gain access to its servers, ultimately acquiring data containing sensitive PII and PHI held by Welltok and belonging to OSF patients. Cl0p is known for using stolen data to extort its victims, as well as publishing and selling the stolen data to other bad actors on the dark web. On August 10, 2023, it threatened to release the stolen data of all companies which had not paid the ransom by August 15, 2023. The Plaintiffs and members of the Class furnished their sensitive PII and PHI directly or indirectly to OSF and Welltok, including their names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and health insurance information. OSF also kept and provided additional sensitive PII and PHI to Welltok, including medical treatment and diagnosis information, provider names, patient IDs, and treatment cost information, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiffs and members of the Class now face an increased risk of identity theft and fraud, if not actual identity theft and resulting losses and need to take immediate action to protect themselves from such identity theft. The Plaintiffs and members of the Class are immediately and imminently in danger of sustaining further direct or indirect injuries as a result of Defendants' failure to safeguard and protect their sensitive PII and PHI, the suit asserts. Progress Software Corporation is a publicly traded, international software company offering a wide range of products and services to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States, including cloud hosting and file transfer services such as MOVEit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Molly E. Stemper, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com mstemper@stephanzouras.com RELIANT REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Hinojos Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- KALLEIGH HINOJOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RELIANT REHABILITATION HOLDINGS, INC. Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00032-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Jan. 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay proper overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay her time and one-half her regular hourly rate (overtime pay) for working weekly hours in excess of 40. The Defendant misclassified her as exempt from FLSA requirements and paid her on a salaried basis with no regard to the number of hours she actually worked, the Plaintiff says. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant during the three years prior to the filing of this suit through approximately December 2021 to provide physical rehabilitation treatments to Defendant's clients. Reliant Rehabilitation Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides physical, occupational, and speech therapy services. Reliant Rehabilitation Holdings serves patients in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul St. #700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com ROTHY'S INC: Mackey Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------- HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROTHY'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-000485 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Jan. 12, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for Defendant's violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls and does not connect to either the telephone solicitor or the Defendant when it made telephonic sales calls by text message. Rothy's, Inc. is a foreign corporation which sells various goods to persons throughout Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com ROYALTY CARPET: Highest Court Barred PAGA Claims ------------------------------------------------ McDermott Will & Emery of JD Supra reports that on January 18, 2024, in a highly anticipated and unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of California barred striking a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on trial manageability grounds alone, instead authorizing due process defenses to PAGA claims (Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc.). The decision also commented approvingly on representative testimonies, surveys and statistical analyses. As a result of the decision, employers now face a new challenge of marshalling such evidence to their defenses and challenging the misuse of such evidence on due process grounds in future PAGA litigation. Enacted in 2004, PAGA authorizes allegedly aggrieved employees to sue their employers for additional civil penalties for various alleged Labor Code violations on behalf of themselves, other employees and the state of California. Allegedly aggrieved employees act as "private attorneys general" seeking remedies against their employer for alleged violations against them and other employees. Unique to PAGA, typical class action requirements such as superiority and the predominance of common issues do not apply. Under PAGA, an allegedly aggrieved employee only needs to demonstrate that a single violation of a particular Labor Code statute was committed against them during the PAGA period to prosecute the case as a representative action and represent other employees as to any and all allegedly violated Labor Code statutes. In other words, a plaintiff need only be aggrieved as to a particular violation (e.g., missed meal periods) to assert that they may represent all other employees as to all other alleged violations (such as wage statement noncompliance, missed rest periods, overtime or failure to pay paid sick leave using the regular rate calculation). This concept has led to trial manageability and due process issues in these cases. CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL SPLIT Prior to the California Supreme Court's recent ruling, the California Courts of Appeal were split on whether trial courts possess the inherent authority to strike or dismiss a PAGA claim with prejudice by employing manageability requirements. (See Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 685, 697 (concluding that trial courts lack such inherent authority.)) (See also Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746, 766-767 (concluding that trial courts possess such inherent authority.)) ESTRADA LOWER COURT DECISION Royal Carpet Mills, a California carpet manufacturer, employed Jorge Luis Estrada at one of its two Orange County locations. Estrada filed a complaint against Royalty, alleging various class action claims, including a failure to provide first and second meal periods, and a PAGA claim seeking penalties for various alleged Labor Code violations. Additional plaintiffs later joined as named plaintiffs, and the claims largely remained the same in each iteration of the complaint. After the meal period class was certified, the trial court held a bench trial where the plaintiffs presented live testimony from a dozen named plaintiffs, deposition testimony from different managers and officers of Royalty, live testimony from two of Royalty's human resources employees and live testimony from an expert witness. In its defense, Royalty presented testimony from two former employees and a single expert witness. Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court decertified the class on the basis that too many individualized issues predominated, citing inconsistent testimonies from the plaintiffs and varying reasons why meal periods were late. The trial court also dismissed the PAGA action as unmanageable for trial. The Court of Appeal overturned, leading Royal to petition the California Supreme Court to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeal over a trial court's inherent authority to manage PAGA claims. TRIAL MANAGEABILITY Defendants have often successfully argued that the California Supreme Court's decade-old Duran decision applies to representative actions insofar as the representative action must be manageable for trial. In Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn., the California Supreme Court reversed a $15 million judgment based on a flawed statistical sample and acknowledged the importance of due process and managing individual issues fairly and efficiently in a class action. THE DECISION In the opinion and at oral argument, the California Supreme Court grappled with the source of the trial court's authority to strike claims, concluding that the inherent authority of trial courts to dismiss claims is limited to circumstances not present in Estrada. The decision is not too surprising considering the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently came to the same conclusion. (See Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (9th Cir. 2022) 39 F.4th 575, 590 ("The [manageability] requirement cannot be imposed in PAGA actions under the guise of a court's inherent powers.")) Both courts focused on whether trial courts possess the broad inherent authority to dismiss claims. In its January 18 opinion, the California Supreme Court highlighted structural differences between class and PAGA actions to support its view that imposing class-action-based manageability requirements on PAGA actions is inappropriate, emphasizing that concepts such as superiority and predominance do not apply to PAGA claims. The California Supreme Court went so far as to suggest that manageability is derived from class action requirements: [M]anageability in the class action context is a factor in demonstrating that class-wide issues predominate and that a class action is superior to individual actions. Given that a PAGA plaintiff need not demonstrate that common issues predominate or that a representative or non-individual PAGA claim is superior to other forms of adjudication, the requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate the manageability of a class claim does not establish a similar manageability requirement for any related PAGA action. Op. at 23. The Estrada court was quick to highlight that PAGA actions are not class actions and the California legislature declined to add class action requirements to the statute. While the California Supreme Court found that PAGA claims cannot be stricken, it is important to note that "striking" PAGA claims is only one defense of many, including showing that the individual employee is not aggrieved (on summary judgment, which if successful precludes the PAGA representative action), due process issues, dispositive evidence related to the allegedly aggrieved employees and, of course, a host of legal arguments related to the various Labor Code claims. Estrada suggests that the use of representative testimonies, surveys and statistical analyses is allowable to streamline evidence presented at trial, and that statistical analysis can be used to "estimate the number of aggrieved employees, even if the evidence cannot demonstrate the extent of any particular injury." (Op. at 42.) This battle of the experts and testimonies typically becomes a question of whether the sampling is statistically sound and can be used to demonstrate that employees were aggrieved and to estimate damages, or -- conversely -- whether the employer's statistics and analysis show otherwise. The answer is case specific and depends on the claims, data and evidence. (For example, a standalone wage statement violation may lend itself to a sound statistical sample, but a missed meal periods claim may not.) The California Supreme Court expressly made the important distinction that striking claims may be an option to preserve a defendant's due process rights but declined to comment on the hypothetical situation where that may be necessary. OTHER TOOLS AND CONSIDERATIONS TO LIMIT NEEDLESS, EXPENSIVE PAGA CASES While many in the plaintiff's bar may argue that Estrada is a death knell to employers defending against PAGA claims, such is not the case. Many tools remain at the disposal of employers (no two being the same) that warrant individual consideration by each employer facing the threat of PAGA claims: Proactive Compliance Measures. Employers should review and ensure compliant wage and hour policies and practices. Estrada demonstrates the importance of having Labor-Code-compliant timekeeping and meal and rest break policies and practices. Employers should ensure that employees are accurately reporting their time worked, completing attestations affirming their time and meal break records, and training their managers and employees regularly on wage and hour policies. Review Existing Arbitration Agreements or Consider Whether Implementing One Makes Sense. While employers are still reeling from the California Supreme Court's rejection of the Viking River case in Adolph v. Uber Technologies Inc. (holding that an employee can pursue their individual claim under PAGA in arbitration without losing standing to serve as the plaintiff of the representative PAGA case as it moves forward in court), reviewing or implementing arbitration agreements with mandatory class action waivers should also be top of mind. These can be used to successfully compel plaintiffs' individual claims to arbitration, avoid class actions and limit representative cases to PAGA only until the Supreme Court of the United States decides to weigh in. Plaintiff Must Still Meet Their Burden. For employers already facing PAGA claims, Estrada leaves undisturbed the requirement that a plaintiff prove that they are an aggrieved employee -- meaning that the plaintiff must be able to show a Labor Code violation against them. A plaintiff also has the burden to show that all aggrieved employees suffered violations. Where employers are dedicated to compliance and documentation, this becomes a much more difficult burden for an allegedly aggrieved employee. The plaintiff also has the burden to produce a "trial plan" -- explaining how they will seek to adjudicate their claims at trial. A PAGA plaintiff must set forth some type of trial plan demonstrating how the defendant's due process rights won't be infringed if they go to trial on behalf of the entire PAGA class. Narrowing PAGA Claims in Litigation. Estrada affirmed that where a PAGA case is unwieldy, a court may still limit the scope of the PAGA claims and the evidence presented at trial, including witness testimony, and may limit penalties when a plaintiff who has alleged widespread violations is unable to prove PAGA claims in an efficient manner. The Estrada plaintiff limited his claim to two Royalty locations with largely similar policies and practices. PAGA defendants with varying work locations and practices should highlight the challenges presented by a large and complex PAGA action and the potential for dozens, hundreds or thousands of mini trials involving diverse questions, depending on the breadth of the plaintiff's claims. This can be done using tools such as a demurrer, summary judgment/adjudication and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Protecting Due Process. A PAGA action may cover a vast number of employees, each of whom may have a markedly different experience relevant to the alleged violations. Under those circumstances, determining whether the employer committed Labor Code violations with respect to each employee may raise practical difficulties and lead to due process violations. While the California Supreme Court declined to opine in its Estrada decision on the circumstances in which due process violations may exist, it left open the possibility that PAGA claims could be stricken where a defendant's due process claims were infringed. Repealing PAGA. In November 2024, California voters will have an opportunity to vote on the future of PAGA directly by choosing whether to repeal it and replace it with the California Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act of 2024 (CFPEAA). The purpose of the CFPEAA is to streamline the current enforcement system and help employees collect any amounts they are owed quickly without the need for a private lawyer. Most importantly, a private right of action and attorneys' fees would cease to exist under the proposed CFPEAA. [GN] SIKA AG: Charles Sues Over Concrete Admixtures Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES W. HUGHES CONSTRUCTION, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES US, LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; and RPM INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00460-UA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful agreement to fix the prices for (a) concrete admixtures, (b) cement additives, and (c) admixtures for mortar (collectively, "CCAs"). On October 17, 2023, the Plaintiff were made aware of the Defendants' unlawful scheme when the European Commission ("EC") announced that it had, together with the United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA") and the Turkish Competition Authority ("TCA"), carried out surprise antitrust inspections (also known as "dawn raids") of "companies active in the construction chemicals sector in several Member States." The Defendants continued to consolidate the CCA market and with no meaningful check on their pricing power, they instituted price increases on CCAs, and surcharges on top of those price increases, including shipping surcharges and raw material surcharges. Defendants have an understanding that they will not undercut one another on the one thing they can compete on, price. Beginning no later than January 1, 2018, the Defendants entered into an agreement to consolidate their control over the global CCA market and thereafter, fix the prices for CCA. This agreement, which was effectuated through, among other things, Defendants' continual, close interactions with each other in connection with several inter-defendant sales and acquisitions, says the suit. This rapid industry consolidation, and the Defendants' effective elimination of their independent competitors, helped cement Defendants' cartel, which in turn resulted in Plaintiff and members of the Class paying alleged supra-competitive prices for CCAs in the United States. SIKA AG manufactures construction materials. The Company produces concrete and mixtures, mortar, sealants and adhesives, tooling resins, anti-static industrial flooring, and acoustic materials. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Matthew P. McCahill, Esq. Elana Katcher, Esq. Jason A. Uris, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com mmccahill@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com juris@kaplanfox.com - and - John P. Marshall, Esq. Matthew S. Sullivan, Esq. WHITE & ALLEN, P.A. 106 South McLewean Street PO Box 3169 Kinston, NC 28501 Telephone: (252) 527-8000 Email: jmarshall@whiteandallen.com msullivan@whiteandallen.com SYSCO LOS ANGELES: Valdez Sues Over Underpaid Pension Funding ------------------------------------------------------------- Johnny Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sysco Los Angeles, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-10504 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 15, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for delinquent and underpaid pension funding in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. This ERISA class action seeks to recover Defendant's delinquent contributions and underpayments of Plaintiff's and his co-workers' annual pension contributions that Defendant agreed to pay to the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust, pursuant to Article XVII of the applicable collective bargaining agreements between Defendant and the Teamsters' Union, Local 848 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but which were not fully paid, and are thus delinquent, says the suit. The Plaintiff further seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to make the proper and agreed-upon contributions on a forward-going basis. Plaintiff Valdez is a truck driver currently employed by Sysco Los Angeles, Inc. and who has been employed by Defendant for more than 30 years. Sysco Los Angeles, Inc. sells, markets, and distributes food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 504 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com TATTLE TAIL: Glessing Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip Retention ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIA GLESSING, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TATTLE TAIL, INC. d/b/a "Tattletale Lounge," DENIS KAUFMAN, and RICHARD R. SCHRONCE, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00174-TWT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 12, 2024) seeks all unpaid minimum and overtime wages, recovery of unlawful deductions, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated waitresses to make certain payments to Tattle Tale employees and others which caused Plaintiffs' (and those similarly situated) wages to drop below the minimum wage and applicable overtime wage, thereby constituting illegal deductions under the FLSA. These unlawful deductions were an illegal retention of earned tips under the FLSA, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Mia Glessing began her employment with the Defendants in approximately March of 2021. The Plaintiff and the collective were employed by Defendants as waitresses at the Tattle Tale during the past three years. Tattle Tail, Inc. owns and operates an adult entertainment club in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia known as the "Tattle Tale" or "Tattletale Lounge."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonah A. Flynn, Esq. FLYNN LAW FIRM, LLC 4200 Northside Parkway NW Building One, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone/Facsimile: (404) 835-9660 E-mail: jflynn@flynnfirm.com TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Mott Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Mott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TDS Telecommunications, LLC, and TDS Telecom Service LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00185 (D. Colo., Jan. 22, 2024), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and to recover unpaid wages under the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order (the "COMPS Order"), The Colorado Wage Claim Act 101 (the "Wage Claim Act"), and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("the Minimum Wage Act"). The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but were not paid an overtime premium for their overtime hours. Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the other similarly situated individuals to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay. The Defendants knew that Plaintiff and the other similarly situated individuals worked unpaid overtime hours because Defendants required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to record their work hours in Defendants' electronic timekeeping system. Plaintiff's timesheets reflected that Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week on a regular basis. Upon information and belief, those similarly situated also recorded overtime hours on their timesheets. Although Defendants had a legal obligation to do so, Defendants did not make, keep, or preserve adequate or accurate records of all the hours Plaintiff and the other similarly situated individuals worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Network Specialist I and II in Berthoud, CO, and remotely from his home in Severance, Colorado from November 2019 to March 2023. The Defendants are part of a U.S.-based organization offering high speed internet, TV entertainment, and phone services to rural and suburban communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Brome, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA, 94104 Phone: (415) 277-7239 Fax: (612) 215-6870 Email: dbrome@nka.com - and - Reena I. Desai, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 South, 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 215-6870 Email: desai@nka.com TEMPUS UNLIMITED: Smolinski Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rita Smolinski, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TEMPUS UNLIMITED, INC., Case No. 00245 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00389. The Plaintiff She alleges Tempus has violated, and continues to violate: the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") by failing to pay her for all hours worked as well as premium overtime wages for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek; the Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") by failing to pay her all earned wages, including overtime wages, for all hours worked; and the Philadelphia Wage Theft Ordinance ("PWTO") by depriving her of earned wages and premium overtime wages for work performed in Philadelphia and/or under a contract made in Philadelphia.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James N. Boudreau, Esq. Adam R. Roseman, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1717 Arch Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215.988.7833/7826 Email: James.boudreau@gtlaw.com rosemana@gtlaw.com TINTRI INC: $7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP issued a statement regarding the Tintri Securities Settlement: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO In re TINTRI, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Lead Case No. 17-CIV-04312 (Consolidated with Nos. 17-CIV-04321; 17-CIV-04618; and 20-CIV-00980) This Document Relates To: CLASS ACTION ALL ACTIONS. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Assigned for All Purposes to: Honorable Susan L. Greenberg Dept. 3 Date Action Filed: 09/20/17 TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TINTRI, INC. ("TINTRI") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH TINTRI'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO") ON OR ABOUT JUNE 30, 2017.1 THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on August 15, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg at the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 3, Courtroom 2B, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")2 for $7,000,000.00 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amount; (4) to pay Plaintiffs for representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. This Action is a consolidated securities putative class action brought on behalf of those Persons and entities who purchased or acquired Tintri common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus for Tintri's June 30, 2017 IPO, against Tintri and certain of its officers, directors, and underwriters of Tintri's IPO (collectively, "Defendants") for, among other things, allegedly misstating and omitting material facts from the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Tintri's IPO. Plaintiffs allege that these purportedly false and misleading statements resulted in damage to Class Members when the truth was revealed. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED TINTRI COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JUNE 30, 2017 THROUGH AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 26, 2017, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), along with the required supporting documentation, by mail (postmarked no later than April 16, 2024) or online (no later than April 16, 2024). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by April 16, 2024, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder, and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.TintriSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to: Tintri Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 301171 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP James I. Jaconette 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 800-449-4900 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY JULY 25, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR REPRESENTATION OF THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY JULY 25, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: December 26, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO THE HONORABLE SUSAN L. GREENBERG 1 For purposes of this Settlement only, the Class consists of all Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tintri common stock between June 30, 2017 and December 26, 2017, inclusive. 2 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.TintriSecuritiesLitigation.com. All capitalized terms used herein have the same meaning as the terms defined in the Stipulation. TREMENDOUS LLC: Liou Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tremendous LLC. The case is styled as Glenn Liou, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tremendous LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00437 (D.N.J., Jan. 24, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Tremendous -- https://www.tremendous.com/ -- is the simplest way to send rewards and payouts around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LEGAL, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., #1A Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-2332 Email: troylegalpllc@gmail.com TRIDANT SOLUTIONS: Scott Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tridant Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Everett Clinton Scott, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tridant Solutions, Inc., Case No. BCV-24-100237 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 23, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Tridant Solutions -- https://tridantsolutions.com/ -- is a seasoned professional services firm that combines service excellence with operational responsiveness.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Farzan Bijan Amir Mohseni, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com TRUEACCORD CORP: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The case is styled as Jessica Williams, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No. 3:24-cv-00049-TSL-RPM (S.D. Miss., Jan. 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is the industry-leading recovery and collections platform powered by machine learning and a consumer-friendly digital experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Kittell, Esq. THE KITTELL LAW FIRM P. O. Box 568 283 Losher Street, Suite B Hernando, MS 38632 Phone: (662) 298-3456 Fax: (855) 896-8772 Email: ckittell@kittell-law.com TSG INTERACTIVE US: Sykes Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melanie Sykes, Brian Tucker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TSG Interactive US Services Limited doing business as: Pokerstars, Case No. 1:23-cv-07210 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 24, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10183-ADB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. TSG Interactive US Services Limited doing business as PokerStars -- https://www.pokerstars.com/ -- is an online poker cardroom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel Nicole Dapeer DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - 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 The Defendants are represented by: Jason K. Fagelman, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 855-8120 Email: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Joseph Kenmore Morgan Hughes, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP / NEW YORK 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 318-3363 Email: joe.hughes@nortonrosefulbright.com UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Rule 23.2, certifying a class and appointing his counsel as class counsel. By doing so, United violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Court should certify the following classes to provide relief to the thousands of United employees who were harmed by the United's refusal to comply with these important civil rights laws: -- Rule 23(b)(2) class "All individuals who submitted a request for a reasonable accommodation from United's COVID-19 vaccine mandate due to a sincerely held religious belief or medical disability and then faced the choice of: (1) abandoning their religious beliefs or medical needs (i.e., get vaccinated); (2) accepting indefinite leave; or (3) being fired or otherwise separated." This class is entitled to injunctive relief and punitive damages for the harmful impossible choice United imposed. -- Rule 23(b)(3) subclasses "All employees United deemed customer facing who received an accommodation due to a sincerely held religious belief or medical disability and who were put on unpaid leave." This subclass is due backpay and punitive damages. "All employees United deemed non-customer-facing who received an accommodation due to a sincerely held religious belief or medical disability and were subject to the purposely punitive masking-and- testing accommodation." This subclass is due punitive damages for being forced to endure United's impossible choice and then being forced into unlawfully harsh accommodations. United Airlines is a major American airline headquartered at the Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SBvLBc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark R. Paoletta, Esq. Gene C. Schaerr, Esq. Brian J. Field, Esq. Cristina Martinez Squiers, Esq. SCHAERR |JAFFE LLP 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 787-1060 Facsimile: (202) 776-0136 E-mail: mpaoletta@schaerr-jaffe.com - and - John C. Sullivan, Esq. David Austin R. Nimocks, Esq. S|L LAW PLLC 610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000 Cedar Hill, TX 75104 Telephone: (469) 523-1351 Facsimile: (469) 613-0891 E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com UNITED GROUND: Francis Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT --------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK FRANCIS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED GROUND EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-16822 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 15, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to fully compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law required overtime rate when they worked more than 40 hours in a given workweek. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a "Passenger Assistant Agent" from in or about March of 2022 up to and including the separation of his employment which occurred in or about August of 2023. United Ground Express, Inc. is a subsidiary of United Airlines that supports airline operations including but not limited to checking bags at counters and assisting passengers onto their planes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Michael T. Petela, Jr., Esq. LEMBERG LAW 43 Danbury Rd Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com mpetela@lemberglaw.com UNITED GROUND: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Luz Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED GROUND EXPRESS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB 2326322 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00168. In this action, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts eight causes of action for: "Failure To Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages"; "Failure to Pay Overtime Wages"; "Failure To Provide Meal Periods"; "Failure To Authorize and Permit Rest Periods"; "Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination"; "Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements"; "Failure To Indemnify Employees for Expenditures"; and "Unfair Business Practices."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq. Heather E. Horn, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jbrophy@seyfarth.com hhorn@seyfarth.com - and - Bailey K. Bifoss, Esq. SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: bbifoss@seyfarth.com UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Conduct ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bethany Rodgers of GoErie reports that an Erie nurse has filed a class-action lawsuit accusing healthcare giant UPMC of exploiting its market dominance by "artificially depressing" wages and saddling employees with heavy workloads. These issues are only worsening as the system continues to expand its footprint in Pennsylvania, the antitrust complaint alleges, as patients and health care workers have fewer alternatives and UPMC faces less competition. The federal lawsuit was brought forward in January by Victoria Ross, a nurse who has worked at UPMC Hamot in Erie. However, the class action is seeking redress for skilled healthcare workers employed by UPMC since early 1996. Based in Pittsburgh, UPMC is Pennsylvania's largest non-governmental employer and the 18th-largest hospital system in the nation, posting $26 billion in annual revenues, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges the nonprofit has achieved much of its growth through "anticompetitive conduct," as it acquires or merges with other healthcare providers and, in many cases, forces cuts or closures at thes facilities. UPMC has shut down four hospitals between 1996 and 2019 and downsized several others, the lawsuit states, adding that the system has eliminated more than 350 beds and about 1,367 full-time jobs. The accusations contained in the lawsuit echo many of the claims raised in 2023 by SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania, which asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether UPMC is violating federal labor laws. How is UPMC harming workers, according to the lawsuit? Ross, the nurse, is represented by Daniel C. Levin, a lawyer from Philadelphia. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Erie, part of the Pittsburgh-based Western District of Pennsylvania. Ross' lawsuit alleges that the hospital system's market dominance has allowed it to suppress workers' wages. In fact, employees have a running joke that UPMC stands for "You Pay Me Cheap," according to the filing. The complaint also asserts that UPMC tends to increase staff workloads in communities where it corners the healthcare market. Requiring each staff member to handle more patients can result in compromised work conditions and a degraded quality of care, the nurse claims. However, because of UPMC's sizable presence, healthcare workers in many areas would struggle to find employment outside of the system. "The lack of viable options for employment outside of UPMC hospitals, in effect, forces UPMC workers to accept UPMC's increasingly onerous terms of employment," the complaint states. And UPMC has effectively shut down workers' attempts to demand better employment conditions, the lawsuit claims. Only 2% of UPMC workers in Allegheny County belong to a labor union, it states. More than 130 unfair labor practice charges have been lodged against UPMC since 2012, with about three-quarters of them related to workers' unionization attempts, according to the suit. How does the lawsuit claim UPMC is exercising control over its workers? The lawsuit alleges that UPMC controls employees through non-compete clauses and through the fear that if they leave their jobs, they'll end up on a "'do not rehire' blacklist" that would severely curtail their job opportunities in regions dominated by the health system. In addition, the way UPMC has crafted its salary structure limits the ability of employees to increase their earnings by taking a job in a different hospital within the network, according to the lawsuit. More:Brian Durniok, interim UPMC Hamot president, earns job permanently. What led to new hire? These factors deprive UPMC workers of employment mobility — taking away one of their most important tools for professional advancement, the complaint alleges. "When workers are prevented from seeking alternative comparable employment opportunities, they are not only inhibited from pursuing better work opportunities, but they are also inhibited from being able to negotiate better working conditions with their current employer," the complaint says. "UPMC not only has the power to exercise such restrictions but imposes them to the detriment of its employees." What does UPMC say about these allegations? UPMC attorneys have not yet submitted a rebuttal to the initial complaint, and a spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment from the USA TODAY Network. However, a spokesman did refer TribLive to a previous remark from UPMC, saying the health system has no policy that would prevent an employee from being hired elsewhere. They also asserted that their staffing levels are related to patient needs and not to established ratios. [GN] UNLIMITED AMMO: Bolton Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unlimited Ammo, LLC. The case is styled as Aaron Bolton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unlimited Ammo, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-00226 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 24, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Unlimited ammo -- https://unlimitedammo.com/ -- is the best kept secret in the ammo industry..[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 VALLEY, AL: Little Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling ------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Santori Little, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 15, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled Santori Little, et al. v. The City of Valley, Alabama, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00044-RAH-KFP, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. In this putative class action filed on January 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs claim that they and other area residents were criminally charged with misdemeanors and jailed by the City of Valley, Alabama for failing to pay their monthly garbage bills. They also claim that the City's garbage revenue structure constitutes an illegal tax. They sue the City of Valley, Alabama and AmWaste, LLC for violating and conspiring to violate their constitutional rights, racketeering and extortion, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs bring five counts in the second amended complaint, including three under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983: (1) violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count I), against the City only; (2) violation of the Eighth Amendment (Count IV), against the City only; and (3) conspiracy to violate Plaintiffs' constitutional rights (Count II), against both the City and AmWaste. Count III alleges a claim under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act against the City and AmWaste, and Count V is a state law claim of unjust enrichment against the City only. On February 17 and March 23, 2023, the Defendants each moved to dismiss the claims against them. On December 15, Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order holding that: (1) Defendant AmWaste, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED; (2) Defendant City of Valley's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED; (3) Counts I, II, III, and IV of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice and Count V is DISMISSED without prejudice; (4) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case. The appellate case is captioned as Santori Little, et al. v. The City of Valley, Alabama, et al., Case No. 24-10120, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on January 12, 2024.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SANTORI LITTLE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Allan L. Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LAW CENTER, LLC PO Box 2434 Birmingham, AL 35201 Telephone: (205) 205-1529 - and - William J. Baxley, Esq. BAXLEY JACKSON LAW FIRM 300 Vestavia Pkwy Ste 3200 Vestavia Hills, AL 35216 Telephone: (205) 290-5262 - and - Darrell L. Cartwright, Esq. CARTWRIGHT LAW CORPORATION PO Box 383204 Birmingham, AL 35238-3204 Telephone: (205) 222-5900 - and - Brian Michael Clark, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC 301 19th St N Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 - and - John Mark White, Esq. WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, PC 2001 Park Pl Twr Ste 1400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 323-1888 Defendants-Appellees THE CITY OF VALLEY, ALABAMA and AMWASTE, LLC are represented by: Bart Gregory Harmon, Esq. ALEXANDER HYDE, LLC 2138 Moores Mill Rd Ste A Auburn, AL 36830 Telephone: (334) 246-2333 - and - Callie Leopard Barrow, Esq. Benjamin Brock Coulter, Esq. BURR & FORMAN, LLP 420 N 20th St Ste 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 458-5308 VANGUARD GROUP: Lardizabal Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Aidan Lardizabal and Mayra Alejandra Puentes, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00055108-CU-MC-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00172-BTM-DEB. The Complaint seeks to assert claims for violation of California Civil against Vanguard on behalf of Plaintiffs and "all other similarly situated consumers who are residents of California" who "used, visited, and/or engaged in transactions via" the investor.vanguard.com website. The Complaint alleges that the Vanguard Terms of Use (the "Terms") waive consumers' right "to make negative statements regarding Defendants," including because the Terms instruct website users "not to use the Site to: submit, upload, post, e-mail, transmit, or otherwise make available any statement or content that personally attacks or is derogatory toward Vanguard as an entity, Vanguard employees, any Vanguard products or services, or any Vanguard Materials," and because the Terms require "users to agree not to use any of Vanguard's product or brand names 'in any manner that disparages or discredits Vanguard.'"[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David R. Singh, Esq. Amy Tu Quyen Le, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 4th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134 Phone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 Email: david.singh@weil.com amy.le@weil.com - and - David L. Yohai, Esq. Blake J. Steinberg, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 Email: david.yohai@weil.com blake.steinberg@weil.com VERTEX ENERGY: Levson Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Phil Levson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VERTEX ENERGY, INC., BENJAMIN P. COWART, and CHRIS CARLSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00197 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Jan. 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00291 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Securities Exchange Act. Vertex Energy -- https://www.vertexenergy.com/ -- is a leading energy transition company that specializes in producing both renewable and conventional fuels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Eubank, Esq. Wilson Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: 334-269-2343 Email: James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashwin J. Ram, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Ste 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 439-9443 Email: aram@steptoe.com - and – Elizabeth Cassady, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 429-3000 Email: ecassady@steptoe.com - and - Allen E. Graham, Esq. P.O. Box 2727 Mobile, AL 36652 Phone: (251) 432-4481 - and - Evan Goldstick, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1114 Avenue Of The Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 378-7506 Email: egoldstick@steptoe.com - and - William E. Shreve, Jr., Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP P.O. Box 2727 Mobile, AL 36652 Phone: (251) 432-4481 Fax: (251) 433-1820 VERTEX ENERGY: Passmore Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as William C. Passmore, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VERTEX ENERGY, INC., BENJAMIN P. COWART, and CHRIS CARLSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00128 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Jan. 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00290 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Securities Exchange Act. Vertex Energy -- https://www.vertexenergy.com/ -- is a leading energy transition company that specializes in producing both renewable and conventional fuels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle S. Myers, Esq. Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq. Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Email: dmyers@rgrdlaw.com dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com - and - Roger H. Bedford, Jr., Esq. BEDFORD, BEDFORD & ROGERS P.O. Box 669 Russellville, AL 35653 - and – Sidney W. Jackson, III, Esq. P.O. Box 894 Mobile, AL 36601 Phone: (251) 433-3131 The Defendant is represented by: Ashwin J. Ram, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Ste 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 439-9443 Email: aram@steptoe.com - and – Allen E. Graham, Esq. William E. Shreve, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 2727 Mobile, AL 36652 Phone: (251) 432-4481 VICTORY AUTO: Polanco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------- JUAN POLANCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VICTORY AUTO GROUP LLC; SPARTAN AUTO GROUP LLC; VICTORY MOTORS LLC; PHILIP ARGYOPOULOS, individually; DIANE ARGYOPOLOUS, individually; and SCOTT BONFORTI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10900 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2023) seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime pay, unpaid commissions and unlawful deductions for Plaintiff and any similarly situated co-workers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees in the position of sales representatives at Victory Auto who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the FLSA, and specifically the collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), to remedy violations of the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA. The Plaintiff also brings claims pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to pay minimum wage, overtime pay, failure to pay agreed upon wages, unlawful retention of wages, and unlawful deduction of commissions in violation of the NYLL and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 142, and the common law. Plaintiff Polanco was employed by Victory Auto at the dealership located at 4070 Boston Road, Bronx, New York as a sales representative from approximately March 13, 2016 through July 6, 2018. Victory Auto Group LLC is a privately owned car dealership in the Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. David J. Sack, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 VICTORY STARTS NOW: Palmer Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nyesha Palmer, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees v. VICTORY STARTS NOW, INC. and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01775 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 23, 2024), is brought under the California Labor Code, the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and for violations of Business and Professions Code as a result of the Defendants failure to compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages owed every pay period; failure to pay wages when employment ends; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide meal breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide personnel records; and failure to provide pay records. The Defendant did not provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they were entitled for all work performed and did not compensate her and others for all hours worked pursuant to California Labor Code. Plaintiff and others were not paid for all hours worked and were not paid for time that they worked "off the clock." This is so because the company had a policy and practice of rounding down hours worked and "time shaving," which led to the employees not being paid for all hours worked, which would include the minimum wage. Moreover, to the extent employees worked through their meal periods and those meal periods were interrupted, they were not compensated for that time, which would be akin to a minimum wage violation. Moreover, Plaintiff and others would engage in work-related tasks before clocking in or after clocking out for which Plaintiff was not compensated at all in violation of California's minimum wage laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff started working for the Defendant in 2020 as an Inspiration Manager. VICTORY STARTS NOW, INC. is a California corporation, doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 VITACUP INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitacup, Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Vitacup, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00578 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vitacup, Inc. -- https://www.vitacup.com/ -- offers vitamin & superfood coffee and tea company.[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 WANABANA LLC: Food Products Contain Lead, Johnson Claims -------------------------------------------------------- MADISON JOHNSON and ELVIN DOWLING, individually and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WANABANA LLC and WANABANA USA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60086 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of persons who purchased certain WanaBana apple sauce and apple cinnamon fruit puree pouches, against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured, marketed, and sold these products while recklessly or intentionally failing to disclose they were toxic and unfit for human consumption and contained hazardous levels of lead, as well as high levels of chromium and potentially other toxic materials. WanaBana prominently advertises their products as "Only Fruit" and tout the products as having high quality, purity, and safety. The advertising and packaging of these products is consequently materially false, deceptive, and misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public, says the suit. Through this action, Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of classes of other similarly situated purchasers of WanaBana products, seek all applicable and available relief and damages under the laws of Florida and the United States. WanaBana LLC is a national limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1625 N. Commerce Pkwy., Suite 320 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: nczipperian@millershah.com - and - Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Dustin L. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law dschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law WARRIOR MET COAL: Gibson Files Suit in N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warrior Met Coal Inc. The case is styled as Douglas Gibson, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Warrior Met Coal Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-00095-ACA (N.D. Ala., Jan. 26, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Warrior Met Coal, Inc. -- https://warriormetcoal.com/ -- provides coal mining services. The Company produces and exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Machelle Haynes, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM 301 St. Louis Street Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 266-5477 Email: jessi.haynes@beasleyallen.com - and - Larry A. Golston, Jr., Esq. Lauren Elizabeth Miles, Esq. Leon Hampton, Jr., Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC 272 Commerce Street P O Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: larry.golston@beasleyallen.com lauren.miles@beasleyallen.com Leon.Hampton@beasleyallen.com - and - Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC P O Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com WAYFAIR LLC: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wayfair, LLC. The case is styled as Clarence Frost, Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wayfair, LLC doing business as: Wayfair, Case No. 0:24-cv-00165-JMB-LIB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wayfair Inc. -- http://www.wayfair.com/-- is an American e-commerce company based in Boston, Massachusetts that sells furniture and home goods online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder THRONDSET & MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE LLC One Central Avenue West, Suite 101 St. Michael, MN 55330-55376 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Fax: (763) 226-2515 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com WE OLIVE LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against We Olive, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. We Olive, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00590 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We Olive -- https://weolive.com/ -- combines California's finest certified Extra Virgin Olive Oil, gourmet foods, and hand-crafted wines into one delicious tasting experience.[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 WEEE! INC: Jia Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Helen Jia, Tingting Ding, Haoquan Liang, Xiaofang Mei, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Weee! Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-02314 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 25, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00534-AT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Weee! Inc. -- https://www.sayweee.com/en -- is America's largest online Asian supermarket, offering the best and most up-to-date Asian foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Joseph Lindemann, Esq. Donna R. Dishbak, Esq. LINDEMANN LAW FIRM 9777 Wilshire Blvd. Fourth Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 279-5269 Fax: (310) 300-0267 The Defendants are represented by: John Tyler Mills, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP 1 Battery Plaza, 28th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 269-5500 Email: jtmills@grsm.com - and - Justin D. Knight, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 986-5900 WEIBEL INCORPORATED: Hunter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weibel Incorporated. The case is styled as Maria Esther Hunter, Frank Weibel, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Weibel Incorporated DBA Weibel Family Vineyards & Winery, RB Wine Associates, LLC DBA Rack & Riddle, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0000950 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 25, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Weibel Incorporated doing business as Weibel Family Vineyards & Winery offers custom wine services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com WELLS FARGO BANK: Xiong Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Pammy Xiong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 23STCV30805 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 22, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00564-CAS-AS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Wells Fargo -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an American multinational financial services company with a significant global presence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John Owen Campbell, Esq. Kristin Lee Walker-Probst, Esq. Tomio B. Narita, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON US LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (714) 557-3800 Email: owen.campbell@wbd-us.com kristin.walker-probst@wbd-us.com tomio.narita@wbd-us.com WELLTOK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Griffith-Sullivan Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ VALERIE GRIFFITH-SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLTOK, INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-13103-ADB (D. Mass., Dec. 15, 2023) is a class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated Welltok clients, patients, and/or employees including personally identifiable information and protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. On July 26, 2023, Welltok learned that Pension Benefit Information, LLC's network, to which PSC provided software services, and upon which Welltok relied for the sending and receiving of sensitive information, had been penetrated by a cyberattack. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants' inadequate data-security practices. Welltok, Inc. is a consumer activation company that provides products and/or services to healthcare organizations and other companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6486 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com erittergordon@locklaw.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-4478 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Andrea R. Gold, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEL LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW #1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0931 E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com WHITEPAGES INC: Klaneski Files Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whitepages Inc. The case is styled as Rosa Lee Klaneski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whitepages Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00121-JCC (W.D. Wash., Jan. 26, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Whitepages -- https://www.whitepages.com/ -- is a provider of online directory services, fraud screening, background checks and identity verification for consumers and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Mader Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN MADER, individually and for others similarly situated v. THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00145 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 12, 2024) is a collective action lawsuit by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Mader and the other similarly situated employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But Defendant does not pay them proper overtime. Instead, Williams misclassifies Plaintiff Mader and similarly situated employees as independent contractors and pays them a flat amount for each day worked, regardless of the total number of hours they worked in a workweek. The Plaintiff worked for Williams as an inspector from approximately January 2023 until November 2023 whose primary duties include inspecting interstate pipelines to ensure the safe transportation of oil and gas in interstate commerce. The Williams Companies, Inc. is engaged in the business that is related to the exploration, production, and transportation of oil and gas goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com WILMAR OILS & FATS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilmar Oils & Fats (Stockton), LLC. The case is styled as Marcelo Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wilmar Oils & Fats (Stockton), LLC, Insperity PEO Services, L.P., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0000945 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 25, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Wilmar Oils & Fats (Stockton), LLC is in the food and beverage manufacturing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com YESCOM USA INC: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yescom USA, Inc. The case is styled as Pedro Liz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Yescom USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00570 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. YescomUSA -- https://www.yescomusa.com/ -- is an all-in-one hobbyist store and wholesale distributor.[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 [*] Registration Now Open for 8th Annual Class Action Conference ---------------------------------------------------------------- Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference. Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action industry for this one-day event. CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club on Monday, May 6, 2024. To register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ For sponsorship or speakership opportunities, please contact: Will Etchison Tel: 305-707-7493 E-mail: will@beardgroup.com ********* 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 ***