/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240301.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 1, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 45 Headlines 5 FRIENDS CORP: Faces Solis Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. AIRSCULPT TECHNOLOGIES: Johnson Investigates Securities Claim ALCORN INSURANCE: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Melgren AN APPLE A DAY: Roa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ANCESTRY.COM INC: Sancruzado Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Court Stays Smiley Class Action ASPEN DENTAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Privacy Violation BACUS FOODS: Cota Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action BARNES & NOBLE: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota BASICALLY BOWS: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BELL PARTNERS: Wilson Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts BMO BANK: Faces Class Action Suit Over Customer Loan Payments BRIGHTLINE INC: Castro Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida BRIGHTLINE INC: Jackson Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida BRIGHTLINE INC: Ndifor Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida BRIGHTLINE INC: Rosa Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida CADENCE BANK: Self Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas CALIFORNIA ACCESS: Armenta Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices CANADA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info CAPITAL ONE: Pitts Alleges Breach of Contract, Deceptive Practices CHARLES AGRUSA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to CSRs, Roberts Says CLIPPER REALTY: Rhea Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages COMMUNITY HEALTH: Foust Suit Transferred to E.D. Tennessee COMMUNITY HEALTH: Wells Suit Transferred to E.D. Tennessee COMPLETECARE HEALTH: Santiago Files Suit in D. New Jersey CONTINENTAL AG: Purcell et al. Sue Over Price Fixing on Tires CROOK & MARKER: Vickers Sues Over Misleading Labels of Beverages CROWN ALLEY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Fails to Pay Wages Weekly, Phoenix Claims DAVLYN INVESTMENTS: May Face Class Action Over Data Breach DEEZ FOOD: Karim Sues Over Cashiers' Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages DENNIS GROSS COSMETOLOGY: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York DOTDASH MEDIA: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota EEBOO CORPORATION: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ELIZABETH M. WHITEHORN: Arcidiacono Files Suit in N.D. Illinois EMMANUEL COLLEGE: Parchinskya Sues Over Alleged Data Breach ENLOE MEDICAL: Lovgren Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages EXPEDIA INC: Court Dismisses Resort Fee Class Action Suit FACEBOOK INC: Court Rejects $90M Settlement of Privacy Class Suit FOX FACTORY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Market Info GENZYME CORP: Fabrazyme Product Safety Class Suit Continues GREGORY FUNDING: Neal Sues Over Unfair Debt Collections Practices GREYHOUND LINES: Eldridge Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation HAIRBRELLA INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HASTINGS MUTUAL: Able Masonry Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois HERTZ CORP: Disabled Drivers' Group Files Suit Over ADA Violations HF MANAGEMENT: Collins Sues Over Unpaid Back Wages HUGGLE GROUP LLC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York INDUSTRIAL COLOR: Paul Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages INTELLIHARTX LLC: Perrone Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida INTERPLASTIC CORP: Barahona Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages IRRESISTIBLE ME: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York IRWIN NATURALS: Vaughn Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising JEROME WALLACE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in USA Suit JJP TRUCKING: Lewis et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages JOHNSON CITY, TN: Bid to Amend Conspiracy Suit Partially Granted JOLLEY POTTER: Bid to File Class Cert Reply in TEP Suit Granted JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Assessment Fees KAMAN CORP: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to Arcline KNIGHT BARRY: Lewandowski Sues Over Unsecured Private Information KURANDA USA INC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LEMANDA ENTERPRISES: Faces Tzoc Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. LORENZO LANDSCAPING: Rodriguez & Padilla Sue Over Labor Law Breach MAMA O'S PREMIUM KIMCHI: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MANGIA 57 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Najera Suit Says MASK POT INC: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MATSUM INC: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MERCURY SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures MOUNTAIN VIEW HOSPITAL: Lewis Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee MOUTHFUL'S INC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NAPCO SECURITY: Faces Zornberg Securities Suit in EDNY NAPLES RESTAURANT: Gettinger Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces New Class Suit Over Agent Commissions NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination NLC PRODUCTS INC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to April 11 NOVA HOME: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Memo OLO INC: Class Settlement in Shareholder Suit Gets Initial Nod ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Hubacek Securities Suit in Delaware ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL: Pineda Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages PCAM LLC: Faces De Salazar Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suits Over App's Consumer Data Gathering PELICAN INVESTMENT: Dillman Files Suit in D. Delaware PERIO INC: Rivera Sues Over Shaving Cream's False Representations PERMIAN RESOURCES: Santillo Sues Over Antitrust Law Violations PERRY JOHNSON: Abdaljalil Suit Transferred to E.D. New York PERRY JOHNSON: Shanahan Suit Transferred to E.D. New York PERRY JOHNSON: Slotchiver Suit Transferred to E.D. New York PETSENSE LLC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Geva Files ADA Suit in S.D. Indiana PIPSNACKS LLC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PORT AUTHORITY: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid PROCTER & GAMBLE: Valinsky Suit Transferred to E.D. New York PROXIMA INC: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York R & S ARMY-NAVY: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York RAGS APPAREL: Figueroa Sues Over Breach of Caller ID Rules RAINBOW GROCERY: Faces Class Suit Over Labor Violations RAS PLANT BASED: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York RBW STUDIO LLC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ROSIE O'GRADY'S: Gettinger Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida RTX CORPORATION: Belcan Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Brief RTX CORPORATION: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Borozny Suit S & G HOTEL CORP: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SACATON CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Linares Suit Alleges SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Hears Arguments on Mass Arbitration SECURITY ALLIANCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Neofotistos Says SHELL CHEMICAL: Flynn Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ST. CHARLES HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Charity Care STONEPEAK CERAMICS: Moore Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Retaliation TAILORED LIVING: Basham Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action TAQUERIA LA NORTENA: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages TEICHERT ENERGY: Jeronimo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TOMORROW ENERGY: Vazquez Sues Over Employee Misclassification TOYOTA FINANCE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Dealer Loans TRANS UNION: Must Respond to Brooks Class Cert Bid by March 1 TRICOPIAN INC: Jelinksi Files ADA Suit in N.D. California TRINITY TEEN: Supplemental Briefing on Class Cert. Issue Entered UNAPOLOGETIC FOODS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Discrimination Class Suit for $6M USA DOG SHOP: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VERTIV CORP: Faces Torok Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices VIRGINIA VILLAGE: Court Certifies Property Mismanagement Suit WELLS FARGO: Penuela and Charan Sue Over Disclosure Agreement WHOLE EARTH: Monteverde & Associates Investigates Merger Class Suit WICHITA, KS: Court Narrows Claims in Progeny Suit WM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Cook Files ADA Suit in N.D. Georgia WONDERSHARE TECHNOLOGY: Blum Files Suit in C.D. California [*] 8th Annual Class Action Conference in May, Register Today! [*] Canada Courts Rule Enforceability of Class Suit Waiver Clauses [*] PARRIS Gets $5.625MM Settlement for Greeting Cards Retailers Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Reports $221MM Total Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Reports $20MM Potential Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 915 Cases as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Faces 575 PI Lawsuits as of Dec. 31 ********* 5 FRIENDS CORP: Faces Solis Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSE SOLIS, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 5 FRIENDS CORP (DBA THAI CUISINE), and ABU KHALEF SHOWRAV, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01058 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. Plaintiff Solis worked from approximately September 2016 until August 2022 at Defendants' Bronx, New York facility, where his duties included making food deliveries. 5 Friends Corp., d/b/a Thai Cuisine, is a Thai restaurant based Bronx, 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 AIRSCULPT TECHNOLOGIES: Johnson Investigates Securities Claim ------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating whether AirSculpt Technologies (NASDAQ: AIRS) ("AirSculpt" or the "Company") or any of its executive officers or others violated securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to timely disclose material, adverse information to investors. The investigation focuses on investors' losses and whether they may be recovered under federal securities laws. What if I purchased AirSculpt securities? If you purchased securities and suffered significant losses on your investment, join our investigation now: Click Here to Join the Investigation Or for more information, contact Jim Baker at jimb@johnsonfistel.com or (619) 814-4471 There is no cost or obligation to you. What is Johnson Fistel investigating? On February 24, 2024, Fuzzy Panda Research issued a report titled "AirSculpt -- A "Liposuction Chop-Shop' Cover-up of Patient's Death, Sanctioned/Under-Certified Doctors, Fabricated Reviews, and Photoshopped Images Exposed." The report states among other things that "AirSculpt procedure as the "cause of death" for a young 37-year-old mother" and, AirSculpt facilities have continued to lie to patients and claim there has never been a patient death. Additionally, the report stated that, "Doctors lying about being Board Certified" and " ALCORN INSURANCE: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Melgren ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID MELGREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALCORN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-03474-RJD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Reona J. Daly entered an order adopting joint report and proposed scheduling and discovery order. The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if such modification would impact (1) the date of any court appearance, (2) the deadline for completing the mandatory mediation session or the mandatory mediation process (if applicable), (3) the deadline for completing all discovery, or (4) the deadline for filing dispositive motions. Alcorn is an agency providing clients commercial lines, personal lines, and life & health insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i7T9kO at no extra charge.[CC AN APPLE A DAY: Roa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynaldo Roa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AN APPLE A DAY, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01644 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 22, 2024), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants’ failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”), and the California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and practice of: Failing to pay employees for all hours worked, including all minimum wages, and overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failing to provide employees with timely and duty-free meal periods in compliance with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance With the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failing to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a rest period violation occurred; Failing to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses incurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within the time period specified by California law when employment terminates; and Failing to maintain accurate records of the hours that employees worked, Failing to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for the Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as a caregiver. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, Esq. Edwin Kamarzarian, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com lilit@moonlawgroup.com ekamarzarian@moonlawgroup.com ANCESTRY.COM INC: Sancruzado Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SANCRUZADO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANCESTRY.COM INC. D/B/A ARCHIVES, Defendant, Case No. 191840484 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade Cty., Feb. 13, 2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal conduct of collecting debt from Plaintiff in violation of Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the Plaintiff's time zone. However, the Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with him between the said hours. As such, by and through the electronic communication, Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the suit. Ancestry.com Inc., d/b/a Archives, is an American genealogy company based in Lehi, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Court Stays Smiley Class Action -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN SMILEY, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01107-MJM (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Matthew J. Maddox entered an order granting in part Arizona Beverages' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and/or to Stay the Action: The Court further entered an order that: -- The civil action is stayed until further Order of the Court, without prejudice to Defendant later asserting arguments that the matter should be dismissed when the stay is lifted; and -- The parties shall file a status report within 21 days of any final judgment or order of dismissal in Jamison v. Arizona Beverages USA, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-920-RFL (N.D. Cal.), or a motion to lift the stay when appropriate; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint and/or Stay Action is denied as moot. The Court finds the parties here and in the Jamison case to be substantially similar. Plaintiff contends that the two suits are not substantially similar because the instant suit concerns "sour fruit" snack products and four specific chemical preservatives identified in her First Amended Class Action Complaint, while the Jamison suit "only" concerns "mixed fruit" snack products and just two of the four chemical preservatives at issue in the instant case. Ms. Smiley brings this putative class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 against Arizona Beverages USA, LLC on behalf of herself and two classes of consumers, alleging violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and unjust enrichment. On March 1, 2023, Infique Jamison filed a putative class action suit against ABUSA and Hornell in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. rizona Beverages is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V6B29l at no extra charge.[CC] ASPEN DENTAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Privacy Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ariana Portalatin, writing for Becker's Dental, reports that a new class-action lawsuit alleges that Chicago-based Aspen Dental shared private data with third parties, according to court documents. The lawsuit, filed Feb. 16 by six plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, claims Aspen Dental violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act by installing tracking software on its website and sharing private healthcare data with third parties. Those parties include Facebook, Google, Bing and Salesforce, according to the documents. "As a matter of company policy, Aspen Dental does not comment on active litigation. The commitment to this policy is grounded in the respect for the legal process and ensuring a fair and impartial resolution. We understand the public's interest in these matters but believe it is in the best interest of all parties involved to refrain from making public statements during ongoing legal proceedings," a spokesperson said in a statement shared with Becker's. [GN] BACUS FOODS: Cota Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Madeline Cota, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Bacus Foods Corp.; Brandt Bacus; Jared Bacus; Case No. 4:24-cv-00032-JCH-MSA (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying case as an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and authorizing her to send notice of the pendency of this action to her similarly situated co-workers. Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the following employees: "All similarly situated current and former delivery drivers employed at the Bacus Jimmy John's stores owned, operated, and controlled by Defendants nationwide, during the three years prior to the filing of this Class Action Complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter, who elect to opt-in to this action." This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of delivery drivers who work at the Defendants' Jimmy John's franchise stores. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' delivery drivers are all employed according to the same terms: they receive at, close to, or below minimum wage for the hours they worked while completing deliveries, they drive their own cars to deliver Defendants' food, and they are not properly reimbursed for their delivery related expenses. Plaintiff claims that these employment terms result in a violation of the FLSA. Bacus is a franchisee, owner, and operator of Jimmy Johns Gourmet Sandwich shops. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nFG2DF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Laura E. Farmwald, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com lfarmwald@billerkimble.com www.billerkimble.com - and - Frank Raimond, Esq. RAIMOND & STAINES LLC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 884-9636 E-mail: Frank@raimondstaines.com BARNES & NOBLE: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barnes & Noble Inc. The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-00142-PJS-DLM (D. Minn., Jan. 18, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Barnes & Noble Booksellers -- https://www.barnesandnobleinc.com/ -- is an American bookseller.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC One Central Avenue West, Suite 203 St. Michael, MN 55376 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com BASICALLY BOWS: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Basically Bows and Bowties, LLC. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Basically Bows and Bowties, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01113 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Basically Bows & Bowties -- https://www.basicallybows.com/ -- is a premiere children's specialty boutique located in the heart of Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BELL PARTNERS: Wilson Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Christine Wilson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bell Partners, Inc., Bel Stoughton, LLC, Case No. 2382CV01016 was removed from the Norfolk County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10390-LTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Rent Lease & Ejectment for Civil Miscellaneous Case. Bell Partners Inc. -- https://bellpartnersinc.com/ -- operates as a real estate management company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John R. Yasi, Esq. YASI & YASI, P.C. Two Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Phone: (978) 741-0400 Email: john.yasi@yasiandyasi.com - and - Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 373 Winch Street Framingham, MA 01701 Phone: (508) 872-1261 Email: kquat@quatlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen J. Orlando, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 21 Custom House Street, 5th Flr. Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (857) 504-6104 Email: sorlando@grsm.com BMO BANK: Faces Class Action Suit Over Customer Loan Payments ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel A. Edelman, writing for Cook County Record, reports that BMO Bank has been accused in a class action lawsuit of improperly applying borrowers' payments towards future payments or interest-only, instead of the principal amount. The suit alleges that this practice forces customers to pay more than they should over the life of their loans. The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs William and Kimberly Newsom who argue that BMO's actions are inconsistent with the terms of their contracts and increase the interest paid by consumers. According to the complaint, the Newsoms, residents of Smyrna, Delaware, purchased a recreational vehicle in January 2020 through a motor vehicle retail installment sales contract which was immediately assigned to Bank of the West. This bank later merged into BMO Bank. According to the complaint, the couple regularly made extra payments intended to be applied to the principal amount. However, they allege that BMO allocated these extra payments to future payments or future interest payments unless they called and made the payment over the phone and specified the additional amount was to be applied to principal. The complaint also mentions similar grievances from other customers found on internet forums. The Newsoms are seeking redress for themselves and other affected customers who were allegedly not informed about how their extra payments were being applied. The lawsuit was filed Feb. 20 in Cook County Circuit Court. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Daniel A. Edelman and Tara L. Goodwin, of the firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, of Chicago. [GN] BRIGHTLINE INC: Castro Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kyle Castro, as father and next friend of E.N.C., C.J.C. and E.J.C., minors, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BRIGHTLINE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02909 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 Florida on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20620-RAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Breach of Contract. Brightline -- https://www.hellobrightline.com/ -- is a technology-enabled behavioral health home for children and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Wall, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 800-6225 Email: michael@hsglawgroup.com - and - Peter J. Jannace, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC 515 Park Avenue Louisville, KY 40208 Phone: (502) 636-4333 Email: peter@hsglawgroup.com - and - Caren P. Sencer, Esq. WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professional Corporation 1375 55th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (510) 337-1001 Fax: (510) 337-1023 Email: csencer@unioncounsel.net courtnotices@unioncounsel.net The Defendant is represented by: Anne Margaret Voigts, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 601 South California Avenue, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (650) 422-6710 Email: avoigts@kslaw.com BRIGHTLINE INC: Jackson Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Donisha Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRIGHTLINE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02291 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 Florida on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20615-RAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Brightline -- https://www.hellobrightline.com/ -- is a technology-enabled behavioral health home for children and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason Barney, Esq. Tyler Bean, Esq. Kyle McLean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-376-3739 Email: kmclean@sirillp.com mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com BRIGHTLINE INC: Ndifor Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Anthony Ndifor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRIGHTLINE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02291 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 Florida on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20617-RAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Brightline -- https://www.hellobrightline.com/ -- is a technology-enabled behavioral health home for children and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon A. Tostrud (Sbn 199502) TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 278-2600 Fax: (310) 278-2640 Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com - and - Brian P Murray GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 682-5340 Fax: (212) 884-0988 Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com BRIGHTLINE INC: Rosa Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Terrance Rosa and Ryan Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRIGHTLINE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02132 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 Florida on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20611-RAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Brightline -- https://www.hellobrightline.com/ -- is a technology-enabled behavioral health home for children and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Marcio W. Valladares, Esq. Ra O. Amen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 223-5402 Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com MValladares@forthepeople.com RAmen@forthepeople.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 358-6913 Fax: (415) 358-6923 Email: MRam@forthepeople.com MAppel@forthepeople.com CADENCE BANK: Self Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Joseph Self, Malinda Self, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Cadence Bank, Case No. 60CV-24-00354 was removed from the Pulaski County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00142-LPR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Cadence Bank -- https://cadencebank.com/ -- is a commercial bank with dual headquarters in Tupelo, Mississippi and Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: (501) 312-8500 Fax: (501) 312-8505 Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David Koehler, Esq. Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP Searcy Building, Suite 205 10809 Executive Center Drive Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (214) 743-4568 Fax: (972) 813-6268 Email: david.koehler@us.dlapiper.com lyn.pruitt@us.dlapiper.com CALIFORNIA ACCESS: Armenta Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Feliciano Armenta, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA ACCESS SCAFFOLD, LLC, a California LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01588 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2024), is brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure challenging Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of California Labor Codes; California Business and Professions Code ("Unfair Competition Law"); and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class for all hours worked and overtime; failed to provide Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class with compliant meal breaks, rest breaks, and/or recovery periods; failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failed to provide proper sick pay; and failed to timely pay all wages due to Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class upon termination or within 72 hours of resignation. The Defendants have maintained practices across its locations which have failed and continue to fail to pay Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees all wages. Specifically, Defendants have a company-wide policy of subjecting Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees to work off-the-clock before and after every shift; and of rounding time to Defendants' benefit, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a forklift driver at Defendants' location in City of Industry, California. The Defendants have operated in California as construction services company.[BN] the Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com CANADA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- A national class action has been commenced against the federal government, BGRS Limited and SIRVA (Federal Court file no. T-314-24-ID 1) on behalf of all current and former RCMP members, members of the Canadian Armed Forces and other individuals working for the federal government whose personal information has been compromised in a major cyberbreach. The claim alleges that cybercriminals accessed and stole 1.5 terabytes of information from the servers of BGRS and SIRVA. The stolen data included personal information such as names, contact information (address), passport details and financial information for individuals who used BGRS and SIRVA relocation services at any point between 1999 and the hack in 2023. The claim alleges that cybercriminals have made this data available on the dark web. The claim further alleges that the stolen information is highly sensitive and in the wrong hands it can be used to commit identity fraud and should have been deleted and destroyed from the servers of BGRS and SIRVA after class members relocated. Instead, it was wrongfully retained for years afterwards, contrary to PIPEDA, exposing class members to the hack. This case highlights growing concerns over digital privacy, especially regarding how user data is handled by service providers in the digital age and the role of the government of Canada in monitoring its vendors who provided services on its behalf. To register with Charney Lawyers please go to https://www.charneylawyers.com/bgrs-sirva-class-action/home or email kgalts@charneylawyers.com. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Pitts Alleges Breach of Contract, Deceptive Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHANTELL PITTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION and CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00075-MWM (S.D. Ohio, February 19, 2024) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and equitable relief from Defendant Capital One's promises, misrepresentations, and omissions concerning the interest rate paid on its online "360 Savings" account, and its deceptive and unfair conduct with respect to setting that rate. The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants' conduct for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Capital One, N.A. breached the terms of its contract with Plaintiff and the Class by offering higher interest rates on other accounts, such as the virtually identical 360 Performance Savings account Capital One, N.A. launched with no notice to 360 Savings accountholders. Headquartered in McLean, VA, Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company that offers credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS AND GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305)479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Chris Gold, Esq. Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com - and - Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com Telephone: (202) 350-4783 CHARLES AGRUSA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to CSRs, Roberts Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LYNETTE ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CHARLES AGRUSA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-10339-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich., February 8, 2024) seeks to recover for Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and alleged contractual obligations, and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes, and ordinances. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Call Center Representative from November 2022 to the present. Allegedly, Defendant subjected Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to its policy and practice of failing to compensate its call center employees for their necessary boot-up and call ready work, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate them as required under applicable federal and state laws. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff regularly worked at least 40 hours per workweek. However, the Defendant never compensated Plaintiff for this necessary time worked off-the-clock, says the suit. Charles Agrusa Inc. operates a customer service call center location in Michigan and employs remote call center employees in Michigan. Doing business as JMS & Associates, the company provides healthcare companies across the country with value-added outsourcing solutions, including data capture, claims adjudication and plan building services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Ave, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com CLIPPER REALTY: Rhea Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- MARCUS ANTHONY RHEA, on behalf of himself, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. CLIPPER REALTY, INC., d/b/a CLIPPER REALTY, CLIPPER REALTY OP L.P., d/b/a CLIPPER REALTY L.P. CLIPPER REALTY CONSTRUCTION LLC, CLIPPER 107 CH LLC, d/b/a CLOVER HOUSE, CLIPPER EQUITY LLC, d/b/a CLIPPER EQUITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01040 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2024) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to improper deductions from his supposed salary; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The suit asserts that Plaintiff and the Class have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them regular and overtime wages for all hours worked due to improper deductions from their supposed salaries. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges on an individual basis that, he is entitled to recover the Paid Time Off earned over the course of his employment but which were improperly applied by Defendants against his salary even though Plaintiff worked during said leaves. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a Mechanical Operations Manager for all of Defendants' buildings in February 2019. Plaintiff's employment was terminated around April 20, 2023, as (according to Defendants) his position was eliminated. The Defendants are real-estate companies, which buy, sell, develop, and provide property management for residential and commercial properties in the New York area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 COMMUNITY HEALTH: Foust Suit Transferred to E.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sarah Foust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc. and Cleveland Tennessee Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Tennova Healthcare-Cleveland, Case No. 3:24-cv-00129 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00069 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Community Health Systems -- https://www.chs.net/ -- is one of the nation's leading healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com whogg@mybackwages.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Blayne E. Fisher, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Shoreline Blvd., 6th Floor Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com blayne@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com - and - Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 Email: mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Wells Suit Transferred to E.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lisa Wells, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc. and Metro Knoxville HMA, LLC doing business as: Turkey Creek Medical Center, Case No. 3:24-cv-00125 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00068-TAV-DCP to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Community Health Systems -- https://www.chs.net/ -- is one of the nation's leading healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com whogg@mybackwages.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Blayne E. Fisher, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Shoreline Blvd., 6th Floor Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com blayne@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com - and - Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 Email: mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com COMPLETECARE HEALTH: Santiago Files Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Completecare Health Network. The case is styled as Chad Santiago, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Completecare Health Network, Case No. 1:24-cv-00360-KMW-AMD (D.N.J., Jan. 22, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. CompleteCare Health Network -- https://completecarenj.org/ -- is a healthcare platform that offers primary care,pediatrics,mental health and other cares to individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com CONTINENTAL AG: Purcell et al. Sue Over Price Fixing on Tires ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL PURCELL, LUKE CUDDY, and ELIZABETH TWITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others individually situated, Plaintiffs v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GÉNÉRALE DES ÉTABLISSEMENTS; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; AND DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00938 (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2024) alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The class action arises from an unlawful agreement between Defendants some of the largest tire manufacturers in the United States and the world to artificially increase and fix the prices of new replacement tires for passenger cars, vans, trucks and buses sold in the United States. Defendants coordinated price increases, including through public communications. Moreover, Plaintiffs seeks to represent a Class of individuals that purchased tires indirectly from Defendants at supracompetitive prices to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief as is appropriate, based on Defendants violation of state and federal antitrust laws, says the suit. Headquartered at Vahrenwalder Strasse 9, 30165 Hannover, Germany, Continental AG is a German company that has four group sectors: Automotive, Tires, ContiTech, and Contract Manufacturing. It manufactures and distributes a complete premium line of passenger, light truck and commercial tires for original equipment and replacement markets. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: burt@whafh.com - and - Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com CROOK & MARKER: Vickers Sues Over Misleading Labels of Beverages ---------------------------------------------------------------- LACHAE VICKERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROOK & MARKER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01261-NJC-ST (E.D.N.Y., February 19, 2024) arises from the Defendant's misleading labeling of its ready-to-drink beverages in violation of the New York General Business Law. The Defendant represented these beverages as "Margarita" in a "Classic Lime" variety, directly above "Flavor Made With Tequila." However, the said products do not contain tequila, at least in a form expected by consumers. A fine print on the bottom of the their package' ingredient list identifies "organic brewed alcohol" instead of "tequila," says the suit. Headquartered in New Jersey, Crook & Marker LLC produces, markets, labels and distributes alcoholic beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - James Chung, Esq. JAMES CHUNG LAW P.C. 4322 216th St Bayside, NY 11361 Telephone: (718) 461-8808 E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com CROWN ALLEY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crown Alley, LLC. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Crown Alley, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01197-HG (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Crown Alley, LLC -- https://www.crownalleynyc.com/ -- is a narrow, easygoing bar for cocktails, beers & happy hours, along with sandwiches, salads & sides.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Fails to Pay Wages Weekly, Phoenix Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM PHOENIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00965 (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2024) arises from the Defendants' unlawful practice of paying its manual workers every other week in violation of the New York Labor Law, which requires companies to pay their manual workers on a weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner. From approximately June 2023 to January 2024, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a maintenance technician at multiple WeWork locations in lower Manhattan. More than 25% of Plaintiff's job responsibilities at Cushman included manual labor requiring frequent walking, bending, and lifting, including tasks such as replacing toilet parts, cleaning and maintaining various appliances, fixing doors, replacing filters in HVAC systems, and painting and spackling, among other similar tasks. However, Plaintiff was paid every other week, rather than weekly, says the suit. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Cushman & Wakefield U.S. is one of the largest real estate services firms in the country with a substantial presence throughout New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com DAVLYN INVESTMENTS: May Face Class Action Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Davlyn Investments data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who received a notice stating they were impacted. Davlyn Investments, a property management company based in San Diego, California, detected unusual activity within its computer systems on December 25, 2023. In January, the company confirmed that certain data, including consumers’ names and Social Security numbers, may have been accessed without authorization. If your information was exposed in the breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Davlyn Investments to ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] DEEZ FOOD: Karim Sues Over Cashiers' Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- ABDEL ABU SUBEH KARIM, Plaintiff v. DEEZ FOOD MARKET INC, JOSE PIEDRASANTA ESTRADA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20499-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 8, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cashier from approximately 2021 through late October or November 2023. While employed by the Deez Food Market, Inc., the Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 60-77 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate, says the suit. Deez Food Market, Inc. operates a convenience store that also runs a gambling business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 E-mail: martin@legalopinionusa.com DENNIS GROSS COSMETOLOGY: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dennis Gross Cosmetology, LLC. The case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dennis Gross Cosmetology, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01234-LDH-JRC (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dr. Dennis Gross -- https://drdennisgross.com/ -- personally formulates cruelty-free skin care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com DOTDASH MEDIA: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dotdash Media, Inc. The case is styled as Clarence Frost, Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Dotdash Media, Inc. doing business as: The Spruce, Case No. 0:24-cv-00129-JMB-LIB (D. Minn., Jan. 17, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dotdash Media, Inc. doing business as The Spruce -- https://www.thespruce.com/ -- is a source for practical, real-life tips and inspiration to help make the very best home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC One Central Avenue West, Suite 203 St. Michael, MN 55376 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com EEBOO CORPORATION: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eeboo Corporation. The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Eeboo Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01116 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. eeBoo -- https://eeboo.com/ -- is a boutique toy and puzzle brand that specializes in beautiful, well-made, educational games, learning toys, gifts for children and adults.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com ELIZABETH M. WHITEHORN: Arcidiacono Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elizabeth M. Whitehorn, et al. The case is styled as Salvatore Arcidiacono, William Brown, William Sarchet, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Elizabeth M. Whitehorn, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services; Dulce Quintero, in their official capacity as Secretary of the Illinois Department of Human Services; Case No. 2:24-cv-01238 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute for Declaratory Judgement. Elizabeth Whitehorn -- https://hfs.illinois.gov/about/director.html -- is a committed public servant who has worked at the intersection of policy, law, and politics her entire career.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Celeste Baughman, Esq. Kimberlee Sue Ullner, Esq. SB2, INC 1426 N. 3rd Street, Suite 120 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: (843) 359-1095 Email: abaughman@sb2inc.com kullner@sb2inc.com EMMANUEL COLLEGE: Parchinskya Sues Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH PARCHINSKYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRUSTEES OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE, Defendant, arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information, personally identifiable information, and financial information stored within Defendant's information network and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. On no later than April 27, 2023, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial information as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PHI/PII and financial information, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial information. Not until after months it claims to have discovered the Data Breach did Defendant begin sending the Notice to persons whose PHI/PII and financial information Defendant confirmed was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Breach. In fact, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant, dated January 31, 2024, stating that their PHI/PII and financial information was involved in the Data Breach. The Notice included, among other things, basic details of the Data Breach, Defendant's recommended next steps, and Defendant's claims that it completed its investigation of the Data Breach on January 16, 2024 -- but tellingly did not announce when they discovered of the Data Breach, which occurred early in 2023, says the suit. Trustees of Emmanuel College is and are responsible for a private college located at 400 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 944-9455 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com ENLOE MEDICAL: Lovgren Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Lovgren and Gina Cuneo, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV00200 (Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., Jan. 18, 2024), is brought in violation of the California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized statements, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to provide wages when due, failure to pay sick pay wages, discrimination and retaliation violation of FEHA; and, constructive discharge and other adverse employment actions in violation of public policy. The Defendant requires the Plaintiffs to work without paying them for all the time they are under the Defendant's control. Among other things, the Defendant requires the Plaintiffs' to work while clocked out during what is supposed to be the Plaintiff's off-duty meal break. The Plaintiffs' were from time to time interrupted by work assignments while clocked out for what should have been the Plaintiffs' off-duty meal break. The Defendant, as a matter of established company policy and procedure, administers a uniform practice of rounding the actual time worked and recorded by the Plaintiffs, always to the benefit of DEFENDANT, so that during the course of their employment, The Plaintiffs are paid less than they would have been paid had they been paid for actual recorded time rather than "rounded" time. As a result, the Plaintiffs forfeit minimum wage, overtime wage compensation, and off-duty meal breaks by working without their time being correctly recorded and without compensation at the applicable rates. the Defendant's policy and practice not to pay the Plaintiffs for all time worked, is evidenced by the Defendant's business records, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant in California. The Defendant offers an array of health care services from its 298 bed hospital.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com EXPEDIA INC: Court Dismisses Resort Fee Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Weltrowska and Erica Shadeed, writing for Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog, report that on February 19, 2024, the Quebec Superior Court issued its judgment on the merits of the class action Lussier v. Expedia, Inc. et al. At issue was the manner in which certain fees charged directly by hotels, commonly referred to as "hotel fees," "resort fees" or "establishment fees" (Resort Fees) were displayed on the expedia.ca, travelocity.ca and ca.hotels.com websites (the Websites) during the class period. The plaintiff alleged that, by failing to include Resort Fees in the total price displayed as of the first step in the reservation process, the defendants had breached subsection 224(c) of the Consumer Protection Act (the CPA), which prohibits merchants from charging a higher price for goods or services than advertised, as well as section 14.1 of the Regulation Respecting Travel Agents (the RRTA). The plaintiff also alleged that the display of Resort Fees on the Websites violated the CPA's provisions regarding false and misleading representations and the failure to mention an important fact. While these Resort Fees were displayed on multiple occasions throughout the booking process, the plaintiff alleged that this was not sufficient and that they should have been included in the total price of the room, as of the first step in the reservation process. The trial judge dismissed the class action in its entirety, finding that the defendants had not breached the RRTA or any of the provisions of the CPA that were invoked, and that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of any damages. With respect to the alleged violations, the trial judge highlighted the fact that any Resort Fees charged by hotels were announced "early in the reservation process" in a manner that was "easily understandable" even for a credulous and unexperienced consumer. As for plaintiff's allegations relating to the display of an incomplete or fragmented price, the trial judge distinguished the case from other cases involving price fragmentation on the basis that the Resort Fees in question are fixed fees charged directly by hotels once at the property, which allowed guests to benefit from various services offered by the hotels, as opposed to fees charged by the defendants at the time the reservation is made. The trial judge also concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove that class members were entitled to either a reduction of their obligations under section 272(c) CPA or damages. The trial judge relied on the Court of Appeal's judgment in Fortin v. Mazda Canada Inc., which establishes the principle that a consumer's right to compensation or to obtain a reduction of their obligations requires proof of damages. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the trial judge determined that such damages had not been proven. Here, class members were clearly made aware of any Resort Fees charged by the hotels once they arrive at the property, both before making a reservation and immediately thereafter when they received their reservation confirmation and nonetheless willingly chose to reserve a hotel room (or not to cancel their reservation). The Court also noted that Resort Fees would have been charged by the hotels irrespective of the customer's chosen reservation method (whether directly on the hotel's website or on any other travel website). Finally, the trial judge also noted that the class members had or could have used the facilities for which the Resort Fees were charged, and many had made multiple subsequent reservations after having been charged Resort Fees a first time. In these circumstances, it was not open to class members to seek recovery of the amounts paid, either under the guise of a reduction of their obligations or as damages. As for plaintiff's claim for punitive damages in the amount of CA$15 million, it was also dismissed as the trial judge concluded that the defendants had, at all times, conducted themselves in good faith, with diligence and had worked proactively to improve the transparency of the pricing displays on the Websites over time. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Court Rejects $90M Settlement of Privacy Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan News Company reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the challenge to a $90 million settlement of a class action against Facebook based on its tracking of users' online activities without their consent -- the seventh largest settlement ever reached in a class action based on invasions of privacy -- holding that the higher amount advocated by the objectors, exceeding $1 trillion, would be constitutionally impermissible. Under the objectors' view, Facebook should have had damages against it grounded on the $10,000 per-violation penalty provided for in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Wednesday's decision, in a memorandum opinion, upholds approval by District Court Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of California of the settlement. Under it, $26.1 million is to be paid to class counsel and Facebook must delete "all cookie data" it improperly received or gathered during the period from April 22, 2010 through Sept. 26, 2011. $1.24 Trillion Figure The judges -- Danielle J. Forrest, Ryan D. Nelson, and Gabriel P. Sanchez -- declared: "With 124 million potentially affected Facebook users in the United States, the district court properly rejected the $1.24 trillion in statutory damages proposed by Objectors as an unreasonable baseline that would violate due process . . . . The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in accepting class counsel's estimate that $900 million represented a 'best-day-in-court' verdict, and by determining that the $90-million settlement -- in conjunction with injunctive relief benefitting the entire class -- was fair and reasonable." There was no error, the Ninth Circuit said, in the District Court judge's application of a presumption in favor of the settlement being fair. They set forth: "The district court merely noted that the 'absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms. . . are favorable to the class members.' Consideration of the class's reaction to the proposed settlement is one of the factors the district court should consider in evaluating a settlement proposal." Attorney Fees Upheld Addressing the amount of the attorney fees approved by Davila, the judges said: "The district court did not abuse its discretion in using the percentage-of-the-fund method in finding the proposed attorneys' fees of S26.1 million (29% of the settlement fund) reasonable. The court cited class counsel's creation of new law in the Ninth Circuit and its attainment of substantial monetary and injunctive relief for the class as grounds for the upward departure of four percentage points above the 25-percent benchmark." The case is In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation, 22-16903. In a separate class action in the Northern District of California, there was a settlement last year under which $725 million will be distributed to Facebook users based on their data being shared with third-parties without their consent. [GN] FOX FACTORY: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Market Info ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Fox Factory Holding Corp. (NASDAQ:FOXF) common stock between May 6, 2021 and November 2, 2023. Fox Factory engineers, manufactures, and markets high-performance suspension products for numerous applications throughout the world. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants misled the market concerning demand for Fox Factory's products and inventory levels. On November 2, 2023, after the markets closed, Fox Factory filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, reporting that its net sales for the third quarter of fiscal year 2023 decreased 19.1% year-over-year due to "higher levels of inventory across various channels." In addition, Fox Factory cut its full-year sales guidance from between $1.67B and $1.70B to between $1.45B and $1.47B, citing continued inventory destocking in its SSG segment. On this news, the price of Fox Factory's common stock declined $22.60, or 37.34%, to close at $60.53 per share on November 3, 2023, harming investors. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Fox Factory Holding Corp. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by April 22, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click . All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against Fox Factory Holding Corp. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 adumas@robbinsllp.com (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsllp.com [GN] GENZYME CORP: Fabrazyme Product Safety Class Suit Continues ----------------------------------------------------------- Marissa Zupancic, writing for jurist.org, reports that the US has faced numerous issues involving prescription drugs, especially with rising costs and accessibility of life-saving and required medications. One class action lawsuit (Wilkins et. al. v. Genzyme Corporation (n/k/Sanofi) against Genzyme (now owned by and known as Sanofi, the eighth largest pharmaceutical company in the world) alleges the company intentionally misled patients with Fabry disease as to the safety and efficacy of their product in the early 2010s. Specifically, the case concerns Genzyme's patent on Fabrazyme, one of the only effective enzyme replacement therapies available in the US to help treat Fabry disease. Fabry disease is a lethal genetic disease which most commonly affects men. The disease prevents the enzyme alpha-galactosidase-A from effectively breaking down lipids and can cause strokes, heart failure, and kidney failure. Research estimates about 4,000 men in the US have Fabry disease. An ongoing lawsuit alleges that the Fabrazyme drug became contaminated and that Genzyme misled patients as to the safety of the drug due to the contamination and sent patients an ineffective lower-than-recommended dose due to a supply shortage. The plaintiffs allege that these actions of Genzyme accelerated the progression of the disease. The class, including four children, alleges that the batches of Fabrazyme became infected with a vesivirus and that Genzyme provided low doses which caused the Fabry disease to progress. Plaintiffs alleged that due to defective Fabrazyme injections, their Fabry disease progressed, causing symptoms ranging from adverse mental health effects like depression to allergic reactions, and from the development of hematological cancer to heat intolerance, among many other life-altering, severe symptoms. Due to the progression of the Fabry disease, patients also experience shortened life expectancy. When Fabrazyme is administered in the proper dosage, it stops the progression of the disease, allowing those with Fabry disease to live a closer-to-average lifespan. The class alleges that around July 2009, Fabrazyme became contaminated with Vesivirus 2117 in its manufacturing facility in Massachusetts. Specifically, the virus targeted Chinese hamster ovary cells being grown and collected in the facility. The class further asserts that Genzyme continued selling this defective Fabrazyme to patients under the misrepresentation that the vesivirus was not harmful to humans. However, experts and scientific research has shown that vesiviruses can present threats to human health, such as by killing human embryo cells. Additionally, Allen Black who represented plaintiffs in this litigation explained that the vesivirus is considered a "Category B biodefense pathogen," in the same category as salmonella and hepatitis A. Black further stated: "The only reason the vesivirus was not known to cause disease in humans was because it was never injected into a human until it was injected into my clients." As a result of an inspection performed by the Food and Drug Administration, the Fabrazyme contamination was discovered, and Genzyme was ordered to pay more than $175 million and be monitored by government oversight for almost a decade. The complaint further alleges that Genzyme provided low doses (one-third to one-tenth of a regular dose) of Fabrazyme to patients with Fabry disease from 2009 to 2012, going against the FDA's approved usage and dosage for the drug, in response to a drug shortage. Genzyme told its patients that the shortage would last only six to eight weeks. The shortage did not end until over two years later. Because Fabry disease is terminal without proper treatment, the low doses provided to patients allegedly caused the disease to progress faster than it would have with the approved dose given every two weeks. Following research completed by the European Medicines Agency, low dosing with Fabrazyme was effectively banned in Europe because it was shown to cause accelerated disease progression. One member of the class reported a loss of 80% of her hearing due to the low dosing recommended by Genzyme. Additionally, Black explained that some of the members of the class have now died from Fabry disease. Further, Black argued that "if the drug had been triaged at full dose for at least some people, some Americans would have had a therapeutic benefit instead of 100 percent useless treatment for everyone." The plaintiffs claim that Genzyme outlined a contingency plan in the event of a Fabrazyme shortage, providing favorable treatment to markets in Europe. Specifically, the class alleges that the "business value" of the market in Europe necessitated Genzyme's favorable treatment of its European market, placing the low dosage sacrifices solely on the shoulders of US patients. The alleged rationale for this action was that another drug, Replagal, was readily available in Europe, but not in US markets. The plaintiffs argue that Genzyme did not want to lose its market share in Europe where patients could easily switch to another drug, while US customers were left without an accessible alternative and were left to ration their treatments. In an unsealed complaint from a lawsuit (Schubert v. Genzyme) , the plaintiffs alleged that through the discovery process, they uncovered information regarding the Australian medical regulatory authority. Specifically, that complaint contended that Australia considered whether, in an effort to save patients money on treatment, Fabrazyme would still work if patients took a lower dose of 0.2 mg/kg. The complaint claimed that Genzyme "warned that reducing that dose across the board would have significant clinical consequences for patients, with the expectation that many would suffer irreversible harm as a result of insufficient dosing… and treatment at a higher dose is necessary and may be life-saving." At an oral argument in May 2023, the plaintiffs argued that both types of conduct on their own were enough to cause injury. If the low dose was the sole action taken by Genzyme to ration Fabrazyme, this would have been enough to result in individuals' injuries. Additionally, the contamination of Fabrazyme with the vesivirus also would have been enough on its own to cause injury. Yet, the class claims that both of these worked in tandem to cause increased injury to patients needing Fabrazyme. Furthermore, the class is suing to get the money back that Genzyme billed Medicare and Medicaid charged for the reduced dose. Black estimates that, with compounded interest over a decade, the money damages are around $2 billion. Black summed up the argument by stating: I argue that a drug company cannot pick the survivors of a drug shortage based on market share instead of medical need. It is tortious conduct for a corporation to make these decisions under principles of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. During a critical drug shortage, patients are vulnerable, so the company should act with the highest duty of care to preserve health, safety and lives. Self-dealing by sending the drug to customers who don't absolutely need it in order to maximize "market share" is not only immoral but illegal. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion on February 15, allowing the plaintiffs to continue their lawsuit against Genzyme (Sanofi). Previously, a lower court held that the lawsuit was filed too late and that the plaintiffs lacked standing, or grounds to sue. On a purely procedural basis, the First Circuit opinion concluded that "the district court incorrectly dismissed plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing." The court also upheld the dismissal of four of the plaintiffs' claims, explaining that those four "waited far too long before filing this lawsuit." Black explained he may petition the First Circuit for a rehearing en banc in regard to the four plaintiffs, which would mean the entire panel of judges on the court would hear the case instead of a panel of only three judges. The court returned the case back to the district court in order to answer two questions: whether the remaining claims withstand Genzyme's statute of limitations defense (that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit too late) and whether the complaint meets the requirements under procedural rule 12(b)(6) to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It is illegal under US law for a pharmaceutical company to market a drug for an unapproved, untested off-label use, such as for a reduced dose. US law allows the federal government to "march in" on a drug that has been federally funded in times of great need. The Bayh-Dole Act, enacted in 1980, provides federal agencies this power in situations when a medication is under a government-funded patent, specifically when necessary to provide for public health. However, the government has never exercised these march- in rights. One example of when the government was asked to exercise its march-in rights was with the drug Norvir, which boosts the effectiveness of other HIV/AIDS treatments. In 2012, the National Institute of Health (NIH) declined to exercise its march-in rights to allow a generic version of Norvir because the price was prohibitive to people needing treatment. Essentially, the NIH declined to use its march-in rights because it felt that the high price of drugs is a power left solely to the legislative branch, namely Congress, rather than federal agencies, which are a part of the executive branch. In December 2023, the Biden administration put out a document seeking to clarify when march-in rights are appropriate. In this guidance document, now available for public comment, criterion two lays out the framework an agency needs to use when considering march-in rights for a health product when the health or safety needs "are not reasonably satisfied" by a company. Specifically, the document lists questions an agency should ask to determine if there is a health and safety need, including, "What is necessary to resolve the health or safety need?" This answer could be a greater quantity of a pharmaceutical drug and/or more options to access similar products, like creating a generic version of a drug, among others. Another factor specifically targets prescription drug prices, asks the agency to consider if the price is "extreme, unjustified, and exploitative of a health or safety need." This question is especially poignant as the US faces much higher prescription drug costs when compared to similarly-situated countries. For example, a year's supply of Fabrazyme can cost an individual more than $600,000. One study found that US prescription drug prices are more than 2.5 times more expensive than other countries. Additionally, a CDC report from 2023 found that an alarming 8 percent of US adults took less than the prescribed dose of a prescription drug due to the high cost of their treatments. The House Ways and Means Committee recently held a hearing on chronic drug shortages, where more than 250 medications are facing a shortage in the US, exacerbated by reliance on foreign markets. The Federal Trade Commission also announced it will be investigating a chemotherapy shortage to determine whether pharmaceutical drug companies have hindered the sale of generic versions of drugs on the market. The issue of prescription drug accessibility intersects across price, availability and efficacy. The class action lawsuit against Genzyme alleges serious misconduct against a population with a rare genetic disease. Guidance issued by the Biden administration shows promise to encourage the federal government to use the never-before tool of march-in rights for government-funded patents, especially in an area as consequential as rare prescription drug efficacy and accessibility. [GN] GREGORY FUNDING: Neal Sues Over Unfair Debt Collections Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tanica Neal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gregory Funding LLC, Defendant, Case No: 0:24-cv-60280-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 19, 2024) alleges that Defendant sends debt collection communications after the hours of 9 P.M. and before the hours of 8 A.M. in violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. On October 18, 2023 at 6:34A.M. Eastern time and December 20, 2023 at 4:59A.M. Eastern time, Defendant sent Plaintiff debt collection communications to her email address. Such conduct constitutes an invasion of privacy to Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers throughout the United States, says the suit. Based in Tigard, OR, Gregory Funding is foreign limited liability company that operates as residential and commercial mortgage servicer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Young Kim, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEYS 2727 Ulmerton Rd., Ste. 270 Clearwater, FL 33762 Telephone: (877) 241-2200 E-mail: ykim@consumerlawattorneys.com federalservice@consumerlawattorneys.com - and - Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. Carter B. Lyons, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com carter@consumerjusticecenter.com GREYHOUND LINES: Eldridge Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN ELDRIDGE, SHANE SMITH, NATHANIEL COPELAND, ADOLPHUS MCLEAN, and SEAN REED, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly current and former non-exempt, hourly employees, Plaintiffs v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., FLIX SE, FLIX NORTH AMERICA, INC., FIRSTGROUP, PLC, FIRSTGROUP SERVICES, INC., TWENTY LAKE HOLDINGS LLC, and TWENTY LAKE MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 602665/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Feb. 13, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime, failure to pay timely wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements and pay rate notices, and retaliatory conduct for engaging in protected activity. Plaintiff Eldridge was employed by the Defendants from November 17, 2004 until September 29, 2022, when he was retaliatorily terminated from his position as a baggage lead, a manual labor position. Greyhound Lines, Inc. owns and operates intercity bus service in North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacqueline L. Aiello, Esq. Nicholas P Iannuzzi, Esq. BOYD RICHARDS PARKER & COLONNELLI, P.L. 1500 Broadway, Suite 505 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 400-0626 HAIRBRELLA INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hairbrella, Inc. The case is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hairbrella, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01164 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hairbrella -- https://www.hairbrella.com/ -- is in innovative headwear and accessories brand empowering customers to conquer to weather the elements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com HASTINGS MUTUAL: Able Masonry Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Able Masonry Development Co., individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. HASTINGS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BROWN & BROWN, INC., BROWN AND BROWN OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS, INC., and BROWN & BROWN OF ILLINOIS, INC., Case No. 2024-LA-000025 was removed from the Will County Circuit Clerk, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01338 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Breach of Insurance Contract. Hastings Mutual Insurance Company -- https://www.hastingsmutual.com/ -- is an award winning, regional property/casualty insurance company with a six-state, Midwest marketing territory.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. HERTZ CORP: Disabled Drivers' Group Files Suit Over ADA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Dworetzky, writing for Bay City News, reports that lawyers representing a proposed national class of disabled drivers navigated a class action lawsuit against the Hertz Corporation rental car company into federal court in San Francisco this week. They knew the way because they had driven the same route 28 years before. The suit alleges that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Hertz was required to make "hand controls" available on all of their rental cars, not simply on a handful of models. Hand controls allow drivers to accelerate and brake with one hand so the other hand can use a "spinner knob" for steering. Hand controls are frequently used by drivers who have disabilities that prevent them from controlling a vehicle with their feet and legs. The lawsuit was brought by lawyers with Disability Rights Advocates, a national nonprofit advocacy group with offices in California and New York. They knew the route to the courthouse because on Oct. 25, 1996 they filed a national class action against Hertz that, among other things, challenged a lack of available hand controls on rental cars. In May 2000, after a few years of litigation in federal court in San Francisco, they procured a settlement that required Hertz to install "removable or temporary hand controls, without any extra charge, on all vehicle models for which they can safely be operated and which will not require permanent alterations to the vehicle." The settlement went on to say that Hertz wouldn't require customers to give more than eight hours of advance notice of a need for the controls at major airport locations, and no more than 24 hours at other places. The settlement included an apparently negotiated press release (it was attached as an exhibit to the settlement agreement) that quoted a DRA spokesperson saying, "As more and more people with disabilities are traveling for work and leisure, the need to ensure full and equal access to rental vehicles has increased dramatically. The agreement . . . represents an important step in making travel more effective and dignified for men and women with disabilities." The release continued, now quoting a Hertz spokesperson, "The settlement reaffirms Hertz' historic commitment to serving the disability community and its industry leadership position in doing so." But there was a catch in the settlement agreement. Hertz was only committed for two years. Flash forward to 2024. Meredith Weaver, a DRA senior staff attorney, said "Unfortunately, in the intervening time, Hertz has reverted to discriminatory conduct and we're kind of back here again." A look at Hertz's website found a section captioned "Car Rental Services for People with Disabilities" that said "At most U.S. locations, cars equipped with hand controls are available at no extra charge. Reservations for cars equipped with hand controls can be automatically confirmed with as little as 8 hours notice at major airport locations, and as little as 24 hours notice at other major locations.*" The asterisk indicated a footnote and that is where the problem lay. The footnote says that "While Hertz is able to provide hand controls on certain vehicles within our fleet, due to customer safety concerns and vehicle availability considerations, we cannot provide adaptive driving devices on every model or confirm a particular make or model for a reservation." While the footnote is set out in smaller type and in bland and neutral words, the complaint alleges that what has happened is that Hertz has "drastically reduc[ed] the models and types of cars that may be reserved with hand controls, and adopt[ed] a new policy or practice of not placing hand controls in certain categories of vehicle at all." The only vehicle models available with hand controls, the complaint alleges, are two Kia sedans, one Kia minivan, a Chevrolet Silverado 1500 pickup truck and several different SUVs. "This means that Hertz openly excludes people who need hand controls from renting electric vehicles, convertibles, luxury sedans, and a variety of other vehicle categories that are available to the company's nondisabled customers," the complaint says. The complaint goes on to say that even the list of offered options is misleading because "there is often no option to reserve a minivan, truck, or sedan with hand controls, meaning that the only vehicle actually available to Plaintiffs and other people with disabilities is some type of SUV. This is particularly ironic because the height of most SUVs makes them difficult or impossible for people who use wheelchairs to get into without help, meaning that they are not a realistic option for many people who need hand controls." Availability isn't the only issue. "It is not uncommon for the cheapest car that Hertz will provide hand controls on to cost much more (over $100 more) than the cheapest car nondisabled customers can reserve for the same dates," the complaint alleges. The complaint says that DRA filed the lawsuit only after unsuccessfully attempting to convince Hertz to revise its policies and practices to expand availability and eliminate the other barriers to equal accessibility to the goods and services that non-disabled customers receive. The plaintiffs do not provide an exact estimate of the number of people they would represent if the proposed class action is certified by the court, but note that according to a November 2018 report from the U.S. Census Bureau, 5.5 million Americans (2.3% of the population) have mobility issues that require use of a wheelchair. If California has the same percentage, the plaintiffs estimate the in-state number to be 800,000. The ADA prohibits "discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of places of public accommodation." Car rental locations are places of public accommodation and Hertz cannot, the complaint contends, deny people with disabilities "the full and equal enjoyment of its goods and services that Title III requires." A request for comment on the lawsuit was not acknowledged by Hertz and the company has not yet filed a response with the court, but defendants often defend such cases by invoking the argument that compliance with the law would constitute an "undue burden" for the company or require a "fundamental alteration" of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations it offers to the public. Weaver didn't think that those defenses would be worth much here, since "our position is that it will be neither of those things. Hand controls are easy to secure. And certainly, in the scheme of things for Hertz as a business, they would not pose an undue financial burden." Weaver said, "the general public might not . . . think that it is possible for [people with these disabilities] to drive, but it really is. All it takes is accommodations that exist already and have existed for a very long time, and are relatively easy to install. We think it's pretty simple." [GN] HF MANAGEMENT: Collins Sues Over Unpaid Back Wages -------------------------------------------------- Keith Collins and Tiffany Mason, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a HEALTHFIRST, a limited liability company, Case No. 1:24-cv-00465-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2024), is brought arising from Defendant’s willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), The North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, (“North Carolina Wage Act”), and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking a declaration that their rights, and the rights of the putative Collective and Class members, were violated, a judgment awarding them unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. The Defendant violated the FLSA, state wage and hour law, and common law by systematically failing to compensate its CSRs for compensable work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods, when they were not logged into Defendant’s timekeeping system. The aforementioned policy and procedure resulted in these employees not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and in non-overtime workweeks for straight-time worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly call center employees with the job title of CSR. The Defendant employs 4,500 employees and has “grown into New York’s largest not-for-profit health insurer, offering high-quality, affordable plans to fit every life stage, including Medicaid plans, Medicare Advantage plans, long-term care plans, qualified health plans, and individual and small group plans.”[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Pl Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-52971 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com HUGGLE GROUP LLC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Huggle Group, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Beauchamp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Huggle Group, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01178 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. HuggleHounds -- https://hugglehounds.com/ -- is a preferred vendor for the finest retailers in the pet space.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com INDUSTRIAL COLOR: Paul Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Willard Paul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INDUSTRIAL COLOR PRODUCTIONS, INC., a foreign corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01675 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 22, 2024), is brought failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to pay all premium wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages due and, owing on separation, unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon, alleges that Defendants regularly and systematically, as a policy and practice, failed to compensate, and continue to fail to compensate, Plaintiff and the Class Members for all overtime hours worked as required under the foregoing provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order(s) by, among other things, failing to pay overtime that is separate from the daily rate and failure to pay overtime at one and one-half times or double the regular rate of pay. The Defendants’ policy and practice of requiring overtime work but not paying at the proper overtime and double time rates for said work violates Labor Code Section 510 and the applicable California Wage Orders, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee during the statutory period. Industrial Color Productions, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and qualified to do business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank H Kim, Esq. KIM LEGAL, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (323) 482-3300 Facsimile: (866) 652-7819 Email: fkim@kim-legal.com INTELLIHARTX LLC: Perrone Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lauren Perrone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTELLIHARTX, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01224 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20628-RAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. IntelliHartx, LLC -- https://www.itxcompanies.com/ -- is a healthcare revenue cycle management company based in McLean, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Wiest, Esq. CHRIS WIEST, ATTY AT LAW, PLLC 25 Town Center Blvd, Suite 104 Crestview Hills, KY 41017 Phone: 513/257-1895 Fax: 859/495-0803 (f) Email: chris@cwiestlaw.com - and - Mason Barney, Esq. Tyler Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-376-3739 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com INTERPLASTIC CORP: Barahona Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Isaias R. Barahona, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERPLASTIC CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01644 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 22, 2024), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants’ failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of not paying Plaintiff and the Class for all hours worked, including all overtime wages. Throughout the statutory period, Plaintiff and the Class did not receive compensation for all hours worked. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of not paying Plaintiffs and the Class for all hours worked, including all overtime wages. Defendants regularly use a system of time rounding in a manner that resulted, over a period of time, in failing to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class properly for all the time they have actually worked, even though the realities of Defendants’ operations are such that it is possible, practical, and feasible to count and pay for work time to the minute, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a California resident that worked for Defendants in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as a batch maker from October 2017 to February 2023. The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Daniel J. Park, Esq. Michael Citrin, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com dpark@moonlawgroup.com mcitrin@moonlawgroup.com IRRESISTIBLE ME: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Irresistible Me, LLC. The case is styled as Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Irresistible Me, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01193 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Irresistible Me -- https://www.irresistibleme.com/ -- is a seller of hair textures and colors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com IRWIN NATURALS: Vaughn Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trisha Vaughn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IRWIN NATURALS, Case No. 24STCV01558 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2024), is brought as a result of the Defendant's false and misleading advertising in violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA") and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"). As obesity has reached epidemic proportions, the management of this global disease is of clinical importance. The availability and popularity of natural dietary supplements for the treatment of obesity has risen dramatically in recent years. In response to this opportunity, Irwin Naturals manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells a dietary supplement "Triple-Diet Fat Reduction Max Accelerator" (the "Product"). Irwin Naturals claims that the Product is an effective aid for the user to lose weight. Specifically, Irwin Naturals promises that the Product has a meaningful effect on "Fat Reduction.," "Curb[ing] Appetite," and "Weight Support." The "Triple Diet" statement signifies that the Product provides meaningful weight loss quickly. The Defendant's advertising is false and misleading. The central ingredient in the Product, Garcinia Extract, is scientifically proven to be incapable of providing weight loss including the ability to reduce fat. Likewise, the other ingredients in the Product have also been proven ineffective at providing weight loss, fat reduction, and appetite suppression. On top of its deceptive weight loss and fat reduction health benefit promises, Irwin Naturals also advertises the Product as "Natural." The Product's labeling is covered in green grass and the "Irwin Naturals" brand name includes green leaves. The Plaintiff brings this class action seeking redress for Defendant's false advertising and deceptive conduct. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated consumers to halt the dissemination of Defendant's deceptive advertising message, correct the deceptive perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and obtain redress for those who have purchased the Product. Because of Defendant's deceptive advertising, Plaintiff brings causes of action for violations of the CLRA and violations of the UCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased The Irwin Naturals Garcinia Cambogia Extract Product. The Defendant Irwin Naturals is the manufacturer, distributor, marketer, and seller of the Product throughout the class period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com JEROME WALLACE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in USA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as United States of America v. ff, v. Jerome Nathaniel Wallace, III, Case No. 1:23-cv-01336-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), Case No. 4:23-cv-04188-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's standing order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OMknJf at no extra charge.[CC] JJP TRUCKING: Lewis et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH LEWIS, RYAN BRADFORD, MICHAEL F. RHYMES and JERRY HALL, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JJP TRUCKING, INC. and BREANNA BUCKNER, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01035 (W.D. Tenn., February 19, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former truck drivers of Defendants. Allegedly, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated truck drivers for hours performed over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay. Headquartered in Dyersburg, TN, JJP Trucking, Inc. provides trucking services to businesses and other entities within the state of Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com JOHNSON CITY, TN: Bid to Amend Conspiracy Suit Partially Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anita Wadhwani of Tennessee Lookout reports that a federal judge has greenlit a class action lawsuit against Johnson City and its police force that makes explosive allegations that some cops took bribes and turned the other way while a serial rapist assaulted scores of women and at least two children. The ruling on February 23, 2024 dramatically raises the stakes in a police corruption scandal that has roiled the northeast Tennessee community -- and the city's potential liability should it lose or settle the case. Instead of ten plaintiffs, identified as "Jane Does" in a lawsuit first filed in June, the ruling now opens the door to potentially hundreds of Johnson City victims who were sexually assaulted over a more than five-year period, from January 1, 2018 to April 25, 2023 -- regardless of who the perpetrator was or whether the assaults were reported to police. U.S. District Judge Travis McDonough said he didn't find Johnson City's efforts to thwart the class action lawsuit compelling. His 17-page decision dismissed nearly every argument the city sought to raise in limiting the scope of the lawsuit, including a suggestion that victims' attorneys sought class action status as a ploy to delay the legal process. "The subject of this case -- an alleged conspiracy between JCPD and a serial rapist -- is complex and sensitive, and it is reasonable to expect that not all victims who wish to participate in the suit will come forward at an early stage in the litigation," McDonough's decision said. The class action claims also provide a built-in shield for victims, who will not have to step forward or identify themselves as the case winds through the court system. That protection could prove especially important to sexual assault victims in Johnson City. Among the numerous misconduct allegations against Johnson City police is that they arrested, physically assaulted and then conspired to evict a victim of sexual assault from public housing after she cooperated with a federal prosecutor investigating multiple sexual assault allegations against Johnson City businessman Sean Williams that had gone long ignored by local police. Kateri Dahl, the federal prosecutor who was working as a liaison with Johnson City Police Department, has since filed a whistleblower suit making many of the same allegations as the victims' lawsuit. Johnson City police never arrested Williams for sexual assault, despite efforts by multiple women to report their assaults to police. At one point, during a search of Williams' downtown condo on unrelated illegal ammunition charges, police discovered a handwritten note on his nightstand scrawled with the first names of 23 women, under the word "raped." Then-police chief Karl Turner dismissed the list, saying "I don't know if that's girls he's raped or girls he's had consensual sex with and calls it whatever he calls it. All I know is there's a piece of paper with some first names on it," according to legal filings. Williams was arrested in North Carolina last April after local officers on a routine patrol at a local university found him sleeping in his car. The campus officers found three-fourths of a pound of cocaine and nearly a pound of methamphetamine in the car. A search of his electronic equipment yielded images of 52 women who appeared to be drugged as Williams sexually assaulted them in his Johnson City apartment. Women who previously reported their assaults to Johnson City police were among the recovered images. Williams' electronic devices also contained images of two children being sexually assaulted, including a child under 2 years old, court records said. Williams is now in jail, facing charges of child rape and child pornography. "We respect the decision of the court and are prepared to move forward with the case," read a statement released on February 24, 2024 by the office of Johnson City Manager Cathy Ball. Victims' attorneys declined to comment late on February 23, 2024. The women are represented by California-based attorneys Vanessa Baeher-Jones of Advocates for Survivors of Abuse and Elizabeth Kramer of Erickson, Kramer & Osborne, and Brentwood-based attorney Heather Moore Collins with HMC Civil Rights Law. Court rules bar attorneys from making public comments during active litigation, but the federal judge late last year granted a one-time exception for plaintiffs in the case after Ball held a press conference suggesting Williams' victims bore some fault for their assaults because they "consumed and partook of illegal drugs." "I am one of the 52 women whom Sean Williams sexually assaulted while taking sexually explicit photos of me," one woman said during the victims' press conference held in Knoxville earlier this month to respond to Ball's comments. "My name also appears on the 'raped' list, which the Johnson City Police Department recovered Sean Williams apartment…The people in my community who are supposed to protect me and the other women you see here on February 24, 2024 failed us." [GN] JOLLEY POTTER: Bid to File Class Cert Reply in TEP Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN LLC, v. JOLLEY POTTER RANCHES ENERGY CO., LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Case No. 1:19-cv-00495-DDD-NRN (10th Cir.), the Hon. Judge Matheson Tymkovich entered an order granting motion for leave to file a class cert. reply. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zHadou at no extra charge.[CC] JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Assessment Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges JPMorgan Chase Bank has unfairly assessed fees as penalties for faulty checks that the bank's depositing customers "had no hand in issuing." The 34-page Chase Bank lawsuit accuses the bank of acting in a manner that is "unfair, oppressive, and against public policy" by penalizing consumers who could not have reasonably known that a check they deposited was bad. The suit contends that the bank itself all but admitted that its "Deposited Item Returned Fee" was "unfair and predatory" when it quietly removed its disclosure about the "junk fee" penalty last March. "Plaintiffs were shocked when they were charged these Fees because they did nothing wrong, yet were penalized by Chase," the case reads. "There was nothing Plaintiffs could do to avoid -- or even anticipate -- a Deposited Item Returned Fee assessed by Chase at the time the deposit was returned." Per the complaint, guidance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has reaffirmed the illegality of Chase Bank's Deposited Item Returned Fee policy. The CFPB released in October 2022 a compliance bulletin in which it stressed that it is unfair to have a blanket policy of charging Deposited Item Returned Fees when a check is returned unpaid, no matter the circumstances or patterns of behavior on the account, the case shares. The lawsuit explains that a Deposited Item Returned Fee would be charged in the event a deposited check cannot be processed against the originator's account. The suit emphasizes that the litany of reasons why a check someone received would bounce lie almost entirely out of the depositor's control. "The reason could be insufficient funds, a stop payment order issued by the check writer, a closed or foreign account, or even a minor discrepancy on the check itself. Even though the depositor has no control over the check, the Deposited Item Return Fees charged can range from $5 to over $30 and often vastly exceed the actual cost of processing the returned check." According to the case, disclosures for Deposited Item Returned Fees, widespread throughout the banking industry, are often buried in "dense and convoluted legal agreements or associated fee schedules," making it difficult for consumers to learn about the penalties until they are actually charged one. The lawsuit contests that such fees are "nothing more than veiled revenue-generating tools that penalize innocent depositors for the actions of others." The five plaintiffs in the suit each claim to have been charged a $12 fee by Chase after attempting to deposit a check that was returned unpaid. The lawsuit looks to cover all consumers who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, had or have accounts with Chase and were charged a Deposited Item Returned Fee by the bank. [GN] KAMAN CORP: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to Arcline ------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are now investigating: 1. Kaman Corp. (NYSE: KAMN), relating to its proposed sale to Arcline Investment Management, L.P. Under the terms of the agreement, KAMN shareholders are expected to receive $46.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/kaman-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. 2. Enerplus Corp. (NYSE: ERF), relating to its proposed merger with Chord Energy Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, ERF shareholders are expected to receive 0.10125 shares of Chord plus $1.84 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/enerplus-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. 3. Discover Financial Services (NYSE: DFS), relating to its proposed sale to Capital One Financial Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, DFS shareholders are expected to receive 1.0192 shares of Capital One per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/discover-financial-services. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. 4. Kinnate Biopharma Inc. (Nasdaq: KNTE), relating to its proposed sale to XOMA Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, KNTE shareholders are expected to receive $2.3352 in cash plus an additional cash amount not exceeding $0.2527 per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/kinnate-biopharma-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: Do you recover money for shareholders? Do you litigate and go to Court? Do you even go to the office and wear a suit? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] KNIGHT BARRY: Lewandowski Sues Over Unsecured Private Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE LEWANDOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNIGHT BARRY TITLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00219 (E.D. Wis., February 19, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's personally identifiable information (PII), and financial information stored within Defendant's network and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Between July 25, 2023, and August 15, 2023 unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information. The Plaintiff was unaware of the said data breach until receiving a letter dated January 31, 2024. Moreover, Defendant breached its duty to notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the unauthorized access by waiting months after learning of the Data Breach to notify Plaintiff and Class Members and then by failing and continuing to fail to provide Plaintiff and Class Members sufficient information regarding the breach, says the suit. Headquartered in Racine, WI, Knight Barry Title, Inc.,issues title insurance and provides title-related services to consumers, lenders, lawyers, developers, builders, and real estate professionals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Procaccio, Esq. A. PROCACCIO LAW OFFICE, S.C. 1433 N. Water St., Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 644-0321 E-mail: anthony@aprolawoffice.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De León Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com KURANDA USA INC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kuranda USA, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Beauchamp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kuranda USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01188 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kuranda USA, Inc. -- https://kuranda.com/ -- operates as a pet supply store. The Company offers standard, aluminum, and dog crate beds, as well as pads, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com LEMANDA ENTERPRISES: Faces Tzoc Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- VICENTA TZOC, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LEMANDA ENTERPRISES INC. (DBA JAN-PRO CLEANING & DISINFECTING IN NEW YORK CITY), and LEONARD CORAZZA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01120 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. Plaintiff Tzoc worked for the Defendants from approximately April 2014 until January 4, 2024, where her primary work duty was as a janitor. Lemanda Enterprises Inc., owns and operates JAN-PRO CLEANING & DISINFECTING IN NEW YORK CITY, a corporate entity principally engaged in Long Island, 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 LORENZO LANDSCAPING: Rodriguez & Padilla Sue Over Labor Law Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERLIN RODRIGUEZ and FRANCISCO PADILLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LORENZO LANDSCAPING SERVICES CORP., a New York Corporation, and MARIA LORENZO, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00945 (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Erlin Rodriguez worked for the Defendants for approximately 9 years, from 2014, through September 2023. Plaintiff Francisco Padilla worked for the Defendants for approximately 10 years, from 2013, through September 2023. Throughout their employment, Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Padilla were paid at flat daily rates of pay and did not receive any overtime premium even if they regularly worked more than 40 hours in each workweek. Among other things, Defendant also failed to provide Plaintiffs with accurate and detailed wage statements at the time of payment of wages, says the suit. Located at Sleepy Hollow, NY, Lorenzo Landscaping Services Corp. operates a landscaping company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A. 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (954) 745-0588 E-mail: klein@nklegal.com amy@nklegal.com melanie@nklegal.com MAMA O'S PREMIUM KIMCHI: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mama O's Premium Kimchi, Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mama O's Premium Kimchi, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01052-DEH-RWL (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mama O's Premium Kimchi -- https://www.kimchirules.com/ -- offers a variety of gourmet Kimchi, Kimchi Paste & Homemade DIY Kimchi Kits.[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 MANGIA 57 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Najera Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER RESCALVO NAJERA, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANGIA 57, INC., dba MANGIA RESTAURANT; M48 CATERING CORP.; or any other business entity doing business as "MANGIA," and SASHA MUNIAK, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01051 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2024) alleges that, pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid wages and minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime compensation; (3) unpaid "spread of hours" premiums for each day he worked more than 10 hours; (4) liquidated damages and statutory penalties pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act; (5) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (6) attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff, Javier Rescalvo Najera, was employed by Defendants in New York County (Manhattan), New York, as a delivery person and general helper/cleaner/stock person from November 2021 through January 31, 2024. Mangia 57, Inc. owns a restaurant and catering company known as "Mangia," based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com MASK POT INC: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Mask Pot, Inc. The case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Mask Pot, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01232 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Mask Pot is located in Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com MATSUM INC: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matsum, Inc. The case is styled as Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Matsum, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01180 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Matsum, Inc. doing business as Venture Heat -- https://www.ventureheat.com/ -- has been the premium USA-based heated apparel brand worn by athletes, professionals, and everyday adventurers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com MERCURY SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------- Mercury Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended December 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2024, that on December 13, 2023, a securities class action complaint was filed against the company, Mark Aslett, and Michael Ruppert in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint asserts Section 10(b) and 20(a) securities fraud claims on behalf of a purported class of purchasers and sellers of the Company's stock from December 7, 2020, through June 23, 2023. The complaint alleges that the company's public disclosures in SEC filings and on earnings calls were false and/or misleading. Subject to the terms of the company's by-laws and applicable Massachusetts law, Mr. Aslett, the company's former Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Ruppert, the company's former Chief Financial Officer, are indemnified by the company for this matter. Mercury Systems, Inc. is a technology company that delivers processing power for the most demanding aerospace and defense missions. Its end-to-end processing platform enables a broad range of aerospace and defense programs, optimized for mission success in some of the most challenging and demanding environments. MOUNTAIN VIEW HOSPITAL: Lewis Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as April Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mountain View Hospital, LLC doing business as: Mountain View Hospital, Case No. 24c72 was removed from the Davidson County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Feb. 15, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00175 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach of Contract. Mountain View Hospital, LLC -- https://www.mountainviewhospital.org/ -- provides medical and surgical hospital services. The Company offers emergency care, women's health services, cardiology, orthopedic, and oncology services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Mize, Esq. James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 255-5419 Email: amize@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops Mary Kate Dugan COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com MDugan@cohenandrnalad.com - and - Raina Borelli Samuel Strauss TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com sam@turkestrauss.com The Defendants are represented by: Casie D. Collignon, Esq. Keeley O. Cronin, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (DENVER OFFICE) 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Email: ccollignon@bakerlaw.com kcronin@bakerlaw.com - and - L. Wells Trompeter HOLLAND & KNIGHT (NASHVILLE) 511 Union Street, Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 850-8759 Fax: (615) 244-6804 Email: wells.trompeter@hklaw.com MOUTHFUL'S INC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mouthful's, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Beauchamp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mouthful's, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01192 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mouthfuls Pet Supply -- https://mouthfuls.net/ -- specialize in treats, toys, food and accessories for pampered pets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com NAPCO SECURITY: Faces Zornberg Securities Suit in EDNY ------------------------------------------------------ NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2024, that on August 29, 2023, a purported class action, brought on behalf of a putative class who acquired publicly traded NAPCO securities between November 7, 2022 and August 18, 2023, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer. The action, captioned "Zornberg v. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. et al.," asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with statements made in the Company’s quarterly reports and earnings releases during the period of November 7, 2022 through May 8, 2023. A lead plaintiff was appointed in November 2023 and an amended complaint was filed on February 16, 2024. Napco Security Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer and designer of high-tech electronic security devices, cellular communication services for intrusion and fire alarm systems as well as a leading provider of school safety solutions. NAPLES RESTAURANT: Gettinger Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Naples Restaurant Group, Inc. The case is styled as Shawn Gettinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Naples Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00138-KKM-SPF (M.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Naples Restaurant Group, Inc. is categorized under Italian Restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces New Class Suit Over Agent Commissions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Lenin Laus, writing for JDJournal, reports that a U.S. judge in Chicago, U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood, has ruled that The National Association of Realtors along with several corporate home brokerages will face a proposed class action lawsuit. Home buyers accuse them of conspiring to artificially inflate real estate commissions, violating U.S. antitrust law and increasing the cost of homes for sale nationwide. Allegations And Legal Proceedings The lawsuit, representing home buyers from 35 states including Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, and Massachusetts, seeks unspecified monetary damages under antitrust and consumer protection laws. Judge Wood's ruling declined the dismissal of claims against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), Keller Williams, Re/Max, and others involved. While denying the plaintiffs' request for a nationwide court order, which would permanently enjoin the realtors association from implementing similar commission practices, Judge Wood dismissed units of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, including HomeServices of America, from the case. Response From Involved Parties The National Association of Realtors expressed disappointment with the ruling, asserting its commitment to defending practices benefiting consumers and promoting homeownership. HomeServices of America stated that the court recognized its lack of involvement in the challenged practices. Brokerage defendants Anywhere, Keller Williams, and Re/Max refrained from commenting or did not immediately respond to requests for statements. Attorneys for the plaintiffs also withheld immediate comments on the ruling. Allegations And Impact On Home Buyers Home buyer plaintiffs argue that sellers inflate home prices to compensate for the commissions paid to buyers' agents, which are regulated by industry rules and practices implemented by the defendants. In the U.S., home sellers may pay commissions ranging from 5% to 6% of the house's cost, with a portion paid to the buyer's broker. Previous Litigation And Future Challenges Notably, NAR and other defendants faced separate antitrust lawsuits from home sellers, claiming significant damages related to commission fees. In a recent case in Missouri, a jury awarded nearly $1.8 billion in damages to a class of home sellers suing the realtors association, HomeServices, and others. However, the association and brokerages are currently challenging this verdict. The case in question is Mya Batton et al v. The National Association of Realtors et al, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under case number 1:21-cv-00430. [GN] NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- Chris Horne of ABC27 reports that a team of attorneys, including nationally-known civil rights advocate Ben Crump, claims Navy Federal Credit Union -- the world's largest credit union -- used racially-motivated lending practices. The lawsuit alleges that Navy Federal approved White mortgage applicants at a disproportionately higher rate than Black and Hispanic applicants in 2022. Navy Federal said the disparity in approval rates doesn't take into account all factors, that it's a national leader in lending to the Black community and points to what it describes as robust and fair lending programs committed to serving each and every member fairly. Crump was flanked by other attorneys and several of the named plaintiffs at a February 22, 2024 news conference. Plaintiff Bob Otondi was an executive with his company in Texas. Navy Federal initially approved his application, but then reversed the decision and rejected him two weeks before closing. "I know that the reason that Navy Federal denied my mortgage application was because of my race," Otondi said. "That is very wrong. That flies in the face of everything that makes this country great." Navy Federal first came under fire about its lending practices in a CNN investigation in December. Crump said while Navy Federal rejected just 23% of White applicants in 2022, the rejection rate rose to 44% for Hispanics, and jumped to 52% for Black mortgage applicants. He said this has forced people of color to go to other lenders at higher interest rates. "As a result of race-based factors, Black and Hispanic borrowers have paid $765 million more in interest rates per year than White borrowers," Crump said. That's exactly what happened to Marie Pereda. She and her Marine Corps husband had high income and no debt, but got rejected and had to keep searching for a lender. "The delay caused the interest rates to go up and the house that we purchased was more expensive," Pereda said, "so we are paying more than we would have if Navy Federal had approved us." In a statement sent to Nexstar's WAVY on February 22, 2024 afternoon, Navy Federal said it is committed to serving all of its members fairly. The statement reads: "As a not-for-profit credit union, Navy Federal is committed to serving each and every one of our members fairly, and we work daily to help expand economic opportunity and access to credit for our diverse community of members. Black borrowers make up one in four of our members, and we are proud of the fact Navy Federal ranks first among large lenders in the percentage of mortgage loans made to Black borrowers." "We have robust fair lending programs that perform testing and review policies, procedures, and lending data, which help expand economic opportunity and access to homeownership. While it is Navy Federal's policy not to comment on pending litigation, we look forward to responding to these claims in our forthcoming filings with the court." Former NFCU member Carl Carr said he was approved, at first, to purchase a home in North Carolina. "Just two days before closing, we got denied and we had to go back to the drawing board," he said. Christina Hill is a former Navy E-4 and disabled veteran. She had been a a Navy Federal member for decades, and said her mortgage denial shattered her pride. "If my bank for over 30 years would not give me a loan, I could not believe that another bank would." [GN] NLC PRODUCTS INC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NLC Products, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Beauchamp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NLC Products, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01196 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. NLC Products, Inc. operates as a retailer of hunting and gift products. The Company offers predator and hog hunting, gifts, novelties, clothing, and boots.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to April 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JED and ALISA BEHAR, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION and NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-03946-HDV-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan D. Vera entered an order regarding date of hearing for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Having considered the Joint Stipulation, the Court finds good cause exists to grant the requested relief. The hearing on the Motion for Class Certification is continued to April 11, 2024, at 10:00 am. Northrop is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XEYkko at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick W. Dennis, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Abbey Hudson, Esq. Deena Klaber, Esq. Joseph Edmonds, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: pdennis@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com ahudson@gibsondunn.com dklaber@gibsondunn.com jedmonds@gibsondunn.com - and - John Cermak, Esq. Hannah Bloink, Esq. CERMAK & INGLIN, LLP 12121 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 322 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1166 Telephone: (424) 465-1531 Facsimile: (424) 371-5032 E-mail: jcermak@cermaklegal.com hbloink@cermaklegal.com NOVA HOME: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Memo ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YELENA SAVINOVA and YEMILIYA MAZUR individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NOVA HOME CARE, LLC, SOUTHERN HOME CARE SERVICES, INC., ALEH HULIAVATSENKA, and YULIYA NOVIKAVA, Case No. 3:20-cv-01612-SVN D (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order grant them leave to file supplemental memorandum, addressing the questions raised by the Court during hearing. On Nov. 13, 2023, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and the Defendants' motions to decertify and for Summary Judgment. During the hearing, the Court asked two questions that were not addressed in any of the parties' briefing: Whether the Plaintiffs are required to present specific evidence regarding the class size in order to satisfy the numerosity requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; and (2) Whether Plaintiffs can argue the lack of a valid sleep-time agreement to defeat summary judgment if they did not raise this as a factual allegation in their Complaint. Nova is a privately owned company operating in the home support services field. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mJTFpu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mariusz Kurzyna, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: mkurzyna@zagfirm.com - and - Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: osavytska@llrlaw.com OLO INC: Class Settlement in Shareholder Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New York federal judge has given approval of a $9 million shareholder settlement in a lawsuit against a company that designs online ordering systems. Judge Jed Rakoff gave preliminary approval to the settlement with Olo, Inc., which suffered a loss in the value of its stock following the loss of Subway as a client. Objectors may now raise any issue they have with the agreement, and class action lawyers will be asking for $3 million in fees. A final settlement fairness hearing will take place June 10. After attorney fees, expenses and administrative cost, the money will be doled out in a pro rata fashion among the class, which consists of purchasers between March 17, 2021, and Aug. 11, 2022. "The recovery of individual Class Members under the Plan of Allocation will depend on several variables, including: the aggregate value of the Recognized Claims from valid Proofs of Claim submitted by Class Members; when the Class Member's shares were purchased and/or acquired and the price at t time of purchase and/or acquisition; and whether the shares were sold, and if so, when they were sold and for how much," the motion for preliminary approval says. Rakoff denied two of Olo's motions to dismiss during the pendency of the litigation. It took only two weeks after his latest ruling for the settlement guidance of a mediator to be accepted by both sides. Suits allege that in August of 2021, Olo reported its "active locations" to demonstrate its business growth as having approximately 15,000 Subway locations, which caused its stock price to "soar" above $45 per share before falling. The plaintiffs claim Olo misled investors and omitted material facts about Subway locations that were set to end their relationship with Olo. Olo countered by claiming Subway generated only a few million dollars of its 2021 revenue of $150 million. The company receives a fee on online transactions from other large chains like Jimmy John's, Jack in the Box and Panda Express. The litigation, which is led by the firm Scott + Scott, seeks compensation for investors like lead plaintiff Steamship Trade Association - International Longshoreman's Association. Scott + Scott will seek up to $3 million in fees and up to $900,000 in expenses. Though plaintiffs say the company was aware its Subway agreement was in peril and should have disclosed it to shareholders earlier, Olo said securities laws do not require disclosure of ongoing customer discussions "that could potentially sabotage an evolving business relationship before the outcome of those discussions was certain." Lawsuits said Olo's misleading of the investing public led to the inflated price of the company's stock and that Olo "engaged in a scheme to deceive the market." The plaintiff alleges Olo's actions caused it to purchase Olo stock at artificially inflated prices since the stock price fell to $12.99 per share on Aug. 11 and fell to $8.26 per share on Aug. 12, 2022. [GN] ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Hubacek Securities Suit in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- ON Semiconductor Corporation disclosed in its Form 8-K for January 23, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 24, 2024 that on December 13, 2023, a putative class action captioned "Hubacek v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al.," Case No. 1:23-cv-01429 (D. Del.), was filed by an alleged stockholder of the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the company and certain of its officers. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading statements regarding the company's silicon carbide (SiC) business. The plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs. ON Semiconductor Corporation provide intelligent power and sensing solutions with a primary focus towards automotive and industrial markets. ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL: Pineda Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Gregorio Pineda, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL dba ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN AND LUSKIN ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN, a California Nonprofit Corporation; ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC„ a California Corporation; ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN FOUNDATION, a California Nonprofit Corporation; and DOES I through 25, inclusive, Case No: 24STCV01618 Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2024), is brought to recover damages on behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals who worked for Defendants in the State of California as hourly-paid and/or non-exempt employees at any time from four years prior to the date of this Complaint through final judgment (“Class Period”) (“Class Members”). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff and Class Members but, among other things, failed to properly pay them all wages owed for all time worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide them with all meal periods and rest periods and associated premium wages to which they were entitled, failed to timely pay them all wages due during their employment, failed to timely pay them all wages due upon termination of their employment, failed to provide them with accurate itemized wage statements, failed to maintain accurate payroll records, and failed to reimburse them for necessary business expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from February 2021 through December 2023 as a Cleaning Crew Member. The Defendants jointly and severally employed the Plaintiff at their locations in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. Karen I. Gold, Esq. Marissa A. Mayhood, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 9021 1 Phone: (310) 622-4278 Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com kgold@blackstonepc.com mmayhood@blackstonepc.com PCAM LLC: Faces De Salazar Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------ LORENA PIMENTEL DE SALAZAR, as an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PCAM, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03601 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 13, 2024) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class she seeks to represent, seeks relief against Defendants for their failure to pay all wages due, including regular and overtime wages and unlawful deductions; failure to provide written notice of accrued sick leave; failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements upon payment of wages; failure to reimburse for necessary expenditures; and failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees. The Plaintiff further seeks equitable remedies in the form of declaratory relief and injunctive relief, and relief under Business and Professions Code for unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a valet attendant from approximately June 2022 to June 29, 2023 in Los Angeles County. PCAM, LLC was founded in 2011. The company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract or fee basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lilit Tunyan, Esq. Artur Tunyan, Esq. TUNYAN LAW, APC 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 285 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 410-5050 E-mail: ltunyan@tunyanlaw.com atunyan@tunyanlaw.com PDD HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suits Over App's Consumer Data Gathering ------------------------------------------------------------------ Justin Gray, writing for WSB-TV, reports that there are new privacy concerns about one of the fastest-growing apps on your phone. Chinese online shopping site TEMU is now the target of multiple proposed class action lawsuits. Channel 2 consumer investigator Justin Gray learned that one of those class action lawsuits focuses on what the TEMU app does to your cell phone. The lawsuit alleges TEMU gains access to literally everything on your phone. The company's Super Bowl ads brought even more spotlight to the Chinese retailer which was already a social media phenomenon. Posters brag about what they call TEMU hauls, but TEMU itself often pays for the posts. "TEMU is actually sponsoring today's video, so that's really exciting," one social media video said. Multiple proposed class action lawsuits allege there's a privacy trade-off with the incredibly low prices TEMU offers. A lawsuit alleges TEMU uses spyware and malware that "TEMU collects user data beyond what is necessary for an online shopping app" and it gains access to "literally everything on your phone." Another proposed class action suit claims TEMU doesn't protect data, alleging a "failure to secure and safeguard its customers' personal data." Georgia Tech student Shadah Mohammad told Gray that she couldn't resist those eye-poppingly cheap deals. Then she learned about the lawsuits. "I heard about that. So I haven't shopped there since. Definitely scared about that," Mohammad said. TEMU sent Gray a statement, saying: "We categorically deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these meritless lawsuits. The truth is that safeguarding privacy is one of TEMU's core values." Channel 2 consumer adviser Clark Howard opened an account and bought items himself to test TEMU out. "TEMU is crazy cheap," Howard said. "Know that the savings are great, but it comes with a great cost." Howard found incredible prices and decent quality but warns the cost could be your private data. "You're giving permission for so much intrusion into your private life," Howard said. Mohammad said she wasn't taking any chances. "So you deleted it off your phone?" Gray asked Mohammad. "Yeah, I deleted my accounts. Unsubscribed completely," Mohammad said. TEMU counters that if you look at the data disclosures in the app store, that they gather data in fewer categories than competitors like Amazon. [GN] PELICAN INVESTMENT: Dillman Files Suit in D. Delaware ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC. The case is styled as Sandy Dillman on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Pelican Investment Holdings Group, LLC, Respondent, Case No. 1:24-mc-00085-UNA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Pelican Group Holdings LLC operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Hall, Esq. PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN, MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A. 1200 North Broom Street Wilmington, DE 19806 Phone: (302) 655-4200 Email: jph@pmhdelaw.com PERIO INC: Rivera Sues Over Shaving Cream's False Representations ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAL RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERIO INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00371-TPB-AAS (M.D. Fla., February 8, 2024) arises from the Defendant's false and deceptive representations and omissions in its shaving cream product. To meet consumer demand for products made in the United States, Perio Inc., manufactures and sells shaving cream described as "Made in USA," and "Celebrating 100 Years of Made in USA," across a map of the continental United States, under the Barbasol brand. However, based on available inputs and industry practices, the stearic acid used in the said product consists of raw materials sourced outside the United States. Thus, "Made in USA" label is misleading and false because not "all or virtually all" of this ingredient's raw materials or components are sourced in the United States, says the suit. Headquartered in Ohio, Perio Inc. manufactures and distributes shave creams, hair removal products, and beauty products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE P.A. 515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com PERMIAN RESOURCES: Santillo Sues Over Antitrust Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Laurie Olsen Santillo, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff 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-00279 (D. Nev., February 8, 2024) arises from Defendants' alleged conspiracy to coordinate, and ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production in violation of the Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and Section 16 of the Clayton Act, as well as the antitrust, fair competition, and consumer protection laws of various states. The complaint asserts that the alleged conspiracy has had the effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of heating oil purchased by consumers from distributors thereof for personal use in and throughout the US. Moreover, Plaintiff and the Classes suffered substantial harm from the supracompetitive prices they paid for residential heating oil for personal use as a direct and proximate result of the cartel to constrain domestic production of shale oil in the country. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants compensatory damages, treble damages, costs of suit, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Headquartered in Midland, TX, Permian Resources Corporation, known as Centennial Resource Development, is an oil and gas production company that acquires and processes shale oil in Texas and New Mexico, before selling the resulting shale oil into the U.S. domestic market where it is refined and disseminated across the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert F. Purdy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW M. LEAVITT, ESQ. 633 South Seventh Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-2800 Facsimile: (702) 382-7438 E-mail: Robert.Purdy@andrewleavittlaw.com - and - Jennifer Sprengel, Esq. Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Kaitlin Naughton, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobes.com knaughton@caffertyclobes.com PERRY JOHNSON: Abdaljalil Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Huda Abdaljalil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. doing business as: PJ&A, Case No. 2:24-cv-00025 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01166-RPK-LGD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. doing business as PJ&A -- https://www.pjats.com/ -- is a U.S. owned and operated technology company specializing in health information technology solutions and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Bourassa, Esq. Jennifer A. Fornetti, Esq. Valerie S. Gray, Esq. THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP 2350 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: (702) 851-2180 Facsimile: (702) 851-2189 Email: mbourassa@blgwins.com jfornetti@blgwins.com vgray@blgwins.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com PERRY JOHNSON: Shanahan Suit Transferred to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kevin K. Shanahan, Michael Newton, and Rosemary Kerrane, as agent in fact and durable power of attorney for ROBERT H. SPINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. doing business as: PJ&A; Northwell Health, Inc., and Cook County Health, Case No. 2:23-cv-01947 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 16, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00754-RPK-LGD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. doing business as PJ&A -- https://www.pjats.com/ -- is a U.S. owned and operated technology company specializing in health information technology solutions and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Justin J. Hawal DICELLO LEVITT LLP 8160 Norton Parkway, Ste Third Floor Mentor, OH 44060 Phone: (440) 953-8888 Fax: (440) 953-9138 Email: jhawal@dicellolevitt.com - and - Don Springmeyer, Esq. KEMP JONES, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor Las Vegas, NV 89169 Phone: (702) 385-6000 Email: d.springmeyer@kempjones.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD 33 Whitehall Street, Ste 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1194 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan A. Rich, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 500 North Rainbow Blvd., Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89107 Phone: (702) 470-2324 Fax: (702) 470-2359 Email: JARich@cozen.com - and - Alex Fugazzi, Esq. SNELL & WILMER 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Phone: (702) 784-5202 Fax: (702) 784-5252 Email: afugazzi@swlaw.com - and - Meagan VanderWeele, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP One North Franklin, Ste. 800 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (989) 274-9229 Email: mvanderweele@grsm.com - and - Scott L. Schmookler, Esq. GORDON & REES 10 S Lasalle Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 980-6779 Fax: (312) 565-6511 Email: sschmookler@grsm.com - and - Sean Flynn, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 1 E. Liberty Street, Suite 424 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: (775) 467-2610 Email: sflynn@grsm.com - and - Amanda M. Perach, Esq. MCDONALD CARANO LLP 2300 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: (702) 257-4535 Fax: (702) 873-9966 Email: aperach@mcdonaldcarano.com PERRY JOHNSON: Slotchiver Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Stacey Slotchiver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00155 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 15, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01171-RPK-LGD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Perry Johnson & Associates -- https://www.pjats.com/ -- offers solutions for healthcare operations like clinical documentation, coding, AI consultation and telehealth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 834-4712 Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com pauld@akimlawfirm.com - and - Daniel Scott Slotchiver, Esq. SLOTCHIVER AND SLOTCHIVER LLP 751 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Suite 100 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: (843) 577-6531 Fax: (843) 577-0261 Email: dan@slotchiverlaw.com PETSENSE LLC: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Petsense, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Beauchamp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Petsense, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01197 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Petsense by Tractor Supply -- https://www.petsense.com/ -- is a pet specialty retailer focused on meeting the needs of pet owners, primarily in small and mid-size communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Geva Files ADA Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phoenix Financial Services, LLC. The case is styled as Leeor Geva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Phoenix Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00123-RLY-CSW (S.D. Ind., Jan. 18, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Phoenix Financial Services, LLC -- https://www.phoenixfinancialsvcs.com/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY, ESQ. 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: (434) 328-3100 Fax: (434) 328-3101 Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com The Defendant appears pro se. PIPSNACKS LLC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pipsnacks LLC. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Pipsnacks LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01099-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pipsnacks -- https://www.pipsnacks.com/ -- is the manufacturer and marketer of PipCorn, a special type of mini popcorn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal PORT AUTHORITY: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB MEINERT and NICHOLAS SCHALLUS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, d/b/a PITTSBURGH REGIONAL TRANSIT, Case No. 2:22-cv-01736-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending deadlines for discovery on class certification and filing a motion for certification. The parties further stipulate and agree that: 1. The Defendant will serve a response to the pending discovery request served by Plaintiffs to which it had objected on timeliness grounds within 30 days of the date of this Motion. 2. The parties agree to request that the Court extend the deadline for the parties to complete discovery on the subject of certification of a class action from Jan. 31, 2024 until March 17, 2024. 3. The extension of time is to permit written discovery only. No depositions will be taken by either party in the extended time period. 4. The Plaintiffs will wait to initiate new discovery requests for 10 days in order to allow Defendant to complete its ongoing production of documents so that Plaintiffs can evaluate their discovery needs at that time. 5. The Defendant will not object to any discovery that is served on or before March 4, 2024 on the ground that it was not served timely. 6. The Defendant does not waive, but reserves, its right to object to any discovery requests now pending or to be served on the grounds of relevance, burdensomeness or other grounds permitted by the Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P. and Plaintiffs can move to compel discovery if such objections cannot be resolved between the parties. 7. The parties agree to request that the Court extend the date by which Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class action must be filed until April 15, 2024, with the Defendant's response due on May 6, 2024 and Plaintiff's Reply due on May 20, 2024. Port Authority provides public transportation options in Allegheny County. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WcZ77M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James L. Welsh, III, Esq. LAW GROUP, LLC 3875 Franklintowne Court, Suite 130 Murrysville, PA 15668 Telephone: (724) 519-2122 Facsimile: (724) 519-2097 E-mail: jwelsh@thewklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: John J. Myers, Esq. William S. Myers, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 600 Grant Street, 44th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 566-1938 Facsimile: (412) 566-6099 E-mail: jmyers@eckertseamans.com wmyers@eckertseamans.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Valinsky Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jay Valinsky, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Publix Supermarkets, Inc., Case No. 9:24-cv-80046 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Feb. 14, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01099-BMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Philip Milian, Esq. THE MILIAN LEGAL GROUP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (768) 808-9736 Email: david@lawmilian.com PROXIMA INC: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proxima, Inc. The case is styled as Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Proxima, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01190 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Proxima -- https://www.proximagroup.com/ -- is a world-leading procurement and supply chain consultancy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com R & S ARMY-NAVY: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against R & S Army-Navy Store, Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. R & S Army-Navy Store, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01238 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. R And S Army Navy Store sells work apparel, military supplies, and casual sports gear, sporting goods, and exceptional customer service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com RAGS APPAREL: Figueroa Sues Over Breach of Caller ID Rules ---------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAGS APPAREL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-002314 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., February 19, 2024) alleges that the Defendant violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act's Caller ID Rules. Allegedly, the Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Rags and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. Rags Apparel, LLC. is a foreign limited liability company that sells unisex apparel for boys, girls, babies, and toddlers to persons throughout the country through its online store. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE,974 AVE. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202)709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com RAINBOW GROCERY: Faces Class Suit Over Labor Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Jillian D'Onfro of SFGate reports that for the second time in two months, a lawsuit has emerged accusing a San Francisco grocery store of labor violations. In January, a former employee filed suit against Bi-Rite. Now, a former employee of the Rainbow Grocery Cooperative in the Mission District has filed a class action lawsuit against Rainbow with a series of allegations that include unpaid overtime and rest break violations. In a lawsuit filed on Feb. 22 at the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, lawyers for Nicole Torres, a former employee at the Rainbow store at 1745 Folsom St., assert that she and other workers dealt with a handful of violations of state labor law. The San Francisco Business Times first reported on the lawsuit. Torres worked at Rainbow from approximately June to September of 2023, according to the suit, which says that during that time Rainbow did not pay sufficient overtime, failed to properly reimburse business expenses and did not provide additional pay if an employee worked during their rest break, as required under California labor laws, along with other violations. The plaintiff's suit alleges that Rainbow "engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California," including "failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law." Neither Rainbow nor the lawyer representing Torres -- Arby Aiwazian from Lawyers for Justice -- immediately responded to SFGATE's request for comment. Founded in 1975, Rainbow is a worker-owned cooperative that describes itself as having a workforce of over 250 people, some of whom have worked there for over 40 years. "Rainbow is more than just a job for us," its website reads. "We hope that for you, our store is more than just a place to find healthy, organic food! " Because of its class action status, the lawsuit includes Torres and potentially other hourly paid and nonexempt employees. The plaintiff is seeking a trial by jury and compensation. The lawsuit follows similar allegations against Bi-Rite Market, another local favorite. In January, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit against the grocery chain, focused on unpaid overtime wages and wage statement violations. A different law firm brought the case against Bi-Rite. [GN] RAS PLANT BASED: Melendez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ras Plant Based, LLC. The case is styled as Rhondine Melendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ras Plant Based, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01226 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ras Plant Based -- https://www.rasplantbased.com/ -- is a Ethiopian restaurant in Crown Heights in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com RBW STUDIO LLC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RBW Studio, LLC. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RBW Studio, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01236 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. RBW Studio, LLC https://rbw.com/ -- is an independent design and manufacturing company headquartered in Kingston, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com ROSIE O'GRADY'S: Gettinger Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosie O'Grady's Inc. The case is styled as Shawn Gettinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rosie O'Grady's Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00139-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rosie O'Grady's Inc. -- https://rosieogradys.com/ -- is a bar & grill in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com RTX CORPORATION: Belcan Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Brief ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARA KYE BOROZNY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RTX CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION; et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01657-SVN (D. Conn.), Belcan moves the Court for an order sealing certain portions of its class certification Opposition Brief, Exhibits 12 and 14, and unredacted Exhibits 2, 4, 8, 13, and 15. RTX is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IC38ac at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick A. Klingman, Esq. KLINGMAN LAW, LLC 280 Trumbull Street, Floor 21 Hartford, CT 06103-3514 Telephone: (860) 256-6120 E-mail: pak@klingmanlaw.com - and - James H. Mutchnik, Esq. Taylor S. Rothman, Esq. Catie Ventura, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 N LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 E-mail: jmutchnik@kirkland.com taylor.rothman@kirkland.com catie.ventura@kirkland.com RTX CORPORATION: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Borozny Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARAH KYE BOROZNY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RTX CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01657-SVN (D. Conn.), Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal confidential information in its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. P&W moves to seal its Class Certification Opposition and certain Exhibits appended to its Class Certification Opposition's supporting Declaration because they are subject to this Court's Order. The Exhibits consist of deposition transcripts and documents exchanged between the Parties in discovery which: (a) other parties have designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or " CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY;" and/or (b) contain select information that P&W designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" and seeks to seal; and/or (c) confidentiality designations by the Parties have not yet been submitted. RTX is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tlAL1Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Chahira Solh, Esq. Sima Namiri-Kalantari, Esq. Kent Gardiner, Esq. Ashley L. McMahon, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 263-8400 Facsimile: (949) 263-8414 E-mail: CSolh@crowell.com SNamiri@crowell.com KGardiner@crowell.com - and - John W Cerreta, Esq. DAY PITNEY LLP 242 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-0665 Facsimile: (860) 881-2517 E-mail: jcerreta@daypitney.com S & G HOTEL CORP: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against S & G Hotel Corp. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. S & G Hotel Corp., Case No. 2:24-cv-01235 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. S&G Corporation provides accommodation management systems for guest houses, share houses, simple lodgings, and hotels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 1 University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com SACATON CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Linares Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- SEZAR MORALES LINARES, individually and on behalf of the collective and class members, Plaintiff v. SACATON, CORP. D/B/A TRUFA RESTAURANT, SATO RESTAURANT CORP. D/B/A TRUFA PIZZERIA, and EDUARDO PENAFIEL personally, and individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01217 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2024) arises out of the Defendants' willful and systemic wage violations that resulted in deliberate underpayment of wages to Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was scheduled to work six days per week working on average 60 hours. However, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff the minimum wage and overtime premiums. Instead, Defendants compensated Plaintiff a flat wage per week regardless of the number of hours worked, says the suit. Sacaton Corp. owns and operates Trufa Restaurant, a casual Italian restaurant, and Trufa Pizzeria, a pizza restaurant, in New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emre Polat, Esq. EMRE POLAT, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 480-4500 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Hears Arguments on Mass Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- Dale R. Bish and Ava K. Mehta, reporting for wsgr.com, report that in the latest development regarding so-called mass arbitrations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently heard argument in a case that any company with consumer-facing terms should be following. In Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 23-2842 (7th Cir. Nov. 8, 2023), Samsung was the target of a mass-arbitration campaign, i.e., a coordinated effort where plaintiffs lawyers line up thousands of individual claimants and file identical arbitration demands for them in order to force the company (here, Samsung) to pay millions of dollars in arbitration filing fees having nothing to do with the merits of the claims. When Samsung Electronics received nearly 50,000 identical arbitration demands in 2022, it refused to pay the filing fees and the American Arbitration Association (AAA) closed the matter. Claimants then sued Samsung in federal district court to force Samsung to honor the terms of its arbitration provision and pay the AAA. In response, Samsung argued that there were no valid arbitration agreements between the company and many of the claimants, that the “collective” (mass) action violated the class action waiver in the terms and conditions, and that the court did not have the power to compel arbitration. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois disagreed and found there were valid arbitration agreements, that the court did have power to compel arbitration, and that Samsung was indeed responsible for the $4 million (plus) in initial filing fees. Samsung appealed to the Seventh Circuit. During oral argument on February 15, 2024, the Seventh Circuit considered whether it should reverse the District Court's decision. The court was particularly interested in whether there were valid arbitration agreements between the company and the claimants. Members of the panel expressed skepticism, for example, that a spreadsheet of the claimants' contact information and claim dates (submitted by claimants to the AAA as evidence, but not under penalty of perjury) was sufficient proof of an agreement. The court also questioned whether it had proper appellate jurisdiction to hear the case, since the District Court had not entered a final judgment in the case but instead made its decision through an order compelling arbitration and staying the litigation pending arbitration. Because Wallrich is one of the first appellate cases to address the growing trend of mass arbitration, it is an important case to watch for any company that has, or is considering, adopting arbitration terms in its consumer-facing terms. Mass arbitrations have increasingly emerged as the plaintiff's weapon of choice following the widespread adoption of arbitration provisions with a class action waiver in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). In mass arbitration proceedings, arbitration bodies like the AAA usually require the respondent company (not the consumer) to pay most of the initial filing fees. If there are thousands of claimants, these initial fees can amount to millions of dollars, which must be paid before any arbitrator has a chance to assess the validity of the claims. The plaintiffs' bar then uses these sizeable upfront costs to pressure companies into early settlement. Clients with consumer-facing terms should watch the developments in Wallrich, and other mass arbitration cases moving through the federal judicial system, as part of their routine reevaluation of the dispute resolution clauses in the consumer contracts. In the meantime, given the ongoing threat of mass arbitration, clients should carefully consider whether an arbitration clause makes sense or, at a minimum, whether to mitigate the risk of mass arbitration through strategies, such as designating an alternative arbitration body or adopting a batching process for these types of attacks. As a leading advisor to technology companies, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is well-positioned to discuss the pros and cons of arbitration (and nuanced approaches to dispute resolution) for clients at all stages of growth. For more information on arbitration generally, or to discuss your preferred approach, contact any member of the firm's litigation or technology transactions practices. [GN] SECURITY ALLIANCE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Neofotistos Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PETER NEOFOTISTOS, Plaintiff, v. SECURITY ALLIANCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-20507-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 8, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees--security guards and related security personnel all overtime pay owed, in violation of the overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a security guard at the Normandy Shores condominium gate house from late March or early April 2021 through March 27, 2023. Although he started as a site supervisor, his position was changed to security guard/officer after a few months. The Plaintiff frequently worked over 40 hours per workweek but was not paid proper overtime wages to which he was entitled under the FLSA, says the suit. Headquartered in Florida, Security Alliance, LLC, aka "Security Alliance Group", provides security services in Doral and locations across Florida, as well as throughout the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven F. Grover, Esq. STEVEN F. GROVER, P.A. 5075 Regency Isles Way Cooper City, FL 33330 Telephone: (954) 290-8826 E-mail: stevenfgrover@gmail.com SHELL CHEMICAL: Flynn Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shell Chemical Appalachia, LLC. The case is styled as John Flynn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Shell Chemical Appalachia, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00193-MJH (W.D. Pa., Feb. 15, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land. Shell -- https://www.shell.us/ -- is currently constructing a petrochemical complex in Western Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. DePasquale, Esq. 1302 Grant Building 310 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 471-1415 Email: jim.depasquale@verizon.net ST. CHARLES HEALTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Charity Care ------------------------------------------------------------- Barney Lerten, writing for KTVC, reports that two law firms filed a federal class-action lawsuit against St. Charles Health System, accusing the hospital group of failing to provide the financial assistance to low-income patients that's required by state and federal law, and instead sending those bills to debt collectors. The lawsuit was filed by Sugarman-Dahab in Portland and Terrell Marshall Law Group in Portland on behalf of a woman who was in a crash and who claims she tried to contact the hospital to work out a payment plan, but that her medical bill instead was sent to a debt collection agency. St. Charles, the largest health system in Central Oregon, with four hospitals serving the region, denies violating financial assistance regulations and says it spends $120 million a year on unreimbursed care. Nonprofit hospitals in Oregon are required by law to offer "charity care," or discounted medical care to patients with annual household incomes of up to 400% of the federal poverty level, the law firm noted in their news release announcing the lawsuit. The law also requires them to screen patients whose household income is at or below 200% of the federal poverty level for assistance before sending the patient's account to a debt collector. The suit alleges that in May 2022, the plaintiff, Kristine Reiger, received services from St. Charles after she was in a motor vehicle accident. The hospital sent her a bill for over $3,400, which she could not afford. The lawsuit claims Reiger should have been eligible for free care under the hospital's charity care policy, as her household income was below 200% of the federal poverty level. However, after months of her trying and failing to contact someone at the hospital to work out a payment arrangement, the hospital sent her account to Ray Klein, a debt collection company, the lawsuit claims. This is in spite of the fact that St. Charles boasts that it makes "every effort" to identify charity care eligible patients and that it uses "scoring technology software" to identify which patients are eligible for charity care. The lawsuit claims that "on information and belief, there are at least hundreds of people in the proposed class, and that St. Charles and Ray Klein "have a standard practice of failing to screen patients for financial assistance and subsequently initiating debt collection actions . . . despite this failure." In its own news release on the lawsuit, SEIU Local 49 noted that St. Charles Health System is the fourth nonprofit health system operating in Oregon to be taken to court for allegedly violating state and federal charity care laws over the last two years. The union local said, "We've been sounding the alarm that our state's financial assistance process hasn't been working for hospital workers, or patients more broadly, for some time. "You know there is a large-scale problem when people who work in the hospital can't afford the health care delivered there, nor are they able to access the supposedly available assistance offered to ease the debt. This is why we've advocated for and successfully won some of the strongest charity care laws in the country. "Having analyzed court data and talked with patients across the state as part of our Shortchanged report, we're not surprised that St. Charles has been sued over failing to adequately screen patients," the union said. SEIU said the latest lawsuit "comes in the midst of a broader trend of hospitals being held to account for failing to follow the law and burdening low-income patients with bills they shouldn't have owed." For example, the Washington state attorney general reached an historic 157.8 million dollar settlement with Providence, requiring the health system to reimburse patients who never should have received bills and wipe away the debt of nearly a million individuals. Individual reimbursements range from $1 to $293,000; the average write-off for patients still awaiting debt forgiveness from Providence will be more than $900. Last November, the union local noted that PeaceHealth also finalized a multi-million-dollar settlement with the Washington AG over withholding financial assistance from eligible patients, and Sky Lakes Medical Center in Klamath Falls was recently sued over similar allegations. SEIU Local 49 further noted, "We are encouraged to see these actions being taken to hold nonprofit hospitals accountable to their charitable missions. We are hopeful that the implementation of new charity care legislation, which we supported last session, will help our members and Oregon patients to get access to the assistance they're legally entitled to. However, it is apparent from this most recent court filing, and those before it, that now is the time for Oregon courts to stand up and hold hospitals accountable to following the law." NewsChannel 21 asked St. Charles Health System for a comment on the lawsuit and received this statement. "We have not received notice of this lawsuit being filed and therefore can't comment on the specifics of the suit. It is important to note that St. Charles caregivers are not represented by SEIU and we are unclear on their role in this situation," said Kayley Mendenhall, a spokesperson for St. Charles Health System. "We regularly review our financial assistance policies and processes and believe we are in compliance with regulations. Our teams work incredibly hard to make sure patients understand the financial assistance that is available to them. We take our role as a local, community-based nonprofit health system seriously and are proud to provide approximately $120 million annually in unreimbursed care to our Central Oregon communities." [GN] STONEPEAK CERAMICS: Moore Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MOORE and JESSIE WOOLVERTON, individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STONEPEAK CERAMICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00006 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 13, 2024) is a multi-plaintiff action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act brought against the Defendant, on behalf of Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated hourly-paid production employees who worked for Defendant during the past three years. According to the complaint, Defendant's common plan, policy and practice of not compensating Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for their compensable overtime hours at the applicable overtime rates of pay violated the provisions of the FLSA. Additionally, Plaintiff Moore was unlawfully discharged from his employment with Defendant in retaliation for complaining to Defendant about not receiving overtime compensation that he had earned during all times material, says the suit. Stonepeak Ceramics, Inc. manufactures ceramics in Crossville, Tennessee and other locations across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com TAILORED LIVING: Basham Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENEVIEVE BASHAM and JENNIFER RAPER, individually and on behalf of all current and former similarly situated employees and/or all aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. TAILORED LIVING CHOICES, LLC, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-02678-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying this action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and authorizing distribution of judicial notice. "All current and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendants in the State of California in the position of Instructional Assistant at any time from June 29, 2017, through the present. ("FLSA Collective" or "Instructional Assistants")." The Plaintiffs further seek conditional class certification as a collective action under the FLSA on behalf of the following sub-class collectives: Minimum Wage Subclass "All members of the FLSA Collective who provided services to two or more clients during the same workday at any time from June 29, 2017, to the present." Overtime Subclass "All members of the FLSA Collective who worked at least once over 40 hours a workweek at any time from June 29, 2017 to the present, and their time and pay records show they were not compensated for all hours in excess of forty during any given workweek at the corresponding overtime rate." The Plaintiffs also request that within 14 days of the Court's Order, Defendant Tailored Living Choices, LLC shall provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel an Excel file containing the (1) full name, (2) job title, (3) dates of employment, (4) last known address, (5) last known cell phone number, (6) location of employment, (7) employee number or ID, (8) social security number (last four digits only) and (9) last known email address for all Instructional Assistants. The Plaintiffs seek a 90-day notice period with a reminder postcard, with notice to be distributed by a well-known Third-Party Administrator via U.S. mail, email, and text message. This motion is made upon the grounds that the named Plaintiffs and the current and former IHSS Homecare Providers they seek to represent are "similarly situated," and that notice of this action should be promptly sent to these individuals giving them notice of the lawsuit and the opportunity to join. The Plaintiffs and those they seek to represent were employed by Defendant TLC as Instructional Assistants and worked at the Lake and Napa locations. Tailored specializes in working with individuals with autism, severe behavioral challenges, and dual diagnosis. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JMS4da at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq. Vilmarie Cordero, Esq. Hali M. Anderson, Esq. Nathan J. Reese, Esq. Taylor M. Gee, Esq. GRAHAMHOLLIS APC 3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-0800 Facsimile: (619) 692-0822 E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com vcordero@grahamhollis.com handerson@grahamhollis.com nreese@grahamhollis.com tgee@grahamhollis.com TAQUERIA LA NORTENA: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIA LOPEZ, KAREN MOLINA, ANGELICA PEREZ and MICHAEL VALENCIA, and the other Class members, Plaintiffs v. TAQUERIA LA NORTENA, CORP and GUILLERMO LOPEZ, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01115 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2024) seeks to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage compensation for the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The complaint alleges that Defendants maintain a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work without providing the minimum and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Moreover, at all relevant times, Defendants failed to maintain accurate record keeping as required by the FLSA and the NYLL. The Plaintiffs also bring this action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act for Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of said laws. The Plaintiffs were former employees of the Defendants who worked as waitresses and cooks. Taqueria La Nortena, Corp. is a Mexican restaurant with its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 TEICHERT ENERGY: Jeronimo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teichert Energy & Utilities Group, Inc. The case is styled as Armando Jeronimo, on Behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Teichert Energy & Utilities Group, Inc., Case No. 24CV000984 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 17, 2024). Teichert Energy & Utilities Group, Inc. -- https://teichert.com/ -- is a construction company based out of Sacramento, California.[BN] TOMORROW ENERGY: Vazquez Sues Over Employee Misclassification ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tomorrow Energy Corp.; TI Sales Group, LLC; Mathieu Pierre; Paul Keene; and John Doe Corporations I-XX, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00698-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, February 19, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants and worked for Defendants as a sales agent from approximately October 1, 2023 through approximately February 1, 2024. He was intentionally misclassified as independent contractor by the Defendants. As a result, he was not subjected to the FLSA's overtime and minimum wage provisions, says the Plaintiff. Tomorrow Energy Corp. is a Nevada corporation that sells energy credits and contracts to customers throughout cities in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 ½ N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com TOYOTA FINANCE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Dealer Loans ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicola Field, writing for Money, reports that if you purchased a car using a loan from Toyota Finance prior to 2018, you could be eligible to be part of a class action seeking compensation for over-the-top finance charges. Melbourne law firm Echo Law has served Toyota Finance with a class action over unfair dealer loans. The class action alleges that between 2010 and 2018 there was an undisclosed "flex commission" arrangement between Toyota Finance Australia and its dealerships. Flex commissions involve car buyers paying an inflated rate of interest on vehicle finance. It works by the finance company and dealer deciding a base rate, though the dealer is free to set a much higher rate, and be rewarded with a bigger commission. The higher the rate and the longer the loan term, the greater the commission the dealer pocketed. Needless to say, car buyers were kept in the dark about this arrangement, and ended up paying considerably more for vehicle finance than necessary. Fortunately, flex commissions were banned in 2018, however, they were widespread before this, and a number of class actions have been launched in a bid to secure compensation for affected car buyers. Maurice Blackburn lawyers, for instance, has served class actions against ANZ (Esanda), Macquarie Leasing, Westpac and St George, estimating that over one million Australians could be eligible for compensation. Andrew Paull, partner at Echo Law, says, "There are hundreds of thousands of Toyota customers who took out dealership loans between 2010 and 2018 that were subject to these unfair arrangements." Some of the loans are still being paid off, and Paull estimates the total extra costs paid by Toyota Finance customers is "in the hundreds of millions of dollars". Anyone who took out a car loan from Toyota Finance between 2010 and November 2018, where the loan was arranged by a car dealer, is eligible to register for the Echo Law class action. It costs nothing to sign up. Just head to the Echo Law website. While flex commissions may be banned, Julian Finch, founder and head of Finch Financial Services, cautions against dealership loans. He says dealerships operate under a loophole that exempts them from strict lending standards, potentially exploiting buyers. "Some dealerships could charge you for things like advertising of the car, document fees, document processing fees and handling fees, and even monthly service fees," adds Finch. According to Mozo, one of the cheapest car loans on the market is a three-year term loan with South West Slopes Credit Union. It has a rate of 4.99% and zero application, account or establishment fees. [GN] TRANS UNION: Must Respond to Brooks Class Cert Bid by March 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Norman Brooks, III, v. TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00048-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gene E.K. Pratter entered an order approving in part the stipulation as follows: 1. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is extended to Feb. 2, 2024. 2. The deadline for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended to March 1, 2024. 3. The deadline for the Plaintiff to reply in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended to March 15, 2024. Trans Union operates as global information and insights company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WArfih at no extra charge.[CC] TRICOPIAN INC: Jelinksi Files ADA Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tricopian, Inc. The case is styled as Candelalira Jelinksi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tricopian, Inc. doing business as: FuelRod, Case No. 3:24-cv-00300-TSH (N.D. Cal., Jan. 18, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tricopian, Inc. doing business as FuelRod -- https://www.fuel-rod.com/ -- is the first reusable, portable charging system that allows you to fuel (charge) your mobile device on the go, and then recharge or swap for a fresh one.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Dengler Miller, Esq. NYE STIRLING HALE MILLER & SWEET, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 963-2345 Fax: (805) 284-9590 Email: jonathan@nshmlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael Kim Tcheng CLARK HILL LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 984-8554 Fax: (415) 984-8599 Email: mtcheng@clarkhill.com TRINITY TEEN: Supplemental Briefing on Class Cert. Issue Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLIE SHERMAN, ANNA GOZUN, and AMANDA NASH, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, V. TRINITY TEEN SOLUTIONS, INC., a Wyoming corporation; ANGELA C. WOODWARD; JERRY D. WOODWARD; KARA WOODWARD; KYLE WOODWARD; and DALLY-UP, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00215-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Scott W. Skavdahl entered an order for post-remand supplemental briefing on class certification issue. Trinity Teen is an all girls ages 12-17 inpatient mental health residential treatment center. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2FZbSf at no extra charge.[CC] UNAPOLOGETIC FOODS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unapologetic Foods, LLC. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Unapologetic Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01203 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Unapologetic Foods, LLC -- https://unapologeticfoods.nyc/ -- are a group of rebels, outliers, and passionate foodies, out to redefine Indian food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Discrimination Class Suit for $6M ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Action reports that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) agreed to a $6 million settlement to resolve claims it subjected Black and Hispanic employees to discrimination. The settlement benefits African American, Black and/or Hispanic workers who were employed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau between Feb. 13, 2011, and April 19, 2022, in a non-supervisory occupational job (series code 301) position in pay bands 4A, 4B, 40, 41, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 51, 52, 53, 6, 6A or 60. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim they were discriminated against based on their race, causing them to be paid lower wages and face other barriers. This discrimination allegedly violated the Civil Rights Act. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a federal agency that enforces financial law and protects consumers from financial harm, such as predatory lending and illegal fees. The CFPB hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $6 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the discrimination claims. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a time in pay band award and a discretionary award. Pay band payments will grant class members up to $5,250 per year they were in certain pay bands while working for the CFPB. Class members in lower pay bands for longer periods will receive the largest pay band payments. Class members can receive an additional discretionary payment if they have evidence of racial discrimination, retaliation, financial losses and/or emotional distress. Class members can claim documented damages that occurred both during and after their employment with the CFPB. The deadline for class members to exclude themselves from or object to the settlement was Nov. 16, 2023. The final approval hearing for the settlement took place Jan. 18, 2024. To receive a CFPB settlement payment, class members must submit their claim and tax forms by April 1, 2024. Who's Eligible African American, Black and/or Hispanic workers who were employed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau between Feb. 13, 2011, and April 19, 2022, in a non-supervisory occupational job (series code 301) position in pay bands 4A, 4B, 40, 41, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 51, 52, 53, 6, 6A or 60. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Employment search history (if seeking compensation for any period after the class member's employment with the CFPB) and other evidence of racial discrimination, retaliation, financial losses and/or emotional distress 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. Claim Form Deadline 04/01/2024 Case Name Jones, et al. v. Rohit Chopra, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02132-BAH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Final Hearing 01/18/2024 Settlement Website CFPBClassSettlement.com Claims Administrator Jones v. Chopra and CFPB c/o Atticus Administration PO Box 64053 Saint Paul, MN 55164 CFPBClassSettlement@atticusadmin.com 888-262-9393 Class Counsel Linda D. Friedman, Esq. George S. Robot, Esq. Truscenialyn Brooks, Esq. Caitlin M. Kearney, Esq. STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD 303 W Madison St Ste 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 431-0888 Justin Leinenweber, Esq. JUSTIN L LEINENWEBER PC 203 N La Salle St Suite 1620 Chicago, IL 60601 Defense Counsel Seth Frotman, Esq. Steven Y. Bressler, Esq. Thomas McCray-Worrall, Esq. Allison Ziegler, Esq. Derick Sohn, Esq. Ryan Cooper, Esq. [GN] USA DOG SHOP: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Usa Dog Shop, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Beauchamp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Usa Dog Shop, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01198 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. USA Dog & Pet Shop -- https://usadogshop.com/ -- specializes in unique pet products manufactured in the USA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com VERTIV CORP: Faces Torok Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE TOROK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. VERTIV CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV063621 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Feb. 13, 2024) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to pay the minimum wages; failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate; failed to pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; failed to provide them with meal periods; failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and rest periods; failed to reimburse them with necessary business expenditures; and engaged in unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee during the relevant statutory periods. Vertiv Corporation is an American multinational provider of critical infrastructure and services for data centers and related facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. Hrag Alexanian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: emil@d.law d.yeremian@d.law d.keledjian@d.law h.alexanian@d.law VIRGINIA VILLAGE: Court Certifies Property Mismanagement Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Denverite reports that after nearly a year of waiting, a group of tenants will be able to bring a class action lawsuit against a series of management companies that own a Denver apartment complex in Virginia Village after a judge certified the case could move forward as a class action suit. The ruling means the case involving potentially thousands of tenants claiming inhospitable apartment conditions can now move towards trial. Lawyers for the tenants say it is likely one of the first class action certifications for tenants in Colorado in a case involving warranty of habitability, a law that requires landlords to provide livable accommodations. The class status means that instead of tenants having to take their landlord to court individually, any potential ruling could cover people who lived in the more than 500-unit complex between 2018 and 2022, when a new management company took over. "It's a huge, huge milestone, we're all super excited," said Dre Chiriboga-Flor, executive director of the Justice for the People Legal Center, who has been working with lawyers on the case. "I think we're setting a pretty big precedent. Hopefully, this will show landlords that this could happen to them because we know this is such a widespread issue." Denverite has reached out to the defendants, Cardinal Group Management, Glendale Properties I and Glendale Properties II, for comment but has not heard back. The class action decision has been a long time coming. The tenants filed the lawsuit in 2021 and the Denver District Court first heard arguments for and against class action status in March of 2023, but the decision lagged because of multiple changes in the assigned judge. The tenants bringing the case forward claim that residents of the Mint Urban Infinity apartment complex raised concerns about broken elevators, doors and AC, piled up trash, a week without hot water and a number of other maintenance and safety issues. Lead plaintiff Brandon Smith began organizing tenants when his AC stopped working. When raising the alarm about apartment issues, Smith said that building management told him and other tenants that they had not previously heard about the issues and that they were isolated to a specific unit. "I started going door to door after work and on weekends, just trying to talk to people, and the more I talked to, the worse it got. I've heard the worst stories imaginable," he said. "I had people knocking on my door crying at random times throughout the day because of the stuff they had to go through." In the 2023 hearing, lawyers for the defendants said that owners were working on fixing issues and that maintenance delays were due to supply chain problems during COVID-19. They argued against trying the case as a class action, claiming that because different apartments have varying features, tenants experienced issues differently. Chiriboga-Flor said this is partially why class action lawsuits like this involving tenants are rare. Colorado District Court Judge Martin Egelhoff recognized that not all tenants experienced the same issues to the same degree, but ultimately wrote that the alleged issues were widespread enough to rule that the case could move forward as a class action. "The thrust of the plaintiff's statutory and contractual claims stem from alleged community-wide and building-wide issues, and the defendants' systemic and institutional response to such issues," Egelhoff said. Now the case will move toward a trial unless the groups involved decide to settle. "This is usually when defendants get real about negotiating a fair resolution to save the expenses of litigating to the end and to try to . . . manage their liability to the extent they can," said Jason Legg, a lawyer with the Justice for the People Center involved in the case. Smith, the lead plaintiff and former tenant, said he wants to see financial restitution for tenants. But he also wants to see a national investigation into the management companies involved, which have properties across the country. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Penuela and Charan Sue Over Disclosure Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW PENUELA and KOUSHIK CHARAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO & CO, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00766-KAW (N.D. Cal., February 8, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the California Unfair Competition Law. Through May 2022, Wells Fargo attempted to comply with Regulation E by providing customers with a Regulation E opt-in disclosure agreement describing the bank's debit card overdraft service. Unfortunately, the document used ambiguous and misleading language to describe when Wells Fargo charged overdraft fees. Specifically, it suggested that Wells Fargo charged overdraft fees based on the actual, official account balance instead of the artificial "available balance" Wells Fargo uses as an internal accounting measure. Moreover, Wells Fargo's opt-in disclosure agreement not only failed to accurately disclose the balance it used to assess an overdraft fee but it also misrepresented Wells Fargo's overdraft policies, the suit alleges. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Wells Fargo is nationally chartered bank that operates over 7,000 branches and 13,000 automatic teller machines nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. Steven A. Haskins, Esq. Valerie L. Savran, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, APC 3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557 1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com sah@mccunewright.com vls@mccunewright.com - and - Emily J. Kirk, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, APC 231 N. Main Street, Suite 20 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-6116 Facsimile: (618) 307-6161 E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com WHOLE EARTH: Monteverde & Associates Investigates Merger Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, are now investigating: Whole Earth Brands, Inc. (Nasdaq: FREE ), relating to its proposed sale to affiliates of Sababa Holdings FREE, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, FREE shareholders are expected to receive $4.875 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/whole-earth-brands-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. HireRight Holdings Corp. (NYSE: HRT ), relating to its proposed sale to affiliates of General Atlantic, L.P. and Stone Point Capital LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, HRT shareholders are expected to receive $14.35 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/hireright-holdings-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Masonite International Corp. (NYSE: DOOR ), relating to its proposed sale to Owens Corning. Under the terms of the agreement, DOOR shareholders are expected to receive $133.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/masonite-international-corp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. ZeroFox Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZFOX ), relating to its proposed sale to Haveli Investments. Under the terms of the agreement, ZFOX shareholders are expected to receive $1.14 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/zerofox-holdings-inc. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: Do you recover money for shareholders? Do you litigate and go to Court? Do you even go to the office and wear a suit? About Monteverde & Associates PC Juan Monteverde is a Spaniard and a born fighter. Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] WICHITA, KS: Court Narrows Claims in Progeny Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROGENY, a program of Destination Innovations, Inc., CHRISTOPHER COOPER, ELBERT COSTELLO, MARTEL COSTELLO, and JEREMY LEVY, JR., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, Case No. 6:21-cv-01100-EFM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric F. Melgren entered an order that Count I as to Progeny and Count VI as to all Plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. The Court further entered an order that: -- The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judge is denied. The Plaintiffs' First Amendment claim relies on the chilling effect of K.S.A. section § 21-6313 and Policy 527. Fundamentally, the core factual issue over which the parties disagree is whether the Plaintiffs' fear is merely subjective or amounts to an objectively justified fear of real consequences. The proper course of action is to allow the parties to contest the issue at trial, after which the Court may make findings of fact necessary to reach a conclusion on this issue. On Oct. 10, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The present class definition covers "all living persons included in the Wichita Police Department's Gang List or Gang Database as an Active or Inactive Gang Member or Gang Associate." Wichita is a city in south-central Kansas. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 30, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N5KVf2 at no extra charge.[CC] WM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Cook Files ADA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM Limited Partnership-1998, et al. The case is styled as Clint Cook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WM Limited Partnership-1998, Wen Georgia, LLC, Wen South, LLC, Does 1 through 25, Case No. 1:24-cv-00695-MLB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 15, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. WM Limited Partnership-1998 doing business as Wendy's of Michigan -- https://locations.wendys.com/united-states/mi -- offers quality fast food, burgers, chicken sandwiches, salads, meal deals, and Frosty.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 1145 Bower Hill Road, Suite 104 Pittsburgh, PA 15243 Phone: (412) 261-2393 Fax: (412) 261-2110 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com - and - John T. Stembridge, Esq. STEMBRIDGE TAYLOR LLC 4840 Roswell Road, Suite E300 Atlanta, GA 30342 Phone: (678) 362-6567 Email: john@stembridgetaylor.com - and - Jordan T. Porter, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 963-2345 Email: jordan@nshmlaw.com - and - Lisa Durham Taylor, Esq. STEMBRIDGE TAYLOR LLC 3651 Mars Hill Road, Suite 2900-B Watkinsville, GA 30677 Phone: (404) 604-2691 Email: lisa@stembridgetaylor.com WONDERSHARE TECHNOLOGY: Blum Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wondershare Technology Group Co., Ltd. The case is styled as Jessica Blum, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wondershare Technology Group Co., Ltd., Wondershare Technology Co., Ltd., Wondershare Global Limited, Vbroadcast Co., Ltd., Wonson Global Enterprises, Inc., Wondershare Technology Group Co., Limited, Wondershare Technology Inc., Wondershare Software Co., Ltd., Smartzen Limited, Shenzhen Wondershare Information Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:24-cv-01314 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Wondershare Technology Group Co., Ltd. -- https://www.wondershare.com/ -- is a China-based company which is mainly engaged in research and development, sales of consumer software and provide the appropriate technical support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. CUSTODIO AND DUBEY LLP 445 South Figueroa Street Suite 2520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 593-9095 Fax: (213) 785-2899 Email: abiri@cd-lawyers.com [*] 8th Annual Class Action Conference in May, Register Today! -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [*] Canada Courts Rule Enforceability of Class Suit Waiver Clauses ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leah Strand and Taylor E. Schlamp, writing for mccarty.ca, report that Canadian courts continue to rule on the enforceability of class action waiver clauses and arbitration clauses following Heller. In brief, a class action waiver clause requires parties to litigate disputes individually basis. An arbitration clause requires parties to arbitrate instead of proceeding to court. Courts have identified a variety of factors that often determine the enforceability of these clauses when challenged. This post summarizes the main ones. Since Heller, many class action waiver clauses and arbitration clauses have been enforced, staying class actions entirely -- or at least limiting them to certain claims that cannot be arbitrated (e.g., certain claims under provincial consumer protection legislation). In other cases, courts have found arbitration and class action waiver clauses unenforceable because of unconscionability or public policy challenges. Unconscionability challenges turn on whether there was (i) an inequality of bargaining power and (ii) a resulting improvident bargain. Public policy challenges generally consider whether the clause(s) prevent a party from accessing independent dispute resolution. The factors courts consider when evaluating the enforceability of class action waiver and arbitration clauses often include: 1. Any vulnerability of the claimant, including any dependence on the defendant: For example, in Pearce, summarized here, the court emphasized that the claimants were distressed persons on the verge of insolvency who had sought assistance from the defendants. The court in Pearce declined to enforce the class action waiver clause. But in Williams (where the clauses were enforced), summarized here, the same court found that consumers were not dependent on access to a large retailer. 2. The location and law of arbitration: Dispute resolution methods that take place outside Canada and under foreign laws are less likely to be enforced, as in Lochan, summarized here. Courts have also considered whether arbitration clauses permit proceeding by videoconference or phone. 3. The clarity of the clause(s): Class action waiver and arbitration clauses are more likely to be enforced if their practical effects can be understood without legal training or assistance. 4. Any exceptions: Courts have considered whether arbitration clauses or class action waivers allow some claims to proceed in court (e.g., small claims matters or certain statutory claims), and whether claimants can opt-out of an arbitration agreement by a certain deadline. 5. Costs: Courts have considered whether the costs of arbitration or individual proceedings would effectively prevent access to dispute resolution. Arbitration clauses are more likely to be enforced where the claimant’s procedural costs are small or recoverable. [GN] [*] PARRIS Gets $5.625MM Settlement for Greeting Cards Retailers ---------------------------------------------------------------- PARRIS obtained a $5.625 million class action settlement on behalf of retail merchandisers who worked for one of the largest sellers of greeting cards in the United States. The California retail merchandisers were hourly-paid employees. The greeting card company failed to pay timely wages to our clients, including minimum wage, overtime wages, final pay, and premium payments for missed meal and rest breaks. The retail merchandisers were encouraged by their employer to work off-the-clock. They would travel to a multitude of retail stores to stock greeting cards and products and organize merchandise displays. They sometimes took merchandise home to scan it, and transmitted new merchandise orders through the company’s system which they could only access through their telephone line at home. The greeting card company would only pay the retail merchandisers for the hours listed on their schedule, but would give them more work than they knew the workers could complete during their scheduled work hours. This created pressure for the merchandisers to work unpaid and off the clock. Additionally, the employees were never compensated for their time spent traveling in between stores or reimbursed for their mileage as required by California law. All of the retail merchandisers were required to have a computer, internet, and phone service at home in order to perform their job and process the merchandising orders, but were not reimbursed for the cost of using these services. Other notable PARRIS results in off-the-clock class action cases include a $29.5 million class action settlement on behalf of hourly workers against a major home improvement company, and a $7.8 million class action settlement on behalf of hourly workers against a chicken processing plant. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Reports $221MM Total Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carrier Global Corporation has total asbestos liabilities of $221 million as of December 31, 2023, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Carrier Global states, "The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos allegedly integrated into certain Carrier products or business premises. While the Company has never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporates it into any currently-manufactured products, certain products that the Company no longer manufactures contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or have been covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate in any period." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OPnG2q ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in, or accompanying, products made by them, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Graham Corp. states, "The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The claims in the Company's current lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos-related suits that named the Company as a defendant, which either were dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for immaterial amounts. The Company cannot provide any assurances that any pending or future matters will be resolved in the same manner as previous lawsuits. "As of December 31, 2023, the Company was subject to the claims noted above, as well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of the lawsuits, legal proceedings or potential claims to which the Company is, or may become, a party to cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot be made for the majority of the claims, management does not believe that the outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VOFZrl ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Reports $20MM Potential Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------------- Otis Worldwide Corporation has been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "While we have never manufactured any asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical products have contained components manufactured by third parties incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of, and for the years ended, December 31, 2023 and 2022. "The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately $20 million to $43 million as of December 31, 2023, and $21 million to $43 million as of December 31, 2022. Since no amount within the range of estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded the minimum amount of $20 million and $21 million as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively, which is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Amounts are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and exclude the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately $5 million, which is principally included in Other assets on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2023 and 2022. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kCRiNX ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the its historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In many of these cases, the complaints are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. No accruals have been recorded in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of a loss is not probable at this time; and the Company does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to, nor does it expect the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material adverse effect on, the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance that future developments related to pending claims or claims filed in the future, whether as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dg92Se ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Defends 915 Cases as of Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation, as of December 31, 2023, was a defendant in approximately 915 active cases involving approximately 2,505 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. About 1,545, or approximately 62 percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At December 31, 2022, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 920 cases involving approximately 2,510 plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. "The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4) uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to address asbestos-related claims. "Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed against the Company in the future. The Company engages an outside valuation consultant to assist in assessing its ability to estimate an accrual for unasserted claims. This assessment is based on the Company's settlement experience, including recent claims trends. This analysis focuses on settlements made over the last several years as these claims are likely to best represent future claim characteristics. After review by the valuation consultant and U. S. Steel management, it was determined that the Company could not estimate an accrual for unasserted claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KIsEI0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Faces 575 PI Lawsuits as of Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- WestRock Company has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2023, there were approximately 575 such lawsuits. We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims. We also have valid defenses to these asbestos-related personal injury claims and intend to continue to defend them vigorously. Should the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we could incur significant costs resolving these cases. We do not expect the resolution of pending asbestos litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. In any given period or periods, however, it is possible such proceedings or matters could have an adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. At December 31, 2023, we had $14.7 million reserved for these matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TiDIEt ********* 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 ***