/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240409.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 9, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 72
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Boado Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ACCUCOM CORPORATION: Azuz Suit Seeks to Quash Subpoena
AEROCARE HOLDINGS: Desouza Wins Bid for Class Certification
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Emami Suit
AMBERGLEN DEVELOPMENT: Garcia Wins Bid for Class Certification
AMERICAN-AMICABLE LIFE: Hessee Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
ANDOVER PROPERTIES: St. Clair Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ANTHEM CO: Learing Wins Bid to Certify Class
ANTONY BLINKEN: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Pars Equality Suit
APPLE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bryan Extended to August 22
ASPEN SKILLED: Saephan Sues Over Unlawful Concealments
ASR GROUP: BW-SS Inc. Sues Over Sugar Price Monopoly
BANK OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Extended to June 14
BANKERS LIFE: Alison Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
BARCLAYS PLC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
BIOVENTUS INC: Parties Seek to Modify Sched Order in Ciarciello
BNP PARIBAS: Plaintiffs Seek to Enforce Guilty Plea Deal
BOTTOM LINE: Court Denies in Part Bid to Dismiss Martin TCPA Suit
BRENDAN WALLACE: Jandreau Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
CAFE 52 RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE: Sankar Sues Over Data Breach
CALL 4 HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hill Suit Alleges
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Class Cert Deadline Continued to April 25
CATTRO CONSULTING: Holody Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
CHAIM LEBOVITS: Andrev Files Suit in S.D. New York
CHAIM LEBOVITS: Porteous Files Suit in S.D. New York
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Apex Alleges
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Castell Alleges
CLASSDOJO INC: Sancruzado Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
CLASSIC BEVERAGE: Rodriguez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
COLTER ENERGY: Class Cert. Response in Zaarour Extended to April 16
CONTANGO RESOURCES: Suit Seeks Approval of Class Action Settlement
CONTINENTAL AG: Flemister Sues Over Tire Price Monopoly
COOLING GUARD: Zimbardo Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
CORSAIR GAMING: Plaintiffs Must File Initial Approval Bid by May 14
CRESTLINE HOTELS: Bankhead Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
D2C LLC: Martinez Expedited Bid to Extend Deadlines Tossed
DE II LLC: Gamez Suit Removed to C.D. California
DEL MONTE: Baird Sues Over Mislabeled Diced Peaches
DES MOINES ORTHOPAEDIC: Grote Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
DES MOINES ORTHOPAEDIC: Lewman Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
DESERT SALES ACADEMY: Logan Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS: Macaisa Files Suit in S.D. Florida
DIDI GLOBAL: Bids to Dismiss in Hechler Securities Suit Denied
DIDI GLOBAL: N.Y. Court Denies Bids to Dismiss in Kucharski Suit
DIDI GLOBAL: S.D. New York Denies Bids to Dismiss in Chopra Suit
DIDI GLOBAL: S.D.N.Y. Denies Bids to Dismiss in Securities Suit
DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS: Hessee Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY: Boardley Sues Over Retention of Tuition
DX ENTERPRISES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 31, 2025
EQUIFAX WORKFORCE: Gerena Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia
ESQUIRE BANK: Print Your Plaques Files Suit in E.D. New York
ETRADE SECURITIES: Burmin Sues Over Breach of Contract
FAHIM LOGISTICS: Case Management Conference Set for April 16
FESTIVAL FUN PARKS: McGivan Sues Over Undisclosed Total Cost
FLAGSTAR BANK: Discovery Cutoff Dates Remains, Court Says
FORESCOUT TECH: Class Cert Oral Argument in Sayce Set for May 17
FRESH AMERICAN: Villaverde Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
FTX TRADING: Settles Class Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme for $1.3M
GEICO CASUALTY: Perkins Sues Over Unfair Insurance Claims' Scheme
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE: Chick Files Suit in E.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Summary Judgment Bid vs Riley Partly Granted
GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Tosses Hasemann Class Cert Bids
GMRI INC: Seeks Denial of Gaye Class Certification Bid
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Hicks Suit Seeks Class Certification
GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Settlement in Ziegler Suit Gets Final Nod
H.I.G. CAPITAL: Arrington Suit Removed to C.D. California
HANDI-FOIL CORP: Osdoby Suit Seeks to Certify Class
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Carlson Suit Removed to D. Hawaii
HEALING CARE HOSPICE: Anguiano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HIGHPEAK ENERGY: Guillot Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Texas
HOG ISLAND OYSTER: Renderos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
IDEXX LABORATORIES: Labelle Foundation Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
INMARKET MEDIA: Kruger Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data
INNOVIZ TECHNOLOGIES: Lucid Alternative Sues Over Share Price Drop
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Suit in CA Court Dismissed
JAMES LEBLANC: S.M. Driver's License Suit Seeks Class Certification
JONNY POPS: Shuton Sues Over Fraudulent Packaging and Advertising
KANSAS JOINT & SPINE: Matney Files Suit in D. Kansas
KANSAS, MO: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Response OK'd
KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Hans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Mahaffey Files Suit C.D. California
KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Shahbazian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KROGER TEXAS: Houston Police Sues Over Fraudulent VISA Gift Cards
L&R DISTRIBUTION: Madewell Sues Over Retaliation and Harassment
L'OREAL USA: Acne Products Contain Benzene, Abednego Says
LLOYD AUSTIN III: Rosario Wins Bid for Class Certification
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Order Entered in Jenkins
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Masry Suit Removed to C.D. California
M&T BANK: Allowed to Incorporate Class Cert Opposition Reference
MA-KA-ROHN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Burke Suit Claims
MARK CUBAN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Karnas Extended to April 10
MARS PETCARE: Plaintiffs' Bids to Seal Docs Granted in Part
MERCEDES BENZ: Partly Loses Class Suit Over Diesel Defeat Devices
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Investors
MOLSON COORS: Krechting Sues Over Mislabeled Mimosa Hard Seltzer
MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Discovery Completion Extended to June 28
MUBI INC: Edwards Suit Removed to N.D. California
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Court Certifies 401(k) Fund Class Action Suit
NCAA: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Modified to April 19
NEXA MORTGAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Andersen Claims
NORTH KANSAS CITY HOSPITAL: H.Z. Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Ambrosio Files Suit in E.D. New York
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Mancuso Files Suit in E.D. New York
NYS CORPORATION: Chen Files Suit in C.D. California
OAK VIEW GROUP: Kemmerlin Files Suit in C.D. California
OCEAN SPRAY: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Dried Cranberries
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Class Settlement in Weiner Suit Gets Initial Nod
OWENS CORNING ROOFING: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PATRIOT (2010) LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bryan Alleges
PHE INC: Suit Removed to C.D. California
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Santos Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
PLUG POWER: Faces Adote Suit Over Drop in Share Price
PLUSHCARE INC: Aguilar Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
POTPOURRI GROUP: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
PREDATOR INTERNATIONAL: Kellum Files Suit in D. Colorado
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Summary Judgment Bid vs Volino Partly OK'd
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Bid to Exclude Felix Report Granted in Part
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Plaintiffs Allowed to File Amended Complaint
PURPOSE POINT: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Supplemental Brief
RBS CITIZENS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 11
REGULATORY DATACORP: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for April 17
SALVATION ARMY: Court Dismisses Van Horn Class Suit
SELECTQUOTE INC: Stannard Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
SENTOSACARE LLC: Court Lifts Stay of Chow Suit
SOUTH DAKOTA: Alvarez Partial Summary Judgment Bid Tossed
SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Class Certification Bid in Whipple Due May 31
SSM HEALTH CARE: Suit Filed in Mo. Cir. Ct.
STARCO BRANDS: Ryan Suit Removed to N.D. California
STATE FARM: Bid to Amend Initial Pretrial Order OK'd
STELLANTIS NV: Faces Consumer Suits in Various Countries
STELLANTIS NV: Subsidiary Faces Consumer Suits in FL and MI Courts
STEPHANIE M. AZAR: Suit Filed in M.D. Alabama
STEPHEN JAMES: Filing of Class Cert. Bid in Best Due Sept. 24
TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNITED STATES: District of Columbia Dismisses Amended Steele Suit
UNITED STATES: Greer Files Suit in D. Columbia
UNITED STATES: Seeks to Defer Volkova Class Cert Entry Order
US XPRESS: Settlement in Wage Suit Gets Final OK
VAXART INC: Class Cert Oral Argument in Himmelberg Set for May 9
W6LS INC: Spigner Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
WASHINGTON: Angelone Seeks to Certify Class
WELCH FOODS: Class Cert Hearing Continued to June 27
WINGSTOP INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
[^] Darrow Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference
*********
3M COMPANY: Boado Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Boado, as Surviving Spouse and Heir to the Estate of Noli
Boado, deceased, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS &
SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN &
COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY
SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET
MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES
INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP; Case No. 2:24-cv-00894-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 21, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where
it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains
in the human body while contemporaneously presenting significant
health risks to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory
relief arising from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Elizabeth Boado is the surviving spouse and heir to
the Estate of Noli Boado who regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF and TOG products. Decedent's diagnosis
caused and/or contributed to his death.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
ACCUCOM CORPORATION: Azuz Suit Seeks to Quash Subpoena
------------------------------------------------------
MARILYN AZUZ, plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against ACCUCOM
CORPORATION, d/b/a INFOTRACER, has asked the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to grant her Motion to Quash
Accucom Corporation d/b/a Infotracer's Subpoena to Julian C.
Diamond, Esq.
The case is captioned as MARILYN AZUZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCUCOM CORPORATION,
d/b/a INFOTRACER, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-mc-00143 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 25, 2024).
ACCUCOM CORPORATION, d/b/a INFOTRACER gathers billions of records
from thousands of sources including courthouses, registries, county
sheriff offices, the World Wide Web and consumer databases, then
organize this data to build a digital profile for each individual.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
AEROCARE HOLDINGS: Desouza Wins Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER DESOUZA, v. AEROCARE
HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-01047-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Roy Dalton Jr. entered an order certifying the following
class:
Since November 23, 2018, all persons to whose telephone
number
the AdaptHealth Parties initiated, or had initiated on their
behalf, more than one text message in a 12-month period for
the
purpose of inviting the recipient to order CPAP supplies,
after
the recipient had replied "stop" or its equivalent to one of
the
AdaptHealth Parties' text messages.
Furthermore, the Court entered an order:
-- Designating Plaintiff Desouza as class representative;
-- Appointing Attorneys Jeremy M. Glapion and Bradford Rothwell
Sohn
as Class Counsel.
-- Approving the Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
-- Directing The parties and the Settlement Administrator are
directed to implement the Agreement in accordance with its
terms
and provisions.
-- Approving the Plaintiff's request for $1,281,400 in attorney's
fees and $14,341.83 in costs is approved.
The case is a class action suit in which Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").
The Plaintiff has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since
Nov. 6, 2015. While the Plaintiff tried to get a replacement CPAP
machine, the Defendant solicited him to buy additional CPAP
supplies via email and phone.
The Plaintiff tried to unsubscribe from these communications but
despite text confirmations that his unsubscribe attempts were
successful, the Plaintiff kept receiving texts from the Defendant.
AeroCare provides health care equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TcrVxu at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Emami Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARANGIS EMAMI, et al., v.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Case No. 18-cv-01587-JD (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order certifying the
following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for
all remaining claims in this consolidated action:
All applicants for visas who are nationals of Iran, Libya,
North
Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen who (1) were
refused
visas under INA 212(f) pursuant to Proclamation 9645 between
Dec. 8, 2017 and Jan. 20, 2021; (2) did not obtain a waiver of
that refusal; and (3) have not subsequently obtained a visa.
Excluded from the class are diversity visa applicants, and any
individuals who have reapplied for a visa subsequent to the
revocation of Proclamation 9645.
The Plaintiffs Nastaran Haji Heydari, Hojjatollah Azizikoutenaeni,
Roghayeh Azizitkoutenaei, Farangis Emami, Farajollah Farnoudian,
Mohammad Mehdi Mozaffary, Zahra Rouzebehani, Bahram Charktab
Tabrizi, and Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi are appointed as the named
class representatives.
Attorneys Eric B. Evans, John A. Freedman, Max S. Wilson, Hammad A.
Alam, Shabnam Lotfi, Veronica Sustic, and Naomi Tsu are appointed
as class counsel.
The parties are directed to meet and confer on a proposed remedy,
and file a proposed injunction for the certified class by April 12,
2024. Additional briefing on remedy issues is not necessary and
will not be accepted.
The plaintiffs and putative class members are United States
citizens, and lawful permanent residents and foreign nationals
hailing from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. They allege
that the federal government ignored the waiver program and declined
to grant waivers across the board, which caused plaintiffs
substantial family and personal dislocation.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OVsOIt at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMBERGLEN DEVELOPMENT: Garcia Wins Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garcia v. Amberglen
Development LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00400 (D. Or., Filed March 20,
2023), the Hon. Judge Jolie A Russo entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Court said that the motion is adequately supported by the
accompanying declarations and case law, and overall appears to be
well-taken.
The Defendant also failed to file a timely response, such that the
court treats the motion as unopposed, the Court adds.
Accordingly, Francisco Javier Garcia is appointed as class
representative and Troy Pickard is appointed as class counsel.
The nature of suit alleges violation of the diversity-breach of
contract.
AMERICAN-AMICABLE LIFE: Hessee Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American-Amicable
Life Ins. Co. of Texas. The case is styled as Robert Hessee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American-Amicable Life Ins. Co. of Texas, Case No. 6:24-cv-00243-MC
(D. Ore., Feb. 5, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
American-Amicable -- https://www.americanamicable.com/ -- is a
wholly owned subsidiary of iA Financial Group, one of the largest
insurance and wealth management groups in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David McGlothlin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: david@kazlg.com
ANDOVER PROPERTIES: St. Clair Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cody St. Clair and Andre Foster-Hubbard, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. ANDOVER PROPERTIES, LLC, d/b/a
STORAGE KING USA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01185 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2024),
is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to
remedy Defendant's violations of federal law which have deprived
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of earned
overtime compensation.
The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and the other similarly
situated hourly-paid Managers for all time worked, including
overtime hours, in violation of the FLSA. Specifically, Defendant
has a common, uniform, and widespread policy and practice which
discouraged Managers from reporting overtime hours, that is, any
hours over 40 in an individual work week. Pursuant to this policy
and practice, Defendant advised Managers that they could be subject
to adverse employment action, including termination, if they
reported more than 40 hours in an individual work week.
The Defendant instituted and continued this policy and practice
notwithstanding the fact that it assigned work to Managers that
could not reasonably be completed in a 40-hour work week, such that
Managers regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week
off-the-clock, without compensation for their overtime hours
worked. The Defendant's willful, knowing, and/or reckless policies
of intentionally requiring
Plaintiffs and the similarly situated Managers to underreport the
number of hours actually worked and not including non-discretionary
bonuses in its regular calculations denied Managers overtime
compensation due to them, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were hourly-paid Managers who were employed by
Defendant.
The Defendant is storage facility owner, operator, and third -party
management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
477 Madison Ave, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (800) 6164000
Email: mpalltz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Gregg L. Shavitz, Esq.
Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Ratow FL 33431
Phone: (561) 447-8888
Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
ANTHEM CO: Learing Wins Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christine Learing,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The
Anthem Companies, Inc.; Amerigroup Corporation; and Amerigroup
Partnership Plan, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-02283-JWB-DJF (D. Minn.),
the Hon. Judge Jerry Blackwell entered an order:
1. Granting the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment;
2. Denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment;
3. Denying the Defendants' motion to decertify conditionally
certified collective; and
4. Granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class as follows:
a. The following Rule 23 class is certified:
All persons who worked as Medical Management Nurses,
Utilization Management Nurses, Utilization Review Nurses,
or
other similar job titles who were paid a salary and
treated
as exempt from overtime laws, and were primarily
responsible
for performing medical necessity reviews for the
Defendants
in Minnesota from three years prior to the filing of this
Complaint through judgment.
b. The Plaintiff must file an amended proposed class notice
reflecting the rulings made in this Order within 14 days,
after which an order setting a 45-day notice period and
authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to mail the class
notice
will be issued. If the notice will be sent to individuals
who
already received notice of the FLSA action, the amended
notice should explain why they are receiving a second
notice
and explain the opt-out procedure that applies to the
state
law claims. Defendants will be permitted to raise its
objections to the amended notice by filing a letter with
the
court within 7 days of Plaintiff’s filing the amended
notice.
c. The Plaintiff Christine Learing is appointed Class
Representative.
d. Nichols Kaster, PLLP is appointed Class Counsel.
e. The Defendants are ordered to produce a list of all
individuals who worked in a medical management nurse role
in
Minnesota or otherwise fit the certified class description
at
any time in the three years prior to the filing of the
Complaint in this matter.
The case is a dispute over alleged misclassification of utilization
review nurses as exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA)
overtime pay requirements.
The Plaintiff Christine Learing seeks to represent an FLSA
collective and Rule 23 class of similarly situated utilization
review nurses in Minnesota challenging their exemption status.
Anthem offers managed healthcare related products and
administrative services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RXbQNd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq.
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
IDS Center, 80 S 8th St Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (877) 344-4628
The Defendants are represented by:
Brett Christopher Bartlett, Esq.
Kevin Michael Young, Esq.
Lennon Haas, Esq.
Thomas J. Posey, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LPP
2323 Ross Ave. Suite 1660
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 608-6700
Facsimile: (713) 225-2340
ANTONY BLINKEN: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Pars Equality Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PARS EQUALITY CENTER, et
al., v. ANTONY BLINKEN, et al., Case No. 18-cv-07818-JD (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order certifying the
following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for
all remaining claims in this consolidated action:
All applicants for visas who are nationals of Iran, Libya,
North
Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen who (1) were
refused
visas under INA 212(f) pursuant to Proclamation 9645 between
Dec. 8, 2017 and Jan. 20, 2021; (2) did not obtain a waiver of
that refusal; and (3) have not subsequently obtained a visa.
Excluded from the class are diversity visa applicants, and any
individuals who have reapplied for a visa subsequent to the
revocation of Proclamation 9645.
The Plaintiffs Nastaran Haji Heydari, Hojjatollah Azizikoutenaeni,
Roghayeh Azizitkoutenaei, Farangis Emami, Farajollah Farnoudian,
Mohammad Mehdi Mozaffary, Zahra Rouzebehani, Bahram Charktab
Tabrizi, and Hossein Zamani Hosseinabadi are appointed as the named
class representatives.
Attorneys Eric B. Evans, John A. Freedman, Max S. Wilson, Hammad A.
Alam, Shabnam Lotfi, Veronica Sustic, and Naomi Tsu are appointed
as class counsel.
The parties are directed to meet and confer on a proposed remedy,
and file a proposed injunction for the certified class by April 12,
2024. Additional briefing on remedy issues is not necessary and
will not be accepted.
The plaintiffs and putative class members are United States
citizens, and lawful permanent residents and foreign nationals
hailing from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. They allege
that the federal government ignored the waiver program and declined
to grant waivers across the board, which caused plaintiffs
substantial family and personal dislocation.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FCG98z at no extra
charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bryan Extended to August 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BRYAN and
HERIBERTO VALIENTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00845-AMO (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order
extending case schedule as follows:
Event Previous Deadline New
Deadline
Motion for Class Certification May 23, 2024 Aug. 22,
2024
and Expert Reports:
Opposition to Motion for Class July 26, 2024 Oct. 30,
2024
Certification and Expert Reports:
Reply in Support of Motion for Aug. 29, 2024 Dec. 5,
2024
Class Certification:
Hearing on Motion for Class Oct. 17, 2024 Jan. 9,
2025
Certification at 2:00 p.m. or as soon
thereafter
as
this
matter
may be
heard
The Plaintiff Christopher Bryan initiated this action on Feb. 9,
2022.
The Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Defendant's motion to dismiss on March 2, 2023. The Plaintiffs
filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on March 23, 2023.
Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X0T492 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jmarchese@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
Michael M. Klotz, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
mklotz@omm.com
ASPEN SKILLED: Saephan Sues Over Unlawful Concealments
------------------------------------------------------
Chiem Saephan, and all others similarly situated v. ASPEN SKILLED
HEALTHCARE, LLC.; ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE, INC.; AOCL, LLC; and
DOES 1-250, inclusive, Case No. 30-2024-01377279-CU-NP-CXC (Cal.
Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Feb. 2, 2024), is brought Violations of
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; Unfair Competition Law and
Violations of Resident Rights due to the Defendants' unlawful
concealments.
Before, during, and after the admissions processes of Plaintiff and
each class member, the the Defendants actively and intentionally
concealed from Plaintiff and class members that at all times
relevant hereto the Facility did not employ "an adequate number of
"Direct Caregivers", as the term "Direct Caregivers."
It is alleged that the concealments by the Defendants alleged in
the immediately preceding paragraph were intended to deceive
Plaintiff and members of the class into believing that the Facility
were properly operated to induce Plaintiff and class members into
becoming and/or remaining residents of the Facility.
Before, during, and after the admissions processes of Plaintiff and
each class member, the the Defendants actively and intentionally
concealed from Plaintiff and class members that the Defendants
chronically understaffed the Facility with an inadequate number of
"Direct Caregivers" to carry out the function of the Facility as
more fully alleged herein, and in so doing and as a result thereof,
the the Defendants have violated the rights afforded to all
residents of skilled nursing facilities under Health & Safety
Code.
In reality, in direct contradiction to the representation in their
uniform admission agreement that the Facility would "employ an
number of qualified personnel to carry out all functions of the
facility" and to meet the needs of their residents, the Defendants
chronically understaffed the Facility as to "Direct Caregivers" in
violation of the Resident Bill of Rights, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a resident in the skilled nursing facility doing
business as Country Crest Post-Acute owned, operated and/or
controlled by the defendants.
AOCL, LLC is in the business of providing long-term custodial care
as the licensee of a 24-hour skilled nursing facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen M. Garcia, Esq.
GARCIA & ARTIGLIERE
180 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1100
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 216-5270
Facsimile: (562) 216-5271
Email: edocs@lawgarcia.com
ASR GROUP: BW-SS Inc. Sues Over Sugar Price Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------
BW-SS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMERICAN
SUGAR REFINING, INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS
&REFINERS COOPERATIVE f/k/a UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION; MICHIGAN
SUGAR COMPANY; CARGILL, INC.; COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC.; and
RICHARD WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No.0:24-cv-01047 (D. Minn.,
March 22, 2024) is an action arising from the Defendants' unlawful
agreement to fix prices for Granulated Sugar in the United States
in violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, since at January 1,
2019, the Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for
Granulated Sugar, sold throughout the United States.
The Defendants are engaged in price signaling and exchanged
competitively sensitive information about prices, capacity, sales
volume, and demand. These actions were taken with the intended
purpose and effect of increasing the price of Granulated Sugar
throughout the United States.
As a result of the Defendants' combination and conspiracy,
Granulated Sugar prices in the United States have been artificially
inflated throughout the "Class Period," i.e., beginning January 1,
2019, to the present, causing Plaintiff and other commercial,
industrial, and institutional indirect purchasers to suffer
overcharges, says the suit.
ASR GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, refines purchased raw cane sugar
and sugar syrup. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
Ian F. McFarland, Esq.
Zachary J. Freese, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 S. 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
Email: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com
zachary.freese@zimmreed.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Extended to June 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA L. HIGGINBOTHAM, on
behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-00375 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge
John Copenhaver Jr. entered an order granting the parties' motion
to the extent of setting the deadline for the Plaintiff to file a
motion for preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement as follows:
Deadline Date
Deadline for completion of fact discovery May 31, 2024
needed for Plaintiff's individual claims
and class certification issues:
Deadline for Plaintiff to file Motion for June 14, 2024
Class Certification:
Deadline for Defendant to file Response to July 8, 2024
Motion for Class Certification:
Deadline for Plaintiff to file Reply in July 26, 2024
Support of Motion for Class Certification:
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Sept. 26, 2024
Deadline to serve discovery requests for Nov. 22, 2024
other fact discovery
Pretrial conference Apr. 18, 2025
Final settlement conference May 19, 2025
Trial May 20, 2025
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3YiRSR at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANKERS LIFE: Alison Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bankers Life and
Casualty Company. The case is styled as Renae Alison, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life and
Casualty Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-01201 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 12,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Default.
The Bankers Life and Casualty Company doing business as Bankers
Life -- https://www.bankerslife.com/ -- is a private American
health insurance company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amina A Thomas, Esq.
Lynn Antoinette Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
1 Indiana Sq-Ste 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46206-0627
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: athomas@cohenandmalad.com
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
BARCLAYS PLC: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on February 23,
2024, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York largely denied a motion
to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a financial institution and
certain of its executives. In re Barclays PLC Sec. Litig., 2024 WL
757385 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2024). Plaintiff alleged that the company
had issued securities in excess of what it had registered for with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which allegedly
rendered misleading certain of its statements regarding compliance
with securities laws and internal controls. Id. While the Court
held that certain alleged misrepresentations were adequately
pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed claims
as to statements made after the alleged over-issuances were
disclosed and rejected plaintiff's control person liability theory
as to certain defendants.
The Court first considered the company's general statements
relating to internal controls before the alleged over-issuances
were revealed, including that the company was "committed to
operating within a strong system of internal control" and had
"frameworks, policies and standards" that enabled the company "to
meet regulators' expectations relating to internal control and
assurance." Id. at *11. The Court rejected defendants' argument
that these statements were too "simple and generic" to be
actionable, explaining that, according to the complaint's
allegations, the company allegedly did not have any control
mechanism in place to prevent the over-issuance of securities and
the supposed omission of this lack of a control system was
adequately alleged to be material. Id. at *12. The Court stressed
that, in its view, the allegations were not merely that the
company's systems underperformed; rather, the allegations were that
no system for tracking the company's securities issuances existed
at all. The Court further held that because it concluded that these
statements were actionable, plaintiff could also pursue claims
challenging the company's Exchange Act compliance certifications.
Id. at *13.
However, the Court rejected plaintiff's challenges to statements
made after the alleged over‑issuances were publicly disclosed.
First, the Court held that the company's statements regarding its
initial assessment of the impact of the alleged over-issuances --
which allegedly turned out to be an underestimate -- were not
actionable. Id. at *14. The Court observed that there were no
allegations that, at the time these statements were made, the
company had discovered information that contradicted its
statements. Id. The Court also determined that these statements
were not adequately alleged to be materially false, given that
these statements, according to the Court, "underscored the
[c]ompany's lack of a system" for tracking the securities at issue
and also expressly disclosed that the assessment reflected the
company's "best estimate" at the time. Id. at *14–15. Second, the
Court held that the company's statement announcing the results of
an investigation by outside counsel -- which allegedly failed to
disclose that the company's board had yet to issue its final report
-- was not actionable. Id. at *15. The Court concluded that the
company did inform investors that the outside counsel report would
be used by the company to determine whether action should be taken
against company executives, and that the alleged omission of other
information was not materially misleading. Id.
In addition, the Court determined that plaintiff adequately
alleged, for the challenged statements made before the alleged
over-issuances were revealed, that defendants acted with scienter
on a theory of recklessness. In reaching this conclusion, the Court
emphasized that, according to the complaint's allegations, the
company allegedly acknowledged in prior correspondence sent to the
SEC that its status as a Well-Known Seasoned Issuer ("WKSI") --
which allowed it to issue securities subject to "more lenient
communications and registration rules and regulations" (id. at *2)
-- was "importan[t]" to the company "in meeting its capital and
funding requirements" and that losing this status would "curtail
important channels of communication to investors," hurt the
company's ability to respond to "current regulatory and market
conditions and uncertainties that are significantly transforming
the landscape for financial institutions like [the company]," and
harm "the speed at which [the company] could strengthen its capital
position if require[d] to do so" by a regulator. Id. at *18. Thus,
the Court concluded that, in its view, defendants were adequately
alleged to be reckless in failing to implement controls regarding
shelf issuances after the company lost its WKSI status. Id. at *18.
The Court further explained that its conclusion in this regard was
supported by the complaint's allegations regarding the supposed
magnitude of the alleged over‑issuances and the allegation that
they were supposedly discovered through a basic inquiry made to the
company's legal department by a low-level employee. Id. at *19.
The Court also held plaintiff had adequately pleaded loss causation
because the emergence of the company's allegedly inadequate
controls was plausibly alleged to have caused the company's stock
price to fall. Id. at *21.
Finally, the Court dismissed plaintiff's control person claims
against the company's board chair and against the company's
subsidiary that was allegedly responsible for the alleged
over‑issuances. As for the chair, the Court held that his status
as chair did not "demonstrate actual control over the company and
the incident in question," nor was he adequately alleged to have
been culpable in the alleged over-issuances. Id. at *22. As for the
corporate subsidiary, the Court concluded that plaintiff alleged no
facts suggesting the subsidiary exerted control over its corporate
parent or that it had any control over the statements the Court
held were actionable. Id. [GN]
BIOVENTUS INC: Parties Seek to Modify Sched Order in Ciarciello
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CIARCIELLO
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
BIOVENTUS INC., KENNETH M. REALI, MARK L. SINGLETON, GREGORY O.
ANGLUM, and SUSAN M. STALNECKER, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CCE-JEP
(M.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying
the scheduling order as follows:
1. The Defendants shall file and serve April 16, 2024
their opposition to the Motion on:
2. Lead Plaintiff shall file and serve May 7, 2024
its reply in support of the Motion
on:
3. All other dates and deadlines set forth in the Order shall
remain in place.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 21, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rUS5QR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gagan Gupta, Esq.
TIN FULTON WALKER & OWEN PLLC
119 East Main Street
Durham, NC 27701
Telephone: (919) 370-8807
E-mail: ggupta@tinfulton.com
- and -
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalwa.com
jfonti@bfalaw.com
nkulesa@bfalaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michele D. Johnson, Esq.
Kristin N. Murphy, Esq.
Colleen C. Smith, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 540-1235
Facsimile: (714) 755-8290
E-mail: michele.johnson@lw.com
kristin.murphy@lw.com
colleen.smith@lw.com
- and -
Donald H. Tucker, Jr., Esq.
SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT,
DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN,
L.L.P.
Raleigh, NC 27602-2611
Telephone: (919) 821-6681
E-mail: dtucker@smithlaw.com
BNP PARIBAS: Plaintiffs Seek to Enforce Guilty Plea Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ENTESAR OSMAN KASHEF, et
al., v. BNP PARIBAS S.A., BNP PARIBAS S.A. NEW YORK BRANCH, and BNP
PARIBAS US WHOLESALE HOLDINGS, CORP., Case No. 1:16-cv-03228-AKH-JW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion to enforce the Defendants' guilty plea agreements and
unseal judicial documents.
In sum, these contradictions and inconsistencies by BNPP, its
attorneys, agents, officers, and employees violate the prohibition
of its plea agreements that it shall not raise defenses "in any
civil proceedings brought by private parties in the United States."
The Court should not countenance such disregard of guilty pleas
taken under oath.
BNPP cannot dispute its conspiracy with Sudan, its knowledge of
Sudan's human right atrocities, its own responsibility linked to
this conspiracy, and the admitted fact the but-for BNPP's financial
support, Sudan would not have had the billions in illicit U.S.
Dollars to perpetrate is human rights abuses.
Accordingly, the Court should order that the disputed summary
judgment and class certification exhibits be filed on the public
docket, with redactions applied only to the names of individuals
not sanctioned by the U.S. government and to entries unrelated to
BNPP's dealings with sanctioned state sponsors of terrorism: Sudan,
Iran, and Cuba.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court bar BNPP, its attorneys,
agents, officers, or employees from asserting any statements or
representations that contradict or are inconsistent with its guilty
pleas and underlying Factual Statements.
BNP Paribas is a multinational universal bank and financial
services holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 25, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mDxRK8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kathryn Lee Boyd, Esq.
Theodor Bruening, Esq.
Michael Eggenberger, Esq.
Kristen Nelson, Esq.
HECHT PARTNERS LLP
125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 502-9515
E-mail: lboyd@hechtpartners.com
tbruening@hechtpartners.com
meggenberger@hechtpartners.com
knelson@hechtpartners.com
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
Scott A. Gilmore, Esq.
Amanda E. Lee-DasGupta, Esq.
Claire A. Rosset, Esq.
Mary S. Van Houten Harper, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
sgilmore@hausfeld.com
alee@hausfeld.com
crosset@hausfeld.com
mvanhouten@hausfeld.com
BOTTOM LINE: Court Denies in Part Bid to Dismiss Martin TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled QIANA MARTIN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOTTOM LINE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08510-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint.
The putative class action arises out of alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") involving the artist
known professionally as Snoop Dogg.
Plaintiff Qiana Martin claims that on Aug. 30, 2023, at 3:02 p.m.,
she received a robocall, purportedly from Snoop Dogg. The call went
to her voicemail. The prerecorded message touted a federal tax
break known as the Employee Retention Credit (or "ERC") as having
the "Snoop Dogg stamp of approval" and told Martin to go to
"ERCEmoll.com" to get "them funds in your hands quicker than you
can roll up your favorite, well, you know what I mean."
Ms. Martin alleges that the robocall was placed by, or is otherwise
attributable to, Defendant Bottom Line Concepts, LLC ("BLC"), such
that BLC violated the TCPA.
Pending now is BLC's motion to dismiss Martin's First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth in this Opinion & Order,
the Court denies BLC's motion in substantial part, granting it only
as to the FAC's request for injunctive relief.
Ms. Martin is a citizen of New York. BLC is a consulting firm
organized under the laws of Florida.
To solicit new customers, BLC relies on both its own direct
marketing efforts and a referral program. More than 50,000 people
have signed up as BLC "Referral Partners." BLC instructs its
Referral Partners to utilize cold calling, cold email, direct mail,
and various forms of online marketing. Referral Partners receive a
10% commission (taken from BLC's overall fee) for each customer
they refer.
On Sept. 27, 2023, Martin initiated this action. On Oct. 23, 2023,
BLC moved to dismiss Martin's initial complaint, and filed a
memorandum of law in support. On Oct. 24, 2023, the Court directed
Martin to either amend her complaint or oppose the motion to
dismiss by Nov. 13, 2023. On Nov. 13, 2023, Martin filed the FAC.
The FAC brings one claim-asserted under the TCPA. It alleges that
Martin received a robocall on Aug. 30, 2023, that was placed by
BLC, either directly, or indirectly, through its Referral Partners,
in violation of the TCPA.
The FAC pleads several alternative theories of liability for BLC
arising from the August 30 robocall.
Ms. Martin seeks to represent a class of "all persons within the
United States to whose telephone number [BLC] placed (or had placed
on its behalf) a prerecorded or artificial voice telemarketing
call, from four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint
through the date of Certification." She seeks monetary damages and
injunctive relief.
On Dec. 4, 2023, BLC moved to dismiss the FAC under Rules 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6), and filed a memorandum of law in support. On Jan. 2,
2024, Martin filed a memorandum of law in opposition. On Jan. 17,
2024, BLC filed a reply. On Jan. 18, 2024, Martin filed a letter
responding to arguments in the reply. On Jan. 19, 2024, BLC replied
to Martin's letter.
On Jan. 26, 2024, Martin filed a motion for leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint based on "additional documentary evidence" she
alleged recently came to light as a result of her ongoing
investigation. On Feb. 9, 2024, BLC filed a memorandum of law in
opposition.
The Court considers at the threshold, as it must, BLC's argument
that Martin's claim under the TCPA must be dismissed for lack of
standing under Rule 12(b)(1).
The thrust of BLC's argument as to standing--which substantially
tracks its argument under Rule 12(b)(6), discussed infra--is that
Martin's FAC does not adequately plead that BLC (as opposed to some
other person or entity) was responsible for the robocall on which
the claim is based. BLC argues the FAC too sloppily equates it with
a (presumably like-initialed) entity responsible for the calls.
Framed under Rule 12(b)(6) as a challenge to whether the FAC states
a plausible claim of BLC's liability, Judge Engelmayer says that
argument is a responsible one (albeit unsuccessful as reviewed
here).
As a challenge to Article III standing, however, that argument is
ill-conceived, Judge Engelmayer holds. That is because, although
labeled a challenge to the district court's subject-matter
jurisdiction, BLC's objections actually attack the merits of the
Plaintiff's claims.
BLC's argument that the FAC does not adequately allege its
responsibility for the Aug. 30, 2023 and other robocalls presents a
quintessential merits dispute, Judge Engelmayer opines. To term
such an issue jurisdictional would essentially collapse the
standing inquiry into the merits.
Judge Engelmayer points out that the "missing link" that BLC
asserts that is lacking in the FAC is not between the injury and
the challenged action--instead, it is between the challenged action
and the Defendant. That link goes to the merits, not to Martin's
standing to sue.
BLC's notion that where a complaint pleads facts that too thinly
identify a defendant as the actor responsible for a legal wrong,
there is a lack of Article III standing, is problematic for a
further reason, Judge Engelmayer says. Because standing must be
established at all stages of a case, BLC's conception of standing
could prevent a defendant from ever durably extricating itself from
civil liability where it was confused with the actual wrongdoer.
The Court, thus, rejects BLC's threshold challenge under Rule
12(b)(1) as to Martin's standing to bring this action. Accepting
the FAC's allegations as true, Martin suffered an injury in fact--a
"nuisance and privacy invasion"--by receiving an unsolicited
robocall. Her injury is traceable to the robocall. And the award
she seeks, of actual or statutory damages, would redress that
injury. She, thus, has standing to sue for damages, Judge
Engelmayer points out.
BLC separately moves to dismiss the FAC's prayer for injunctive
relief under Rule 12(b)(1 ), also for lack of standing. BLC argues
that the FAC fails to plead that Martin is likely to be harmed
again in the future in a similar way by BLC, even accepting as true
her allegation that she received one robocall from BLC in the
past.
Judge Engelmayer finds that BLC is correct. The FAC does not plead
facts supporting the proposition that Martin will ever receive a
second (or third or fourth) robocall from BLC. Without more, the
FAC does not adequately plead a claim for injunctive relief.
The Court, thus, dismisses, for want of Article III standing, the
prayer for injunctive relief. Because the dismissal is based on the
absence of subject-matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is without
prejudice.
The Court next considers BLC's challenge to the FAC under Rule
12(b)(6). BLC challenges the plausibility of the FAC's claim that
BLC was responsible for the robocalls at issue on either theory. It
argues that the FAC is conclusory on this point.
BLC is wrong, Judge Engelmayer says. The FAC alleges that "BLC
directly initiated" the call at issue, and pleads factual content
that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that BLC is
liable for the misconduct alleged. It further alleges that at the
time of the call, Bottom Line Capital's website noted that it is
powered by Bottom Line Concepts, and that Bottom Line Capital is a
d/b/a of BLC--that is, that Bottom Line Capital is a trade name
used by BLC.
Judge Engelmayer points out that these allegations plausibly plead
BLC's liability for the robocalls Martin claims to have received.
The Court, thus, denies BLC's motion to dismiss Martin's FAC under
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
BLC separately moves under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the FAC's
prayer for treble damages. The Court denies this motion as
procedurally premature.
Whether Martin can adduce evidence sufficient to support an award
of treble damages cannot be resolved until after discovery, either
on a motion for summary judgment or at trial, Judge Engelmayer
opines. The Court, thus, denies the motion to dismiss the prayer
for treble damages.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part
BLC's motion to dismiss. The Court dismisses the FAC's request for
injunctive relief without prejudice. The Court otherwise denies the
motion to dismiss. The Court denies BLC's motion for argument as
moot.
Relatedly, the Court grants Martin's motion for leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). Here, insofar as the Court has
sustained Martin's FAC--and given that the SAC supplements the FAC
with additional factual allegations--the SAC will not prejudice BLC
or significantly delay the resolution of the dispute. Amendment is,
thus, proper.
By separate order, the Court will schedule an initial pretrial
conference. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending
motions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated March 14,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/35w293vh from
PacerMonitor.com.
BRENDAN WALLACE: Jandreau Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brendan Wallace, et
al. The case is styled as Terry Jandreau, on behalf of himself and
similarly situated v. BRENDAN WALLACE, ANDRIY MYKHAYLOVSKYY, ALANA
BEARD, VICTOR COLEMAN, ANGELA HUANG, WISDOM LU, FIFTH WALL
ACQUISITION SPONSOR LLC, and FIFTH WALL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, Case
No. 2024-0119-MTZ (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 9, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Brendan F. Wallace is an American businessman and investor managing
partner of Fifth Wall.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 622-7000
Fax: (302) 622-7100
CAFE 52 RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
FREDDY GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAFE 52 RESTAURANT CORP (DBA CAFE 52); and
JUSTIN RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02068 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 21, 2024) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Gacia was employed by the Defendant as a cook.
CAFE 52 RESTAURANT CORP (DBA CAFE 52) owns and operates a
restaurant in Queens, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE: Sankar Sues Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Ganesh Sankar, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00473-JDP (E.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2024), is brought arising
out of the recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach
(“Data Breach”) on CNSU’s network that resulted in
unauthorized access to the highly sensitive data.
As a result of the Data Breach, Class Members suffered
ascertainable losses in the form of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional
distress, and the present risk of imminent harm caused by the
compromise of their sensitive personal information.
The specific information compromised in the Data Breach includes,
but is not limited to, personally identifiable information
(“PII”), such as full names and Social Security numbers. Up to
and through February 2024, Defendant obtained the PII of Plaintiff
and Class Members and stored that PII, unencrypted, in an
Internet-accessible environment on Defendant CNSU’s network, from
which unauthorized actors used an extraction tool to retrieve
sensitive PII belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members.
The Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ PII--which were entrusted to
Defendant, their officials, and agents--were compromised and
unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings
this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to
address Defendant’s inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff’s and
Class Members’ PII that Defendant collected and maintained, and
for Defendant’s failure to provide timely and adequate notice to
Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII had been subject
to the unauthorized access of an unknown, unauthorized party.
The Defendant maintained the PII in a negligent and/or reckless
manner. In particular, the PII was maintained on Defendant’s
computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the
cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff’s
and Class Members’ PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus
Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to
secure the PII from those risks left that property in a dangerous
condition, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having applied for admission
to CNSU.
California Northstate University, LLC, is an institution dedicated
to educating, developing and training individuals to provide
competent, patient-centered care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 305.975.3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
CALL 4 HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hill Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMBER HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALL 4 HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01355-JFA (D.S.C., March 21, 2024) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Hill was employed by the Defendant as a patient care
representatives.
CALL 4 HEALTH, INC. a Florida copmany operating call centers in
South Carolina, Maryland, Florida, and Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph S. Sandefur, Esq.
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
11915 Plaza Drive, Suite 301
Murrells Inlet, SC 29576
Telephone: (843) 973-5196
Email: jsandefur@forthepeople.com
rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
Raymond Dinsmore, Esq.
THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
221 Main Street, Suite 502
Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (860) 522-8888
Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Class Cert Deadline Continued to April 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacob Saige et al., v.
Capstone Logistics, LLC et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00195-RGK-SHK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's application and continuing the deadline
for a motion for class action certification to April 25, 2024.
On March 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant Ex Parte
Application to vacate or continue the deadline for filing a motion
for class certification.
Capstone is a third‐party logistics company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GMmwfE at no extra
charge.[CC]
CATTRO CONSULTING: Holody Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cattro Consulting
Group Corp. The case is styled as Marek Holody, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Cattro Consulting
Group Corp., PCGNY Corp., PCGNY II Corp., Dariusz Ciach, Anna
Terpilowski, Case No. 1:24-cv-01091-ER (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
CATTRO Consulting Group Corp. -- https://cattrocorp.com/ --
(Originally founded in 2007 under PCGNY Corp) since 2007 has become
one of the leading exterior restoration, roofing and waterproofing
companies in New York and Tri-State area known for its expertise in
residential, commercial, and industrial construction.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Brenecki, Esq.
71-27 Fresh Pond Road
Queens, NY 11385
Phone: (347) 563-2605
Email: nicole@jodrebrenecki.com
CHAIM LEBOVITS: Andrev Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chaim Lebovits. The
case is styled as Serge Andrev, derivatively on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Chaim Lebovits, Stacy Lindborg, Ralph
Kern, Jacob Frenkel, Irit Arbel, June Almenoff, Nir Naor, Anthony
Polverino, Uri Yablonka, Menghis Bairu, Malcolm Taub, Jerold Chun,
Stanley H Appel, Amit Bar-Or, Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01101-DEH (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Stockholders Suits.
Chaim Lebovits joined BrainStorm in July 2007 as President and has
served as Chief Executive Officer since September 2015.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Brandon Walker, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
170 Meeting Street, Suite 110
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: (843) 268-4363
Fax: (212) 214-0506
Email: walker@bespc.com
CHAIM LEBOVITS: Porteous Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chaim Lebovits. The
case is styled as Mhairi Porteous, derivatively on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Chaim Lebovits, Stacy Lindborg, Ralph
Kern, Jacob Frenkel, Irit Arbel, June Almenoff, Nir Naor, Anthony
Polverino, Uri Yablonka, Menghis Bairu, Malcolm Taub, Jerold Chun,
Stanley H. Appel, Amit Bar-Or, Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics, Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01095-DEH (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Stockholders Suits.
Chaim Lebovits joined BrainStorm in July 2007 as President and has
served as Chief Executive Officer since September 2015.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Brandon Walker, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
170 Meeting Street, Suite 110
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: (843) 268-4363
Fax: (212) 214-0506
Email: walker@bespc.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Apex Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
APEX PHYSICAL REHABILITATION & WELLNESS PLLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE
HEALTHCARE INC.; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED; UNITEDHEALTHCARE,
INC.; and OPTUM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00331 (M.D.
Tenn., March 21, 2024) is an action arising from the Defendants'
failure to secure and safeguard their information systems from a
massive foreseeable cyberattack that impacted Plaintiff's and Class
Members' business operations.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to take reasonable, timely and appropriate measures to protect
against the foreseeable, catastrophic Cyberattack, including
remediation ("patching") of the known vulnerabilities.
The Defendants failed to implement and comply with industry
standards in regard to cybersecurity including, but not limited to,
failure to heed credible security warnings; failure to maintain
adequate patch management policies and procedures; failure to
detect alerts in regard to vulnerabilities affecting its systems;
failure to properly update and patch third-party software, update
software regularly, implement third-party patches when issued, and
prioritize patches by the severity of the threat; failure to
properly use automated tools to track which versions of software
were running and whether updates were available; and failure to
implement appropriate procedures to keep security current and
address vulnerabilities, including to monitor expert websites and
software vendors' websites regularly for alerts about new
vulnerabilities. As a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' failures, the Plaintiff and the Class Members have
suffered and will continue to suffer serious injury, says the
suit.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE, INC. provides healthcare technology solutions.
The Company offers analytical, connectivity, communication,
payment, consumer engagement, and workflow optimization software
solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Spragens, Esq.
SPRAGENS LAW PLC
311 22nd Ave. No.
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 983-8900
Facsimile: (615) 682-8533
Email:john@spragenslaw.com
- and -
Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq.
Nigel Halliday, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-9100
Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
Email: jscullion@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
jsmigelsky@seegerweiss.com
nhalliday@seegerweiss.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Castell Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS CASTELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED; UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC.; and OPTUM, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00339 (M.D. Tenn., March 25, 2024) is an action
arising from the Defendants' failure to secure the personal
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") of the Plaintiff and
the members of the proposed Classes and the accompanying failure to
secure the systems and platforms necessary to timely and accurately
process manufacturer savings card/"coupon" programs for otherwise
very expensive prescription medications.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, due to the Defendants'
failure to secure its system, cybercriminals accessed Change's
system, known as the ransomware gang ALPHV/BlackCat, claimed
responsibility for the attack and claimed it has accessed and
stolen confidential information, including health information, for
millions of patients (the "Data Breach").
As a result, the Plaintiff's ability to fill his necessary
prescription medication was delayed and disrupted, depriving him of
necessary medication for weeks and subjecting him to severe stress,
anxiety, and emotional distress as he was exposed to severe
personal and health risks, including suicidal ideation, says the
suit.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE, INC. provides healthcare technology solutions.
The Company offers analytical, connectivity, communication,
payment, consumer engagement, and workflow optimization software
solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Spragens, Esq.
SPRAGENS LAW PLC
311 22nd Ave. N.
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 983-8900
Facsimile: (615) 682-8533
Email: john@spragenslaw.com
- and -
Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq.
Nigel Halliday, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-9100
Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
Email: jscullion@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
jsmigelsky@seegerweiss.com
nhalliday@seegerweiss.com
CLASSDOJO INC: Sancruzado Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Sancruzado, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. CLASSDOJO, INC. D/B/A CLASSDOJO, Case No.
191687005 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., Feb. 9,
2024), is brought for violations the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act ("FCCPA") as a result of the Defendants unlawful debt
collection.
On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to
collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer
Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money
arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer
Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service").
On January 21, 2024, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to the Plaintiff (the "Communication"). The
Communication was sent from plus@classdojo.com and delivered to
Plaintiff's personal e-mail address. The Communication advised: "we
had some trouble processing your last payment for ClassDojo Plus.
Would you mind updating your card information? This will keep you
from losing access to your child's memory albums, upgraded
messaging, and more." The Communication was sent by Defendant to
Plaintiff at 12:40 AM in Plaintiff's time zone. The Communication
was received by Plaintiff from Defendant at 12:40 AM in Plaintiff's
time zone, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.
The Defendant is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place
of business located in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th St, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
CLASSIC BEVERAGE: Rodriguez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LUNA RODRIGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself,
all other aggrieved employees, and the general public, Plaintiff v.
CLASSIC BEVERAGE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 24STCV06523 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 15,
2024) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and
practices in violation of the California Labor Code.
The complaint alleges that Defendants fail to provide timely and
adequate meal and rest breaks, fail to timely compensate employees
for all wages earned, fail to properly and accurately calculate
overtime and report wages earned, hours worked, and wage rates, and
fail to reimburse for necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff commenced his employment with Defendants in April
2022 and was terminated in November 2023. The Plaintiff was hired
to be a Sales Associate to conduct sales to place Classic Beverage
products in various stores.
Classic Beverage of Southern California, LLC, is licensed to do
business, and is actually doing business in the state of California
as a large alcoholic and non-alcoholic wholesale beverage
distributer nationwide for merchant customers throughout the
Western U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
Tamar Chobanian, Esq.
BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203-1922
Telephone: (818) 547-5300
Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com
tamar@boyamianlaw.com
COLTER ENERGY: Class Cert. Response in Zaarour Extended to April 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADHAM ZAAROUR,
Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. COLTER
ENERGY SERVICES, USA INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00443-GMN-BNW (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order extending the Defendant's
deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification, filed on March 12, 2024, until April 16, 2024.
In support of this Stipulation, the Parties state as follows:
1. Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, the Defendant states that is the first
stipulation or request for extension of time to file the
Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional
certification.
2. On March 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his original collective
action complaint and jury demand.
3. On March 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his motion for
conditional certification pursuant to 29. U.S.C. section
216(b)
and issuance of court-authorized notice.
4. The Defendant seeks additional time to respond to the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. If the
Defendant is required to respond by the current deadline of
March 25, 2024, Defendant will need to oppose a lengthy
motion
raising complex issues only thirteen days after learning
about
the existence of this lawsuit and before Defendant’s
initial
pleading is due.
Colter is a flowback & production testing equipment and service
provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OfoRCM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq.
RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C.
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Telephone: (702) 320-8400
Facsimile: (702) 320-8401
E-mail: esther@rodriguezlaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
William M. Hogg, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
whogg@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John T. Keating, Esq.
KEATING LAW GROUP
9130 W. Russell Road, Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Telephone: (702) 228-6800
E-mail: jkeating@keatinglg.com
- and -
Gillian G. O'Hara, Esq.
Jason Stitt, Esq.
KUTAK ROCK LLP
1650 Farnam, The Omaha Building
Omaha, NE 68102
Telephone: (402) 346-6000
E-mail: Gigi.Ohara@KutakRock.com
Jason.Stitt@Kutakrock.com
CONTANGO RESOURCES: Suit Seeks Approval of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OGP, LLC, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, v. (1) CONTANGO
RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00382-JFH-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), the
Class Representative moves the Court for final approval of the:
1. Proposed Class Action Settlement;
2. Notice of Settlement and Plan of Notice; and
3. Proposed Initial Plan of Allocation.
The Court already certified the following Settlement Class:
"All non-excluded persons or entities who, during the Claim
Period:
(1) received Late Payments from Defendant (or Defendant’s
designee)
for oil-and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells; or whose proceeds
were escheated to a government entity by the Defendant; or whose
proceeds from Oklahoma wells were held in suspense by the
Defendant
on or before May 31, 2023; and (2) who have not already been
paid
statutory interest on the Late Payments or on the amounts held
in
suspense by Defendant on or before May 31, 2023."
A "Late Payment" for purposes of this class definition means
payment of proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production from
and
an oil-and-gas well after the statutory periods identified in
Okla.
Stat. tit. 52, section 570.10.
Excluded from this class are: (1) Defendant, its affiliates,
predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2)
agencies,
departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of
America
or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any Indian Tribe as defined at 30
U.S.C. section 1702 (4) or Indian allotee as defined at 30
U.S.C.
section 1702(2); (4) officers of the court; (5) Dan McClure and
Kelly McClure Callant and any entity owned or controlled by such
parties; (6) Tip Top Oil & Gas; (7) amounts attributable to
Owners
in suspense with a "TI" suspense code or corresponding numerical
code connoting title issues [to include but not limited to
49802,
57774, 58849]; and (8) persons or entities that Plaintiff's
counsel
may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the
Oklahoma
Rules of Professional Conduct.
On Jan. 17, 2024, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving
the Settlement, approving the Plan of Notice, and setting a date of
April 23, 2024, for the Final Fairness Hearing.
Contango is an independent oil and natural gas company.
A copy of the Class Representative's motion dated March 26, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n8ARbZ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randy C. Smith, Esq.
RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES
One Leadership Square, Suite 1310
211 North Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 212-2786
Facsimile: (405) 232-6515
E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com
- and -
Brady L. Smith, Esq.
Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq.
BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
One Leadership Square, Suite 1320
211 N. Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 293-3029
E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com
skeeter@blsmithlaw.com
CONTINENTAL AG: Flemister Sues Over Tire Price Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------
DIANA FLEMISTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL
TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GENERALE DES ESTABLISSEMENTS
MICHELIN SCA; COMPAGNIE FINANCIERE MICHELIN SA; 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., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-10725-FKB-EAS (E.D.
Mich., March 21, 2024) is an action alleging Defendants' violation
of the Sherman Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, beginning at least as
early as January 1, 2020 and continuing into the present,
Defendants colluded to raise and fix the price of Tires in the
United States at supracompetitive levels. In addition to colluding
to set prices at supracompetitive prices, Defendants likewise
colluded to reduce the supply of Tires.
The Defendants engaged in this concerted scheme through a variety
of mechanisms including creating artificial supply shortages, data
sharing, and signaling price increases via public statements and
meetings for industry members. The result was that Defendants
overcharged direct purchasers such as Plaintiff by inflating
prices, says the suit.
CONTINENTAL AG manufactures tires, automotive parts, and industrial
products. The Company produces passenger cars, trucks, commercial
vehicles, bicycle tires, braking systems, shock absorbers, hoses,
drive belts, conveyor belting, transmission products, and sealing
systems. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
- and -
David M. Cialkowski
Ian F. McFarland
Zachary J. Freese
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 S. 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
Email: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com
zachary.freese@zimmreed.com
COOLING GUARD: Zimbardo Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Zimbardo, David Garren, Christopher Turturro, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. COOLING GUARD
MECHANICAL CORP., STEVE DRIZIS; and other individuals or entities
related to the same, Case No. 601905/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty., Feb. 1, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid wages, between
August 2017 and the present in the State of New York, as well as
failure to provide notice of pay rate in accordance with New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") and failure to provide accurate pay stubs in
accordance with NYLL.
The Defendants entered in to public works contracts that provided
the wages rates for Plaintiffs and the putative class, however did
not pay according to those rates, including supplemental benefits.
Moreover, throughout the Relevant Period, Defendants have engaged
in a policy and practice of failing to pay their employees for all
hours worked. As a result of Defendants' policy and practice,
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers were not properly
compensated with the proper wage payments, including prevailing
wage payments and are subject to other damages under the Labor Law,
its implementing regulations, and other statutory authority, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked as HVAC mechanics.
COOLING GUARD MECHANICAL CORP. is a domestic corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony M. Alesandro
Jeffrey K. Brown
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
CORSAIR GAMING: Plaintiffs Must File Initial Approval Bid by May 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MCKINNEY, CLINT
SUNDEEN, and JOSEPH ALCANTARA, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. CORSAIR GAMING, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-00312-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an
order that:
1. The April 18, 2024, hearing on Corsair's motions to exclude
and
the May 16, 2024, hearing on the Plaintiffs' class
certification
motion and Corsair's motion to strike are VACATED while the
Parties work to finalize a settlement agreement; and
2. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for preliminary
approval
on May 14, 2024.
On March 22, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Notice re Settlement
informing the Court that the Parties had a successful mediation
with Antonio Piazza and requesting to stay the scheduled April 18,
2024 hearing on Corsair's motions to exclude and the May 16, 2024
hearing on Plaintiffs' class certification motion and Corsair's
motion to strike while they work to finalize a settlement
agreement.
Corsair Gaming is an American computer peripherals and hardware
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zLIfel at no extra
charge.[CC]
CRESTLINE HOTELS: Bankhead Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michel'le Geraldine Bankhead, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. CRESTLINE HOTELS & RESORTS – LOS
ANGELES, INC., a Delaware corporation; CRESTLINE HOTELS & RESORTS,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ORCUN TURKAY, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV02684
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 1, 2024), is brought as a
result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages; failure to
pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to
provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement
violations; failure to timely pay wages; and for unfair
competition.
The Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to
Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, in violation of
California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without
limitation, Plaintiff and Class Members working over 8 hours per
day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days in a work
week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess
of 8 hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week,
and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work
week by, among other things, failing to accurately track and/or pay
for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay
to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to,
cleaning and maintaining hotel rooms.
Crestline Los Angeles is a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware and doing
business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
Yatika Chaudhri, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
zach@tomorrowlaw.com
yatika@tomorrowlaw.com
D2C LLC: Martinez Expedited Bid to Extend Deadlines Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mauricio Martinez and
others, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. D2C, LLC doing business as Univision NOW, Case No.
1:23-cv-21394-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robert Scola, Jr.
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's expedited motion to extend
deadlines and settings:
The Court says that "while the Plaintiffs explain why they didn't
procure certain discovery sooner, they fail to provide any
information showing that they couldn't have procured it sooner, had
they only sought it with sufficient diligence."
Because the Court finds the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the
necessary diligence under Rule 16 or Local Rule 7.6, it denies
their
motion for a modification of the scheduling order.
The Plaintiffs complain that the Defendant D2C violated the Video
Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") by disclosing to Meta Platforms,
Inc.—formerly known as Facebook (“Meta” or
“Facebook”)—personally identifiable information along with
information about videos that they had requested or obtained
through Univision's website. The Plaintiffs ask, on an expedited
basis, for a four-month extension of all the remaining deadlines
and settings in this case. (Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 50.)
For the most part, the Plaintiffs focus their argument on their
alleged need for certain outstanding discovery prior to the April
2, 2024, deadline to file their motion for class certification.
Univision opposes the motion and the Plaintiffs have replied.
Univision is a streaming service that provides access to live and
on-demand content in the entertainment and media industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0zNcLk at no extra
charge.[CC]
DE II LLC: Gamez Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jasmine Gamez, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. DE II LLC, Case No. 23STCV22477 was
removed from the Superior Court of California County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Feb. 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-00268-JWH-KES to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
- and -
Richard L. Hyde, Esq.
AMIN TALATI WASSERMAN LLP
515 South Flower Street 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 933-2330
Fax: (312) 884-7352
Email: richard@amintalati.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
William P. Cole, Esq.
AMIN TALATI WASSERMAN LLP
515 South Flower Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 933-2330
Fax: (312) 884-7352
Email: matt@amintalati.com
DEL MONTE: Baird Sues Over Mislabeled Diced Peaches
---------------------------------------------------
DONNA BAIRD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEL MONTE FOODS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02129 (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
sells a mislabeled "Diced Peaches In 100% Juice" in single-serving
transparent cups ("Product").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Product is
"misbranded" and misleads consumers because its labeling as "Diced
Peaches in 100% Juice" causes them to expect only peaches and 100%
juice, when this statement and accompanying images are false and
misleading, due to the presence of added water, juice concentrates,
flavoring, seasoning, and the synthetic preservative of ascorbic
acid.
The Product is "misbranded" and misleads consumers because "Diced
Peaches in 100% Juice," in single-serving transparent cups,
appearing to show peaches in only juice, with pictures of a freshly
picked peach and peach slices, with what appears to be a wooden
background, like what one may encounter on a farm, fails to
prominently and conspicuously reveal facts relative to the
proportions or absence of peaches and 100% juice
As a result of the false and misleading representations and
omissions, the Product is sold at a premium price, around $2.39 for
four 4 oz cups, higher than similar products, represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the
misleading representations and omissions, says the suit.
DEL MONTE FOODS, INC. manufactures and distributes packaged food
products. The Company provides canned fruits and vegetables, as
well as a wide range of snacks. Del Monte Foods serves customers
worldwide. [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
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
DES MOINES ORTHOPAEDIC: Grote Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Des Moines
Orthopaedic Surgeons, P.C. The case is styled as Nikki Grote,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Des
Moines Orthopaedic Surgeons, P.C., Case No. 4:24-cv-00041-SHL-WPK
(S.D. Iowa, Feb. 2, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Federal Trade
Commission Act (Unfair or Deceptive Acts).
Des Moines Orthopaedic Surgeons, P.C. -- https://dmos.com/ -- is an
orthopedic clinic in Des Moines, Iowa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Phone: (515) 223-4567
Fax: (515) 223-8887
Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
DES MOINES ORTHOPAEDIC: Lewman Files Suit in S.D. Iowa
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Des Moines
Orthopaedic Surgeons, P.C. The case is styled as Norman Lewman, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Des Moines
Orthopaedic Surgeons, P.C., Case No. 4:24-cv-00049-SHL-WPK (S.D.
Iowa, Feb. 8, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for the Federal Trade
Commission Act (Unfair or Deceptive Acts).
DES Moines Orthopaedic Surgeons, P.C. -- https://dmos.com/ --
operates as an orthopedic center. The Company offers hand and
physical therapy, MRI imaging, pediatric, urgent injury clinic, and
X-ray services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey C. O'Brien, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 336-1298
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: jobrien@chestnutcambronne.com
DESERT SALES ACADEMY: Logan Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Logan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. DESERT SALES ACADEMY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00277-JAD-MDC (D.
Nev., Feb. 8, 2024), is brought arising out of the marketing
practices of Defendant that violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), due to the Defendant sending multiple
unsolicited text messages soliciting Defendant's services.
The Defendant sends telemarketing text messages advertising
Defendant's services to individuals on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry. The Defendant continues to send text messages even after
it receives multiple requests from the called party requesting that
Defendant stop, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Orem, Utah.
The Defendant is a Nevada corporation headquartered in Las Vegas,
Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig K. Perry, Esq.
CRAIG K. PERRY & ASSOCIATES
6210 N. Jones Blvd. #753907
Las Vegas, NV 89136-8985
Phone: (702) 228-4777
Facsimile: (702) 943-7520
Email: cperry@craigperry.com
- and -
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, #1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 587-6240
Fax: (215) 689-0875
Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS: Macaisa Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Development
Consultants, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Macaisa,
Alan Alberta, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Development Consultants, Inc., Hoam Ventures, Inc.,
Associations, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-20598-KMM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 15,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Development Consultants, Inc. (DCI) --
https://www.devconinc.com/dci/ -- is a multi-disciplinary firm
providing civil engineering, land surveying, land planning, and
landscape architecture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley T. Canter, Esq.
Ronald S. Canter, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S. CANTER LLC
200A Monroe Street, Suite 104
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: (301) 424-7490
Email: bcanter@roncanterllc.com
rcanter@roncanterllc.com
- and -
Joshua I. Bienstock, Esq.
BIENSTOCK LAW, LLC
401 East Jefferson Street, Suite 208
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: (301) 251-1600
Email: josh@bienstocklegal.com
DIDI GLOBAL: Bids to Dismiss in Hechler Securities Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss in
the lawsuit captioned Cory Hechler v. Didi Global Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05973-LAK, IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master Docket Case No. 21-cv-05807 (LAK).
The putative class action concerns purchases of Didi Global Inc.
securities during and immediately following Didi's initial public
offering ("IPO"). The Plaintiffs bring numerous claims pursuant to
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Plaintiffs purchased American Depository Shares ("ADS") of Didi
pursuant and traceable to its Registration Statement during the
Class Period and were damaged thereby.
Defendant Didi is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and has its
principal place of business in Beijing, China. It offers
internet-enabled services including, most significantly, a
ride-hailing service. Although Didi operates in more than a dozen
countries, the vast majority of its revenues result from its
operations in China.
The Plaintiffs named also several Didi executives ("Officer
Defendants") and directors (together with the Officer Defendants,
"Individual Defendants"). The Officer Defendants are Will Wei
Cheng, Jean Qing Liu, and Alan Yue Zhuo. Although the SAC includes
Didi in its definition of "Officer Defendants," the Court excludes
the company for clarity, because Cheng, Liu, and Zhuo filed a
motion to dismiss separate from Didi's motion to dismiss. The
directors are Stephen Jingshi Zhu, Zhiyi Chen, Kentaro Matsui,
Martin Chi Ping Lau, Adrian Perica, and Daniel Yong Zhang.
In addition, the Plaintiffs named the underwriters of Didi's IPO as
Defendants. The Underwriters are Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C.,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Barclays Capital Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., UBS
Securities LLC, Mizuho Securities USA LLC, and China Renaissance
Securities (US) Inc.
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Didi omitted material
facts from its public filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") made in connection with its 2021 IPO and listing
on the New York Stock Exchange. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege
that Didi was required but failed to disclose that the Chinese
government had directed it to postpone its IPO until it had
resolved various cybersecurity and privacy concerns.
The Plaintiffs plead as well that Didi's disregard for this
directive, its subsequent IPO, and the penalties subsequently
imposed on Didi by the Chinese government harmed shareholders.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese government exercises
"complete control" over "Chinese commerce, the internet in China,
and internet-based businesses." Beginning in approximately 2012,
the Chinese government began to tighten its historically "lax"
regulation of the internet by enacting a series of laws pertaining
to cybersecurity and data protection. Among other things, the
Chinese government created the Cyberspace Administration of China
("CAC"), a government agency responsible for regulating the
internet, internet-based businesses and their activities, and the
collection, storage, and protection of any type of digital
information. The CAC has the expansive power to close or suspend
websites, close down businesses, revoke business licenses, and/or
impose large fines or other draconian penalties.
Against this backdrop, Didi decided to offer its American
Depository Shares to the public and list on a U.S. stock exchange.
Before it did so, however, the CAC directed Didi to postpone its
IPO in the United States until after Didi had completed -- to the
CAC's satisfaction -- a thorough self-inspection of its business,
operations and policies. This self-inspection was to include a
cybersecurity review, to ensure compliance with all applicable laws
and regulations concerning national security, network security,
data security, and/or the collection and protection of private
personal information. The SAC and this Opinion refer to the CAC's
instructions to Didi as the "CAC Directives" or the "Directives."
According to the SAC, the Securities Act and Exchange Act obligated
the Defendants to disclose in its registration statement (1) the
CAC Directives and (2) that Didi faced a high risk that CAC would
impose harsh penalties against Didi that could harm its business,
financial performance, and its reputation if it went forward with
its IPO against the CAC's Directives. The SAC and this opinion
refer to the CAC Directives and the potential penalties for
disregarding them as the "Omitted Facts."
Although Didi did not disclose the CAC Directives publicly, it
privately gave the CAC the impression that it would follow the
Directives. Instead, it moved forward with the IPO and listed on
the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2021. The offering of 316.8
million Didi ADS at $14 per share raised more than $4 billion.
On July 2, 2021, the CAC set about to punish Didi for disobeying
the Directives. It announced that it was prohibiting Didi from
registering any new customers and subjecting it to a cybsersecurity
review. Two days later, it announced further measures, including
prohibiting Didi's existing customers from downloading Didi's
primary app, Didi Travel, and requiring Didi to remove the app from
app stores in China. The CAC explained that it was imposing these
penalties on Didi due to serious violations of laws and
regulations. Then came July 5 news reports that Didi had disobeyed
the CAC's Directives that Didi postpone its IPO.
As a result of these events, Didi's stock fell by 20 percent on
July 6, 2021. In the weeks following this massive sell-off, the
Chinese government imposed further penalties on Didi, and Didi's
stock price continued to fall. By July 23, 2021, Didi ADS had
fallen by more than 40 percent from the IPO price.
Acceding to pressure from the CAC and other Chinese government
officials angry that Didi had violated the CAC Directives, Didi
announced a plan to delist from the New York Stock Exchange on Dec.
3, 2021. Later that month, Didi reported that its revenue dropped
significantly between the second and third quarters of 2021 due
primarily to declines in Didi's core ride-hailing business in
China. Didi reported also a third quarter loss of $4.7 billion.
At the time the SAC was filed, Didi continued to be traded on the
New York Stock Exchange at a price per ADS of $1.94, or 14 percent
of the IPO price.
Based on these substantive allegations, the Plaintiffs assert six
causes of action. Under the Securities Act, they allege a Section
11 claim against all Defendants, a Section 12 claim against Didi
and the Underwriters, and a Section 15 claim against Cheng and Liu
as controlling persons of Didi. Under the Exchange Act, the
Plaintiffs allege a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against Didi
and the Officer Defendants, a Section 20A claim against Didi, and a
Section 20(a) claim against Cheng and Liu as controlling persons of
Didi.
Judge Kaplan holds the Section 11 and Section 12 claims against all
Defendants other than Didi are subject to Rule 8 alone. Hence, the
motions to dismiss of the Individual Defendants and Underwriters
are denied to the extent that they are premised on the Plaintiffs'
purported failure to meet the Rule 9(b) pleading standard.
Didi contends that the Second Amended Complaint does not satisfy
Rule 9(b) because it fails to explain why Didi's statements were
fraudulent, to wit, that the Plaintiffs did not allege sufficiently
the existence of the CAC Directives.
The Court holds that the Plaintiffs adequately allege both that the
CAC directed Didi not to proceed with the IPO and that Didi failed
to disclose this fact. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the
SAC's allegations of fraud satisfy the Rule 9(b) standard.
Didi also contends that the Plaintiffs fail to plead a material
omission because the company's disclosure of regulatory risk in
fact did warn investors of the risks that the Plaintiffs here claim
were not disclosed and because, in any case, the company had no
obligation to disclose the alleged CAC Directives.
The Court rejects these arguments. Judge Kaplan points out that
Didi's disclosures were not sufficiently specific to support its
claim that no reasonable investor could have found the CAC
Directives well worth knowing.
Judge Kaplan also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
plausibly allege that: (i) Didi management was aware of the CAC
Directives, that the company was reasonably likely to be sanctioned
by the Chinese government were it to disobey, and that the
resulting sanctions were reasonably likely to have a material
effect on Didi; and (ii) Didi was required to disclose the Omitted
Facts by Item 105, which mandates the disclosure of the material
factors that make an investment in the registrant or offering
speculative or risky.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 14, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/482kmp9d from PacerMonitor.com.
Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Jing Chen -- jchen@rosenlegal.com -- Daniel
Tyre-Karp -- dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com -- Robin Bronzaft Howald --
rhowald@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.; Gregory Linkh
-- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP, Attorneys
for the Plaintiffs.
Corey Worcester -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- Renita Sharma
-- renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP; Scott Musoff -- smusoff@skadden.com -- Robert
Fumerton -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- Michael Griffin --
michael.griffin@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Didi Global Inc.
Jonathan Rosenberg -- jrosenberg@omm.com -- Abby F. Rudzin --
arudzin@omm.com -- Shane A. Hunt -- shunt@omm.com -- William K. Pao
-- wpao@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Attorneys for Defendants
Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, BofA Securities Inc., Barclays Capital Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China Renaissance Securities (US)
Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., UBS Securities LLC, and Mizuho
Securities USA LLC.
Corey Worcester -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- Renita Sharma
-- renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Will Wei Cheng, Jean Qing
Liu, Stephen Jingshi Zhu, Alan Yue Zhuo, and Daniel Yong Zhang; and
Defendants Adrian Perica and Kentaro Matsui.
Sheryl Shapiro Bassin -- sbassin@wsgr.com -- Ignacio E. Salceda --
isalceda@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.,
Attorneys for Defendant Zhiyi Chen.
Matthew S. Kahn -- mkahn@gibsondunn.com -- Michael D. Celio --
mcelio@gibsondunn.com -- Kevin J. White -- kwhite@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Martin Chi Ping
Lau.
Jeffrey T. Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- Andrew M. Kaufman --
kaufmana@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, Attorneys for
Defendant Kentaro Matsui.
DIDI GLOBAL: N.Y. Court Denies Bids to Dismiss in Kucharski Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss in
the lawsuit titled Kucharski v. DiDi Global Inc., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-06603-LAK, IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Master Docket Case No. 21-cv-05807 (LAK).
The putative class action concerns purchases of Didi Global Inc.
securities during and immediately following Didi's initial public
offering ("IPO"). The Plaintiffs bring numerous claims pursuant to
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Plaintiffs purchased American Depository Shares ("ADS") of Didi
pursuant and traceable to its Registration Statement during the
Class Period and were damaged thereby.
Defendant Didi is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and has its
principal place of business in Beijing, China. It offers
internet-enabled services including, most significantly, a
ride-hailing service. Although Didi operates in more than a dozen
countries, the vast majority of its revenues result from its
operations in China.
The Plaintiffs named also several Didi executives ("Officer
Defendants") and directors (together with the Officer Defendants,
"Individual Defendants"). The Officer Defendants are Will Wei
Cheng, Jean Qing Liu, and Alan Yue Zhuo. Although the SAC includes
Didi in its definition of "Officer Defendants," the Court excludes
the company for clarity, because Cheng, Liu, and Zhuo filed a
motion to dismiss separate from Didi's motion to dismiss. The
directors are Stephen Jingshi Zhu, Zhiyi Chen, Kentaro Matsui,
Martin Chi Ping Lau, Adrian Perica, and Daniel Yong Zhang.
In addition, the Plaintiffs named the underwriters of Didi's IPO
("Underwriters") as Defendants. The Underwriters are Goldman Sachs
(Asia) L.L.C., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Barclays Capital
Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.,
UBS Securities LLC, Mizuho Securities USA LLC, and China
Renaissance Securities (US) Inc.
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Didi omitted material
facts from its public filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") made in connection with its 2021 IPO and listing
on the New York Stock Exchange. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege
that Didi was required but failed to disclose that the Chinese
government had directed it to postpone its IPO until it had
resolved various cybersecurity and privacy concerns.
The Plaintiffs plead as well that Didi's disregard for this
directive, its subsequent IPO, and the penalties subsequently
imposed on Didi by the Chinese government harmed shareholders.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese government exercises
"complete control" over "Chinese commerce, the internet in China,
and internet-based businesses." Beginning in approximately 2012,
the Chinese government began to tighten its historically "lax"
regulation of the internet by enacting a series of laws pertaining
to cybersecurity and data protection. Among other things, the
Chinese government created the Cyberspace Administration of China
("CAC"), a government agency responsible for regulating the
internet, internet-based businesses and their activities, and the
collection, storage, and protection of any type of digital
information. The CAC has the expansive power to close or suspend
websites, close down businesses, revoke business licenses, and/or
impose large fines or other draconian penalties.
Against this backdrop, Didi decided to offer its American
Depository Shares to the public and list on a U.S. stock exchange.
Before it did so, however, the CAC directed Didi to postpone its
IPO in the United States until after Didi had completed, to the
CAC's satisfaction, a thorough self-inspection of its business,
operations and policies. This self-inspection was to include a
cybersecurity review to ensure compliance with all applicable laws
and regulations concerning national security, network security,
data security, and/or the collection and protection of private
personal information. The SAC and this Opinion refer to the CAC's
instructions to Didi as the "CAC Directives" or the "Directives."
According to the SAC, the Securities Act and Exchange Act obligated
the Defendants to disclose in its registration statement (1) the
CAC Directives and (2) that Didi faced a high risk that CAC would
impose harsh penalties against Didi that could harm its business,
financial performance, and its reputation if it went forward with
its IPO against the CAC's Directives. The SAC and this opinion
refer to the CAC Directives and the potential penalties for
disregarding them as the "Omitted Facts."
Although Didi did not disclose the CAC Directives publically, it
privately gave the CAC the impression that it would follow the
Directives. Instead, it moved forward with the IPO and listed on
the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2021. The offering of 316.8
million Didi ADS at $14 per share raised more than $4 billion.
On July 2, 2021, the CAC set about to punish Didi for disobeying
the Directives. It announced that it was prohibiting Didi from
registering any new customers and subjecting it to a cybsersecurity
review. Two days later, it announced further measures, including
prohibiting Didi's existing customers from downloading Didi's
primary app, Didi Travel, and requiring Didi to remove the app from
app stores in China. The CAC explained that it was imposing these
penalties on Didi due to serious violations of laws and
regulations. Then came July 5 news reports that Didi had disobeyed
the CAC's Directives that Didi postpone its IPO.
As a result of these events, Didi's stock fell by 20 percent on
July 6, 2021. In the weeks following this massive sell-off, the
Chinese government imposed further penalties on Didi, and Didi's
stock price continued to fall. By July 23, 2021, Didi ADS had
fallen by more than 40 percent from the IPO price.
Acceding to pressure from the CAC and other Chinese government
officials angry that Didi had violated the CAC Directives, Didi
announced a plan to delist from the New York Stock Exchange on Dec.
3, 2021. Later that month, Didi reported that its revenue dropped
significantly between the second and third quarters of 2021 due
primarily to declines in Didi's core ride-hailing business in
China. Didi reported also a third quarter loss of $4.7 billion.
At the time the SAC was filed, Didi continued to be traded on the
New York Stock Exchange at a price per ADS of $1.94, or 14 percent
of the IPO price.
Based on these substantive allegations, the Plaintiffs assert six
causes of action. Under the Securities Act, they allege a Section
11 claim against all Defendants, a Section 12 claim against Didi
and the Underwriters, and a Section 15 claim against Cheng and Liu
as controlling persons of Didi. Under the Exchange Act, the
Plaintiffs allege a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against Didi
and the Officer Defendants, a Section 20A claim against Didi, and a
Section 20(a) claim against Cheng and Liu as controlling persons of
Didi.
Judge Kaplan holds the Section 11 and Section 12 claims against all
Defendants other than Didi are subject to Rule 8 alone. Hence, the
motions to dismiss of the Individual Defendants and Underwriters
are denied to the extent that they are premised on the Plaintiffs'
purported failure to meet the Rule 9(b) pleading standard.
Didi contends that the Second Amended Complaint does not satisfy
Rule 9(b) because it fails to explain why Didi's statements were
fraudulent, to wit, that the Plaintiffs did not allege sufficiently
the existence of the CAC Directives.
The Court holds that the Plaintiffs adequately allege both that the
CAC directed Didi not to proceed with the IPO and that Didi failed
to disclose this fact. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the
SAC's allegations of fraud satisfy the Rule 9(b) standard.
Didi also contends that the Plaintiffs fail to plead a material
omission because the company's disclosure of regulatory risk in
fact did warn investors of the risks that the Plaintiffs here claim
were not disclosed and because, in any case, the company had no
obligation to disclose the alleged CAC Directives.
The Court rejects these arguments. Judge Kaplan points out that
Didi's disclosures were not sufficiently specific to support its
claim that no reasonable investor could have found the CAC
Directives well worth knowing.
Judge Kaplan also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
plausibly allege that: (i) Didi management was aware of the CAC
Directives, that the company was reasonably likely to be sanctioned
by the Chinese government were it to disobey, and that the
resulting sanctions were reasonably likely to have a material
effect on Didi; and (ii) Didi was required to disclose the Omitted
Facts by Item 105, which mandates the disclosure of the material
factors that make an investment in the registrant or offering
speculative or risky.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 14, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2w6p7kw5 from PacerMonitor.com.
Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Jing Chen -- jchen@rosenlegal.com -- Daniel
Tyre-Karp -- dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com -- Robin Bronzaft Howald --
rhowald@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.; Gregory Linkh
-- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP, Attorneys
for the Plaintiffs.
Corey Worcester -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- Renita Sharma
-- renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP; Scott Musoff -- smusoff@skadden.com -- Robert
Fumerton -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- Michael Griffin --
michael.griffin@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Didi Global Inc.
Jonathan Rosenberg -- jrosenberg@omm.com -- Abby F. Rudzin --
arudzin@omm.com -- Shane A. Hunt -- shunt@omm.com -- William K. Pao
-- wpao@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Attorneys for Defendants
Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, BofA Securities Inc., Barclays Capital Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China Renaissance Securities (US)
Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., UBS Securities LLC, and Mizuho
Securities USA LLC.
Corey Worcester -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- Renita Sharma
-- renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Will Wei Cheng, Jean Qing
Liu, Stephen Jingshi Zhu, Alan Yue Zhuo, and Daniel Yong Zhang; and
Defendants Adrian Perica and Kentaro Matsui.
Sheryl Shapiro Bassin -- sbassin@wsgr.com -- Ignacio E. Salceda --
isalceda@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.,
Attorneys for Defendant Zhiyi Chen.
Matthew S. Kahn -- mkahn@gibsondunn.com -- Michael D. Celio --
mcelio@gibsondunn.com -- Kevin J. White -- kwhite@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Martin Chi Ping
Lau.
Jeffrey T. Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- Andrew M. Kaufman --
kaufmana@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, Attorneys for
Defendant Kentaro Matsui.
DIDI GLOBAL: S.D. New York Denies Bids to Dismiss in Chopra Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss in
the lawsuit styled Jatin Chopra v. Didi Global Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:21-cv-07550-LAK, IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master Docket Case No. 21-cv-05807 (LAK).
The putative class action concerns purchases of Didi Global Inc.
securities during and immediately following Didi's initial public
offering ("IPO"). The Plaintiffs bring numerous claims pursuant to
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Plaintiffs purchased American Depository Shares ("ADS") of Didi
pursuant and traceable to its Registration Statement during the
Class Period and were damaged thereby.
Defendant Didi is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and has its
principal place of business in Beijing, China. It offers
internet-enabled services including, most significantly, a
ride-hailing service. Although Didi operates in more than a dozen
countries, the vast majority of its revenues result from its
operations in China.
The Plaintiffs named also several Didi executives ("Officer
Defendants") and directors (together with the Officer Defendants,
"Individual Defendants"). The Officer Defendants are Will Wei
Cheng, Jean Qing Liu, and Alan Yue Zhuo. Although the SAC includes
Didi in its definition of "Officer Defendants," the Court excludes
the company for clarity, because Cheng, Liu, and Zhuo filed a
motion to dismiss separate from Didi's motion to dismiss. The
directors are Stephen Jingshi Zhu, Zhiyi Chen, Kentaro Matsui,
Martin Chi Ping Lau, Adrian Perica, and Daniel Yong Zhang.
In addition, the Plaintiffs named the underwriters of Didi's IPO
("Underwriters") as Defendants. The Underwriters are Goldman Sachs
(Asia) L.L.C., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Barclays Capital
Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.,
UBS Securities LLC, Mizuho Securities USA LLC, and China
Renaissance Securities (US) Inc.
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Didi omitted material
facts from its public filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") made in connection with its 2021 IPO and listing
on the New York Stock Exchange. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege
that Didi was required but failed to disclose that the Chinese
government had directed it to postpone its IPO until it had
resolved various cybersecurity and privacy concerns.
The Plaintiffs plead as well that Didi's disregard for this
directive, its subsequent IPO, and the penalties subsequently
imposed on Didi by the Chinese government harmed shareholders.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese government exercises
"complete control" over "Chinese commerce, the internet in China,
and internet-based businesses." Beginning in approximately 2012,
the Chinese government began to tighten its historically "lax"
regulation of the internet by enacting a series of laws pertaining
to cybersecurity and data protection. Among other things, the
Chinese government created the Cyberspace Administration of China
("CAC"), a government agency responsible for regulating the
internet, internet-based businesses and their activities, and the
collection, storage, and protection of any type of digital
information. The CAC has the expansive power to close or suspend
websites, close down businesses, revoke business licenses, and/or
impose large fines or other draconian penalties.
Against this backdrop, Didi decided to offer its American
Depository Shares to the public and list on a U.S. stock exchange.
Before it did so, however, the CAC directed Didi to postpone its
IPO in the United States until after Didi had completed, to the
CAC's satisfaction, a thorough self-inspection of its business,
operations and policies. This self-inspection was to include a
cybersecurity review to ensure compliance with all applicable laws
and regulations concerning national security, network security,
data security, and/or the collection and protection of private
personal information. The SAC and this Opinion refer to the CAC's
instructions to Didi as the "CAC Directives" or the "Directives."
According to the SAC, the Securities Act and Exchange Act obligated
the Defendants to disclose in its registration statement (1) the
CAC Directives and (2) that Didi faced a high risk that CAC would
impose harsh penalties against Didi that could harm its business,
financial performance, and its reputation if it went forward with
its IPO against the CAC's Directives. The SAC and this opinion
refer to the CAC Directives and the potential penalties for
disregarding them as the "Omitted Facts."
Although Didi did not disclose the CAC Directives publically, it
privately gave the CAC the impression that it would follow the
Directives. Instead, it moved forward with the IPO and listed on
the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2021. The offering of 316.8
million Didi ADS at $14 per share raised more than $4 billion.
On July 2, 2021, the CAC set about to punish Didi for disobeying
the Directives. It announced that it was prohibiting Didi from
registering any new customers and subjecting it to a cybsersecurity
review. Two days later, it announced further measures, including
prohibiting Didi's existing customers from downloading Didi's
primary app, Didi Travel, and requiring Didi to remove the app from
app stores in China. The CAC explained that it was imposing these
penalties on Didi due to serious violations of laws and
regulations. Then came July 5 news reports that Didi had disobeyed
the CAC's Directives that Didi postpone its IPO.
As a result of these events, Didi's stock fell by 20 percent on
July 6, 2021. In the weeks following this massive sell-off, the
Chinese government imposed further penalties on Didi, and Didi's
stock price continued to fall. By July 23, 2021, Didi ADS had
fallen by more than 40 percent from the IPO price.
Acceding to pressure from the CAC and other Chinese government
officials angry that Didi had violated the CAC Directives, Didi
announced a plan to delist from the New York Stock Exchange on Dec.
3, 2021. Later that month, Didi reported that its revenue dropped
significantly between the second and third quarters of 2021 due
primarily to declines in Didi's core ride-hailing business in
China. Didi reported also a third quarter loss of $4.7 billion.
At the time the SAC was filed, Didi continued to be traded on the
New York Stock Exchange at a price per ADS of $1.94, or 14 percent
of the IPO price.
Based on these substantive allegations, the Plaintiffs assert six
causes of action. Under the Securities Act, they allege a Section
11 claim against all Defendants, a Section 12 claim against Didi
and the Underwriters, and a Section 15 claim against Cheng and Liu
as controlling persons of Didi. Under the Exchange Act, the
Plaintiffs allege a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against Didi
and the Officer Defendants, a Section 20A claim against Didi, and a
Section 20(a) claim against Cheng and Liu as controlling persons of
Didi.
Judge Kaplan holds the Section 11 and Section 12 claims against all
Defendants other than Didi are subject to Rule 8 alone. Hence, the
motions to dismiss of the Individual Defendants and Underwriters
are denied to the extent that they are premised on the Plaintiffs'
purported failure to meet the Rule 9(b) pleading standard.
Didi contends that the Second Amended Complaint does not satisfy
Rule 9(b) because it fails to explain why Didi's statements were
fraudulent, to wit, that the Plaintiffs did not allege sufficiently
the existence of the CAC Directives.
The Court holds that the Plaintiffs adequately allege both that the
CAC directed Didi not to proceed with the IPO and that Didi failed
to disclose this fact. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the
SAC's allegations of fraud satisfy the Rule 9(b) standard.
Didi also contends that the Plaintiffs fail to plead a material
omission because the company's disclosure of regulatory risk in
fact did warn investors of the risks that the Plaintiffs here claim
were not disclosed and because, in any case, the company had no
obligation to disclose the alleged CAC Directives.
The Court rejects these arguments. Judge Kaplan points out that
Didi's disclosures were not sufficiently specific to support its
claim that no reasonable investor could have found the CAC
Directives well worth knowing.
Judge Kaplan also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
plausibly allege that: (i) Didi management was aware of the CAC
Directives, that the company was reasonably likely to be sanctioned
by the Chinese government were it to disobey, and that the
resulting sanctions were reasonably likely to have a material
effect on Didi; and (ii) Didi was required to disclose the Omitted
Facts by Item 105, which mandates the disclosure of the material
factors that make an investment in the registrant or offering
speculative or risky.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 14, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ddu8hmk from PacerMonitor.com.
Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Jing Chen -- jchen@rosenlegal.com -- Daniel
Tyre-Karp -- dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com -- Robin Bronzaft Howald --
rhowald@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.; Gregory Linkh
-- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP, Attorneys
for the Plaintiffs.
Corey Worcester -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- Renita Sharma
-- renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP; Scott Musoff -- smusoff@skadden.com -- Robert
Fumerton -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- Michael Griffin --
michael.griffin@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Didi Global Inc.
Jonathan Rosenberg -- jrosenberg@omm.com -- Abby F. Rudzin --
arudzin@omm.com -- Shane A. Hunt -- shunt@omm.com -- William K. Pao
-- wpao@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Attorneys for Defendants
Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, BofA Securities Inc., Barclays Capital Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China Renaissance Securities (US)
Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., UBS Securities LLC, and Mizuho
Securities USA LLC.
Corey Worcester -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- Renita Sharma
-- renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Will Wei Cheng, Jean Qing
Liu, Stephen Jingshi Zhu, Alan Yue Zhuo, and Daniel Yong Zhang; and
Defendants Adrian Perica and Kentaro Matsui.
Sheryl Shapiro Bassin -- sbassin@wsgr.com -- Ignacio E. Salceda --
isalceda@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.,
Attorneys for Defendant Zhiyi Chen.
Matthew S. Kahn -- mkahn@gibsondunn.com -- Michael D. Celio --
mcelio@gibsondunn.com -- Kevin J. White -- kwhite@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Martin Chi Ping
Lau.
Jeffrey T. Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- Andrew M. Kaufman --
kaufmana@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, Attorneys for
Defendant Kentaro Matsui.
DIDI GLOBAL: S.D.N.Y. Denies Bids to Dismiss in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss in
the lawsuit entitled IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Master Docket Case No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK (S.D.N.Y.).
The putative class action concerns purchases of Didi Global Inc.
securities during and immediately following Didi's initial public
offering ("IPO"). The Plaintiffs bring numerous claims pursuant to
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Plaintiffs purchased American Depository Shares ("ADS") of Didi
pursuant and traceable to its Registration Statement during the
Class Period and were damaged thereby.
Defendant Didi is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and has its
principal place of business in Beijing, China. It offers
internet-enabled services including, most significantly, a
ride-hailing service. Although Didi operates in more than a dozen
countries, the vast majority of its revenues result from its
operations in China.
The Plaintiffs named also several Didi executives ("Officer
Defendants") and directors (together with the Officer Defendants,
"Individual Defendants"). The Officer Defendants are Will Wei
Cheng, Jean Qing Liu, and Alan Yue Zhuo. Although the SAC includes
Didi in its definition of "Officer Defendants," the Court excludes
the company for clarity, because Cheng, Liu, and Zhuo filed a
motion to dismiss separate from Didi's motion to dismiss. The
directors are Stephen Jingshi Zhu, Zhiyi Chen, Kentaro Matsui,
Martin Chi Ping Lau, Adrian Perica, and Daniel Yong Zhang.
In addition, the Plaintiffs named the underwriters of Didi's IPO
("Underwriters") as Defendants. The Underwriters are Goldman Sachs
(Asia) L.L.C., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Barclays Capital
Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.,
UBS Securities LLC, Mizuho Securities USA LLC, and China
Renaissance Securities (US) Inc.
The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Didi omitted material
facts from its public filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") made in connection with its 2021 IPO and listing
on the New York Stock Exchange. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege
that Didi was required but failed to disclose that the Chinese
government had directed it to postpone its IPO until it had
resolved various cybersecurity and privacy concerns.
The Plaintiffs plead as well that Didi's disregard for this
directive, its subsequent IPO, and the penalties subsequently
imposed on Didi by the Chinese government harmed shareholders.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese government exercises
"complete control" over "Chinese commerce, the internet in China,
and internet-based businesses." Beginning in approximately 2012,
the Chinese government began to tighten its historically "lax"
regulation of the internet by enacting a series of laws pertaining
to cybersecurity and data protection. Among other things, the
Chinese government created the Cyberspace Administration of China
("CAC"), a government agency responsible for regulating the
internet, internet-based businesses and their activities, and the
collection, storage, and protection of any type of digital
information. The CAC has the expansive power to close or suspend
websites, close down businesses, revoke business licenses, and/or
impose large fines or other draconian penalties.
Against this backdrop, Didi decided to offer its American
Depository Shares to the public and list on a U.S. stock exchange.
Before it did so, however, the CAC directed Didi to postpone its
IPO in the United States until after Didi had completed, to the
CAC's satisfaction, a thorough self-inspection of its business,
operations and policies. This self-inspection was to include a
cybersecurity review to ensure compliance with all applicable laws
and regulations concerning national security, network security,
data security, and/or the collection and protection of private
personal information. The SAC and this Opinion refer to the CAC's
instructions to Didi as the "CAC Directives" or the "Directives."
According to the SAC, the Securities Act and Exchange Act obligated
the Defendants to disclose in its registration statement (1) the
CAC Directives and (2) that Didi faced a high risk that CAC would
impose harsh penalties against Didi that could harm its business,
financial performance, and its reputation if it went forward with
its IPO against the CAC's Directives. The SAC and this opinion
refer to the CAC Directives and the potential penalties for
disregarding them as the "Omitted Facts."
Although Didi did not disclose the CAC Directives publically, it
privately gave the CAC the impression that it would follow the
Directives. Instead, it moved forward with the IPO and listed on
the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2021. The offering of 316.8
million Didi ADS at $14 per share raised more than $4 billion.
On July 2, 2021, the CAC set about to punish Didi for disobeying
the Directives. It announced that it was prohibiting Didi from
registering any new customers and subjecting it to a cybsersecurity
review. Two days later, it announced further measures, including
prohibiting Didi's existing customers from downloading Didi's
primary app, Didi Travel, and requiring Didi to remove the app from
app stores in China. The CAC explained that it was imposing these
penalties on Didi due to serious violations of laws and
regulations. Then came July 5 news reports that Didi had disobeyed
the CAC's Directives that Didi postpone its IPO.
As a result of these events, Didi's stock fell by 20 percent on
July 6, 2021. In the weeks following this massive sell-off, the
Chinese government imposed further penalties on Didi, and Didi's
stock price continued to fall. By July 23, 2021, Didi ADS had
fallen by more than 40 percent from the IPO price.
Acceding to pressure from the CAC and other Chinese government
officials angry that Didi had violated the CAC Directives, Didi
announced a plan to delist from the New York Stock Exchange on Dec.
3, 2021. Later that month, Didi reported that its revenue dropped
significantly between the second and third quarters of 2021 due
primarily to declines in Didi's core ride-hailing business in
China. Didi reported also a third quarter loss of $4.7 billion.
At the time the SAC was filed, Didi continued to be traded on the
New York Stock Exchange at a price per ADS of $1.94, or 14 percent
of the IPO price.
Based on these substantive allegations, the Plaintiffs assert six
causes of action. Under the Securities Act, they allege a Section
11 claim against all Defendants, a Section 12 claim against Didi
and the Underwriters, and a Section 15 claim against Cheng and Liu
as controlling persons of Didi. Under the Exchange Act, the
Plaintiffs allege a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against Didi
and the Officer Defendants, a Section 20A claim against Didi, and a
Section 20(a) claim against Cheng and Liu as controlling persons of
Didi.
Judge Kaplan holds the Section 11 and Section 12 claims against all
Defendants other than Didi are subject to Rule 8 alone. Hence, the
motions to dismiss of the Individual Defendants and Underwriters
are denied to the extent that they are premised on the Plaintiffs'
purported failure to meet the Rule 9(b) pleading standard.
Didi contends that the Second Amended Complaint does not satisfy
Rule 9(b) because it fails to explain why Didi's statements were
fraudulent, to wit, that the Plaintiffs did not allege sufficiently
the existence of the CAC Directives.
The Court holds that the Plaintiffs adequately allege both that the
CAC directed Didi not to proceed with the IPO and that Didi failed
to disclose this fact. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the
SAC's allegations of fraud satisfy the Rule 9(b) standard.
Didi also contends that the Plaintiffs fail to plead a material
omission because the company's disclosure of regulatory risk in
fact did warn investors of the risks that the Plaintiffs here claim
were not disclosed and because, in any case, the company had no
obligation to disclose the alleged CAC Directives.
The Court rejects these arguments. Judge Kaplan points out that
Didi's disclosures were not sufficiently specific to support its
claim that no reasonable investor could have found the CAC
Directives well worth knowing.
Judge Kaplan also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
plausibly allege that: (i) Didi management was aware of the CAC
Directives, that the company was reasonably likely to be sanctioned
by the Chinese government were it to disobey, and that the
resulting sanctions were reasonably likely to have a material
effect on Didi; and (ii) Didi was required to disclose the Omitted
Facts by Item 105, which mandates the disclosure of the material
factors that make an investment in the registrant or offering
speculative or risky.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 14, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/48jfzynf from PacerMonitor.com.
Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Jing Chen -- jchen@rosenlegal.com -- Daniel
Tyre-Karp -- dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com -- Robin Bronzaft Howald --
rhowald@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.; Gregory Linkh
-- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP, Attorneys
for the Plaintiffs.
Corey Worcester -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- Renita Sharma
-- renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP; Scott Musoff -- smusoff@skadden.com -- Robert
Fumerton -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- Michael Griffin --
michael.griffin@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Didi Global Inc.
Jonathan Rosenberg -- jrosenberg@omm.com -- Abby F. Rudzin --
arudzin@omm.com -- Shane A. Hunt -- shunt@omm.com -- William K. Pao
-- wpao@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, Attorneys for Defendants
Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, BofA Securities Inc., Barclays Capital Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China Renaissance Securities (US)
Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., UBS Securities LLC, and Mizuho
Securities USA LLC.
Corey Worcester -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- Renita Sharma
-- renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Will Wei Cheng, Jean Qing
Liu, Stephen Jingshi Zhu, Alan Yue Zhuo, and Daniel Yong Zhang; and
Defendants Adrian Perica and Kentaro Matsui.
Sheryl Shapiro Bassin -- sbassin@wsgr.com -- Ignacio E. Salceda --
isalceda@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.,
Attorneys for Defendant Zhiyi Chen.
Matthew S. Kahn -- mkahn@gibsondunn.com -- Michael D. Celio --
mcelio@gibsondunn.com -- Kevin J. White -- kwhite@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Attorneys for Defendant Martin Chi Ping
Lau.
Jeffrey T. Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- Andrew M. Kaufman --
kaufmana@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, Attorneys for
Defendant Kentaro Matsui.
DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS: Hessee Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Digital Media
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Hessee, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Digital Media
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-00353-KKM-SPF (M.D. Fla., Feb. 6,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Digital Media Solutions -- https://digitalmediasolutions.com/ -- is
a leading provider of technology-enabled digital performance
advertising solutions connecting consumers and advertisers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
Miami, Fl 33131
Phone: (877) 333-9427
Fax: (888) 498-8946
Email: law@stefancoleman.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey Benjamin Pertnoy, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
Three Brickell City Centre
98 SE 7th St Ste 1100
Miami, FL 33131-3525
Phone: (305) 374-5600
Fax: (305) 374-5095
Email: jeffrey.pertnoy@akerman.com
DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY: Boardley Sues Over Retention of Tuition
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Boardley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, (Pa. Ct. of
Common Pleas, Allegheny Cty., Feb. 6, 2024), is brought for damages
and restitution resulting from Duquesne's retention of the tuition
paid by Plaintiff and the other putative Class members for in
person education, access to facilities, and services not being
provided.
The Plaintiff paid tuition to enroll in Duquesne's on-campus, in
person education program, including all the benefits and services
associated therewith for the entirety of the Spring 2020 semester.
The Plaintiff's paid-for experience was cut short midway through
the Spring 2020 semester, when that in-person educational
experience was taken away from Plaintiff and other students at
Duquesne.
In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease (the "COVID-19
pandemic"), Duquesne, like many other colleges and universities,
transitioned to online-only distance learning, canceled on-campus
recreational events, canceled student activity events, and ordered
students to refrain from going on campus.
As a result, all on-campus education, services, and amenities were
no longer available to Duquesne students for the remainder of the
Spring 2020 semester. Despite the harsh reality that students could
no longer enjoy the benefit of the bargain for which they pre-paid,
Duquesne refused to provide a prorated refund of tuition tied to
its on-campus education, services, and amenities that were not
available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020
semester.
It is unfair and unlawful for Duquesne to retain tuition for campus
based in-person education and services not being provided and to
pass the financial losses on to its students. Importantly,
Plaintiff does not challenge Defendant's discretion in adhering to
federal, state, and local health guidelines, but rather challenges
Duquesne's decision to retain the tuition paid by Plaintiff and
other students for in person education, experiences, access to
campus, and services, without providing such for the entire
duration of the Spring 2020 semester, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an undergraduate student during the Spring 2020
semester.
Duquesne is a private research university founded in 1878.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: 412-322-9243
Email: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Anthony Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
DX ENTERPRISES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 31, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heather McClaine, on
behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known
and unknown, v. DX Enterprises, Inc., formerly known as DX
Enterprises, LLC, doing business as DXE, doing business as, FCQA,
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01168-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Parties file a
joint report of the scheduling and discovery order as follows:
1. The Plaintiff(s) depositions shall be taken by Aug. 30, 2024.
2. The Defendant(s) depositions shall be taken by Aug. 30, 2024.
3. Third Party actions must be commenced by June 20, 2024 (which
date shall be no late than 90 days following the scheduling
conference).
4. Expert witnesses for Class Certification, if any, shall be
disclosed, along with a written report prepared and signed by
the witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(2), as follows:
Plaintiff(s) expert(s): Sept. 15, 2024
Defendant(s) expert(s): Oct. 15, 2024
5. Depositions of Class Certification expert witnesses must be
taken by:
Plaintiff(s) expert(s): Jan. 10, 2025
Defendant(s) expert(s): Feb. 14, 2025
6. Plaintiff(s) Motion for Class Certification and Memorandum in
Support shall be filed by March 31, 2025. The parties state,
further, that Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification
prior to the case's removal to federal court on March 2,
2023.
7. The Defendant(s) memorandum in opposition to class
certification
shall be filed by May 15, 2025.
DX Enterprises is a recruiting firm that provides staffing and
logistic services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gq87Bx at no extra
charge.[CC]
EQUIFAX WORKFORCE: Gerena Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Workforce
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Muniz Gerena, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Equifax
Workforce Solutions, LLC doing business as: The Work Number, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00098-MHL (E.D. Va., Feb. 9, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Equifax -- https://workforce.equifax.com/ -- is a global provider
of information solutions and human resources business process
outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
Newport News, VA 23601
Phone: (757) 930-3660
Fax: (757) 930-3662
Email: craig@clalegal.com
lenbennett@clalegal.com
- and -
Drew David Sarrett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC
626 East Broad Street, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 905-9900
Fax: (757) 930-3662
Email: drew@clalegal.com
- and -
Stephen Leigh Flores, Esq.
FLORES LAW, PLLC
530 E. Main St., Ste. 320
Richmond, VA 23219-2412
Phone: (804) 238-9911
Fax: (804) 203-8717
Email: stephen@floreslawva.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Noah Patrick Sullivan, Esq.
GENTRY LOCKE
919 E. Main Street, Suite 1130
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 956-2069
Email: nsullivan@gentrylocke.com
- and -
John C. Toro, Esq.
Thomas Paris, Esq.
Zachary A McEntyre, Esq.
KING & SPALDING (GA-NA)
1180 Peachtree St NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Phone: (404) 572-4600
Fax: (404) 572-5100
Email: jtoro@kslaw.com
tparis@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
ESQUIRE BANK: Print Your Plaques Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esquire Bank N.A. The
case is styled as Print Your Plaques LLC, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. Esquire Bank N.A., Infinity
Capital LLC doing business as: Choice Merchant Solutions, Case No.
2:24-cv-01077-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Esquire Bank -- https://esquirebank.com/ -- redefines relationship
banking with innovative solutions for law firms, payment processing
and commercial real estate financing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brianna Dahlberg, Esq.
Eugene Rome, Esq.
ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East Ste 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (818) 274-1357
Email: bdahlberg@romeandassociates.com
erome@romellp.com
- and -
Raphael Janove, Esq.
JANOVE PLLC
500 7th Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (646) 347-3940
Fax: (347) 696-1227
Email: raphael@janove.law
The Defendant is represented by:
Edward A. Marshall, Esq.
Morgan E.M. Harrison, Esq.
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
171 17th Street, NW, Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30363
Phone: (404) 873-8536
Fax: (404) 873-8537
Email: edward.marshall@agg.com
morgan.harrison@agg.com
- and -
Thomas Baylis, Esq.
CULLEN AND DYKMAN LLP
333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Ste. 2nd Floor
Uniondale, NY 11553
Phone: (516) 357-3748
Fax: (516) 357-3792
Email: tbaylis@cullenanddykman.com
ETRADE SECURITIES: Burmin Sues Over Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------
Sergey Burmin and Kenneth W. Luke, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC and
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00603-ES-MAH
(D.N.J., Feb. 1, 2024), is brought alleging breach of contract
action that the Defendants failed to pay a reasonable interest rate
on cash maintained in retirement accounts, as required by
agreements between E*TRADE and MSSB, on the one hand, and
retirement account investors, on the other hand.
From the commencement of the class period in February 1, 2018 until
October 2, 2020, E*TRADE operated as a subsidiary of E*TRADE
Financial Corporation. During the class period, until October 2023
or thereabouts, E*TRADE required that each holder of a retirement
account agree to the terms contained in the Retirement Sweep
Deposit Account ("RSDA") Program Customer Agreement. The RSDA
Agreement obligated E*TRADE to pay a "reasonable rate of interest"
on cash swept from retirement accounts. The RSDA Agreement stated
at Section 17: "I authorize such RSDA Program deposits and
understand that each Program Bank will pay a reasonable rate of
interest, as contemplated by ERISA.
E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley subsequently required retirement
account holders to agree to the terms contained in the Morgan
Stanley Bank Deposit Sweep Program ("BDP") Disclosure Statement.
Additionally, retirement account holders were required to consent
to one of three E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley individual retirement
account ("IRA") disclosure statements associated with their
respective accounts: the Individual Retirement Plan and Traditional
IRA Disclosure Statement; the Roth IRA Plan Document & Disclosure
Statement; or the SIMPLE IRA Plan Document & Disclosure Statement
(collectively referred to as the "2023 IRA Disclosures").
From 2018 through March 2019, and again from March 2022 onwards,
when the Federal Reserve began raising the target federal funds
rate, the reasonable value of swept cash consistently exceeded the
amounts paid by E*TRADE and E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley on sweep
accounts. Comparable brokerages such as Fidelity Investments, R.W.
Baird, Robinhood, and Vanguard Investments, which did not sweep
cash to affiliated banks, but rather swept cash to independent,
unaffiliated banks, paid substantially higher rates on swept cash,
than E*TRADE and E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley. For example, Fidelity
paid retirement investors as much as 2.72% APY on swept cash
regardless of AUM, starting in August 2023, and R.W. Baird paid
retirement investors between 2.07% to 4.15% on swept cash,
depending on cash balances, as of September 8, 2023. In comparison,
E*TRADE and E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley consistently paid among the
lowest rates on swept cash among brokerages irrespective of whether
these brokerages swept cash to affiliated or unaffiliated banks.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract for failure to
pay a reasonable rate of interest on behalf of a national Class,
under New York State law, based on a choice of law provision in the
E*TRADE Customer Agreement and the E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley
Client Agreement for Self-Directed Accounts, which each class
member was required to consent to. The Plaintiffs seek both
monetary recovery commencing on February 1, 2018 and declaratory
and injunctive relief. E*TRADE from Morgan Stanley is committing an
ongoing wrong. Accordingly, the class period for which plaintiffs
seek relief is ongoing and includes continuing and future
retirement account investors, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff, Sergey Burmin, in August 2018, opened a Roth IRA at
E*TRADE. The Plaintiff, Kenneth W. Luke, in January 2010, opened a
Rollover IRA at E*TRADE.
E*TRADE is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Jersey City, New Jersey..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
Audra DePaolo, Esq.
COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
Park 80 West – Plaza One
250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
Saddle Brook, NY 07663
Phone: (201) 845-9600
FAHIM LOGISTICS: Case Management Conference Set for April 16
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RASHEEM TYRIK BUIE,
ESMERALDA FORTUNATO, and JONATHAN A BROWN, Natural Guardian of
S.B.C.V., v. FAHIM LOGISTICS LLC and BAD SHAH NOOR DOR BAD SHAH,
Case No. 1:23-cv-06474-SHS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah
Cave entered an order scheduling in-person conference.
This action has been referred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
636(b)(1)(A), to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for general
pretrial management, including scheduling discovery,
non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement.
All pretrial motions and applications, including those relating to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must
be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her
Individual Practices, available on the Court's website at
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.
A case management conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 16,
2024 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 18A, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York.
The parties shall promptly meet and confer and, by April 9, 2024,
file a joint letter proposing a schedule for the completion of fact
and
expert discovery. To the extent the parties disagree about any
portion of the proposed schedule, they may set forth their
respective proposals without argument.
Fahim is a licensed and DOT registred trucking company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tRDa9w at no extra
charge.[CC]
FESTIVAL FUN PARKS: McGivan Sues Over Undisclosed Total Cost
------------------------------------------------------------
Celia McGivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FESTIVAL FUN PARKS LLC d/b/a SPLISH SPLASH, Case No.
703318/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., Feb. 12, 2024), is brought
based on the Defendant failure to properly disclose the total cost
for the purchase of tickets in violation of New York law.
New York Law was recently enacted New York Arts and Cultural
Affairs Law, effective August 29, 2022, to demand greater price
transparency from ticket sellers. The law requires that all ticket
sellers list the total cost of a ticket, inclusive of mandatory
fees, before the consumer selects the tickets for purchase to allow
consumers to make more informed decisions.
The Defendant has violated this law by failing to disclose a
per-ticket $4.00 “Processing Fee” which increases the total
cost of the ticket during the purchase process but is only
disclosed after the ticket is selected for purchase. The Processing
Fee is added to the total cost of the ticket price regardless of
the delivery method of the ticket. The Plaintiff therefore demands
actual and/or statutory damages, reasonable attorneys’ costs and
fees, and injunctive relief under New York Arts and Cultural
Affairs Law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased one Any Day Ticket on August 15, 2023, from
Defendant’s website: https://www.splishsplash.com/.
The Defendant is a corporation which operates a theme park in
Suffolk County, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Edelsberg, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
New York Bar No. 4995130
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Phone: 917-456-9603
Email: rachel@dapeer.com
FLAGSTAR BANK: Discovery Cutoff Dates Remains, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Victoria Johnson v.
Flagstar Bank, N.A. et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01626-MRA-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order that
all discovery cutoff dates and other deadlines associated with the
case shall remain in effect.
On March 14, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Case Management
Statement ("JCMS"), in which the parties requested a 7-month
continuance of the class certification briefing schedule.
The parties report that without the requested continuance, "there
will not be sufficient time to conduct expert discovery and a
pre-class certification mediation."
Flagstar Bank is an American commercial bank.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=38rUow at no extra
charge.[CC]
FORESCOUT TECH: Class Cert Oral Argument in Sayce Set for May 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER L. SAYCE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et. al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00076-SI
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order
regarding scheduling of hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
1. The April 5, 2024 hearing date shall be adjourned; and
2. The Court shall hear argument on the Plaintiffs' motion on
May
17, 2024, or the Court's earliest availability thereafter.
On Feb. 22, 2024, the Parties submitted a stipulation and proposed
order regarding scheduling of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, requesting that the Court set a hearing on the
Motion for Apr. 19, 2024, or at the Court's earliest convenience
thereafter.
On Feb. 22, 2024, the Court granted the Stipulation and Amended
Order Regarding Scheduling of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, setting a hearing on the Motion for April 5, 2024.
ForeScout provides enterprises and government agencies with
agentless visibility and control of devices.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I12sP1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
E-mail: JAbraham@aftlaw.com
- and -
Omar Jafri, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
E-mail: ojafri@pomlaw.co
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy Jane Longo, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111-4006
Telephone: (415) 315-6300
E-mail: Amy.Longo@ropesgray.com
- and -
Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq.
Diane Walters, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
E-mail: isalceda@wsgr.com
dwalters@wsgr.com
FRESH AMERICAN: Villaverde Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fresh American, LLC.
The case is styled as Amanda Villaverde, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fresh American, LLC, Case No. CACE24001597
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 5, 2024).
the case type is stated as "Other."
Fresh American, LLC distributes home furnishing and decorating
products. The Company offers bed sheets, carpets, rugs,
wallcoverings, animal house, and accessories.[BN]
FTX TRADING: Settles Class Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme for $1.3M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Coghlan of CoinTelegraph reports that former FTX executives
and promotors have come to a nearly $1.36 million settlement with a
class-action group of the crypto exchange's former investors
seeking compensation for being defrauded.
FTX co-founder Zixiao "Gary" Wang, former engineering lead Nishad
Singh and sister trading firm Alameda Research ex-CEO Caroline
Ellison agreed to cooperate and give information to the lawsuit to
resolve the claims against them, according to a March 27 Miami
federal court bid seeking the settlements' approval.
Settlements were also reached with seven other influencers and
former FTX chief regulatory officer and FTX US chief compliance
officer Daniel Friedberg.
The former execs didn't admit to any of the lawsuit's allegations,
but the class group found the trio's "knowledge and other
information" would be valuable in strengthening its case against
others it sued -- including celebrities, companies and venture
capitalists.
The three each face their own sentences after pleading guilty to
fraud. The class will affirm their cooperation with the court
before their sentencing.
The former execs will also hand in records used in FTX's bankruptcy
case and make themselves available for depositions and hearings.
The settlement agreement further saw the three agree to forfeit
their assets for the judge in their criminal case to decide the
recovery and distribution of victim funds.
They are not to oppose a request from FTX investors that the funds
be distributed through the class suit, as opposed to FTX's proposed
bankruptcy paybacks or other lawsuits.
A settlement with Friedberg was also reached, with the filings
noting he has voluntarily "provided valuable information" to the
class group and "has agreed to do so on an ongoing basis."
Friedberg's settlement notes he "did not have knowledge of the FTX
fraud," and after he found out about it, he "immediately resigned"
and "promptly contacted the authorities."
Seven YouTubers and influencers also paid to settle the suit,
including $180,000 from Brian Jung, $122,000 from Kevin Paffrath,
$37,485 from Tom Nash, $10,000 from Graham Stephan, and $5,000 each
from Jeremy LeFebvre and Andrei Jikh.
Information for American football star William Trevor Lawrence's
settlement wasn't available, but he seemingly paid $1 million to
settle based on the total disclosed relief minus the other
agreements' sums.
All named in the settlements were released "from all claims related
to any of the alleged conduct giving rise to this litigation." [GN]
GEICO CASUALTY: Perkins Sues Over Unfair Insurance Claims' Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEEBA PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY; GEICO ADVANTAGE INS. CO.; GEICO SECURE INS. CO.;
GEICO CHOICE INS. CO.; GEICO GENERAL INS. CO.; and GEICO INDEMNITY
CO., Defendants, Case No. CV 24 994917 (Ohio Com. Pl., Cuyahoga
County, March 25, 2024) alleges that the Defendants are engaged in
a plan, scheme and design to mislead and defraud the Defendant's
insureds, and benefit the Defendant financially through improper
and deceptive means.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased automobile
insurance policies for Ohio garaged vehicles from the Defendants.
Plaintiff and the prospective Class Members made first party
insurance claims when they suffered damage to their vehicles, and
the Defendants declared their vehicles to be a total loss requiring
the Defendant to pay the actual cash value ("ACV ") of those
vehicles.
Instead of paying ACV, as required by the insurance policy and Ohio
law, the Defendants reduced the payment amount by deducting an
arbitrary "condition adjustment" from the actual cost of comparable
vehicles used to determine the ACV, even though the Defendant never
inspected the comparable vehicles so had no factual basis for
making that deduction.
Because of this practice the Defendant failed to pay ACV, breached
the policy contract with the Plaintiff and the Class Members, and
violated Ohio law. Defendant engaged in this practice with the
intent to defraud the Plaintiff and all customers in the Class.
This pattern and practice of undervaluing total loss vehicles when
paying automobile claims, through the systemic use of these invalid
and deceptive comp vehicle condition adjustments, violates the
Defendants' insurance policies with its Ohio insureds, says the
suit.
GEICO Casualty Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company offers auto, motorcycle, home, renters, flood, life,
general liability, travel, and business insurance services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
- and -
James A. DeRoche, Esq.
GARSON JOHNSON LLC
2900 Detroit Avenue
Van Roy Building 2nd Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 696-9330
Facsimile: (216) 696-8558
Email: jderoche@garson.com
- and -
Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC
110 West Vine Street, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (800) 614-1957
Email: erik@eplo.law
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE: Chick Files Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEICO General
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Jonathan Chick, on behalf
on himself and all others similarly situated v. GEICO General
Insurance Company, CCC Intelligent Solutions, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-01124-JMA-LGD (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
Racketeering (RICO) Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Aloysius Coleman, Esq.
LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, PC
29 Howard Street, Ste. 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (212) 376-8450
Fax: (212) 376-8447
Email: ecoleman@lewissaul.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Summary Judgment Bid vs Riley Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RILEY, et al., v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order that:
-- GM's motion to exclude is granted in part and denied in part:
granted as to opinion 6 and denied as to Opinions 1, 2, 3, 4,
5,
7, and 8;
-- GM's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied
in
part: granted as to the Plaintiff's claims regarding loss of
use
damages and denied as to the Plaintiff's breach of contract and
breach of express warranty claims, so the Plaintiff may proceed
under a diminution of value theory of damages; and
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted.
The Plaintiff proposes two class definitions:
1. Initial purchasers and lessees of new 2017-2019 GMC Acadia,
2019
Chevrolet Blazer, 2016-2019 Chevrolet Malibu, 2018-2019
Chevrolet Traverse, and 2016- 2019 Chevrolet Volt vehicles
("Class Vehicles"), who purchased or leased their vehicles in
Ohio.
2. All persons or entities who (1) bought or leased a 2017-2019
GMC
Acadia, 2019 Chevrolet Blazer, 2016-2019 Chevrolet Malibu,
2018-
2019 Chevrolet Traverse, or 2016-2019 Chevrolet Volt vehicle
("Class Vehicles") in Ohio; (2) sought a repair from a GM
dealer
regarding the "Shift to Park" condition (instances where the
driver puts a Class Vehicle in the Park position however a
'Shift to Park' message appears) during GM's 36 month/30,000
mile warranty period; and (3) during the 36 month/30,000 mile
warranty period did not receive a silicon-free replacement
part.
The Plaintiff contends that a "Shift to Park" message appears on
the vehicle's dashboard directing the driver to shift their vehicle
to park. While such a message can be helpful at times, for a
certain subset of vehicles, this message appears despite the
vehicle already being in park.
Mr. Riley filed suit against GM on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated Ohio residents for damages or equitable relief
based on breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, and/or breach of warranty
under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0afBlv at no extra
charge.[CC]
GERBER PRODUCTS: Court Tosses Hasemann Class Cert Bids
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER HASEMANN and
DEBBIE HOTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., Case No. 1:15-cv-02995-EK-JAM
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered an order denying
all class cert motions, except that Dr. Saavedra's testimony shall
be limited as described.
By April 22, 2024, Gerber shall submit a revised expert report from
Dr. Saavedra. The plaintiffs may submit an updated or additional
rebuttal report by May 20.
This case concerns Gerber Good Start Gentle ("GSG"). Unlike most
other infant formulas, which are made with "intact" cow's milk
protein, GSG uses cow's milk protein that has been partially broken
down (the technical term is "100% Whey-Protein Partially
Hydrolyzed").
The Plaintiffs challenge six specific marketing devices: three
print-magazine advertisements, a television commercial, a coupon,
and a safety-seal sticker affixed to GSG packaging.
The plaintiffs allege that those advertisements were false or
misleading. Specifically, the plaintiffs assert that Gerber falsely
advertised that GSG (a) could reduce the risk of developing
allergies and (b) had earned the FDA's endorsement.
The Plaintiffs assert that these advertisements were false and
misleading because "there is no scientific evidence supporting" the
claim that GSG "reduces the risk of an infant developing certain
allergies." They also contend that atopic dermatitis "isn't an
allergy at all." And in any event, "there's also no credible
evidence that GSG even reduces the risk of atopic dermatitis."
The Plaintiff Classes
In March 2019, Judge Brodie -- who was then presiding -- certified
New York and Florida classes. Hasemann, 331 F.R.D. at 279.6 The
classes were defined as follows:
The [Florida / New York] Subclass: All persons who purchased
Good
Start Gentle infant formula in [Florida / New York] between
October
10, 2011, and April 23, 2016. The [Florida / New York] Subclass
excludes the judge or magistrate assigned to this case;
Defendant;
any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest;
Defendant's officers, directors, legal representatives,
successors,
and assigns; persons who purchased Good Start infant formula
for
the purpose of resale; and any government or government entity
participating in the WIC program. The term "purchased" does not
include formula received by a person via the WIC program."
Gerber sells several infant formula products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z9gBpc at no extra
charge.[CC]
GMRI INC: Seeks Denial of Gaye Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN GAYE, an individual,
on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, v. GMRI, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50
inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01144-L-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Defendant
will move the Court on May 6, 2024, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, for an order denying certification of the class
and sub-class.
The Defendant contends that the proposed class by Plaintiff Gaye
because while Plaintiff is not bound by GMRI's arbitration program
including a class action waiver, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a
putative class comprised almost entirely of individuals who agreed
to a Dispute Resolution Process ("DRP") with GMRI to resolve
employment disputes -- including disputes about wages -- through
individual arbitration and not on a class action basis.
Rule 23 and Ninth Circuit law allow any party to move the Court as
early as practical for an order determining whether the action can
proceed as a class action. Here, the evidence indisputably shows,
and substantial case law confirms, that the Plaintiff's claims are
not typical of the putative class, and that the Plaintiff cannot
adequately represent a class of individuals who agreed to resolve
their employment disputes through individual arbitration and not a
class action. The Plaintiff also cannot establish predominance or
that class litigation is a superior method of litigation. Thus,
class certification is inappropriate in this case under Rule 23,
the Defendant said.
GMRI operates a chain of restaurants.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f1yI8U at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
Matthew Riley, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121-2133
Telephone: (858) 677-1400
Facsimile: (858) 677-1401
E-mail: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com
matthew.riley@us.dlapiper.com
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Hicks Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH HICKS, an
Individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
and the general public, v. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Corporation with Headquarters in California, and DOES 1-100,
inclusive Case No. 3:22-cv-02038-JLS-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on July 25, 2024 to enter an order granting her
motion class certification.
Grimmway produces and supplies agricultural products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xGl44C at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
Karoline D. Kitlowski, Esq.
SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC
2330 Third Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 702-6760
Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
E-mail: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
karoline@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Settlement in Ziegler Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KURT ZIEGLER and DANIEL
BRADY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
v. GW PHARMACEUTICALS, PLC, JUSTIN GOVER, GEOFFREY GUY, CABOT
BROWN, DAVID GRYSKA, CATHERINE MACKEY, JAMES NOBEL, ALICIA SECOR
and LORD WILLIAM WALDEGRAVE, Case No. 3:21-cv-01019-BAS-MSB (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting
Lead Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class settlement, and
granting Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service
awards.
Accordingly, the Court also orders as follows:
1. Incorporation of Other Documents. The Settlement Agreement
dated
March 16, 2023, including its exhibits, and the definitions
of
words and terms contained therein are incorporated by
reference
in this Order. The terms of this Court's preliminary approval
order are also incorporated by reference in this Order
2. Final Settlement Approval. The Court hereby finally approves
the
Settlement Agreement, the exhibits, and the Settlement
contemplated thereby, and finds that the terms constitute, in
all respects, a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement as
to
all Settlement Class Members in accordance with Rule 23 of
the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and directs its consummation
pursuant to its terms and conditions.
3. Attorneys' Fees and Costs; Service Awards. The Court approves
Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and costs in
the
amount of $2,583,333.31 in fees and $33,513.97 in costs; and
approves service awards of $5,000 each for Plaintiffs Kurt
Ziegler and Daniel Brady. The Settlement Agreement provides
for
Class Counsel's Fee Award to be paid before the time to
appeal
this Order has expired.
The Settlement Class is defined as follows:
all record holders and all beneficial holders of GW American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") who purchased, sold, or held such
ADSs at any time during the period from and including March
10, 2021, the record date for voting on the Merger, through and
including May 5, 2021, the date the Merger closed, including
any
and all of their respective predecessors, successors,
trustees,
executors, administrators, estates, legal representatives,
heirs,
assigns and transferees. Excluded from the Settlement Class are
(i) Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate families of each
Defendant; (iii) GW's subsidiaries and affiliates; (iv) any
entity
in which any defendant has a controlling interest; (v) the
legal
representatives, heirs, successors, administrators, executors,
and
assigns of each defendant, in their capacity as such; and (vi)
any
persons or entities who properly exclude themselves by filing
a
valid and timely request for exclusion.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lx2Tym at no extra
charge.[CC]
H.I.G. CAPITAL: Arrington Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Adrienne Arrington; Alecia Guarneros; Alexa
Sanchez; Alice Scott; Amanda Prescott; Amanda Shepherd; Amsha
Swensen; Amy Torowki; Amy White; Andrea Richey; Annamarie Holmes;
Ashley Knutson; Barbara Wass; Becki MacDougall; Bertha Reveles;
Bianca Mottola; Blanca Jaimes; Bonnie Dolan; Breanna Martinez;
Carina Tam; Carlina Elaine Konopatskiy; Carlton Jordan; Carol
Altemusl Carol Cooper, Carolyn Kerrigan; Carrie Bullen Richter
A.K.A Carrie Bullen Townsend; Cathy Moore; Cathy Poole; Cherrie L.
Rosander; Cindy Ruiz; Consuelo Espinoza; Dawn Gersh; Debbie Mach;
Denise Shelley; Diana Self; Egypt Hamby; Elisa Snyder; Elisha
Goodman; Elizabeth M. Roberts; Elizabeth Nu; Ellen Spar, Eric
Matson; Erica Conley; Evangela Rene Rouzan; Gabriela Sanchez-Rubio;
Ginger Parker; Hailey Jones; Henry Kaplan; Iris Claire Slonin;
Janeen Handy; Jennifer Mendoza; Jennifer Sherman; Jennifer Small;
Jeri Dawn Martel; Jessica Barry-Roderfeld; John Paul Jones; Joshua
Vergote: Juanita Angel; Julie Galovich; Justine Holden; Karen
Larson; Karina Garcia; Katherine Huynh Liu; Katherine Ragusa;
Kathleen Brechtel; Kim Doyle; Kimberly George; Kimberly Greenlee;
Laura Koutris; Laura Saunders; Lauralyn Mazzuca; Lisa McClure;
Lorena Gonzalez; Mackenzie Fisher; Mani Morgado Salyers; Marie
Tafolla; Maria Guadalupe Flores Depuga; Mark Alan Mendes; Mary
Kabel Burdick; Mary Robinson; Matthew C. Brynie; Matthew Switzer;
Melody Valdez; Michelle Ghelfi; Michelle Mantos; Monica Ropar;
Naghmeh Salenhaghighi; Natalie Coconubo-Leiser; Nichol R. Turner,
Nicole Anderson; Nicole Patton; Niesha Greenwood; Pam Williams;
Parkhideh Stephanie Malekzadeh; Paula Walker; Phillip Cooper;
Ranjit R. Chaganti; Raquel Richardson; Rekala Ross; Renae Hodge;
Renee Osborne; Reyna Farias; Russell Trimble; Sabrina Pringle;
Serena Olalia; Shafiqa Ansari; Shannon Daugherty; Shannon Gerry;
Shannon Goodwin; Sharon So; Sheila Lopez; Sheri Wade; Shirin T.
Jensen; Shirley Moss; Sreekanth P; Starlette Petersen; Stephanie
Sims; Suelean Smith; Sunita Rivankar; Susan Krakower; Susan
Sopocko; Susanne M. Woodward; Suzanne LaSalle; Tal Polany; Tara
Grant; Taylor Bratsch; Terri Gibson-Hemby; Tori Hobert; Tricia
Etue; Vana Pettine; Venieca Thorson; Venkata Vijaya Ashok
Saripalli; Virginia Leal, and all others similarly situated v.
H.I.G. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Corporation doing business in California; John Doe 1, Director of
H.I.G. Capital Management, LLC; John Doe 2, Managing Agent of
H.I.G. Capital Management, LLC; Mandy Dowson, an individual; John
Doe 3, Managing Agent of Jenny Craig, Inc.; ENCINA PRIVATE CREDIT
SPV, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation doing business
in California; John Doe 4, Director of ENCINA PRIVATE CREDIT SPV,
LLC; John Doe 5, Managing Agent of ENCINA PRIVATE CREDIT SPV, LLC;
and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. 24STCV00341 was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on Feb. 8, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01107-WLH-AJR.
The Complaint arises from Plaintiffs' employment with Jenny Craig
and asserts causes of action for: failure to provide Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN"); unpaid wages and
waiting time penalties; failure to provide rest and meal breaks;
failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide COBRA
notices; and breach of contract.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Marissa Alguire, Esq.
Matthew Gurnick, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 688-9500
Facsimile: (213) 627-6342
Email: marissa.alguire@akerman.com
matthew.gurnick@akerman.com
HANDI-FOIL CORP: Osdoby Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERRYL OSDOBY, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. HANDI-FOIL CORP., Case
No. 2:22-cv-04199-NG-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff requests that
the Court enter an order:
-- granting her motion for class certification,
-- certifying a class of:
"All persons who purchased Handi-Foil retail products in New
York
State between July 18, 2019 and the date the Class is certified
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and not
for resale;"
The Products include all Handi-Foil aluminum pans, aluminum
containers and aluminum roll foil sold at retail.
Excluded from the Class are current and former officers and
directors of the Defendant, members of the immediate families
of
the officers and directors of the Defendant, the Defendant's
legal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and any
entity
in which they have or have had a controlling interest. Also
excluded from the Class is the judicial officer to whom this
lawsuit is assigned;
-- appointing her as representative for the Class, and
-- appointing her counsel as counsel for the Class.
Based on the state of aluminum production in the United States,
Handi-Foil should not be making an unqualified Made in the USA
claim. Not only is there no commercial-grade bauxite in the United
States, but Handi-Foil had no idea that its primary aluminum coil
suppliers imported aluminum coil, the suit says.
Handi-foil sells disposable aluminum foil pans and containers in
national retailers such as Walmart and Target and in regional
supermarket chains such as Stop & Shop and ShopRite.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 25, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=00btUv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
261 Westchester Avenue
Tuckahoe, NY 10707
Telephone: (646) 342-2019
E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Carlson Suit Removed to D. Hawaii
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as alilotu Carlson, Isikeli V. Tafea, Helenmarie
T. Tafea, and PT (a minor), and all others similarly situated, v.
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., Maui Electric Company, Limited,
Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., and Hawaii Electric Light Company,
Inc., Case No. 2CCV-23-0000406 was removed from the Circuit Court
of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii, to the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii on Feb. 1, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00045-JAO-BMK.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold a variety of parties, including the
Hawaiian Electric Defendants, liable for damages allegedly caused
by the August 8, 2023 fire in Lahaina (the "Lahaina Fire").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joachim P. Cox, Esq.
Randall C. Whattoff, Esq.
COX FRICKE LLP
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Llp
800 Bethel Street, Suite 600
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
Phone: (808) 585-9440
Facsimile: (808) 275-3276
Email: jcox@cfhawaii.com
rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com
- and -
Brad D. Brian, Esq.
Nicholas D. Fram, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue 50th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Phone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
Email: brad.brian@mto.com
nicholas.fram@mto.com
HEALING CARE HOSPICE: Anguiano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Anguiano, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. HEALING CARE HOSPICE,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive;
Case No. 24STCV02609 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 1,
2024), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the
California Labor Code and violation of California Business &
Professions Code for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums,
unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not
timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses.
The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a
day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with the
Defendants. the Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based
thereon alleges, that Defendants engaged in a uniform policy and
systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees within the State of California. This scheme
involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all hours worked, and
failing to provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks or pay
related premium wages in lieu thereof, in violation of California
law., says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and other persons as
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of
California.
HEALING CARE HOSPICE, INC. is a California corporation
headquartered in the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Lizette Rodriguez, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
HIGHPEAK ENERGY: Guillot Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HighPeak Energy, Inc.
The case is styled as Ryan Guillot, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HighPeak Energy, Inc., Case No.
7:24-cv-00041-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex., Feb. 5, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Collect Unpaid Wages.
HighPeak Energy -- https://www.highpeakenergy.com/ -- is an
independent oil and natural gas company engaged in the acquisition,
development and production of oil, natural gas and NGL
reserves.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Scott Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 999-5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
HOG ISLAND OYSTER: Renderos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hog Island Oyster
Company. The case is styled as Leonardo Renderos, an individual and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. Hog island Oyster Company, Case No. CV0001997 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Marin Cty., Feb. 7, 2024).
Hog island Oyster Company -- https://hogislandoysters.com/ -- is a
San Francisco Bay Area seafood restaurant, offers oyster bars, or
have oysters shipped directly to your door.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203
Glendale, CA 91203-4007
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
Email: arby@calljustice.com
IDEXX LABORATORIES: Labelle Foundation Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as The Labelle Foundation, Inc., Eloise Rescue, 4
Paws Kiddo Rescue, Animaldefenserescue.org, Westside German
Shepherd Rescue of Los Angeles, Inc., Lisa Ritz, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Idexx Laboratories,
Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV00360 was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01131-FLA-SK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. -- https://www.idexx.com/ -- is an
American multinational corporation engaged in the development,
manufacture, and distribution of products and services for the
companion animal veterinary, livestock and poultry, water testing,
and dairy markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian R Bacon, Esq.
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
tfriedman@toddflaw.com
- and -
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44107
Phone: (216) 373-0539
Fax: (216) 373-0536
Email: mdann@dannlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan E Altman, Esq.
Lauren Bilow, Esq.
Lauren Elisabeth Kuhn, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES AND OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Phone: (213) 683-9100
Fax: (213) 683-5162
Email: Jonathan.Altman@mto.com
lauren.bilow@mto.com
lauren.kuhn@mto.com
- and -
Jeremy A Lawrence, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES AND OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 512-4093
Fax: (415) 512-4077
Email: jeremy.lawrence@mto.com
INMARKET MEDIA: Kruger Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Kruger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INMARKET MEDIA, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00683-DMR (N.D.
Cal., Feb. 5, 2024), is brought on behalf of individuals who had
their sensitive personal information--including but not limited to
historical and real-time geolocation data ("Personal
Information")--collected, stored, shared, and/or used without their
informed consent by InMarket, including through InMarket-owned and
-operated applications, or through the InMarket Software
Development Kit ("SDK") that is embedded into many third-party
applications.
Since 2018, InMarket has prioritized the expansion of its consumer
reach and location database through both acquisitions of mobile
apps and by also convincing third-party apps to embed InMarket's
spyware SDK into their platforms. While pursuing this grand
expansion of its database, InMarket failed to take necessary
measures to ensure that third-party apps incorporating Defendant's
SDK made the appropriate disclosures and obtained informed consent
from consumers regarding InMarket's use of their data. As a result
of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff's and Class members' privacy has
been invaded, Personal Information collected, stored, shared, used,
and/or monetized without their consent, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff downloaded and used a third-party mobile application
containing an InMarket SDK embedded in its platform.
InMarket is a data aggregator company and digital marketing
platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore Maya, Esq.
Deborah De Villa, Esq.
Sarper Unal (SBN 341739)
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com
sunal@ahdootwolfson.com
INNOVIZ TECHNOLOGIES: Lucid Alternative Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUCID ALTERNATIVE FUND, LP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNOVIZ TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,
OMER DAVID KEILAF, and ELDAR CEGLA, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-01971 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2024) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Innoviz securities between April 21, 2021 and
February 28, 2023, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Innoviz had overstated the benefits that the Company was likely
to derive from its purported contracts, partnerships, and/or
collaborations with automotive companies; (ii) as a result, the
Company was unlikely to achieve the level of profitability that
Defendants had represented to investors; (iii) accordingly, Innoviz
had overstated its business and/or financial prospects; and (iv) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On this news, Innoviz's ordinary share price fell $0.71 per share,
or 14.95%, to close at $4.04 per share on March 1, 2023.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Innoviz Technologies Ltd. designs and manufactures solid-state
LiDAR sensors and develops perception software that purportedly
enables the mass production of autonomous vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jacob Sabo, Esq.
22a Mazzeh Street
Tel-Aviv, Israel
Telephone: (972) 39070770
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Suit in CA Court Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California for violations of the Exchange Act
was dismissed.
On February 1, 2021, said lawsuit was filed alleging that the
company and its former Chief Executive Officer, Kevin M. King,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On August 2, 2021, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, and filed a further amended complaint
on September 24, 2021. The amended complaint names as defendants,
Mr. King, its former Chief Executive Officer, Michael J. Coyle, and
former Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Operating Officer,
Douglas J. Devine.
The purported class in the amended complaint includes all persons
who purchased or acquired the company's common stock between August
4, 2020 and July 13, 2021, and seeks unspecified damages
purportedly sustained by the class. On October 27, 2021, the
company filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on March
31, 2022, entering judgment in favor of iRhythm and the other
defendants.
On April 29, 2022, the original named plaintiff appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 11, 2023, after briefing
by the parties and oral argument, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant filed a petition for
rehearing en banc, which was denied on December 6, 2023.
iRhythm Technologies Inc. is a digital healthcare company into the
design, development, and commercialization of device-based
technology to provide ambulatory cardiac monitoring services.
JAMES LEBLANC: S.M. Driver's License Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.M., by Next Friend MARIO
RENE MENDOZA, et al., v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary of the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, in his
official capacity, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01499-BAJ-SDJ (M.D.
La.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying class
action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as:
All minors ages 14 to 17, residing in Louisiana who are U.S.
citizens or lawfully present and are eligible to apply for a
temporary instructional permit, intermediate license, driver's
license, or identification card (collectively "driver's
license")
and have been denied the right to so apply because their
parents
or legal guardians lack a U.S. driver's license or
identification
card.
For the reasons stated in the memorandum in support, the Plaintiffs
satisfy all the prerequisites to class certification under Rule
23(a) and 23(b), namely, numerosity, commonality, typicality,
adequacy, and the appropriateness of injunctive and declaratory
relief because the Defendants have acted or failed to act on
grounds generally applicable to the class.
In further support of the motion, Plaintiffs submit the
declarations of:
Mario Rene Mendoza (Ex. A)
Angel Luciano Gonzalez (Ex. B)
Jeny Rebeca Bonilla (Ex. C)
Brenda Tamayo (Ex. D)
Leticia Casildo (Ex. E)
Brenda Murphy (Ex. F)
Jennifer Van Hook, Ph.D. (Ex. G)
Curriculum Vitae for Counsels (Ex. H)
The Plaintiffs also request that Francisca Fajana and Rafaela Uribe
of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, and Matthew Vogel of the National
Immigration Project be appointed class counsel in this case.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 25, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yoGnWI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Francisca D. Fajana, Esq.
Rafaela Uribe, Esq.
LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1901
New York, NY 10115
Telephone: (212) 219-3360
Facsimile: (212) 739-7507
E-mail: FFajana@latinojustice.org
RUribe@latinojustice.org
- and -
Matthew S. Vogel, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION
PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL
LAWYERS GUILD (NIPNLG)
2201 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Ste. 200
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (504) 569-5650
Facsimile: (617) 227-5495
JONNY POPS: Shuton Sues Over Fraudulent Packaging and Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Shuton, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JONNY POPS, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 24STCV02668 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 1, 2024), is brought
arising from the Defendant's use of misleading, unlawful, and
fraudulent packaging and advertising practices to attract consumers
to pay a premium for its seemingly wholesome, fruit-filled ice
pops, when in reality almost all of the nutritional content of
these ice pops come from added cane sugar, in violation of the
California law, namely the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and the
California False Advertising Law ("FAL").
Consumers at these retailers, among others, trust that the brands
lining the shelves of these stores carry better nutritional value,
and thus pay a premium on the product for the assurance that the
products are "better for the whole family." Contrary to this
promise, however, Defendant's products essentially are blocks of
sugar that derive minimal, if any, nutritional content from the
fruits on their packaging.
In marketing its products as containing "simple, natural
ingredients" that are "better for the whole family," Defendant
consistently uses images of children consuming their ice pops,
sometimes two at a time. But because the ice pops derive their
nutritional content from cane sugar instead of from fruit, just one
pop exceeds the recommended daily limit on added sugar for
children.
The Defendant also unlawfully labels its packaging by limiting its
nutritional label to nutrition facts for a serving size of one ice
pop. Food and Drug Administration guidelines require these products
to list the nutritional content for a 2/3 cup serving of the ice
pops, which here is between 2-3 ice pops.
The Plaintiffs and their families have been harmed by these
representations by paying a premium for the supposedly "simple,
wholesome ingredients" found in Defendant's ice pops, only to learn
that the ice pops fail to provide nutritional value from the fruits
on their packaging, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased JonnyPops' Organic Rainbow Fruit Stacks,
Red White and Boom!, Summer Sunrise, Watermelon, and Freezer Pops
products at Sprouts Farmers Market and other stores where they are
sold.
Jonny Pops sells its products in stores across California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abe Chaballout, Esq.
VIDE LAW
12495 Limonite Ave., #1085
Eastvale, CA 92880
Phone: 949-818-7878
KANSAS JOINT & SPINE: Matney Files Suit in D. Kansas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kansas Joint & Spine
Specialists LLC, et al. The case is styled as Linda J. Matney,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NYS
Corporation, Michael Palance, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Does
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-02053-DDC-BGS (D. Kan., Feb. 12,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Kansas Joint and Spine Specialists --
https://www.kansasjointandspine.com/ -- is a medical group practice
located in Wichita, Kansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lucy McShane, Esq.
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
1656 Washington Street Suite 140
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
KANSAS, MO: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert Response OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roberson, et al., v. The
Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Case No. 4:22-cv-00358 (W.D. Mo.,
Filed May 31, 2022), the Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an
order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of
time to file response as to motion to certify class.
-- Suggestions in opposition/response due by: April 26, 2024
unless otherwise directed by the court.
The suit alleges violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Kansas City Southern Railway was an American Class I railroad.[CC]
KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Hans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keenan & Associates.
The case is styled as Andrea Hans, and all others similarly
situated v. Keenan & Associates, Case No. 24STCV03578 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 9, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated Other Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction).
Keenan & Associates -- https://www.keenan.com/ -- is a privately
held insurance consulting and brokerage firm that was founded in
1972 by John Keenan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W Olive Ave Ste 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Fax: (310) 474-8585
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Mahaffey Files Suit C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keenan & Associates.
The case is styled as William Mahaffey, and all others similarly
situated v. Keenan & Associates, Case No. 2:24-cv-01288-MCS-DTB
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Keenan & Associates -- https://www.keenan.com/ -- is a privately
held insurance consulting and brokerage firm that was founded in
1972 by John Keenan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 239-4559
Fax: (619) 234-4599
Email: byrd@whafh.com
KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Shahbazian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keenan & Associates.
The case is styled as Arayik Shahbazian, and all others similarly
situated v. Keenan & Associates, Case No. 24STCV03568 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 9, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated Other Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction).
Keenan & Associates -- https://www.keenan.com/ -- is a privately
held insurance consulting and brokerage firm that was founded in
1972 by John Keenan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Soneji Sabita Jyotindra, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
1281 Pumpkin Ter
Sunnyvale, CA 94087-2337
Phone: 510-250-3370
Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
KROGER TEXAS: Houston Police Sues Over Fraudulent VISA Gift Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Police Officers' Union, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KROGER TEXAS L.P., Case No.
4:24-cv-00478 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 9, 2024), is brought against a
company selling such prepaid cards--in the form of VISA Gift
Cards--that, upon use, did not have the money purchasers added to
the cards, on behalf of persons who purchased fraudulent VISA Gift
Cards from Kroger Texas L.P. that were empty upon the customers or
a gift recipients' first use despite paying full price, from
February 7, 2022 through the original filing date of this suit,
February 7, 2024, inclusive.
The Plaintiff and others similarly situated discovered, often when
using their VISA Gift Cards for the first time, the money paid for
and added to those cards was gone and the balance was $0, despite
no other use of the card. They bought their cards from Defendant,
which claims the lack of funds in the VISA Gift Cards it sold is
not its fault. It blames third parties' fraud, in the form of card
draining for Plaintiff and other consumers' financial losses, while
foisting all costs of said fraud onto its innocent customers.
Kroger sold VISA Gift Cards that did not have the characteristics,
uses, or benefits advertised or promoted. Either through reckless
incompetence or malice, Kroger failed to secure the VISA Gift Cards
in a location alleged third parties could not steal the cards'
information them before sale. Hundreds of consumers have reported
remarkably similar experiences of buying or receiving a VISA Gift
Card, attempting to use it to pay, having the card declined for
insufficient funds, and then learning the funds were spent by
someone else. This is all without the consumer's permission, and
before they ever had a chance to use the card. Consumers have
reported these experiences to news media throughout the country and
on many online review and consumer complaint websites.
Kroger's insufficient security is the direct cause of the theft of
money from its VISA Gift Cards through a practice known as "card
draining"--unless the fault lies internally with Kroger. Its lax
security allows easy access to the cards, and there is lack of
other protocols that prevent anyone but the rightful cardholder
from making purchases with a VISA Gift Card.
Despite Kroger having known for years that its own lax security led
to many card draining incidents, it has not sufficiently improved
its own security, the cards' packaging, or implemented other
changes to prevent those losses. As the direct result of
Defendant's years-long negligence, numerous consumers and gift
recipients have been needlessly subjected to card draining, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff Houston Police Officers' Union ("HPOU") is the union
established to protect and serve the individual police men and
women who protect and serve the people of Houston.
Kroger Texas L.P. is registered as an Ohio Limited Partnership with
a
mailing address in Nashville, TN.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
Alexander G. Kykta, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (888) 350-3931
Fax: (888) 276-3455
Email: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
alex@ellzeylaw.com
- and -
Tom Kherkher, Esq.
ATTORNEY TOM & ASSOCIATES
5909 West Loop South Suite 525
Houston, TX 77401
Phone: (855) 866-9467
Email: tom@attorneytom.com
L&R DISTRIBUTION: Madewell Sues Over Retaliation and Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Allen Cody Madewell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. L&R DISTRIBUTION, INC.; and DOES 1 through
100, Case No. 24CV00441 (Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., Feb. 6,
2024), is brought retaliation in violation of the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, harassment in violation of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act, whistleblower
retaliation in violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff was assured by a manager named Mike during
orientation that it was permissible to pull the red cord to stop
the beltline if it became overstimulated. Contrary to the
assurances given, Plaintiff observed that the actual practice
discouraged stopping the beltline, leading to unsafe working
conditions. On a specific occasion, Plaintiff witnessed a lawnmower
fall on top of a computer, creating a hazardous situation that was
ignored by management, posing a risk to employee safety. Concerned
for the safety of himself and his coworkers, Plaintiff anonymously
reported the incident to HR, believing it to be a violation of
workplace safety regulations.
The Plaintiff's report to HR about the safety concern was not kept
anonymous, and as a result, Plaintiff faced direct retaliation from
management, particularly from a manager named Nicole. Nicole
engaged in gaslighting, creating crises, and publicly ridiculing
Plaintiff's work, altering the conditions of his employment and
creating an abusive working environment.
On August 24, 2023, Nicole directed a racial slur at Plaintiff in
the workplace parking lot, which was overheard by Plaintiff as the
only other person present. Plaintiff reported the racial slur to
his superiors at L&R Distribution via text message to Reese, Bert,
and Holden, seeking to document the incident. Following the report,
Plaintiff was laid off for a month without pay during an
investigation into a text message he sent expressing his
frustration with the situation, which was mischaracterized as a
threat.
Upon his return, Plaintiff was subjected to unrealistic work
expectations, including an expectation to complete 15 stops per
hour, which was often unattainable due to the distances between
stops. Plaintiff faced additional retaliatory actions, including
sabotage of his workloads, where loads were mislabeled, and direct
threats to his safety, such as overinflation of his vehicle's tire
to a dangerous level. The most recent act of retaliation included
removing Plaintiff from the schedule for three weeks, concluding on
January 15, 2024, when Plaintiff informed Defendants that it was
his position that he had been constructively terminated.
The Plaintiff's work environment became hostile, with management
monitoring his every action, and he was subjected to undue scrutiny
and pressure to perform at levels that were not feasible, leading
to missed meal and rest breaks. The Plaintiff's attempts to take
legally mandated breaks were met with reprimand and ridicule,
further contributing to the hostile work environment. Plaintiff's
reports of the hostile and unsafe working conditions were met with
further retaliation, including social stigma and threats to his
employment status.
The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage
statements because the wage statements issued to Plaintiff did not
accurately list total wages owed and hours worked, among other
things. Due to Defendants' failure to pay all wages due to
Plaintiff during their employment, it follows that Defendant failed
to pay all wages due at the conclusion of Plaintiff's employment as
well. Therefore, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for waiting
time penalties, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a loader and later as a
courier, beginning in the summer of 2022.
L&R Distribution, Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business located in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manny Starr, Esq.
Joseph Gross, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
Joseph@frontierlawcenter.com
L'OREAL USA: Acne Products Contain Benzene, Abednego Says
---------------------------------------------------------
LATIFAH ABEDNEGO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 9:24-cv-80351-RLR (S.D. Fla., March 21, 2024) is a class
action lawsuit regarding the Defendant's manufacturing,
distribution, advertising, marketing, and sale of Defendant's
CeraVe brand benzoyl peroxide products (the "BPO Products") that
contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a carcinogen that has
been linked to leukemia and other blood cancers.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, prior to placing the
BPO Products into the stream of commerce and into the hands of
consumers to use on their skin, Defendant knew or should have known
that the BPO Products contained benzene, but misrepresented,
omitted, and concealed this fact to consumers, including Plaintiff
and Class members, by not including benzene on the BPO Products'
labels or otherwise warning about its presence.
The Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably relied on the
Defendant's representations that the BPO Products were safe,
unadulterated, and free of any carcinogens that are not listed on
the label. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the putative Class
members suffered economic damages in that the BPO Products were
worth less than the product they thought they had purchased had
Defendant's representations been true, says the suit.
L'OREAL USA, INC. manufactures and markets cosmetic products. The
Company's cosmetic line includes brand names such as L'Oreal,
L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and
Georgio Armani Parfums. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
LLOYD AUSTIN III: Rosario Wins Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES D. ROSARIO, et al.,
v. LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01928-CKK
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly entered an order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel as it relates to class certification.
The following class is CERTIFIED under Rule 23(b)(2):
(1) Covered individuals, as defined under 10 U.S.C. section
1554a(b);
(2) who sought PDBR review of their separations from any Service
of
the U.S. military; and
(3) who had their military record corrected by the Secretary of
the
applicable Service to reflect placement on the TDRL for six
months after separation pursuant to VASRD section 4.129, but
did not have their separations recharacterized to permanent
medical retirement for disability.
The Court further grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and appointment of Class Counsel as it relates to the
Plaintiffs' counsel serving as class counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xjKyhE at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Order Entered in Jenkins
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS JENKINS, v. CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01056-FMO-AJR (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order regarding motions
for class certification as follows:
-- The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully
integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in
which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately
followed by the opposing party's/parties' response.
-- All necessary evidentiary objections shall be made in the
relevant
section(s) of the joint brief.
-- In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a
timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later
than 35 days before the deadline for class certification
motions
set forth in the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling
Order.
Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8eBi0E at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Masry Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Omar Masry, Elliot Mass, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., Lowe's
Home Centers, LLC, Case No. 23CV057098 was removed from the Alameda
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Feb. 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00750-CRB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Lowe's Companies, Inc. -- http://www.lowes.com/-- is an American
retail company specializing in home improvement.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher Ross Rodriguez, Esq.
Andrew Daniel Bluth, Esq.
John Richard Ternieden, Esq.
Trent J. Nelson, Esq.
YuQing Emily Min, Esq.
SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
1414 K Street, Suite 470
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 256-2312
Email: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com
Andrew.Bluth@lewisbrisbois.com
jternieden@singletonschreiber.com
tnelson@singletonschreiber.com
emin@singletonschreiber.com
- and -
Thomas Anthony Leary
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS LEARY, ESQ.
3023 First Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103-5815
Phone: (619) 291-1900
Fax: (619) 291-2500
Email: kmartinez@learylaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Edrius Stagg, Esq.
Tyree P. Jones, Jr., Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
1301 K Street, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 414-9256
Email: estagg@reedsmith.com
- and -
Quynh La, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 543-8700
Email: qla@reedsmith.com
tpjones@reedsmith.com
- and -
Timothy Robert Carwinski, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Dr., Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 207-1000
Fax: (312) 207-6400
Email: tcarwinski@reedsmith.com
M&T BANK: Allowed to Incorporate Class Cert Opposition Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00897 (D. Del., Filed Oct. 7,
2015), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Defendants'
unopposed motion for leave to incorporate by reference certain
prior submissions in connection with their opposition to plaintiffs
renewed motion for class certification.
The following filings are incorporated by reference into Defendants
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification:
A) Defendants original Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for
Class
Certification D.I.144
B) Defendants Motion to Exclude the Expert Report and Opinions
of
M. Travis Keath and David DeRosa D.I.145 ,146;
C) the Hardiman Declaration and Exhibits 137 thereto D.I.147;
D) Defendants Reply in Further Support of their Motion to
Exclude
the Expert Report and Opinions of M. Travis Keath and David
DeRosa D.I.169 ; and
E) Defendants Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for
Reconsideration/Rehearing D.I.234.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.[CC]
M&T Bank is an American bank holding company.
MA-KA-ROHN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Burke Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BURKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MA-KA-ROHN, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
CACE-24-004059 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., March 25, 2024) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
MA-KA-ROHN, LLC operates as bakery and sells cookies and macarons
online. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202)709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
MARK CUBAN: Class Cert Bid Filing in Karnas Extended to April 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS, et al., v.
MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Roy Altman entered an order granting the Defendants'
motion for extension as follows:
-- The Defendants shall respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class
certification by April 10, 2024. The Defendants' response shall
not exceed thirty pages.
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their Reply by April 17, 2024. The
Plaintiffs' Reply shall not exceed fifteen pages.
-- The operative Scheduling Order shall remain in place as to all
other deadlines.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hEamyG at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARS PETCARE: Plaintiffs' Bids to Seal Docs Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA MOORE, et al., v.
MARS PETCARE US, INC., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-07001-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine Chesney entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' administrative motions to
seal.
The plaintiffs seek to file under seal the following materials,
which, plaintiffs state, have been designated as confidential by
other parties:
(1) portions of "Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum of Points
and
Authorities in Support of Its Motion for Class Certification
t
Against Defendant Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc.," "Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
of
Its Motion for Class Certification Against Defendant Mars
Petcare US, Inc.," and "Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum
of
Points and Authorities in Support of Its Motion for Class
Certification Against Defendant Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc.";
and
(2) various exhibits attached to the "Declaration of Edward J.
Coyne III in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memoranda
of
Point and Authorities in Support of Its Motions for Class
Certification Against Defendants."
Mars Petcare is a provider of high quality, science-backed
nutrition and therapeutic health products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c6PMJ4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MERCEDES BENZ: Partly Loses Class Suit Over Diesel Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Today reports that a German court ruled on March 28, 2024
partly in favour of consumers in a class action suit against
Mercedes Benz MBGn.DE over diesel emissions defeat devices.
Some of the German luxury carmaker's diesel models with the Euro 6
grade engines built between 2012-2016 had cheat devices, the
Stuttgart court said. It found no violations in the older Euro 5
models, however.
Owners can return the cars and count on a refund minus wear and
tear, provided the intended violation is confirmed, the court said
in its verdict.
"An important course for damages claims has now been set," said the
Federal Association of Consumer Organizations (VZBV), representing
around 2,800 consumers in the case.
Mercedes said it would file an appeal. "We continue to believe that
the claims asserted against our company are unfounded and will
defend ourselves against them," said a spokesperson. [GN]
MISSFRESH LIMITED: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Investors
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN CHEN, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MISSFRESH
LIMITED, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-09836-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Lead
Plaintiffs and Plaintiff James Sannito will move the Court pursuant
to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, for an Order:
(i) certifying the Class of investors in the initial public
offering of Missfresh Limited, as defined in Lead
Plaintiffs'
accompanying Memorandum of Law,
(ii) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and
(iii) appointing Co-Lead Counsel, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP
and
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as Co-Class Counsel.
The Lead Plaintiffs are Chelsea Fan, Maso Capital Investments
Limited, Blackwell Partners LLC -- Series A, and Star V Partners
LLC.
Missfresh is an e-commerce company. The Company offers an online
platform that sells daily grocery products.
The Defendants include ZHENG XU, JUN WANG, YUAN SUN, ZHAOHUI LI,
COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, HANSONG ZHU, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL
CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, CHINA RENAISSANCE
SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED, HAITONG INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES
COMPANY LIMITED, CMB INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED, AMTD GLOBAL
MARKETS LIMITED, ICBC INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES LIMITED, NEEDHAM &
COMPANY, LLC, CHINA MERCHANTS SECURITIES (HK) CO., LIMITED, ABCI
SECURITIES COMPANY LIMITED, GF SECURITIES (HONG KONG) BROKERAGE
LIMITED, FUTU INC., TIGER
BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED, and COGENCY GLOBAL, INC.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pKZpwp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
David J. Schwartz, Esq.
Charles Wood, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: afatale@labaton.com
dschwartz@labaton.com
cwood@labaton.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Jing Chen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
jchen@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Brian Schall, Esq.
THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
2049 Century Park East, Ste. 2460
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 301-3335
Facsimile: (877) 590-0482
E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com
MOLSON COORS: Krechting Sues Over Mislabeled Mimosa Hard Seltzer
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATE KRECHTING and ANDREA FAHEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOLSON COORS BEVERAGE
COMPANY USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-00520-PGB-LHP (M.D.
Fla., March 15, 2024) arises from the Defendant's violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act due to its false
and deceptive representations and omissions with respect to the
presence of sparkling wine in its Mimosa Hard Seltzer.
According to the complaint, the labeling of the product violated
the Federal Trade Commission Act and thereby violated FDUTPA
because the representations and omissions of "Mimosa Hard Seltzer,"
in orange packaging, with pictures of oranges, described as "Made
With Real Orange Juice," tells purchasers they are buying a mimosa
cocktail in a can, with sparkling wine, which created the erroneous
impression its alcohol content was from sparkling wine, when this
was false, because it was a beer with its alcohol based on sugar.
As a result of Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions,
Plaintiffs were injured and suffered damages by their payment of a
price premium for the product, which is the difference between what
they paid based on its labeling and marketing, and how much it
would have been sold for without the misleading representations and
omissions, says the suit.
Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC operates within the breweries
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Discovery Completion Extended to June 28
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cruz Guerrero et al., v.
Montefiore Health System Inc. et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-09194-AS-KHP
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an order
extending the deadline for completion of discovery to June 28,
2024.
In light of this lengthy extension, no further extensions of this
deadline will be granted absent a showing of good cause. In the
event that any discovery disputes require Court intervention, the
parties shall promptly write to the Court requesting a conference.
The motion for class certification and final certification of the
collective action is due by July 30, 2024, with opposition(s) filed
by August 30, 2024; and reply brief(s) filed by September 30, 2024.
Defendants' anticipated motions for summary judgment are due by
October 1, 2024; with oppositions due by December 15, 2024; and
reply briefs by January 31, 2025.
Montefiore offers asthma center, pharmacy, behavioral, radiology,
cardiology, dentistry and oral surgery, urology, wound care,
geriatrics, and other health related services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xja3oN at no extra
charge.[CC]
MUBI INC: Edwards Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Samuel Edwards, Michelle Brown, Dennis Depew,
Cinthia Da Vis, Maritza Hernandez, and Siosiua Mafoa, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MUBI, INC., Case
No. 24CV428881 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 2, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00638-EJD.
On January 11, 2024, Plaintiffs served the Complaint and Summons on
MUBI. The Complaint asserts claims against MUBI for alleged
violations of: the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA");
California Civil Code; the California Invasion of Privacy Act; and
the California Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael H. Rubin, Esq.
Joseph C. Hansen, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Phone: +1.415.391.0600
Email: michael.rubin@lw.com
joseph.hansen@lw.com
- and -
Gary Feinerman, Esq.
330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone +1.312.876.7700
Email: gary.feinerman@lw.com
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Court Certifies 401(k) Fund Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Co. workers challenging an affiliated Guaranteed
Investment Fund in their $8.2 billion 401(k) plan scored a court
order certifying their case as a 50,000-person class action.
Judge Sarah D. Morrison on March 28, 2024 granted the workers'
motion to certify a class covering people who invested in
Nationwide's guaranteed fund through the company's retirement plan
since 2014. The case turns on common allegations about the
company's conduct that can be resolved on a class-wide basis,
including whether Nationwide took improper fees from the fund and
whether it improperly kept the fund as a plan investment option,
Morrison said. [GN]
NCAA: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Modified to April 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUBA HUBBARD and KEIRA
MCCARRELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; ATLANTIC
COAST CONFERENCE; THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC.; THE BIG 12
CONFERENCE, INC.; PAC-12 CONFERENCE; and SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01593-CW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Claudia
Wilken entered an order modifying the case deadlines as follows:
-- The Defendants' Class Certification Opposition and Supporting
Expert Reports; Defendants' Daubert motions as to Plaintiffs
class
expert modifed from March 20, 2024 to March 27, 2024.
-- Expert Rebuttal Reports;
Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendants' Plaintiffs' Class
Certification Reply and Daubert motions; Plaintiffs'
Daubert motions as to Defendants' class opposition experts
modified from April 12, 2024 to April 19, 2024.
-- The Defendants' reply in support of Daubert motions as to
Plaintiffs' class expert; Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs'
Daubert motions as to Defendants' class opposition experts
Modified from April 19, 2024, to April 26, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Daubert motions as to
Defendants' class opposition modified from experts April 24,
2024
to May 1, 2024.
-- Hearing on Class Certification and any related Daubert
Motion(s)
modified from May 2, 2024, to May 16, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HsaqMf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Emilee N. Sisco, Esq.
Stephanie Verdoia, Esq.
Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
emilees@hbsslaw.com
stephaniev@hbsslaw.com
bens@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
David L. Greenspan, Esq.
Adam I. Dale, Esq.
Jeanifer E. Parsigian, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-4193
Telephone: (212) 294-6700
Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
E-mail: jkessler@winston.com
dgreenspan@winston.com
aidale@winston.com
jparsigian@winston.com
The Defendant are represented by:
Christopher S. Yates, Esq.
Aaron T. Chiu, Esq.
Anna M. Rathbun, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com
aaron.chiu@lw.com
anna.rathbun@lw.com
- and -
Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq.
Rakesh N. Kilaru, Esq.
Calanthe Arat, Esq.
Tamarra M. Johnson, Esq.
Clayton Wiggins, Esq.
Julian A. Jiggetts, Esq.
Kieran G. Gostin, Esq.
Matthew R. Skanchy, Esq.
Robert Laird, Esq.
WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP
2001 M Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 847-4000
Facsimile: (202) 847-4005
E-mail: bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com
rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com
carat@wilkinsonstekloff.com
tmatthewsjohnson@wilkinsonstekloff.com
cwiggins@wilkinsonstekloff.com
jjiggetts@wilkinsonstekloff.com
kgostin@wilkinsonstekloff.com
mskanchy@wilkinsonstekloff.com
rlaird@wilkinsonstekloff.com
- and -
Jacob K. Danziger, Esq.
ARENT FOX SCHIFF LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 38th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 757-5500
Facsimile: (415) 757-5501
E-mail: jacob.danziger@afslaw.com
- and -
Robert W. Fuller, III, Esq.
Lawrence C. Moore, III, Esq.
Amanda P. Nitto, Esq.
Travis S. Hinman, Esq.
Patrick H. Hill, Esq.
ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 N. Tryon St., Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Telephone: (704) 377-2536
Facsimile: (704) 378-4000
E-mail: rfuller@robinsonbradshaw.com
lmoore@robinsonbradshaw.com
anitto@robinsonbradshaw.com
thinman@robinsonbradshaw.com
phill@robinsonbradshaw.com
- and -
Mark J. Seifert, Esq.
SEIFERT ZUROMSKI LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 869-8837
Facsimile: (415) 901-1123
E-mail: mseifert@szllp.com
- and -
Kathryn Reilly, Esq.
Michael T. Williams, Esq.
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
370 17th St., Suite 4500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 244-1800
Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
E-mail: reilly@wtotrial.com
williams@wtotrial.com
- and -
David L. Anderson, Esq.
Angela C. Zambrano, Esq.
Natali Wyson, Esq.
Chelsea Priest, Esq.
Chad S. Hummel, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 772-1200
Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
E-mail: dlanderson@sidley.com
angela.zambrano@sidley.com
nwyson@sidley.com
cpriest@sidley.com
chummel@sidley.com
NEXA MORTGAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Andersen Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN ANDERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEXA MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-00619-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal., March 22, 2024) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
NEXA MORTGAGE, LLC is a mortgage broker providing lending services
to consumers looking to own a home through refinancing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
600 W. Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 272-7014
Facsimile: (619) 330-1819
Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
NORTH KANSAS CITY HOSPITAL: H.Z. Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as H.Z.; M.Z., G.Z., by and through her Next
Friend, H.Z; A.J.; individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. North Kansas City Hospital Auxiliary, Perry
Johnson & Associates, Inc., Case No. 24CY-CV00708 was removed from
Circuit Court of Clay County, MO, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri on Feb. 13, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00111-LMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The Auxiliary --
https://www.nkch.org/community/volunteer-auxiliary/auxiliary/ --
operates the hospital's Gift Shop and conducts fundraisers
throughout the year.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
Lucy McShane, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
1656 Washington Street Suite 140
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
BOULWARE LAW LLC
1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416
Kansas City, MO 64102
Phone: (229) 436-1573
Fax: (229) 436-6358
Email: brandon@boulware-law.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Ambrosio Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwell Health,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Taylor Ambrosio, on behalf of
herself, on behalf of her minor children Liam Quillen and Levi
Quillen, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Northwell Health, Inc., Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-00810-RPK-LGD (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Northwell Health -- https://www.northwell.edu/ -- is a nonprofit
integrated healthcare network that is New York State's largest
healthcare provider and private employer, with more than 81,000
employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Arthur Toomey, Esq.
BARRACK RODES & BACINE
11 Times Square, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 688-0782
Fax: (212) 688-0783
Email: mtoomey@barrack.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Mancuso Files Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwell Health,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joan Mancuso, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northwell Health,
Inc., Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-00874-RPK-LGD (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
Northwell Health -- https://www.northwell.edu/ -- is a nonprofit
integrated healthcare network that is New York State's largest
healthcare provider and private employer, with more than 81,000
employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Phone: (917) 336-0271
Fax: (917) 336-0177
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
NYS CORPORATION: Chen Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYS Corporation, et
al. The case is styled as Arleen Chen, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. NYS Corporation, Michael
Palance, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:24-cv-01172-WLH-AGR (C.D. Cal., Feb. 12, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.
NYS Corporation is dedicated to creating and producing quality
family entertainment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ethan Preston, Esq.
PRESTON LAW OFFICES
4054 McKinney Avenue Suite 310
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: (972) 564-8340
Fax: (866) 509-1197
Email: ep@eplaw.us
OAK VIEW GROUP: Kemmerlin Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak View Group, LLC.
The case is styled as Michael Kemmerlin, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Oak View Group, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00966-HDV-JPR (C.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Oak View Group, LLC -- http://www.oakviewgroup.com/-- is an
American professional sports and commercial real estate company
based in Denver.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Email: daniel@slfla.com
- and -
Danielle Lynn Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: dperry@masonllp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Anthony D. Phillips, Esq.
ARCHER NORRIS
One Embarcadero Center Suite 360
San Francisco, CA 94111-3735
Phone: (415) 653-1480
Fax: (415) 653-1481
Email: aphillips@archernorris.com
OCEAN SPRAY: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Dried Cranberries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Ocean Spray
falsely advertises its Craisins Dried Cranberries and Cranberry
Bites products as being healthy, despite them allegedly containing
high amounts of added sugar, a new Ocean Spray class action lawsuit
alleges.
Plaintiffs Ann Elders and Rebecca Crampton claim Ocean Spray
falsely and misleadings labels the Craisins Dried Cranberries and
Cranberry Bites products as meeting dietary recommendations set by
the United States Department of Agriculture.
"This labeling is false and misleading because the Products contain
high amounts of added sugar," the Craisins class action says.
Elders and Crampton want to represent a nationwide class and a
Californnia subclass of consumers who have purchased either Ocean
Spray's Craisins Dried Cranberries or Cranberry Bites products in
the past four years.
Ocean Spray omits information about sugar in products, Craisins
healthy class action claims
Elders and Crampton claim Ocean Spray deliberately omits
information about the sugar in the Craisins Dried Cranberries and
Cranberry Bites products because it is "unfavorable."
"While representing that the Craisins are healthy, Ocean Spray
intentionally omits material information regarding the
countervailing detrimental effects of the added sugar in Craisins,"
the class action states.
The plaintiffs claim Ocean Spray is guilty of unjust enrichment and
negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and of violating a
variety of California consumer protection laws.
They demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive
relief and an award of compensatory and punitive damages for
themselves and all class members.
A consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit against the
company last year over claims it misrepresents its cranberry juice
products as containing no preservatives, despite them allegedly
containing ascorbic acid.
The plaintiffs are represented by Jack Fitzgerald, Melanie R.
Monroe, Trevor Flynn and Caroline S. Emhardt of Fitzgerald Monroe
Flynn PC.
The Ocean Spray Craisins class action lawsuit is Elders, et al. v.
Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00565, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN]
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Class Settlement in Weiner Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WEINER,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the public
similarly situated, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida
corporation and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 2:14-cv-02597-DJC-DB (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class settlement and
direction of notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
The parties are to proceed with updating the [Proposed] Preliminary
Approval Order to be consistent with the terms of this Order.
Specifically, the parties are to fill in any missing information
and update paragraph 25 to state that "Not fewer than 30 days prior
to the date set by the Court to consider whether the Settlement
should be finally approved, Settlement Class Counsel shall file a
motion or motions for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement
and for Attorney's fees and costs for work performed in connection
with the Action."
Once the Court receives a revised [Proposed] Preliminary Approval
Order, the Court will sign it and set the date for the final
Fairness Hearing, which will be scheduled for 150 days after entry
of the [Proposed] Preliminary Approval Order. IT IS SO ORDERED
The Plaintiff David Weiner, on behalf of himself and a national and
California class of borrowers who had their home mortgage loans
serviced by the Defendants moves for preliminary approval of the
Settlement and approval of the proposed plan to notify the classes
of national and California borrowers. Ocwen does not oppose the
Motion or the Settlement Agreement, which is the byproduct of a
second round of mediation between the parties.
The Settlement Cass includes a National Settlement Class and a
California Settlement Sub-Class.
The National Settlement Class includes
All residents of the United States of America who have or
had a loan serviced by Ocwen Financial Corporation or Ocwen
Loan
Servicing LLC and who paid for one or more Broker Price
Opinions
("BPOs") or Hybrid Valuations ("Hybrids") charged by Ocwen
through
Altisource, from Nov. 5, 2010 through Sept. 29, 2017, the date
of
the class certification order in this action.
The National Settlement Class will receive either $60 or $70 in
reimbursement for a BPO fee or Hybrid Valuation fee paid.
The California Settlement Sub-Class includes:
All residents of the State of California who have a loan
serviced by Ocwen and to whom charges for one or more BPOs or
Hybrids were assessed to their mortgage account by Ocwen
through
Altisource, from Nov. 5, 2010 through Sept. 29, 2017.
Ocwen is a provider of residential and commercial mortgage loan
servicing, special servicing, and asset management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oNiBp7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
OWENS CORNING ROOFING: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Johnson, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OWENS CORNING ROOFING AND ASPHALT, LLC., a Delaware
limited liability company; LORENZO SIORDIA, an individual; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV02712 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 1, 2024), is brought as a result of the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum
wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure
to timely pay wages; and for unfair competition.
The Defendants have, at times, failed to pay overtime wages to
Plaintiff and Class Members, or some of them, in violation of
California state wage and hour laws as a result of, without
limitation, Plaintiff and Class Members working over 8 hours per
day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days in a work
week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess
of 8 hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week,
and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work
week by, among other things, failing to accurately track and/or pay
for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay
to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to,
cleaning and maintaining hotel rooms.
Owens is a limited liability company organized and existing under
and State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
Yatika Chaudhri, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
zach@tomorrowlaw.com
yatika@tomorrowlaw.com
PATRIOT (2010) LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bryan Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA BRYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PATRIOT (2010), LLC; and JAMIE MCVANNAN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00415-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., March 25,
2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Bryan was employed by the Defendants as a delivery
driver.
PATRIOT (2010), LLC operates Papa John's Pizza franchise stores.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Katherine Serrano
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
Email: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
PHE INC: Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------
The case styled as Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. PHE, Inc., Case No. 24STCV00181 was removed
from the Superior Court State of CA County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb.
7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01065-RGK-SK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
PHE, Inc. -- https://pheinc.com/ -- is an employee owned company
based on a 10-acre site in historic Hillsborough, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mickel M. Arias, Esq.
Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
Michael Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG AND TEAM LLP
6701 Center Drive West 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Phone: (310) 844-9696
Fax: (310) 861-0168
Email: mike@aswtlawyers.com
arnold@aswtlawyers.com
- and -
Julia Haghighi, Esq.
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON PC
975 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, MI 48207
Phone: (313) 392-0015
Fax: (313) 392-0025
Email: jhaghighi@lsccounsel.com
ncoulson@lsccounsel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James Paulick, Esq.
LEECH TISHMAN FUSCALDO AND LAMPL
2041 Rosecrans Boulevard Suite 300
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (424) 738-4400
Fax: (424) 738-5080
Email: jpaulick@leechtishman.com
- and -
Benedict Yung Hur, Esq.
Simona A. Agnolucci, Esq.
Yuhan Chi, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR AND GALLAGHER LLP
333 Bush Street 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 858-7400
Fax: (415) 858-7599
Email: bhur@willkie.com
sagnolucci@willkie.com
ychi@willkie.com
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Santos Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phoenix Financial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Marco Santos, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Phoenix Financial
Services, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00784-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., Feb. 9,
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:
Javier Luis Merino, Esq.
DANN LAW FIRM
1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Phone: (201) 355-3440
Fax: (216) 373-0536
Email: jmerino@dannlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Aaron Raphael Easley, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL& SHARTLE, LLC
3 Cross Creek Drive
Flemington, NJ 08822
Phone: (908) 237-1660
Fax: (908) 237-1663
Email: aeasley@sessions.legal
PLUG POWER: Faces Adote Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
ETE ADOTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLUG POWER INC.; ANDREW MARSH; and PAUL B.
MIDDLETON, Defendants, Case No.1:24-cv-00406-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.,
March 22, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Plug securities between May 9,
2023 and January 16, 2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and or failed to disclose that: (i) Plug overstated its
ability and/or efforts to mitigate the negative impacts that, inter
alia, supply chain constraints and material shortages could have or
were having on the Company's hydrogen business, as well as the
sufficiency of its cash and capital to fund its operations; (ii)
Plug continued to experience delays related to its green hydrogen
production facility build-out plans, as well as in securing
external funding sources to finance its growth plans; (iii) Plug
downplayed the true scope and severity of all the foregoing when
these issues were eventually revealed; (iv) as a result of all the
foregoing, Plug also overstated the near-term prospects of its
hydrogen production operations, as well as the viability of
expanding those operations; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
Plug's stock price fell $0.30 per share, or 9.87 percent, to close
at $2.74 per share on January 17, 2024. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the suit.
PLUG POWER, INC. operates as a green hydrogen company. The Company
focuses on building an end-to-end green hydrogen ecosystem, from
production, storage, and delivery to energy generation to help
customers meet business goals and decarbonize the economy, as well
as provides material handling, e-mobility, power generation, and
industrial applications. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
PLUSHCARE INC: Aguilar Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLUSHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
194180091 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade Cty., March 17,
2024) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent multiple electronic
communications to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a
consumer debt. Each of the electronic communications were sent to
Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone
of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff
to communicate with Plaintiff between the said hours. As such, by
and through each of the electronic communications, Defendant
violated the FCCPA.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the consumer debt.
PlushCare, Inc. provides online health care services. The Company
offers diagnosis, treatment, and prescribed medication services via
phone.[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
POTPOURRI GROUP: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Potpourri Group Inc.
The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Potpourri Group Inc. doing
business as: NorthStyle, Case No 0:24-cv-00374-JWB-DJF (D. Minn.,
Feb. 7, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Potpourri Group, Inc. -- http://www.potpourrigroup.com/-- retails
various catalogs. The Company prints multi-title catalogs for home
decor gifts, jewelry, kitchenware, seasonal products, pet
accessories, and home products.[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
PREDATOR INTERNATIONAL: Kellum Files Suit in D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Predator
International, Inc. The case is styled as Tyler Kellum, John
Bridges, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Predator International, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00374-NYW-KAS (D.
Colo., Feb. 7, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Predator International -- https://predatorpellets.com/ -- is a
Colorado based company dedicated to the finest quality air gun
ammunition.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frederick Coles, III, Esq.
Law Offices of Frederick Coles, III
4802 South 1110 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84117
Phone: (908) 757-4977
Email: fcoles@coleslegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James Juo, Esq.
THOMAS P. HOWARD LLC
842 West South Boulder Road, Suite 100
Louisville, CO 80027
Phone: (303) 665-9845
Fax: (303) 665-9847
Email: jjuo@thowardlaw.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Summary Judgment Bid vs Volino Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINICK VOLINO, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06243-LGS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order:
-- Denying Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the
Third Cause of Action; and
-- Granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment;
-- Granting the Defendants' motion on the Third Cause of Action
and
the Complaint's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief,
and on the theory of liability based on Regulation 64; and
-- Denying the Defendants' motion on the First Cause of Action for
breach of contract and the Second Cause of Action for violation
of
GBL section 349.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Dkts. 242,
243, 250 and 252.
Seven Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
class of others against Defendants, who all provide auto insurance
to New York residents.
The Plaintiffs challenge an adjustment Defendants apply that
reduces the value of totaled vehicles and, consequently, the amount
paid on insurance claims for those vehicles.
The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserts three causes of action
--breach of contract, deceptive practices in violation of New York
General Business Law ("GBL") section 349 and a declaratory judgment
that Defendants' methodology violates Regulation 64, 11 N.Y.C.R.R.
section 216.7.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated in New York who received payment for the loss of
a totaled vehicle from the insurer Defendants.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants used valuation reports that
applied an improper and deceptive adjustment -- the so-called
"Projected Sold Adjustments" (the "PSAs") -- to reduce the
resulting
actual cash value (the "ACV") payable to the Plaintiffs under the
Defendants' automobile insurance policies.
Progressive provides personal, automobile, homeowner, boat,
renters, business, life, and health insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mvKJIX at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Bid to Exclude Felix Report Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC JONES and HERBERT
BOWENS, v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY and ARTISAN AND
TRUCKERS CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00364-PP (E.D. Wis.),
the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order:
-- Granting in part the Defendants' motion to exclude the report
and testimony of Kirk Felix.
-- Granting the motion to the extent that the court will not allow
the Plaintiffs to elicit testimony from Felix regarding
Mitchell's
valuation process or methodology, and will not allow the
Plaintiffs to rely on Felix's opinions regarding Mitchell's
valuation process or technology in its briefing.
-- Denying the motion in all other respects.
-- Denying the Defendants' motion to exclude the report and
testimony of Jeffrey Martin.
-- Denying the Defendants' motion to exclude the report and
testimony of Jason Merritt.
-- Granting the Defendants' unopposed motion for oral argument
on class certification and summary judgment.
The court orders that the parties must appear for a telephonic
hearing on June 26, 2024 at 10:00 AM. The parties must appear by
calling the court's conference line at 551-285-1373 and entering
Meeting ID 161 4901 8989 and Passcode 190021 when prompted.
The plaintiffs filed this case as a class action challenging how
Progressive Universal Insurance Company values it's insured's
vehicles after a total loss.
The plaintiffs argue that Progressive improperly relies on
valuation reports prepared by Mitchell International, Inc. to
determine the "actual cash value" (ACV) of a car by applying a
"projected sold adjustment" (PSA).
The plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Artisan and Truckers
Casualty Company, alleging that both defendants use the Mitchell
reports. The Defendants claim that they would be overvaluing
vehicles if they relied only on the advertised price of comparable
vehicles. They argue that the ACV depends on a number of variables
unique to each vehicle.
Progressive provides property and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XHeYUN at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Plaintiffs Allowed to File Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE ANGULO, et al.,
v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH AND SERVICES - WASHINGTON, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00915-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James Robart entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an
amended motion for remand but denying their request to set an
expedited briefing schedule.
The Plaintiffs shall file their amended motion to remand by no
later than April 4, 2024, and shall note it in accordance with this
District's local rules.
The Clerk is directed to renote Plaintiffs' amended motion for
class certification and Defendants' cross-motion to strike class
allegations and opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for April 26, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YJyf4u at no extra
charge.[CC]
PURPOSE POINT: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Supplemental Brief
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS GOMEZ-ECHEVERRIA, et
al., v. PURPOSE POINT HARVESTING LLC, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00314-JMB-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for leave to file a
supplemental brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(c).
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 25, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K7er3L at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Teresa Hendricks, Esq.
Benjamin O'Hearn, Esq.
Molly Spaak, Esq.
MIGRANT LEGAL AID
1104 Fuller Ave. NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-1371
Telephone: (616) 454-5055
The Defendant are represented by:
Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
600 28th St. SW
Wyoming, MI 49509
Telephone: (616) 257-6807
E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com
RBS CITIZENS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 11
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REINIG, et al., v. RBS
CITIZENS, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-01541 (W.D. Pa., Filed Nov. 23,
2015), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting consent motion to
extend time to file motions and responses as follows:
-- Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs shall file April 11,
2024
their renewed motion to certify class on
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA)
Regular Rate Claim on or before:
-- Citizens shall file its response in April 25,
2024
Opposition on or before:
-- Citizens shall file its motion for summary April 25,
2024
judgment on the PMWA Regular Rate Claim
on or before:
-- Pennsylvania Named Plaintiffs shall file May 9, 2024
their response in opposition on or before:
-- Citizens may file a reply brief in support May 16, 2024
of its motion on or before:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
RBS Citizens is an interstate financial institution.[CC]
REGULATORY DATACORP: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for April 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERY N. CARR, SR., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. REGULATORY
DATACORP, INC., and BUREAU VAN DIJK ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, INC.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02139-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mia Perez
entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to stay:
-- Oral argument on the motion for class certification is
scheduled
for April 17, 2024, in Courtroom 6-A at 10:00 a.m.
-- With the exception of the aforementioned oral argument, all
deadlines in this action are stayed pending this Court's ruling
on the motion for class certification.
-- Within seven days of this Court's ruling on the motion for
class
certification, the Parties shall (1) contact Magistrate Judge
Wells to schedule a settlement conference; and (2) submit a
proposed scheduling order to the Court.
Regulatory DataCorp provides comprehensive risk and compliance
protection services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2fLbRg at no extra
charge.[CC]
SALVATION ARMY: Court Dismisses Van Horn Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER VAN HORN, v.
SALVATION ARMY, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02009-DDC-ADM (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Crabtree entered an order granting
Defendants Salvation Army, Blanche Riding, and Kelly Keller's
motion to dismiss.
The Court further entered an order:
-- granting the Defendants Megan Brown, Gregory Barnett, Tanner
Eddings, Chad Hodge, David Martin, Keith Drill, and City of
Mission, Kansas's motion to strike Plaintiff's sur-reply;
-- granting the Defendants Megan Brown, Gregory Barnett, Tanner
Eddings, Chad Hodge, David Martin, Keith Drill, and City of
Mission, Kansas's motion for judgment on the pleadings,
construed
as a motion to dismiss, is granted;
-- dismissing the Plaintiff's state law claims without prejudice.
Pro se Plaintiff Christopher Van Horn was convicted of disorderly
conduct and criminal trespass in the Municipal Court of Mission,
Kansas—a Kansas suburb in the greater Kansas City area.
These convictions followed a small verbal fracas inside a Salvation
Army thrift store that emerged from the Plaintiff's refusal to don
a face mask while shopping there.
The Plaintiff appealed his convictions to the state court of
general jurisdiction in the pertinent Kansas county. He again was
convicted in that court after a de novo proceeding. The Plaintiff
then filed this federal lawsuit.
Salvation Army is a Protestant Christian church and an
international charitable organization.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GXDyvq at no extra
charge.[CC]
SELECTQUOTE INC: Stannard Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SelectQuote, Inc. The
case is styled as Jay Stannard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SelectQuote, Inc., Case No.
6:24-cv-00312-WWB-LHP (M.D. Fla., Feb. 12, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Selectquote, Inc. -- https://www.selectquote.com/ -- operates as an
insurance agency. The Company provides legal protection for life,
properties, and automobiles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Bradley J. St. Angelo, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC
3838 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 2800
Metairie, LA 70002
Phone: (504) 828-3700
Fax: (504) 828-3737
Email: bstangelo@sessions.legal
- and -
Dayle Marie Van Hoose, Esq.
Rachel Megan Fleishman, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE LLC
3350 Buschwood Park Dr Ste 195
Tampa, FL 33618-4317
Phone: (813) 440-5327
Fax: (877) 334-0661
Email: dvanhoose@sessions.legal
rfleishman@sessions.legal
SENTOSACARE LLC: Court Lifts Stay of Chow Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chow v. SentosaCare, LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-03541 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 14, 2019), the
Hon. Judge entered an order lifting stay:
-- The time to file an interlocutory appeal as to the Court's
Memorandum and Order denying plaintiff's class certification
has
passed.
-- The case is referred back to MJ Cho for all pre-trial matters.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Medical
Malpractice.
SentosaCare provides home health care services.[CC]
SOUTH DAKOTA: Alvarez Partial Summary Judgment Bid Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE IRVINE, guardian ad
litem of Juan Alvarez, Aubrey Archambeau, and Joseph Baker, as
named plaintiffs on behalf of a class; JUAN ALVAREZ, on behalf of a
class; AUBREY ARCHAMBEAU, on behalf of a class; and JOSEPH BAKER,
on behalf of a class, v. JEREMY JOHNSON, Administrator, South
Dakota Human Services Center, sued in his official capacity; MATT
ALTHOFF, Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Social
Services, Case No. 4:21-cv-04224-KES ( D.S.D.), the Hon. Judge
Karen Schreier entered an order:
1. Denying the Plaintiffs', Juan Alvarez, Joseph Baker, and
Aubrey
Archambeau, motion for partial summary judgment;
2. Denying the Plaintiffs', Juan Alvarez, Joseph Baker, and
Aubrey
Archambeau, motion for class certification and appointment of
class counsel; and
3. Granting the Defendants', Jeremy Johnson and Matt Altoff,
motion
for summary judgment against Alvarez, and denying the
Defendants' motions for summary judgment against Baker and
Archambeau.
The plaintiffs submitted the following proposed class-definition:
Mentally ill people who are accused of crimes in South
Dakota,
have been found incompetent, and are incarcerated for longer
than allowed by the due process clause awaiting an attempt to
restore them to competency, and mentally ill people who in
the
future will be accused of crimes in South Dakota, found
incompetent, and incarcerated for longer than allowed by the
due
process clause awaiting an attempt to restore them to
competency.
This case centers around the State of South Dakota's treatment of
pre-trial criminal defendants who are awaiting competency
restoration treatment after state circuit courts have found them
incompetent.
The Plaintiffs, Julie Irvine, Juan Alvarez, Aubrey Archambeau, and
Joseph Baker, bring a putative class action lawsuit for preliminary
and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief, primarily arguing
that the State has violated their Due Process Rights by holding
them in pre-trial detention for extended lengths of time. The
Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on the issue of
liability and move for class certification.
South Dakota is a state-owned facility cares for those suffering
from mental illness.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c8zHhL at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Class Certification Bid in Whipple Due May 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS WHIPPLE, on behalf
of the Southeastern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program,
himself, and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT
LINES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04583-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge
Sherri Lydon entered an order establishing the following schedule:
-- A conference of the parties pursuant to Fed. March 29
2024
R. Civ. P. 26(f) shall be held no later than:
-- Plaintiff(s) shall file and serve their Rule May 31,
2024
23 Motion for Class Certification by:
-- Any motions to join other parties and to amend April 1,
2024
the pleadings shall be filed by:
-- Defendant(s) shall file and serve their Jan. 15,
2025
rebuttal to Plaintiff's Expert Report by:
-- Expert discovery shall be completed no later March 1,
2025
than:
-- Discovery shall be completed no later than: Oct. 31,
2024
Southeastern Freight is a privately owned American less than
truckload (LTL) trucking company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QuLkis at no extra
charge.[CC]
SSM HEALTH CARE: Suit Filed in Mo. Cir. Ct.
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SSM Health Care
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as John Doe and Jane Doe,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Des
Moines Orthopaedic Surgeons, P.C., Case No. 2422-CC00208 (Mo. Cir.
Ct., 22nd Judicial Cir., Feb. 2, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Tort."
SSM Health -- https://www.ssmhealth.com/ -- is a Catholic,
not-for-profit health system providing high-quality, compassionate,
and personalized care to communities across Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ellen Antonia Thomas, Esq.
701 Market Street, Suite 1510
St. Louis, MO 63101
STARCO BRANDS: Ryan Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Darren Ryan, an individual on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Starco Brands, Inc., Case No.
23CV425745 was removed from the Superior Court County of Santa
Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Feb. 2, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00642-SVK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Starco Brands -- http://www.starcobrands.com/-- is an innovative
branded packaged goods company that focuses on behavior-changing
products and disruptive consumer marketing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Glugoski, Esq.
Matthew Righetti, Esq.
RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
2001 Union Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: (415) 983-0900
Email: jglugoski@righettilaw.com
matt@righettilaw.com
- and -
Reuben D. Nathan
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Phone: (949) 270-2798
Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven D. Di Saia, Esq.
BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Irvine, CA 92612-0514. Suite 800
Phone: Irvine, CA 92612-0514
Phone: (949) 760-1121
Email: sdisaia@buchalter.com
- and -
Bailee Breana Pelham, Esq.
BUCHALTER
18400 Von Karman Avenue, Ste. 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (626) 261-1547
Email: baileebpelham@gmail.com
STATE FARM: Bid to Amend Initial Pretrial Order OK'd
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLLYNN NICHOLS, v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:22-cv-00016-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston
Deavers entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion
to amend the preliminary pretrial order:
-- The deadline for Defendant to produce March 19, 2024
class certification expert(s) for
deposition is:
-- The deadline for Plaintiff's reply in April 5, 2024
support of motion for class
certification is:
-- The deadline for the Plaintiff's April 5, 2024
opposition to the Defendant's
State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the
United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wr7mHN at no extra
charge.[CC]
STELLANTIS NV: Faces Consumer Suits in Various Countries
--------------------------------------------------------
Stellantis N.V. disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 21, 2024, that it is facing class actions
and individual claims in several European countries and Israel.
Several former pre-merger entities of the company and its Dutch
dealers have been served with two class actions filed in the
Netherlands by Dutch foundations seeking monetary damages and
vehicle buybacks in connection with alleged emissions
non-compliance of certain diesel vehicles. The company has also
been notified of a potential class action on behalf of Dutch
consumers alleging emissions non-compliance of certain vehicles of
Stellantis' pre-merge entities sold as recreational vehicles, as
well as a securities class action in the Netherlands, alleging
misrepresentations by Stellantis' former entities.
A class action alleging emissions non-compliance has also been
filed in Portugal regarding its vehicles. The company is also
defending approximately 12,000 individual consumer claims alleging
emissions non-compliance of certain of its vehicles in Germany, as
well as a significant number of cases in the Netherlands and
Austria.
Stellantis is a global automaker and mobility provider which is
engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing, distributing and
selling vehicles, components and production systems worldwide under
the Maserati, Alfa Romeo, DS and Lancia brands, Jeep, Dodge, Ram
and Chrysler and European brands covering Abarth, Citroën, Fiat,
Opel, Peugeot and Vauxhall vehicles.
STELLANTIS NV: Subsidiary Faces Consumer Suits in FL and MI Courts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stellantis N.V. disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 21, 2024, that putative class action
lawsuits were filed in March 2018 against FCA US LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Stellantis, in the U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of Florida and the Eastern District of Michigan,
asserting claims under federal and state laws alleging economic
loss due to its Takata airbag inflators installed in certain of its
vehicles. The cases were subsequently consolidated in the Southern
District of Florida.
On November 8, 2022, the court granted summary judgment in FCA US's
favor against all claimants except those in Georgia and North
Carolina. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended
complaint to add additional states to the pending action. The court
later entered an order to reset FCA US's renewed motions for
summary judgment to address the remaining amended claims.
On June 20, 2023, the Court entered an order preliminarily granting
class certification for the amended complaint. FCA US filed an
appeal of the Court’s preliminary order. On July 13, 2023, the
court revisited its class certification order and further narrowed
the classes based on a recent Court of Appeals decision.
Stellantis is a global automaker and mobility provider which is
engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing, distributing and
selling vehicles, components and production systems worldwide under
the Maserati, Alfa Romeo, DS and Lancia brands, Jeep, Dodge, Ram
and Chrysler and European brands covering Abarth, Citroën, Fiat,
Opel, Peugeot and Vauxhall vehicles.
STEPHANIE M. AZAR: Suit Filed in M.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stephanie M. Azar, et
al. The case is styled as Michaela M.; G. M., K. G., J. C., minor
childs, by and through her next friend, KELLY M.; Kathryn C., by
and through her next friend, CINDY C.; Chesney F., by and through
her next friend, KARI F.; Jamison F., by and through his next
friend, IRA F.; J. G., a minor child, by and through his next
friend, GABRIELLE M.; Zahari W., by and through his next friend,
COURTNEY W.; Donny L., by and through his next friend, EVA L.; C.
R., a minor child, by and through her next friend, SAMANTHA R.; C.
C., M. C., minor children, by and through his next friend, DENISE
C.; H. G., a minor child, by and through her next friend, JACKLYN
G.; O. E., a minor child, by and through his next friend, KATIE E.;
D. L., a minor child, by and through her next friend, CATRINA L.;
M. L., A. L., minor children, by and through his next friend,
CATRINA L.; individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stephanie M. Azar, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of the Alabama Medicaid Agency; Jean W. Brown, in her
official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of
Senior Services; Case No. 2:24-cv-01172-WLH-AGR (M.D. Ala., Feb.
12, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
Stephanie McGee Azar was appointed as Commissioner of the Alabama
Medicaid Agency on May 1, 2012 by Governor Robert Bentley.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Carlton Sims, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF J. CARLTON SIMS, JR.
P.O. Box 373
Montgomery, AL 36101
Phone: (334) 328-2294
Email: jcsimslegal@gmail.com
- and -
Shandra Monterastelli, Esq.
ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM
Box 870395
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
Phone: (205) 348-4436
Fax: (205) 348-3909
Email: smonterastelli@adap.ua.edu
The Defendant is represented by:
Joel Hartley Pearson, Esq.
BALL, BALL, MATTHEWS & NOVAK
P. O. Box 2148
Montgomery, AL 36102-2148
Phone: (334) 387-7680
Fax: (334) 387-3222
Email: jpearson@ball-ball.com
- and -
John Warren Marsh, Esq.
BALL, BALL, MATTHEWS & NOVAK, P.A.
445 Dexter Avenue; Suite 9045
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone: (334) 387-7680
Fax: (334) 387-3222
Email: jmarsh@ball-ball.com
STEPHEN JAMES: Filing of Class Cert. Bid in Best Due Sept. 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN BEST et al., v.
STEPHEN C. JAMES, Case No. 3:20-cv-00299-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the
Hon. Judge Regina Edwards entered a class certification order:
-- Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than
Sept.
24, 2024;
-- Opposition to Class Certification shall be filed no later than
Oct. 24, 2024;
-- Reply to Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no
later
than Nov. 15, 2024;
-- Any motion to amend pleadings or motion to join additional
parties
shall be filed no later than Sept. 16, 2024;
-- Fact discovery shall be completed no later than Feb. 3, 2025;
-- Identification of experts in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2)
shall
be filed no later than Mar. 12, 2025, with rebuttal disclosures
due no later than May 1, 2025;
-- Expert discovery shall be completed no later than July 14,
2025.
-- The pretrial conference scheduled for Aug. 12, 2025 and the
bench
trial scheduled for Sept. 15, 2025 are remanded from the
Court's
docket.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eCNlSD at no extra
charge.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Murphy Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIET MURPHY, et al., v.
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00178-ALM (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered an order denying as moot
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of
Class Representatives and Class Counsel, subject to refiling, if
necessary.
On Feb. 2, 2024, upon granting a joint motion submitted by the
Parties, the Court entered an Order Setting Preliminary Approval
Hearing.
Toyota is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 25, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G0gKQR at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Fernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Angeles Fernandez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
30-2023-01362274-CU-BD-CJC was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Feb. 9, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-00280-DOC-DFM.
TLIC was first served with process in this action effective January
11, 2024, when it timely accepted service of the Summons and First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") by signing a Notice and Acknowledgement
of Receipt that had been mailed on December 22, 2023. The Plaintiff
alleges that, 20 years ago, the decedent Anthony Fernandez
("Decedent") was issued a TLIC life insurance policy, policy no.
15B9005287 (the "Policy") that insured his life. The Plaintiff
alleges that a duty was breached to Decedent by failing to assist
Decedent to make premium payments or avoid lapse and/or to
reinstate coverage and failing to properly advise Decedent on lapse
and reinstatement.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Vivian I. Orlando, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310.596.4500
Email: VOrlando@maynardnexsen.com
- and -
Larry M. Golub, Esq.
SACRO & WALKER LLP
700 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 610
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-721-9597
Facsimile: 818-721-9670
Email: lgolub@sacrowalker.com
UNITED STATES: District of Columbia Dismisses Amended Steele Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
styled ADAM STEELE, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00918-RCL (D.D.C.).
Aggrieved by the class counsel's litigation strategy and
unsatisfied with this Court's rulings, a plaintiffs' attorney in a
class action has decided to start over by spinning off a new
lawsuit with the same plaintiffs, the same defendant, and the same
issues.
Before the Court is the Government's Motion to Dismiss. Since the
Plaintiffs' splinter suit violates the rule against
claims-splitting, the Court grants the Government's motion and
dismisses this case in its entirety. Also before the Court is the
Plaintiffs' Motion to File a Sur-Reply Brief, which the Court
grants.
Judge Lamberth notes that this case--Steele II--must be understood
in the context of Steele v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-1523 (RCL),
which the Court will refer to as Steele I. Both the Court and the
D.C. Circuit have already explained in some detail the statutory
and regulatory background to Steele I and its procedural history.
In 2010 and 2011, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a
series of regulations expanding its reach over return preparers. As
a part of that effort, the IRS expanded the Preparer Tax
Identification Number (PTIN) program, retooled it as a broader
information-gathering system as to preparers, made obtaining and
renewing PTINs mandatory for preparers, and began charging a fee to
obtain and renew a PTIN. The regulations also authorized the IRS to
prescribe the manner for issuing and renewing a PTIN.
After the IRS implemented its new return preparer regulations, a
group of return preparers sued the IRS, arguing that its new
preparer credentialing process was unlawful because the statute
that the agency used to justify it did not reach return preparers
(Loving v. IRS, 742 F.3d 1013, 1015–16 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). The
district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs,
invalidating the credentialing requirement, and the Circuit
affirmed.
Loving, Judge Lamberth notes, invalidated many of the Return
Preparer Office (RPO) activities that had been funded by fees
charged for issuing or renewing a PTIN. But Loving left undisturbed
the regulations requiring all return preparers to obtain and renew
PTINs and to pay a fee and provide information to do so.
In the wake of Loving, Plaintiffs Adam Steele and Brittany
Montrois, on behalf of a putative class of tax-return preparers,
filed an action in this Court against the United States challenging
the IRS's requiring PTIN issuance and renewal, requesting
unnecessary information to issue and renew a PTIN, and imposing a
fee on the issuance and renewal of PTINs.
Mr. Steele and Ms. Montrois were represented by attorney Allen
Buckley, who had been involved in previous litigation concerning
the IRS's regulation of tax-return preparers. Mr. Buckley reached
an agreement with the law firm Motley Rice LLC for it to also serve
as counsel in the case, and the Court later appointed Motley Rice
LLC interim class counsel.
Especially relevant to this case are the Plaintiffs' initial
challenges to the IRS's authority to require PTIN renewal and to
request allegedly unnecessary information before issuing or
renewing a PTIN. According to the original complaint, since there
is no lawful basis for requiring renewal of a PTIN, charging user
fees for renewal of a PTIN is unlawful and since all that is
necessary to issue a PTIN is name, SSN (or TIN) and address,
requiring tax return preparers to provide any additional
information is unlawful.
Among other relief, the Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment
that "all renewal requirements should cease," and an injunction
prohibiting the IRS from asking more information than is necessary
to issue a PTIN.
On Aug. 7, 2015, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint. They
dropped the allegations and requests for relief concerning the
requirement of PTIN renewal. Mr. Buckley later acknowledged that
the choice to omit that claim from the amended complaint was an
intentional decision made by Class Counsel over his objection. The
complaint also deleted its allegation that the IRS was unlawfully
requiring tax-return preparers to provide unnecessary information
beyond name, Social Security number, and address, although it did
request a judgment declaring that the IRS may only request
information from tax return preparers that is authorized by
statute.
On Aug. 8, 2016, the Court certified a class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 and appointed Motley Rice LLC as class counsel.
The class comprised "[a]ll individuals and entities who have paid
an initial and/or renewal fee for a PTIN, excluding Allen Buckley,
Allen Buckley LLC, and Christopher Rizek."
The parties later cross-moved for summary judgment and on June 1,
2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part both parties'
summary judgment motions. The Court first held that the Internal
Revenue Code authorized the IRS to require the use of PTINs,
although it did not address the renewal requirement. But the Court
sided with the Plaintiffs to hold that under the Independent
Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA), the IRS lacked authority
to charge a fee for PTINs. The Court, therefore, issued a final
judgment and permanent injunction forbidding the IRS from charging
for issuing or renewing PTINs.
The Plaintiffs did not appeal, but the Government did. In a March
1, 2019 decision, the D.C. Circuit determined that the IRS has
authority to charge tax-return preparers a fee for obtaining and
renewing a PTIN. The Circuit vacated the judgment of the Court and
remanded the matter for further proceedings, including an
assessment of whether the amount of the PTIN fee unreasonably
exceeds the costs to the IRS to issue and maintain PTINs.
On remand, this Court entered a new scheduling order and the
parties commenced fact discovery on the reasonableness of the fees
charged. That is when infighting among the Plaintiffs' counsel
threatened to derail the case as Mr. Buckley, co-counsel for the
Plaintiffs, evidently could not reach an agreement to share control
of the case with class counsel Motley Rice LLC.
Mr. Buckley moved to be appointed sole lead class counsel.
Recounting a "long history," Mr. Buckley accused Motley Rice LLC's
attorneys of breach of trust, dilatory conduct, and failure to
defer to his superior views, as well lacking his own "passion and
abilities." The Court denied his motion as not in the best interest
of the class. Undeterred, Mr. Buckley took on the mantle of
"class-counsel-in-exile."
Thus ensued internecine warfare: Without the Court's assistance in
wresting control of the Plaintiffs' case from his co-counsel, Mr.
Buckley decided to go rogue. He filed two motions, purportedly on
behalf of the class, but against class counsel Motley Rice LLC's
wishes. One motion requested a preliminary injunction against
requiring registered preparers to renew their PTINs. The other
motion was for leave to file an amended complaint. The proposed
complaint would include the "reinsertion" of the claim that the
PTIN renewal requirement was unlawful. The new complaint would also
have added allegations that the PTIN fees charged after 2020 were
excessive.
Eventually, both factions of the Plaintiffs' counsel and the
Government reached a stipulation regarding the motion to amend. The
Government consented to changes concerning the post-2020 fee
amounts, but did not consent to the changes concerning the renewal
requirement or the information the IRS could request.
On Dec. 4, 2020, the Court decided the two motions. The Court
granted leave to amend the complaint with respect to "these
consented-to allegations" about post-2020 fees. But it denied leave
to amend the complaint "to reintroduce a challenge to the PTIN
renewal requirement" because these so-called "allegations" were
added after undue delay and because adding them to the complaint
would be futile as they were actually "naked legal conclusions."
The Court did not expressly address the unconsented-to proposed
additions concerning what information the IRS could require, but
these were omitted when, after the Court's decision, the Plaintiffs
filed the Second Amended Complaint.
As the Court denied the Plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint
to reinsert allegations challenging the PTIN renewal requirement,
the operative complaint--the Steele I Second Amended
Complaint--contained no allegations about the legality of the
renewal requirement, and the Court, therefore, denied the
preliminary injunction motion.
The Court identified Mr. Buckley's effort to enjoin the IRS from
requiring class members to renew their PTINs as a transparent
attempt to circumvent the D.C. Circuit's ruling in Montrois v.
United States, 916 F.3d 1056, 1058–61 (D.C. Cir. 2019) that the
IRS can charge fees for PTIN renewals.
Next, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment
concerning the excessiveness of the PTIN and vendor fees. The Court
granted in part and denied in part each motion. The Court refused
to entertain the Plaintiffs' argument about the IRS's statutory
authority to request additional information on PTIN applications
beyond name, address, phone number, Social Security number, and
birth date because an express claim that the IRS exceeds its
statutory authority under the PTIN statute by requesting further
information is nowhere to be found in that complaint.
However, the Court held that the FY 2011 through FY 2017 PTIN and
vendor fees were excessive as a matter of law because the IRS erred
in determining whether the activities used to justify the PTIN and
vendor fees were sufficiently related to the provision of PTINs to
return preparers. The Court remanded to the IRS to determine an
appropriate refund for the class in a manner consistent with the
IOAA.
On Jan. 22, 2024, the Government filed a notice of the IRS's
estimated refund. As the Plaintiffs wish to challenge the IRS's
post-remand estimate, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file
their challenge to the IRS' decision, which has not yet occurred.
The Court has, therefore, not yet entered final judgment in Steele
I.
On April 4, 2023, Mr. Steele filed a new complaint against the
United States. Mr. Buckley signed the complaint. On May 17, the
complaint was amended to add Krystal Comer, another tax return
preparer, as a plaintiff. The Plaintiffs sought the elimination of
the IRS's PTIN renewal requirement or, in the alternative,
reduction in the information requested by the IRS incident to PTIN
renewal to information required to renew (given they already have a
PTIN), with such information to include only name, Social Security
number, PTIN, date of birth, address and phone number and/or email
address.
The Government moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. It argued
that the Plaintiffs' challenge to the questions included on Form
W-12 should be dismissed because the Paperwork Reduction Act bars
judicial review of that claim. It also moved to dismiss both claims
as barred by res judicata and by the statute of limitations set
forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 2401.
The Government also argued, in a footnote, that the Plaintiffs lack
standing. The Plaintiffs filed a response, and the Government filed
a reply. They also moved for leave to file a sur-reply, to which
the Government objected.
As a threshold matter, Judge Lamberth opines that the Plaintiffs
assert concrete injuries-in-fact that give them standing to bring
this case. Further, their claims are not barred by res judicata,
because Steele I has not yet come to final judgment. Nonetheless,
the Court will dismiss their case for violating the rule against
claim-splitting.
Judge Lamberth explains that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged
Article III standing to challenge the IRS's PTIN renewal
requirement and Form W-12 information requests. The Court rejects
the Government's argument that the Plaintiffs lack a cognizable
injury-in-fact.
Judge Lamberth opines that Steele I does not bar the Plaintiffs'
claims as a matter of claim preclusion. No final, valid judgment on
the merits exists that could bar the Plaintiffs from raising their
claims concerning the PTIN requirement and information requests.
The Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' case for violating the rule
against claim-splitting. As previously discussed, and as the
Plaintiffs concede, every element of claim preclusion other than
finality has been met. Steele II, therefore, violates the rule
against claim splitting, meaning the Court has discretion to
dismiss it.
The Court exercises its discretion to do so because of the unique
facts of this case: The class-counsel-in-exile from the first case
brought a new suit to revive claims that the Plaintiffs initially
raised in the first case but then dropped over his objections, and
that the Court did not permit him to reinsert into the prior case.
In the interest of fairness, the Court permits the Plaintiffs'
sur-reply to be filed. Judge Lamberth says it would be unfair to
deny Mr. Buckley the chance to respond to the Government's
accusation. The Court will, therefore, grant the Plaintiffs' motion
to file a sur-reply.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated March 14,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s7t66c3 from
PacerMonitor.com.
UNITED STATES: Greer Files Suit in D. Columbia
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of
America Government. The case is styled as Desmond Greer, and all
others similarly situated v. United States of America Government,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00588-UNA (D.D.C., Feb. 5, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions-Prison
Conditions for Prisoner Civil Rights.
The U.S. federal government -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- sometimes
simply referred to as "Washington", is composed of three distinct
branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
UNITED STATES: Seeks to Defer Volkova Class Cert Entry Order
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anastasiia Volkova v.
USCIS, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-07565-FB-LB (E.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants request that the Court defer entry of an Order on
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, which the Honorable
Lois Bloom has recommended that this Court grant and to which the
parties may submit objections to until March 28, 2024, until after
the parties attempt to resolve this action at a conference before
Judge Bloom scheduled to take place on April 8, 2024.
The Plaintiff does not consent to this application.
The Plaintiff Anastasiia Volkova advances a claim under the Little
Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a)(2), for a $410 refund of a
filing fee paid to USCIS for an initial Form I-765 Application for
Employment Authorization.
The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a class1 of those who paid
the same fee before USCIS voluntarily implemented and announced a
fee
exemption on Nov. 21, 2022 for certain Ukrainian nationals who were
paroled into the United States.
Like Plaintiff, the proposed class members were paroled into the
United States in 2022 through a process called Uniting for Ukraine,
each with financial sponsors in the U.S. who agreed to provide
financial support for the duration of the entrants' stays in this
country.
Like Plaintiff, the proposed class members did not seek or were not
approved for individual fee waivers because they had an ability to
pay.
USCIS administers the country's naturalization and immigration
system.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oEhFd0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Breon Peace, Esq.
Melanie Speight, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Eastern District of New York
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Telephone: (718) 254-7509
US XPRESS: Settlement in Wage Suit Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2023, that in
February 2023, the parties reached an agreement to settle a
California Wage and Hour Class Action Litigation, exclusive of
employer-side taxes.
On September 19, 2023, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California granted final approval of the
settlement. No party objected to the settlement. The settlement
amount (including employer-side taxes) was paid on November 1,
2023. its subsidiary, U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc.,
Said case was filed on December 23, 2015 where the plaintiffs
generally allege that they were not paid for off-the-clock work,
not provided duty free meal or rest breaks, not paid premium pay in
their absence, not paid the California minimum wage for all hours
worked in that state, not provided accurate and complete itemized
wage statements and were not paid all accrued wages at the end of
their employment.
Knight-Swift is a transportation solutions provider, headquartered
in Phoenix, Arizona. During the year-to-date period ended June 30,
2023, the company operated an average of 18,002 tractors (comprised
of 16,128 company tractors and 1,874 independent contractor
tractors) and 79,700 trailers within the truckload. The company
acquired of 100% of the securities of U.S. Xpress on July 1, 2023.
VAXART INC: Class Cert Oral Argument in Himmelberg Set for May 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc.
et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05949 (N.D. Cal., , Filed Aug. 24, 2020),
the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order re motion for
evidentiary hearing and stipulation to continue hearing:
-- The Court will hear oral argument from counsel on the motion
for
class certification on May 9, 2024.
-- The Court plans to hear witness testimony in person on May 13,
2024, at 10:00 AM.
-- At the May 9 oral argument, the Court will discuss with the
parties how the May 13 hearing should be formatted, how long
the
hearing should last, and which witnesses the Court should hear
from.
The nature of suit states Securities Fraud.
Vaxart is an American biotechnology company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of oral recombinant
vaccines.[CC]
W6LS INC: Spigner Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Inez Spigner, on behalf of herself and all
individuals similarly situated v. W6LS, INC., d/b/a WITHU LOANS,
and CALIBER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 35-2023-CA-003149
was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of
the State of Florida, in and for Lake County, to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Feb. 14, 2024,
and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00071-TJC-PRL.
The first two counts of the Class Action Complaint allege
violations of Florida state law. Count III alleges violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
("RICO").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eleanor T. Barnett, Esq.
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 371-8809
Telecopier: (305) 448-4155
Email: ebarnett@atllp.com
miamiefiling@atllp.com
WASHINGTON: Angelone Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kurt J. Angelone, John
Headrick, Adam Persell, Alex Miyares, Jonathan Johnston, v.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Ronald Haynes,
SUPERINTENDENT OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER AHCC; Arron
Brown, Lance Hall, SGT. D. Young, SGT. McKinney, Daniel Jones, Jane
and John Doe's, CORRECTIONS OFFICERS AND OFFICERS AND PERSONNEL at,
AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER, Case No. 2:24-cv-00096-TOR (E.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for class certification and appointment of class
counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 26, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7z6XzX at no extra
charge.[CC]
WELCH FOODS: Class Cert Hearing Continued to June 27
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sinatro, et al., v. Welch
Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-07028 (N.D. Cal., Filed Nov.
9, 2022), the Hon. Judge entered an order continuing the hearings
on class certification and the motions to strike to June 27, 2024.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Welch offers refrigerated juices, juice cocktails, jams and
jellies, and snacks.[CC]
WINGSTOP INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Biometric Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Wingstop faces a
proposed class action lawsuit that claims the restaurant chain has
illegally captured, used and profited from the voiceprints of
Illinois customers who call to place an order by phone.
According to the 22-page lawsuit, at least 60 Wingstop locations in
Illinois use voice technology powered by artificial intelligence
(AI) to handle phone orders. However, the suit alleges that the
company, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA), has captured and used thousands of customers' unique
voiceprints without their knowledge or consent through the use of
the AI virtual assistant.
Per the case, the BIPA prohibits companies from obtaining a
consumer's biometric data—including their voiceprint—without
first acquiring informed written consent and establishing publicly
available policies that outline how long the information will be
retained and when it will be destroyed. The law also precludes
businesses from profiting from an individual's BIPA-protected data
in any capacity, the complaint relays.
Despite the BIPA's requirements, Wingstop and co-defendant
ConverseNow Technologies—which developed the voice AI
technology—failed to obtain written releases from callers and
publish the requisite data retention policies before deploying the
virtual assistant, the filing contends.
In addition, the suit claims the companies have unlawfully profited
from consumers' biometric information, as each caller's captured
voiceprint is used to sharpen the technology's accuracy, collect
customer-specific data, encourage reordering and facilitate
upselling.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone whose voiceprints, biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information was captured, obtained,
used and/or stored by Wingstop and ConverseNow Technologies when
making a telephone order at a Wingstop location in Illinois at any
time during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
[^] Darrow Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference
------------------------------------------------------
Darrow Inc., a provider of artificial intelligence-powered legal
research platform, is a sponsor of the Class Action Money & Ethics
Conference this May.
New York-based Darrow's -- https://www.darrow.ai/ -- AI-Powered
Justice Intelligence Platform sifts through publicly available
information, such as consumer complaints, administrative documents,
SEC filings and more, and connects relevant data points to detect
legal violations, predict their outcomes, and assess their
financial impact, streamlining business development for litigation
teams.
Join Darrow and others at the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference on May 6, 2024. Registration is now open.
This one-day event is also being sponsored by:
* Atticus Administration, LLC;
* Broadridge, a global Fintech company;
* Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, an Am Law 100 firm;
* Duane Morris LLP, an Am Law 100 firm;
* Giftogram;
* Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP;
* Hook Point;
* Levine Law, LLC;
* Miller Kaplan Arase LLP;
* Parabellum Capital LLC
* Simpluris; and
* Tremendous, a payouts platform
CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club. To
register, visit https://www.classactionconference.com/
For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***