/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240430.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 30, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 87
Headlines
11 KITCHEN: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Martinez Suit Claims
3M COMPANY: Hammer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Stoutamire Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
ABC PHONES: C.D. California Issues Order to Show Cause in Moreno
ABC PHONES: Court Issues Order to Show Cause in Alkarkhi Suit
ABC PHONES: Court Wants to Consolidate Alkarkhi With Moreno Suit
ABC PHONES: Court Wants to Consolidate Moreno and Alkarkhi Suits
AFLAC INC: Smith Must File Bid for Class Certification by Sept. 23
AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Germano Bid to Seal Directions Partly OK'd
ALCHEMEE LLC: Judt Sues Over Unsafe Levels of carcinogen
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Leave to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
ALPINE IMMUNE: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to Vertex
AMAZON.COM INC: Joyce Suit Parties May File Over-Length Briefing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Renteria Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN-3 FAB: Ayala Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ANCESTRY.COM: Wilson Opposition to Summary Judgment Reset to May 9
ANCHOR BEVERAGES: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANGLO AMERICAN: Claimants Win Permission to Appeal Class Action
APPLE INC: Leonard Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violation
APPLE INC: Parties in Friend Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
ASR GROUP: Edlin Sues Over Sherman Antitrust Act Violation
AST SPACEMOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
AT&T INC: Abdellatif Files Suit in N.D. Texas
AT&T INC: Carrasco Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
AT&T INC: Faces 2nd Class Suit Over 70-M Customers' Data Breach
AT&T INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Massive Data Breach
AT&T INC: Faces Schuster Suit Over Compromised Customers' Info
AT&T INC: Stover Files Suit in N.D. Texas
AT&T MOBILITY: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Hasson Alleges
AUTOZONE INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
AXT INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
BARTLETT DAIRY: Lora Files Suit in S.D. New York
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Lahav Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California
BINANCE: Ontario Court Certifies Crypto Derivatives Class Action
BITCOIN DEPOT INC: Mooneyham Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
BLACKSTONE VALLEY: Faces Possible Class Action Over Data Breach
BLUE RAVEN SOLAR: Costa Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
BLUEFIELD REALTY GROUP: Burton Sues Over Anticompetitive Restraint
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Boyer Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
BOOHOO.COM USA: Agrees Final Settlement of Bogus Discounts Suit
BOTTLE & PRESS: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOYNE USA: Anderson Bid for Class Notice Approval Partly OK'd
BRASKEM SA: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Disclosures on Salt Mine
BREAKDOWN SERVICES: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Charges
BUMBLE TRADING: Johnson Sues Over Discriminatory Policies
BUZZFEED INC: Chang Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation
C.R. ENGLAND INC: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Fifth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Bell Suit
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': MESVision's Bid to Stay Bosley Suit OK'd
CANADA: Class Action Suit Seeks Treaty Annuity Payments
CARE MATTERS: Hester Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
CARGILL MEAT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 31, 2025
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Bid to Deny Class Status Partly OK'd
CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Eye Surgeons Sues Over Cyberattack
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 28
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 17
CINTAS CORP: Employee Retirement Suit Settlement for Court Approval
CINTAS CORP: Tentative Settlement in Laurel City Suit for Court OK
CJ BERRY WELL SERVICES: Browden Suit Removed to E.D. California
COCA-COLA CO: Court Denies 3rd Bid to Dismiss Swartz Consumer Suit
COFFEE BEAN: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Surcharge
COFFEE MEETS: Stores Users' Biometrics Without Consent, Moller Says
COFFEE REGIONAL: Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline Sought
COLORADO: Court Refers Wind Class Cert Bid to Magistrate Judge
COLUMBIA RECYCLING: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 7
COOLSYS LIGHT: Zimmerman Suit Removed to E.D. California
CORPORATE CLIENT: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
CROCS INC: Bid for Additional Customer Complaints Discovery Tossed
DEN-MAT HOLDINGS: Vaughn Suit Removed to C.D. California
DIAMOND SECURITY: Bid for Conditional Status in Shariff Due May 27
DING FENG LIN: Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
DISCOPYLABS: Hart Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
DOLE PACKAGED: Court Narrows Claims in Broussard Consumer Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL: Bid Amend to Scheduling Order Partly OK'd
DOWNEAST OUTFITTERS: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Action Over 'Risk-Free' Bets
DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Ct. Endorses Granting Bid to File Amended Answer
ENVOY MEDICAL: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
EPOCH EVERLASTING: Class Cert Opposition Extended to May 17
EPOCH EVERLASTING: Plaintiffs Can Seal Class Cert Bid
ERNEST HEALTH: Lara Files Suit in N.D. Texas
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Robinson Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
FCA US: Court Tosses All Claims in Tarsio Suit Without Prejudice
FHI LLC: Farias Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
FLORIDA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Faulty Renewal Forms
FLUENT INC: Settlement in Berman Suit Gets Court OK
FRONT PORCH: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by May 17
GARDAWORLD CASHLINK: Sued Over Failure to Secure Information
GATOS SILVER: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement
GEICO: Parties Seek to Seal Joint Record Relating to Class Cert Bid
GIGSMART INC: Refuses to Withdraw Arbitration Suits, Johnson Says
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadline
GLOBE LIFE: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
GMRI INC: Hearing on Bid to Deny Class Cert. Continued to May 24
GMRI INC: Hearing on Bid to Deny Class Status Continued to May 24
GRANT & BOWMAN: Horn Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
GREYLOCK MCKINNON: Robertson Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
GRINDR LLC: Faces Class Action Over Users' HIV Status Data Sharing
GSE SYSTEMS: Settlement Deal Reached in Adams Suit
GSE SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Pharr Suit
GSE SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Waldecker Suit
H & M HENNES & MAURITZ: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
HILCO REDEVELOPMENT: Judge OKs $12.25MM Dust Storm Settlement
JASON D. BOROFF: Prince Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
KRAFT HEINZ: Lunchables "Not Safe" for Children, LaSpisa Claims
LEWIS & CLARK COLLEGE: Unsworth Files Suit in D. Oregon
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 13, 2025
LLOYD AUSTIN: Bid to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Arzamendi OK'd
LOVESAC COMPANY: Faces Gutknecht Suit Over SEC Disclosures
MADONNA: Faces Another Class Action Over Concert Delays
MARSHALLS OF MA: Au Files Suit in E.D. New York
MAZDA MOTOR: Jarvis Sues Over Defective Engine Coolant
MEDICURE INC: Subsidiary Faces TCPA Suit in Missouri Court
MERCY INVESTMENT: Reynolds Files Suit in E.D. New York
METRO SERVICES GROUP: Portillo Suit Removed to N.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Tosses Rodriguez-Ocasio's Amended Complaint
MORGAN STANLEY: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settles Class Suit Over Sellers' Home Price
NAVVIS AND COMPANY: Clark Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
NAVY FEDERAL: Phlaum Sues Over Improper Charging of Overdraft Fees
NORTH AMERICAN LIGHTING: Buescher Sues Over Fiduciary Breach
NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL: Wells Sues Over Denied Meal Breaks and Wages
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Mismanages Pension Plan, Lorusso Suit Alleges
OCUGEN INC: Faces Patterson Suit Over Drop in Share Price
OH K-TERING LLC: Kim Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
OLD DOMINION: Wiesenbach Suit Removed to C.D. California
ON Q FINANCIAL: Castellaw Files Suit in D. Arizona
ON Q FINANCIAL: Feathers Files Suit in D. Arizona
ON Q FINANCIAL: Squier Files Suit in D. Arizona
ONTARIO: Agrees to Pay Legal Fees to Basic Income Class Action
OSCAR DEVEZE: Castillo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OUTFOX HOSPITALITY: Faces Class Suit Over Abrupt Shutdown
PACERS RUNNING: Wins Summary Judgment Bid; Gonzalez Suit Dismissed
PACIFIC GREEN ENERGY: Brown Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
PACIFIC STEEL: Berber's Bid for Class Certification Due on June 3
PATHWARD NATIONAL: Rappaport Sues Over Prepaid Visa Cards
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Alleged Corruption
PETS BEST: Roberts Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practice
PHP OF NC INC: Court Endorses Partial OK of Conditional Status Bid
PLUG POWER INC: Lopez-Gomez Suit Removed to C.D. California
POWER SYSTEMS (PS): Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POWERHOUSE RETAIL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ramirez Says
PRIMIS BANK: Kline Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Tlaib Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Tucker Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
PROFORM GROUP: Hackler Sues Over WARN Act Violation
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Jury Awards $98MM for Unpaid Wages
RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF: Ali Files Suit in D. Minnesota
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Groundtree Seeks Production of Documents
RENT THE RUNWAY: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Over IPO
RIOT GAMES INC: Garrison Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
RISAS DENTAL: Manzano Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
RISAS HOLDINGS: Daley Files Suit in D. Arizona
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 9
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Betancourt Due Sept. 9
ROCANDA USA: Drake Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RSG CONST: Parties Must Discuss Class Cert Items in April 16 Order
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: May 17 Reply in Support of Class Cert Sought
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: White Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL: Silva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Class Cert Filing in Ablaza Extended to May 21
SEAWORLD PARKS: Burns Loses Bid for Class Certification
SHIELD CO MANAGEMENT: Dykstra Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
SHUTTERFLY LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SILICON VALLEY MECHANICAL: Brenan Files Suit in S.D. California
SMITH TEAMAKER: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Fried Suit Removed to S.D. California
SOUTH DAKOTA: Irvine Suit Seeks to Amend Class Definition
SPORTS BASEMENT INC: Fong Suit Removed to C.D. California
SPRUCE POWER: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK
ST. DOMINIC: Bosewell Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
STIIIZY INC: Faces Multi-State Class Suit Over Marijuana Products
STOP & SHOP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Fuller Due June 13
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Must File Class Cert Bid by April 30
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Aquino Must File Class Cert Bid by April 30
SUMIDEN WIRE PRODUCTS: Berry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SUPER SHINE: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TEVA CANADA: High Court Denies Certification in Contamination Suit
THEBATHOUTLET LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TIM HORTONS: Wrongly Tells Customers They've Won Boat, Suit Says
TIMOTHY PADGETT: Opposition Response to Class Cert Bid Filed
TOHVT MOTORS: Lazo Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska
TOMER WEINGARTEN: Stochevski Suit Transferred to N.D. California
TORRID HOLDINGS: Faces Waswick Shareholder Suit in California Court
TOTAL SECURITY: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
TRI-SUN INTERNATIONAL: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRISTAR INSURANCE: Garrote Sues Over Failure to Implement Security
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Aquino Seeks Conditional Cert. of Employee Class
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Impostor Pages
UNDER ARMOUR: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
UNDER ARMOUR: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings
UNILEVER UNITED: Hossain Must File Class Cert Bid by May 31
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Heiting Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNITED PARCEL: Court Narrows Claims in Beddingfield Employee Suit
UNITED STATES: Civil Standing Order Entered in He Class Action
UNITED STATES: May 10 Extension for Class Cert Opposition Sought
UNITED STATES: Volkova Suit Seeks Class Certification
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 19
VALENTINO USA: Opposition Brief in Benitez Suit Due May 31
VICTORIA: Redevelopment Plan Violates Human Rights, Suit Says
VILLAGE PRACTICE: Sued Over Illegal Disclosure of PII & PHI
WALDENCAST PLC: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Second Amended Securities Complaint
WEBSTER BANK: Agrees to Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER: Telek Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
WELLS FARGO: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Martin
WEST HILLS: Unger's Bid to Dismiss Glahn Securities Suit Denied
WORKFORCE7 INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Ballast Suit Denied
[*] Summary Judgement Bid in Overdraft Class Action Granted
*********
11 KITCHEN: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Martinez Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
CORNELIO DE LOS SANTOS MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 11 KITCHEN INC., DBA WOK
WOK SOUTHEAST ASIAN KITCHEN, and ERIK CHEAH, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-02851 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Wok Wok Southeast
Asian Kitchen from approximately September 2020 until March 19,
2024. His primary work duties were as a food preparer, vegetable
processor, meat cutter, and handler, as well as tasks related to
the production line of meat products.
11 Kitchen Inc., doing business as Wok Wok Southeast Asian Kitchen,
is a restaurant owner and operator based in New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
Stillman Legal, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
3M COMPANY: Hammer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Hammer, et al., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, 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.); Case No. 2:24-cv-00461-AMM (N.D.
Ala., April 12, 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. 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 with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the 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
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long 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 remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF 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 products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during their employment as
a
military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Stoutamire Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Conrad Stoutamire, et al. v. 3M Company, et
al., Case No. 01-CV-2024-901009.00 was removed from the Circuit
Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama on April 11, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-00457-MHH.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants
liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing,
and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used
in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the
Plaintiffs.[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
Email: gregc@elglaw.com
gary@elglaw.com
kmckie@elglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
ABC PHONES: C.D. California Issues Order to Show Cause in Moreno
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled WILLIAM MORENO, et al., Plaintiffs v. ABC
PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00831-FLA-AJR (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an order to show cause why the action should not be
remanded.
The Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") vests original jurisdiction
in district courts over a purported class action if all the
following requirements are met: (1) the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million; (2) at least one putative class member is a
citizen of a state different from any defendant, and (3) the
putative class exceeds 100 members. The removing defendant bears
the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, including any
applicable amount in controversy requirement.
The Court has reviewed the Defendant's Notice of Removal and is
presently unable to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction
under CAFA. In particular, and without limitation, the Court finds
that the allegations in the Notice of Removal do not demonstrate by
a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.
Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to show cause, in
writing only, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this
Order, why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not
exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to
submit evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to
the court's Order.
Responses will be limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties
should consider this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the
facial and factual sufficiency of the Defendant's demonstration of
jurisdiction.
As it is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, the Defendant's
failure to timely respond to this Order will result in the remand
of this action without further warning.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4hefzfyx from PacerMonitor.com.
ABC PHONES: Court Issues Order to Show Cause in Alkarkhi Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MUSTAFA ALKARKHI, Plaintiff v. ABC PHONES OF
NORTH CAROLINA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:24-cv-00625-FLA-AJR (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an order to show cause why the action should not be
remanded.
The Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") vests original jurisdiction
in district courts over a purported class action if all the
following requirements are met: (1) the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million; (2) at least one putative class member is a
citizen of a state different from any defendant, and (3) the
putative class exceeds 100 members. The removing defendant bears
the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, including any
applicable amount in controversy requirement.
The Court has reviewed the Defendant's Notice of Removal and is
presently unable to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction
under CAFA. In particular, and without limitation, the Court finds
that the allegations in the Notice of Removal do not demonstrate by
a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.
Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to show cause, in
writing only, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this
Order, why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not
exceed the jurisdictional threshold. The parties are encouraged to
submit evidence and/or judicially noticeable facts in response to
the court's Order.
Responses will be limited to ten (10) pages in length. The parties
should consider this Order to be a two-pronged inquiry into the
facial and factual sufficiency of the Defendant's demonstration of
jurisdiction.
As it is the party asserting federal jurisdiction, the Defendant's
failure to timely respond to this Order will result in the remand
of this action without further warning.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mvb3jp2w from PacerMonitor.com.
ABC PHONES: Court Wants to Consolidate Alkarkhi With Moreno Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MUSTAFA ALKARKHI, Plaintiff v. ABC PHONES
OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:24-cv-00625-FLA-AJR (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an order to show cause why this action should not be
consolidated with Case No. 5:24-cv-00625-FLA (AJRx).
On Dec. 28, 2023, Plaintiffs William Moreno and Lizbeth Gonzalez
Velazquez file the Class Action Complaint in Case No.
2:24-cv-00831-FLA (AJRx) ("Case 24-831"), in Los Angeles County
Superior Court, asserting claims against Defendant ABC Phones of
North Carolina, Inc., on behalf of a proposed class, for violations
of the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code (the Unfair Competition Law, "UCL").
The Defendant removed Case 24-831 to this Court on Jan. 31, 2024.
On Feb. 20, 2024, Plaintiff Mustafa Alkarkhi filed the Class Action
Complaint in Case No. 5:24-cv-00625-FLA (AJRx), in Riverside County
Superior Court, asserting claims against the Defendant on behalf of
a proposed class, for violations of the California Labor Code and
the UCL. Defendant removed Case 24-625 to this court on March 25,
2024.
The Court orders the parties to show cause in writing why Cases
24-831 and 24-625 should not be consolidated, with Case 24-831
deemed the lead case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4tvcj9nw from PacerMonitor.com.
ABC PHONES: Court Wants to Consolidate Moreno and Alkarkhi Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned WILLIAM MORENO, et al., Plaintiffs v. ABC
PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00831-FLA-AJR (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an order to show cause why this action should not be
consolidated with Case No. 5:24-cv-00625-FLA (AJRx).
On Dec. 28, 2023, Plaintiffs William Moreno and Lizbeth Gonzalez
Velazquez file the Class Action Complaint in Case No.
2:24-cv-00831-FLA (AJRx) ("Case 24-831"), in Los Angeles County
Superior Court, asserting claims against Defendant ABC Phones of
North Carolina, Inc., on behalf of a proposed class, for violations
of the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. (the Unfair Competition
Law, "UCL"). The Defendant removed Case 24-831 to this Court on
Jan. 31, 2024.
On Feb. 20, 2024, Plaintiff Mustafa Alkarkhi filed the Class Action
Complaint in Case No. 5:24-cv-00625-FLA (AJRx), in Riverside County
Superior Court, asserting claims against the Defendant on behalf of
a proposed class, for violations of the California Labor Code and
the UCL. The Defendant removed Case 24-625 to this Court on March
25, 2024.
The Court directs the parties to show cause in writing why Cases
24-831 and 24-625 should not be consolidated, with Case 24-831
deemed the lead case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc79btmx from PacerMonitor.com.
AFLAC INC: Smith Must File Bid for Class Certification by Sept. 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEWART SMITH,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AFLAC, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00679-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Timothy Savage entered an order setting the scheduling order as
follows:
1. All fact and expert discovery relating to class certification
shall be completed by Aug. 2, 2024.
2. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
certification
no later than Aug. 23, 2024.
3. The Defendants' responses to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be filed no later than Sept. 13, 2024.
4. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the Defendant's
response no later than Sept. 23, 2024.
5. Oral argument on the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification
shall be heard on Oct. 15, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom
9A.
Aflac is a provider of supplemental insurance in the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=so5JfQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Germano Bid to Seal Directions Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germano v. Aimmune
Therapeutics, Inc. et al. (RE AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-06733-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Maxine Chesney entered an order granting in part and denying in
part the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to seal directions to
the Plaintiffs.
1. To the extent the Administrative Motion seeks leave to file
under seal portions of the Motion for Class Certification,
the
Administrative Motion is, as set forth below, granted in part
and denied in part.
a. The Administrative Motion is granted as to page 7, lines
18-
20.
b. In all other respects, the Administrative Motion is
denied,
the designating parties not having sought to have those
other
portions sealed.
2. To the extent the Administrative Motion seeks leave to file
under seal exhibits attached to the Monteverde Declaration,
the
Administrative Motion is, as set forth below, a
a. As to Exhibit A, the Administrative Motion is granted.
b. As to Exhibit B, the Administrative Motion is granted as
to
the following:
i. page 19, par. 74-75
ii. pages 20-22, par. 78-84
iii. page 26, par. 99, starting with the word "As" and
ending with the word "place".
Aimmune operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rNroxt at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALCHEMEE LLC: Judt Sues Over Unsafe Levels of carcinogen
--------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Judt, on behalf of himself and a class of all others
similarly situated v. ALCHEMEE, LLC and TARO PHARMACEUTICALS
U.S.A., INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-02718-PMH (S.D.N.Y., April 10,
2024), is brought against Defendants regarding the manufacturing,
distribution, advertising, marketing, and sale of Proactiv branded
benzoyl peroxide ("BPO") acne treatment products (the "BPO
Products") that contain and/or degrade into dangerously unsafe
levels of benzene, a known human carcinogen.
The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased the BPO Products with the
expectation that the products were safe, including free of
carcinogens that are not listed on the label. Because Defendants
sold products to consumers that contain dangerous levels of benzene
and/or degrade into benzene, Plaintiff and the Class Members were
deprived of the benefit of their bargain. The Defendants are
therefore liable to Plaintiff and Class members for misrepresenting
and/or failing to disclose or warn that the BPO Products contain
benzene and/or that the BPO Products degrade into benzene.
As a result of Defendants' misconduct and consumer deception,
Plaintiff, the Class, and the public, have been economically
harmed. Plaintiff would not have purchased the BPO Products or
would have paid less for them, had he known the truth. The
Plaintiff seeks damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
interest, restitution, other equitable relief, including an
injunction and disgorgement of all benefits and profits Defendants
received from misconduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased one of the Defendants' BPO Products.
Alchemee owns and operates the website proactiv.com and markets and
distributes dermatology products, including the BPO Products, in
the U.S. market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
Melissa Meyer, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Phone: 212-363-7500
Facsimile: 212-363-7171
Email: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
mmeyer@zlk.com
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Leave to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMON & SIMON, PC d/b/a
CITY SMILES and VIP DENTAL SPAS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-03754-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order granting its amended adminstrative motion for leave to
file under seal confidential material in support of the Parties'
class certification and summary judgment briefing.
Align is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and
Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eBv2Zl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
James M. Pearl, Esq.
Emma Farrow, Esq.
Thomas A. Counts, Esq.
Michael F. Murray, Esq.
Adam M. Reich, Esq.
Noah B. Pinegar, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 620-5700
Facsimile: (310) 620-5899
E-mail: jamespearl@paulhastings.com
emmafarrow@paulhastings.com
tomcounts@paulhastings.com
michaelmurray@paulhastings.com
adamreich@paulhastings.com
noahpinegar@paulhastings.com
ALPINE IMMUNE: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to Vertex
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are now investigating:
a. Alpine Immune Sciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALPN), relating to
its proposed sale to Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.. Under the terms
of the agreement, ALPN shareholders are expected to receive $65.00
in cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/alpine-immune-sciences-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
b. Landos Biopharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: LABP), relating to its
proposed sale to AbbVie, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
LABP shareholders are expected to receive $20.42 in cash plus one
non-tradable CVR worth up to $11.14 per share they own. Click here
for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/landos-biopharma-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
c. Shockwave Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: SWAV), relating to its
proposed sale to Johnson & Johnson. Under the terms of the
agreement, SWAV shareholders are expected to receive $335.00 in
cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/shockwave-medical-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
d. Fusion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: FUSN), relating to its
proposed sale to AstraZeneca. Under the terms of the agreement,
FUSN shareholders are expected to receive $21.00 in cash plus one
non-tradable CVR worth up to $3.00 per share they own. Click here
for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/fusion-pharmaceuticals-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Joyce Suit Parties May File Over-Length Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John H. Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the stipulated motion for
leave to file over-length briefing filed jointly by the parties in
the lawsuits styled SONNY JOYCE, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R.
JASSY, JEFFREY P. BEZOS, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY, DAVID A. ZAPOLSKY, NATE
SUTTON, DAVE CLARK, JEFF WILKE, and DOUG HERRINGTON, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00617-JHC (W.D. Wash.); ASBESTOS WORKERS
PHILADELPHIA WELFARE AND PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R.
JASSY, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY, DAVID FILDES, DAVE CLARK, JEFF WILKE, and
DOUG HERRINGTON, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00934-JH (W.D.
Wash.); and DETECTIVES ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION ANNUITY FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R. JASSY, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY,
DAVID FILDES, DAVE CLARK, JEFF WILKE, and DOUG HERRINGTON,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00950-JHC (W.D. Wash.).
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(f), the parties request that the Court
grant leave to file over-length briefing in connection with the
Defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.
The Plaintiffs' 252-page Complaint asserts claims for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The 769 paragraphs in the Complaint alleges
dozens of misrepresentations and omissions concerning Amazon's
relationship with third-party sellers and the capacity of Amazon's
fulfillment network against 10 Defendants (including three new
Individual Defendants).
In anticipation of the Defendants' motion to dismiss, counsel for
the parties met and conferred regarding the appropriate number of
words for the parties to adequately brief that motion. Given the
breadth and complexity of the allegations, claims, and legal
arguments involved, the parties agree and submit that the standard
word limits under Local Rule 7(e) will not allow the parties to
adequately cover all of the issues.
Accordingly, the parties request that the Court modify the word
limitations for the briefing associated with the Defendants'
forthcoming motion to dismiss.
Having reviewed the parties' Stipulated Motion, Judge Chun grants
the parties' Stipulated Motion. the Defendants are granted leave to
file an opening brief with an additional 1,400 words, for a total
of 9,800 words; the Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an
opposition brief with an additional 1,400 words, for a total of
9,800 words; and the Defendants are granted leave to file a reply
brief with an additional 700 words, for a total of 4,900 words.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulated Motion and Order dated
April 8, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yk5xnbkn from
PacerMonitor.com.
BRESKIN, JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC, Roger M. Townsend --
rtownsend@bjtlegal.com -- in Seattle, Washington 98104, Local
Counsel for the Lead Plaintiffs.
MOTLEY RICE LLC, Gregg S. Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com -- William
S. Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Joshua C. Littlejohn --
jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com -- Christopher F. Moriarty --
cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464,
Co-Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiffs and the Class.
POMERANTZ LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com --
Emma Gilmore -- egilmore@pomlaw.com -- Dolgora Dorzhieva --
ddorzhieva@pomlaw.com -- Villi Shteyn -- vshteyn@pomlaw.com -- in
New York City; Orly Guy -- oguy@pomlaw.com -- Eitan Lavie --
eitan@pomlaw.com -- in Givatayim, Israel 5320047, Co-Lead Counsel
for the Lead Plaintiffs and the Class.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, James A. Harrod --
Jim.Harrod@blbglaw.com -- in New York City, Additional Counsel.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, Stephen R. Basser -- sbasser@barrack.com
-- Samuel M. Ward -- sward@barrack.com -- in San Diego, California;
Jeffrey A. Barrack -- jbarrack@barrack.com -- in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103, Counsel for the Detectives Endowment
Association Annuity Fund.
FENWICK & WEST LLP, Brian D. Buckley -- bbuckley@fenwick.com -- in
Seattle, Washington 98101; PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
LLP, Daniel J. Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Audra J. Soloway
-- asoloway@paulweiss.com -- Alison R. Benedon --
abenedon@paulweiss.com -- in New York City; Martha L. Goodman --
mgoodman@paulweiss.com -- in Washington, D.C. 20006, Counsel for
the Defendants.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Renteria Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Chris Renteria; Herbert Talledo; and
Stephanie Chin, as individuals and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV05691 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on April 10,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02925.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract,
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Sherman
Act, and violation of the Robinson Patman Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq.
Mudit D. Buch, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
Email: TBoutrous@gibsondunn.com
CDusseault@gibsondunn.com
MBuch@gibsondunn.com
AMERICAN-3 FAB: Ayala Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Ava Ayala, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. AMERICAN-3 FAB, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00433-WCG (E.D. Wis.,
April 11, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), and Wisconsin’s Wage Payment and
Collection Laws (“WWPCL”) for purposes of obtaining relief
under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys’ fees,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief
the Court may deem appropriate.
The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked
and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of
pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by
shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff’s
and all other hourly paid, non-exempt employees’ weekly
timesheets for pre-shift and post shift hours worked and/or work
performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of
Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendant’s
failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt employees for
compensable work performed each workweek, including but not limited
to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional, willful, and
violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set
forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of Welder/Fabricator working at
its De Pere, Wisconsin location in early January 2024.
The Defendant is a manufacturer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
ANCESTRY.COM: Wilson Opposition to Summary Judgment Reset to May 9
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN WILSON, v.
ANCESTRY.COM LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00861-EAS-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly Jolson entered an order granting the
Parties' joint motion to modify briefing schedules:
Filing Previous New
Deadline
Deadline
Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion April 29, 2024 May 9,
2024
for Summary Judgment:
Defendants' Reply in Support of May 13, 2024 May 31,
2024
Motion for Summary Judgment:
Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion April 29, 2024 May 16,
2024
to Exclude Expert:
Defendants' Reply in Support of May 13, 2024 May 31,
2024
Motion to Exclude Expert:
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of May 9, 2024 May 16,
2024
Motion for Class Certification:
Ancestry.com is an American genealogy company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DcOwST at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANCHOR BEVERAGES: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anchor Beverages,
Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Anchor Beverages, Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02727 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Anchor Beverages, Inc. doing business as Capital Teas --
https://capitalteas.com/ -- is an American specialty tea brand,
based in Annapolis, MD, offering premium loose tea and tea-related
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
ANGLO AMERICAN: Claimants Win Permission to Appeal Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tasneem Bulbulia of Mining Weekly reports that the Johannesburg
High Court granted permission to appeal an earlier ruling denying
class action certification for 140 000 women and children in Kabwe,
Zambia, who allege they have suffered the effects of lead poisoning
as a result of a mine formerly owned by Anglo American in the
country.
In granting permission, Justice Leonie Wendell found that an appeal
against her earlier judgment had "reasonable prospects of success
on at least one ground of appeal" and that there were "compelling
reasons to grant the appeal, as class action law is still being
developed in South Africa", and that "there are current matters of
law of public importance which directly implicate constitutional
rights".
In a 126-page judgment delivered in late December 2023, Wendell
ruled that a claim against Anglo American South Africa (AASA) over
widespread lead poisoning across Kabwe, Zambia, could not proceed
as a class action.
The class action was filed in South Africa as it would not have
been possible for the claimants to obtain access to justice in
Zambia, law firm Leigh Day, which is a consultant on the matter,
says.
Following the permission to appeal the December decision, the Kabwe
claimants will now take their case against AASA before the Supreme
Court of Appeal of South Africa later this year.
Leigh Day describes this as a "major step forward" in the
longstanding lead poisoning class action claim against AASA, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of London-headquartered Anglo American.
"The December judgment effectively blocked access to justice for
the people of Kabwe," it avers.
Kabwe was owned and operated by Anglo American from 1925 to 1974.
Leigh Day emphasises that the evidence submitted to the court by
the claimants in support of this claim is clear.
From the early 1970s, reports by the mine doctors showed that
several children had died of lead poisoning from the mine, and a
high proportion of children in the local communities were suffering
from massive blood lead levels, the law firm states.
Experts for the claimants also contend that the stability of lead
in the environment was well known by the 1960s and that the risk of
lead poisoning to future generations should have been foreseen by
Anglo American if the environment was not cleaned up, the firm
adds.
The claimants allege that, on economic grounds, Anglo American
failed to heed advice from international experts in 1970 that the
topsoil should be replaced.
However, Anglo American argues that it adhered to standards that
were acceptable in the 1970s, that the risks to future generations
were not foreseeable and that the company is therefore not liable
to current inhabitants of Kabwe.
Amnesty International and a number of United Nations (UN) agencies
intervened at the certification hearing to argue that Anglo
American’s opposition to the class action was contrary to the UN
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Anglo American’s
own human rights policy and publicly stated human rights
commitments.
The Kabwe claimants are represented by law firm Mbuyisa Moleele
Attorneys with Leigh Day acting as consultants.
In a separate statement, Anglo American says it has noted the
decision.
"The High Court dismissed the certification application in December
2023 after almost a year of deliberation, clearly highlighting the
claim’s multiple legal and factual flaws and deeming it not in
the interest of justice for the class action to proceed," the
company states.
It adds that the grant of the right to appeal is simply a
recognition by the High Court that an appeal to another Court is a
viable option for the claimants to follow in the South African
legal process.
Anglo American posits that this does not undermine the High Court
decision that dismissed the application in December 2023.
The company says it will oppose any appeal that may follow.
"As Anglo American has stated throughout, it has every sympathy for
the situation in Kabwe, but is not responsible for it. Anglo
American has stated from the outset that this claim is entirely
misconceived," the company posits. [GN]
APPLE INC: Leonard Sues Over Antitrust Laws Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Thomas Leonard, on behalf of himself and all others situated v.
APPLE INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-02156 (N.D. Cal., April 10, 2024), is
brought for damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant
to federal antitrust laws and California unfair competition laws.
The Defendant Apple, Inc. deters competition by designing iPhones
to block cross-platform technologies between iPhones and Android
smartphones in order to solidify, establish, and/or increase
Apple's smartphone monopoly. In order to pursue its supra
competitive profits, Apple has blocked features and innovation on
its iPhone to prevent competition from emerging, thus making
Android smartphones less functional and less attractive to
consumers and unlawfully inflating the price of the iPhone. Apple
has engaged in a course of conduct designed to deter competition in
the smartphone markets in order to obtain monopoly rents and
supra-competitive profits on the iPhone.
Because of these cross-platform barriers, Apple is also able to
dominate the smartwatch market and charge supra-competitive prices
for Apple Watch, the Apple smartwatch product that is compatible
with the iPhone. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the putative Classes
have overpaid or otherwise suffered economic losses due to Apple's
monopolization of these markets and therefore sue for damages,
injunctive relief, and other relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual who purchased and paid for an Apple
iPhone within the last year.
Apple is the world's largest information technology company by
revenue and the world's third-largest mobile phone developer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Rubin, Esq.
James M. Finberg, Esq.
Corinne F. Johnson, Esq.
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 421-7151
Email: mrubin@altber.com
jfinberg@altber.com
APPLE INC: Parties in Friend Seek More Time for Class Cert Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL FRIEND, DAPHNE
PAREAS, SCOTT SEVELAND, PATRICE SHERMAN, NESTOR ALMEIDA, ADELINA
LAVECCHIA, DAN HENDERSON, MARITZA ANGELES, TIM INSELMANN, MAGDALA
CASIMIR, WILLIAM WEST-DAVIS, PATRICIA MEDBERRY, and AZARA
COLINDREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-07109-AMO (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class
certification deadlines as follows:
Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' motion for class April 16, 2024 July 16,
2024
certification
Apple's opposition to June 18, 2024 Sept. 18,
2024
Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification
Plaintiffs' reply in support of July 29, 2024 Oct. 29,
2024
their motion for class
certification
Hearing on motion for class Sept. 12, 2024 Nov. 14,
2024
certification
Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nfRgM0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, 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
ndeckant@bursor.com
- and -
Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
388 Market St., Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 489-7004
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David R. Singh, Esq.
Morgan D. Macbride, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 6th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
Telephone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
E-mail: david.singh@weil.com
morgan.macbride@weil.com
ASR GROUP: Edlin Sues Over Sherman Antitrust Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Edlin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated 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, COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., and RICHARD WISTISEN, Case
No. 9:24-cv-80442-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2024), is brought for
violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and seeks treble damages,
injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to the federal and
state antitrust and consumer protection laws and demands a trial by
jury on all matters so triable.
This lawsuit alleges they are the result of Defendants' unlawful
agreement to fix prices for Granulated Sugar in the United States.
Producing Defendants are among the largest producers and sellers of
Granulated Sugar in the United States and are direct competitors in
the U.S. market for Granulated Sugar. Defendant United's
acquisition of competitor Imperial Sugar Company ("Imperial") in
2023 has only increased the concentration of the Granulated Sugar
market in the United States.
Beginning at least as early as January 1, 2019, the exact date
being unknown to Plaintiff at this time, Defendants and their
co-conspirators conspired to artificially inflate the price of
Granulated Sugar in the United States. To implement their
price-fixing conspiracy, Defendants exchanged detailed,
competitively sensitive, non-public information about Granulated
Sugar prices, capacity, sales volume, supply, and demand.
As a result of Defendants' unlawful agreement, indirect purchasers
of Granulated Sugar in the United States and its territories,
including Plaintiff and the Class members, paid supracompetitive
prices for Granulated Sugar sold by Defendants in the United States
and its territories beginning no later than January 1, 2019, and
running through the present (the "Class Period"), in violation of
Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and
consumer protection laws, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased granulated sugar indirectly in California
from one or more Defendants.
ASR Group is a privately held Florida corporation and global
producer and seller of Granulated Sugar based in West Palm Beach,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allison Watson Cross, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
3420 Bristol Street, Suite 600
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: 213-458-7075
Email: across@bathaeedunne.com
- and -
Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
901 South MoPac Expressway
Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (213) 462-2772
Email: egrauman@bathaeedunne.com
bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
- and -
Andrew Chan Wolinsky, Esq.
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (332) 322-8835
Email: awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com
yavar@bathaeedunne.com
AST SPACEMOBILE: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Forrester of Advanced Television reports that AST
SpaceMobile, already suffering criticism for multiple delays and
alleged misleading statements to shareholders, has been hit with
Class Actions.
The actions will be before the Western District of Texas in the
U.S. District Court and before Judge David Counts. AST SpaceMobile
is based at Midland, Texas.
AST SpaceMobile, together with its subsidiaries, develops and
provides access to a space-based cellular broadband network for
smartphones in the US. It has some valuable and important
shareholders not least AT&T, Vodafone and Google and has announced
40 partnerships with the likes of Nokia, Japan's Rakuten, American
Tower and Bell Canada and many other national telcos.
The core allegation claims that AST SpaceMobile "overstated
satellite production and hiding suppliers' issues". Specifically,
the claim argues that on April 2nd (following AST's business
update) news about the production delay caused AST's share price to
fall 23.6 per cent, and losing more than $85 million in shareholder
value. The claim argues that AST SpaceMobile is in breach of the
U.S. Securities & Exchange Act.
On April 1st, AST SpaceMobile announced production delays for five
of its important Block 1 BlueBird satellites due to supplier
issues. These five satellites are part of a planned 20+ fleet which
will girdle the planet and supply 'direct-to-cell' connectivity for
smart-phones.
The five Block 1 BlueBird craft should be ready for launch this
late summer in the July-August period although specific launch
dates have yet to be announced.
Other allegations include mention of "securities fraud" while the
core action claims that AST SpaceMobile "misled investors about its
satellite production and have hidden supplier issues".
The action cites the company and two of its executives -- Abel
Avellan CEO and Sean Wallace EVP & CFO -- and was filed into the
court system on April 17th.
AST SpaceMobile describes itself as "The first and only space-based
cellular broadband network for mobile phones. Eliminating coverage
gaps to enable billions of people globally to stay connected." [GN]
AT&T INC: Abdellatif Files Suit in N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T, Inc. The case
is styled as Ahmed Abdellatif, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AT&T, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00876-E
(N.D. Tex., April 10, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
AT&T INC: Carrasco Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
--------------------------------------------------
Daphne Kansas Carrasco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AT&T INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00305-SDJ (E.D.
Tex., April 9, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's
failure to secure personal identifiable information ("PII,"
referred to herein as "Private Information") of Plaintiff and the
members of the proposed Classes, including their first and last
names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, physical addresses,
and phone numbers.
On March 30, 2024, AT&T publicly announced that the details of 73
million former and current AT&T customer accounts, including its
customers' Private Information and AT&T account numbers and
passcodes, were leaked online (the "Data Breach").
AT&T was obligated--by contract, industry standards, common law,
and its representations to its customers, including Plaintiff and
other Class Members--to secure the Private Information from
unauthorized disclosures. Plaintiff and Class Members provided
their Private Information to AT&T with the understanding that AT&T
and any business partners to whom AT&T may disclose the Personally
Identifiable Information would comply with their obligations to
keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized
disclosures.
Notwithstanding its obligations, it is apparent from the reported
nature and extent of the Data Breach, and Defendant's response
thereto, that Defendant failed to take reasonable, timely and
appropriate measures to protect against the foreseeable
unauthorized disclosure of Private Information. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's failures, Plaintiff and the Class
Members have suffered and will indefinitely suffer serious injury.
Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the estimated
millions of similarly situated victims of the Data Breach, seeks to
hold Defendant responsible for the injuries suffered as the result
of its misconduct and failure to act, and demands appropriate
monetary, equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was required to provide her Private Information to
AT&T for purposes of receiving telecommunications services.
AT&T is one of the largest telecommunications companies in the
United States, providing nationwide wireless voice, messaging, and
data services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas W. Pirtle, Esq.
Buffy K. Martines, Esq.
5020 Montrose Boulevard, 9th Floor
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: 713-292-2750
Facsimile: 713-292-2755
Email: tomp@lpm-triallaw.com
buffym@lpm-triallaw.com
- and -
Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Phone: (973) 639-9100
Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
Email: jscullion@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
jsmigelsky@seegerweiss.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
AT&T INC: Faces 2nd Class Suit Over 70-M Customers' Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Galvan of Click2Houston.com reports that another class action
lawsuit has been filed against AT&T by Beasley Allen on behalf of
AT&T customers whose personal information was compromised during a
cyberattack.
According to the lawsuit, AT&T failed to secure customers' personal
information properly, including full names, email addresses,
mailing addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, date of
birth, AT&T account numbers and passcodes, on behalf of Scott
Mathews and all others similarly situated.
Another class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T by Beasley
Allen on behalf of AT&T customers whose personal information was
compromised during a cyberattack.
Despite notifying customers around March 31 of the breach, AT&T
failed to provide critical information about the breach, including
when it occurred and when it was investigated, according to the
lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges AT&T should have also explained to its
current and former customers why it waited over three years to
inform them of the breach.
"AT&T failed to protect its customers' personal information and
notify them of the data breach properly,” said Beasley Allen
attorney Larry Golston said in a press release. "Our goal is to
hold the company accountable and ensure that affected customers
receive the compensation they deserve."
AT&T customers whose personal information was compromised may be
eligible for compensation, and Beasley Allen is calling for AT&T to
take precautions to prevent future breaches.
Former and current AT&T customers who are interested in
participating in the case can visit their website for more
information. [GN]
AT&T INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Massive Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Galvan of KPRC 2 reports that AT&T is facing a class action
lawsuit, accusing the company of negligence and breach of contract
over a significant data breach that compromised personal
information.
The plaintiffs, representing over 70 million current and former
AT&T customers, filed the lawsuit on April 3 after an extensive
data breach exposed their names, addresses, phone numbers, Social
Security numbers, and PINs. Upon learning of the breach in August
2021 when hackers auctioned the database of 70 million customers'
personally identifiable information in an online hacking forum,
AT&T denied the breach ever occurred and refused to investigate
further.
According to the class action filing, AT&T failed to investigate
the data breach for nearly three years, resulting in negligence and
breach of contract.
"AT&T failed to protect the data of its current and former
customers," said Douglas McNamara, partner at Cohen Milstein in a
press release. "If AT&T has the power to require customers to hand
over information for the company's commercial benefit, it bears
responsibility for safeguarding it, at a bare minimum."
AT&T is accused of negligence in handling sensitive customer
information, by failing to monitor its security measures and acting
promptly when the breach was discovered.
According to the complaint, AT&T breached its contract with
customers by asserting in its privacy notice that it would
safeguard sensitive personal data and notify users about a data
breach. Former customers' data were supposed to be destroyed once
they were no longer needed, but 65.4 million of these records were
leaked.
Plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Barnes Law Group, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, and DiCello Levitt LLP.
Former and current AT&T customers that are interested in
participating the case can complete this contact form. [GN]
AT&T INC: Faces Schuster Suit Over Compromised Customers' Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA SCHUSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00922-E (N.D. Tex., April 15, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, intrusion upon
seclusion/invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its system
following a data breach in mid-March 2024. The Defendant also
failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
AT&T, Inc. is a telecommunications company with its headquarters in
Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
Hannah M. Crowe, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Email: wburns@burnscharest.com
dcharest@burnscharest.com
hcrowe@burnscharest.com
- and -
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
Email: knelson@burnscharest.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Frances Mahoney-Mosedale, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South Sixth Street #2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
francesmahoneymosedale@gustafsongluek.com
AT&T INC: Stover Files Suit in N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T, Inc. The case
is styled as M. Andrew Stover, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AT&T, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00863-K (N.D.
Tex., April 8, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
C. Shawn Cleveland, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
2850 N Harwood Street, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-1210
Fax: (214) 210-1201
Email: scleveland@bakerlaw.com
AT&T MOBILITY: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Hasson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH HASSON and CHAD GRADDY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC and
AT&T, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01580-VMC (N.D. Ga., April
15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated individuals stored within their system
following a data breach. The Defendants also failed to timely
notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the
data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs
and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
AT&T Mobility LLC is a telecommunications company with its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
AT&T, Inc. is a telecommunications company with its headquarters in
Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4729 Roswell Road, Suite 208
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Email: gary@lcllp.com
- and -
Jennifer M. French, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 762-1900
Email: jennf@lcllp.com
AUTOZONE INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Iliana Bernabe Rodriguez, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. AUTOZONE, INC., Case No.
240202608 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 10, 2024,
and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01494.
The Plaintiff asserts claims to recover damages for alleged
violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA").
Specifically, Plaintiff is seeking damages in the forms of unpaid
overtime wages, prejudgment interest, costs and expenses, and
attorneys' fees.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq.
Mudit D. Buch, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.229.7000
Facsimile: 213.229.7520
Email: TBoutrous@gibsondunn.com
CDusseault@gibsondunn.com
MBuch@gibsondunn.com
AXT INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
morningstar.com reports that Rosen Law Firm, a global investor
rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities
claims on behalf of shareholders of AXT, Inc. (NASDAQ: AXTI)
resulting from allegations that AXT, Inc. may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased AXT securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24168 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 4, 2024, J Capital Research released a
report about AXT, Inc. (the "Report"). The Report stated in order
to capture new financing, AXT had tried to conduct an Initial
Public Offering ("IPO") for one of its subsidiaries in China.
However, undisclosed to American investors, the Report stated the
"IPO has apparently been blocked by Chinese regulators." J Capital
Research then announced that it had "uncovered a deluge of reasons
why Chinese regulators potentially blocked this IPO, including
falsifying data, tax evasion, improper storage of hazardous
chemicals, suspicious related-party transactions, IP litigation,
and defaulting on wages to employees."
On this news, AXT's stock fell $1.73 per share, or 35%, to close at
$3.22 per share on April 4, 2024. The next day, AXT's stock fell
$0.11, or 3.4%, to close at $3.11 per share on April 5, 2024.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BARTLETT DAIRY: Lora Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bartlett Dairy, Inc.
The case is styled as Rafael Lora, individually, and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Bartlett Dairy, Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02747-VM (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Bartlett Dairy Inc. -- https://www.bartlettny.com/ -- distributes
dairy products and other perishable food items to retail and
foodservice customers in the USA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 298-3283
Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
BINANCE HOLDINGS: Lahav Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NIR LAHAV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED, BAM TRADING
SERVICES INC., BAM MANAGEMENT US HOLDINGS INC., and CHANGPENG ZHAO,
Case No. 3:23-cv-05038, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on April 15, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-00679-TWR-KSC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for injury
under unfair competition and violations of Security Exchange
Commission (SEC) laws for attempts to monopolize the cryptocurrency
platform market by hurting the competitor trading platforms
operated by the FTX Entities.
Binance Holdings Limited is a company that operates cryptocurrency
exchange.
BAM Trading Services Inc. is a company that operates cryptocurrency
exchange.
BAM Management US Holdings Inc. is a cryptocurrency company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deepali A. Brahmbhatt, Esq.
DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
3120 Scott Blvd. #13,
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Telephone: (650) 254-9805
Email: dbrahmbhatt@devlinlawfirm.com
- and -
Timothy Devlin, Esq.
DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
1526 Gilpin Avenue
Wilmington, DE 19806
Telephone: (302) 449-9010
Email: tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
- and -
Curtis E. Smolar (SBN 194700)
COREXLEGAL PA
450 Townsend Street, Suite 207
San Francisco, CA 94107
Email: curtis@corexlegal.com
BINANCE: Ontario Court Certifies Crypto Derivatives Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
3Jared Kirui, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that Ontario's
Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action lawsuit
against Binance, according to a report by Advisor.ca. The lawsuit
alleges that Binance Holdings Limited violated securities law by
offering crypto derivative products to retail investors without
proper registration.
Regulatory Scrutiny
This latest development occurred amid increasing scrutiny from
regulatory authorities, including the Ontario Securities Commission
(OSC). In 2021, Binance promised to cease operations with Canadian
investors in response to the OSC's scrutiny and later agreed to an
undertaking with the OSC to halt trading activities in Ontario.
However, the OSC's investigation into possible regulatory breaches
by the exchange is ongoing, with no formal allegations yet made
against the company.
The court noted that regulators have previously categorized crypto
contracts as securities or derivatives, suggesting that the
marketing of such contracts falls under securities law. This
classification paves the way for the plaintiffs' claims of
violation of securities law against Binance. Moreover, the court
dismissed Binance's argument that it was merely a facilitator of
trades between users, highlighting evidence that investors traded
directly with Binance.
Investors who purchased cryptocurrency derivative contracts from
Binance starting September 13, 2019, are considered members of the
class affected by the lawsuit. The case highlights the importance
of regulatory compliance and investor protection in the rapidly
evolving cryptocurrency trading landscape.
Binance Faces Regulatory Pressure in Canada
Last year, Binance terminated its operations in Canada due to
stringent regulations, particularly concerning stablecoins.
Canada's regulations regarding cryptocurrencies took a new turn
when the Canadian Securities Administrators classified stablecoins
as "securities and/or derivatives."
This action barred regulated crypto exchanges from offering
services involving stablecoins, a significant component of the
crypto market. Additionally, the province of Ontario mandated the
registration of all cryptocurrency exchanges operating within its
jurisdiction.
Binance, acknowledging the evolving regulatory landscape, cited the
new guidance related to stablecoins and investor limits as the main
reason for its exit from the Canadian market. The exchange
emphasized that the regulatory environment in Canada had rendered
its operations untenable.
Binance is not alone in its departure from Canada. Other prominent
crypto exchanges, including Paxos and OKX, have opted to end their
services for Canadian users due to regulatory pressure. However,
exchanges such as Gemini, Coinbase, and Kraken are actively seeking
authorization to strengthen their presence in the region. [GN]
BITCOIN DEPOT INC: Mooneyham Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Glenda J. Mooneyham, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Bitcoin Depot, Inc.; Bitcoin Depot
Operating, LLC doing business as: Bitcoin Depot; Circle K Stores,
Inc.; Case No. 2024-CP-40-01549 was removed from the Richland
County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on April 10, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01774-SAL to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.
Bitcoin Depot Inc. -- https://bitcoindepot.com/ -- operates as a
financial transactions processing company. The Company offers
digital financial system which helps users to buy, sell, send, and
receive cryptocurrencies with cash.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Algernon Gibson Solomons, III, Esq.
SPEIGHTS AND SOLOMONS LLC
PO Box 685
100 Oak Street East
Hampton, SC 29924
Phone: (803) 943-4444
Fax: (803) 943-4599
Email: gsolomons@speightsandsolomons.com
- and -
Derek Devere Tarver, Esq.
Lee D. Cope, Esq.
PARKER LAW GROUP LLP
101 Mulberry Street East
Post Office Box 487
Hampton, SC 29924
Phone: (843) 540-9288
Fax: (803) 903-1805
Email: dtarver@parkerlawgroupsc.com
lcope@parkerlawgroupsc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul D Harrill, Esq.
BURR AND FORMAN LLP
PO Box 11390
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 799-9800
Fax: (803) 376-2278
Email: pharrill@burr.com
- and -
Amanda Pickens Nitto, Esq.
Benjamin Charles DeCelle, Esq.
Stephen M. Cox, Esq.
ROBINSON BRADSHAW AND HINSON PA
101 N Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Phone: (704) 377-2536
Fax: (704) 339-3444
Email: anitto@robinsonbradshaw.com
bdecelle@robinsonbradshaw.com
scox@robinsonbradshaw.com
BLACKSTONE VALLEY: Faces Possible Class Action Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Blackstone Valley
Community Health Care data breach.
As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who received a notice stating they were impacted.
In a recent cybersecurity incident, Blackstone Valley Community
Health Care in Rhode Island experienced a disruption in its
computer network, resulting in the exposure of personal information
of approximately 34,416 individuals. The incident, discovered on
November 11, 2023, prompted the organization to launch an
investigation.
Upon completion of the forensic investigation on March 11, 2024, it
was determined that information compromised in the Blackstone
Valley Community Health Care data breach may have included names,
dates of birth, medical details, health insurance information and
Social Security numbers of those affected. Blackstone Valley
Community Health Care, known for providing a variety of medical
services, is now notifying potentially impacted individuals in
writing.
DataBreaches.net reported that ransomware group Hunters
International claimed responsibility for the Blackstone Valley data
breach back in December 2023 and posted 16.6 GB of stolen files on
the dark web that "anyone could access." According to the article,
some of the data was still available on the leak site as of April
21, 2024.
If your information was exposed in the breach, attorneys want to
hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to
recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with
the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.
A successful case could also force Blackstone Valley Community
Health Care to ensure it takes proper steps to protect the
information it was entrusted with.
An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to
explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions.
Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no
obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN]
BLUE RAVEN SOLAR: Costa Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Raven Solar. The
case is styled as Daniel Costa, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Blue Raven Solar, Case No.
2:24-cv-00265-CMR (D. Utah, April 11, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Blue Raven Solar -- https://blueravensolar.com/ -- offers one of
the industry's best solar loan programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
BLUEFIELD REALTY GROUP: Burton Sues Over Anticompetitive Restraint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shauntell Burton, Benny D. Cheatham, Robert Douglass, Douglas
Fender,) and Dena Fender and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. Bluefield Realty Group, LLC, Allen Tate Real Estate, LLC,
McClendon Realty LLC, Grand Strand Homes and Land Realty LLC, S.H.
June & Associates, LLC, Duncan Group Properties, LLC, Matt
O’Neill Real Estate, LLC, The Cassina Group, LLC, William Means
Real Estate L.L.C., Carolina One Edisto, LLC, Carriage Properties,
L.L.C., LPT Realty, LLC, Jeff Cook Enterprises, LLC, Silver Star
Real Estate LLC, Clardy Real Estate Inc., Axcent Real Estate LLC,
Great Homes of South Carolina, LLC, Carolina Real Estate Company,
LLC, Meybohm Realty, Inc., Carolina Realty of the Low Country LLC,
Ballenger Realty, LLC, Low Country Real Estate of Beaufort, Inc.,
Advantage Realty Group, Inc., Lake Homes Realty, LLC, Jackson
Stanley Realtors LLC, BlackStream International Real Estate LLC,
Charter One Realty & Marketing Beaufort, LLC, Charter One Realty &
Marketing Gateway, LLC, Charter One Realty & Marketing North, LLC,
The Ponce Realty Group LLC, Encore Realty LLC, Marchant Real
Estate, Inc., The Art of Real Estate LLC, Wolfe & Taylor, Inc., eXp
World Holdings, Inc., Home Services of America, Inc., HSF
Affiliates, LLC, Weichert Co., Hanna Holdings, Inc., Realty ONE
Group Affiliates, Inc., At World Properties, LLC d/b/a At
Properties Christie’s International Real Estate, Inc., Litchfield
Company Real Estate, LLC, Graham Realty, Inc., Del-Co Realty Group,
Inc., The Boulevard Realty Company, Inc., The HomesFinder Realty
Group, LLC, REsides, Inc., Home & Land Pro’s LLC, C. Dan Joyner
Co., Inc., C. Dan Joyner Enterprises, Inc., Cambridge Realty, Inc.
and Weichert Beaufort LLC d/b/a Weichert-Coastal Properties, and
Fathom Realty Holdings, LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-01800-JDA (D.S.C.,
April 11, 2024), is brought against the Defendants for agreeing,
combining, and conspiring to impose and enforce an anticompetitive
restraint that requires home sellers to pay the broker representing
the buyer of their homes, and to pay an inflated amount, in
violation of federal antitrust law.
The Defendants' conspiracy, by inflating buyer broker commissions,
has inflated the total commissions paid by home sellers such as
Plaintiff and the other Class members, causing the Plaintiff and
other class members to incur thousands of dollars in overcharges
and damages as a result of the Defendants' conspiracy.
In a properly competitive market, one not affected by Defendants'
conspiracy in restraint of that market, the seller would pay
nothing to the buyer broker, who would be paid instead by their
client, the buyer, and the total commission paid by the seller
would be set at a level to compensate only the seller broker. Even
where the seller paid the buyer broker's compensation, that
compensation would be subject to consideration offered by the
buyer, would be subject to negotiations between the seller and the
buyer through their respective agents, and, based on experience
from other developed real estate markets, would be substantially
lower than the current 2.5 to 3 percent that is currently and
typically paid to the buyer brokers.
Moreover, in the absence of the Adversary Commission Rule, seller
brokers would likely face competitive pressures to set commissions
to pay themselves and would engage in vigorous competition to lower
rates and/or provide additional services to justify their newly
transparent rates. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the
Class, sue for Defendants' violations of federal antitrust laws as
alleged herein and seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and the
costs of this lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs sold houses.
Bluefield Realty Group, LLC, is a limited liability company formed
under the laws of the State of South Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick E. Knie, Esq.
Matthew W. Shealy, Esq.
KNIE & SHEALY
P.O. Box 5159
250 Magnolia Street
Spartanburg, S.C. 29304
Phone: (864) 582-5118
Fax: (864) 585-1615
Email: pat@knieshealy.com
matt@knieshealy.com
- and -
Mitch Slade
MITCH SLADE LAW OFFICE, P.A.
Federal I.D. No. 5352
P.O. Box 1007
Spartanburg, S.C. 29304
Phone: (864) 582-4212
Email: mitch@mitchsladelaw.com
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Boyer Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluegrass Hospitality
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Lauren Boyer, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Bluegrass Hospitality
Group, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02687 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Bluegrass Hospitality Group LLC --
https://bluegrasshospitality.com/ -- offers management services.
The Company specializes in commercial dining services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lauren E. Marley, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
360 East 8th Avenue, Suite 411
Bowling Green, KY 42101
Phone: (270) 495-6801
Email: lmarley@forthepeople.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (954) 871-0050
Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
BOOHOO.COM USA: Agrees Final Settlement of Bogus Discounts Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Nishimura of Yahoo! Finance reports that Boohoo has reportedly
reached a final settlement in a protracted class action lawsuit
brought by American consumers who claim that the British fast
fashion firm employed false and deceptive pricing practices to
drive sales.
Plaintiffs Laura Habberfield, Keona Kalu, Katie Runnells, Juanita
Carmet Cachadina, Sarah Huebner, Yesenia Valiente, Veronica Walton,
Lisa Murphy, Nicole Hill and Nicole Stewart filed the class action
complaint against Boohoo on June 22, 2022, alleging that the
brand's global e-commerce sites, along with owned entities like
PrettyLittleThing and Nasty Gal, advertised "fake and inflated
comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a false
belief that the sale price is a deeply discounted bargain price."
The suit said that shoppers who visit Boohoo's site during one of
its blowout 50-percent-off sales and purchase a dress "on sale" for
$20 based on a crossed-out reference price of $40 are being
bamboozled. "This is deception because that dress has rarely, if
ever, been sold in the recent past on the site for $40," the suit
said. In other words, Boohoo's sales "aren't really sales at all,"
it added -- "They are a scam."
According to the complaint, the defendants engaged in the
"deceptive advertising and pricing scheme" in order to "lure
unsuspecting customers into jumping at a fake 'bargain.'" As a
result, the plaintiffs argued they were swindled into shelling out
on items they wouldn't have otherwise purchased.
Reuters reported this week that the fast-fashion e-tailer confirmed
that the settlement -- which was agreed upon in preliminary terms
in November -- was finalized last April 23, 2024. Boohoo said it
would "move forward without admission of liability and within its
existing legal provisions," which amounted to 17.8 million pounds
($22.4 million) as of Feb. 28, the outlet said.
According to the final settlement agreement, each of the named
plaintiffs will receive a $1,000 payout, while class counsel will
receive $3 million in attorney fees as well as costs totaling
$38,788. The claims administrator, Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC
is entitled to $1 million for settlement administration costs,
while $1.16 million will be split between the National Consumer Law
Center and BBB National Programs, Inc.
Boohoo and the other defendants will also provide one or more $10
gift cards with free shipping to consumers across the U.S. who
purchased their products between April 1, 2016 and June 17, 2022.
The settlement must be reviewed and approved by the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California before it moves
forward.
Notably, though, California shoppers are excluded from this
resolution -- though shoppers living in all other 49 states may see
restitution from the brand. That's because the claims of California
class-action plaintiffs were settled in a written agreement last
May.
That class action suit, brought by Farid Khan, Haya Hilton and
Olivia Lee against Boohoo, PrettyLittleThing and Nasty Gal in a Los
Angeles district court in December 2020, also centered on the
sites' liberal use of phony promotions to drive consumers to
spend.
While the discovery conducted in both cases against Boohoo
overlaps, the parties involved in the secondary Habberfield case
agreed to conduct supplemental discovery for due diligence
purposes.
The lawsuit saga may finally be in the rearview for Boohoo, but
turmoil appears to be brewing within the walls of the Manchester,
UK fast-fashion firm.
January saw the exit of several high-ranking brand leaders,
including chief financial officer Shaun McCabe, trading director
Sam Brocklebank, wholesale and product operations director Marie
Laskowski, and product director Claire Asher. Within weeks, it
announced the shuttering of its Daventry distribution center in the
village of Crick in England's Northamptonshire, instigating the
layoffs of 400 workers.
And earlier this month, the firm, which funneled massive funding
into the construction of its Leicester "Center of Excellence" in
2022, announced that the apparel factory is up for sale, having
halted operations in January. According to Boohoo, 100 garment
workers were laid off or reassigned as the group wound down
operations. [GN]
BOTTLE & PRESS: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bottle & Press, LLC.
The case is styled as Justin Bullock, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Bottle &
Press, LLC doing business as: Straightaway Cocktails, Case No.
1:24-cv-02717 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bottle & Press, LLC doing business as Straightaway Cocktails --
https://straightawaycocktails.com/ -- is a beverage alcohol
retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BOYNE USA: Anderson Bid for Class Notice Approval Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as
trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST; ROBERT AND NORA ERHART; and TJARDA CLAGETT,
v. BOYNE USA, INC.; BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC.; and SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris
entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
approval of class notice.
(1) The parties shall meet no later than April 26, 2024, and
confer
about designating a third-party administrator to receive the
opt-out forms.
(2) The parties shall file a status report no later than May 1,
2024, outlining the result of these discussions and a new
proposed method for collecting opt-out forms.
The Court finds that the Rule 23(b)(2) class members need not be
informed of a right to intervene or challenge the declaratory
relief sought by Plaintiffs. The Court further finds that a
paragraph regarding retaliation proves improper in the class
notice. The parties should discuss the use of a third-party
administrator to
collect the opt-out forms.
The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for approval of class notice.
The Defendants oppose the motion and suggest an alternative class
notice form. The Court held a hearing on the motion on April 4,
2024.
The Court certified the class on June 28, 2023. The Court
designated the class as follows:
"All persons and entities, other than Boyne, that: (i) own or
have
owned a unit in the Summit, the Shoshone, or the Village
Center;
and (ii) [have] participated in the Boyne rental management
program."
Boyne owns and operates Big Sky Resort and three condominium-hotels
at
the base of Big Sky Resort known as the Summit, Shoshone, and
Village Center.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rNoh1A at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRASKEM SA: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Disclosures on Salt Mine
------------------------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 12, 2024, that it settled a securities suit
over disclosures of its Alagoas, Brazil mining activities where on
May 9, 2019, the company suspended all salt extraction and,
temporarily, the operations of the chlor-alkali and dichloroethane
plants located in the district of Pontal da Barra in Maceio, state
of Alagoas.
On August 25, 2020, an action was filed against Braskem and some of
its current and former executives in the US District Court for the
District of New Jersey, in the United States, on behalf of an
alleged class of investors who acquired Braskem's shares. The
action was grounded in the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
its rules, based on allegations that the defendants made false
statements or omissions related to the geological event in its
Alagoas, Brazil mining activities.
On December 15, 2022, the parties entered into an agreement to
terminate the Class Action via payment of R$16 million (US$3
million) which was paid in January 2023. On May 5, 2023, the court
ratified the agreement without exceptions. On May 25, 2023, the
Order of Dismissal was issued, recognizing that there were no
objections to the agreement and determining the conclusion of the
case involving Braskem and the related parties. The allocation of
the amounts paid by reason of the agreement was ratified by the
court on December 13, 2023.
Braskem S.A is a Brazilian petrochemical company headquartered in
Sao Paulo. The company is the largest petrochemical company in
Latin America and has become a major player in the international
petrochemical market.
BREAKDOWN SERVICES: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Charges
---------------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus of Variety reports that Actors Access, the leading
online platform for film and TV casting, was hit with a class
action lawsuit on April 24, 2024, alleging that it illegally
charges performers for access to auditions.
The lawsuit, filed in L.A. Superior Court, accuses the platform of
predatory conduct, and of charging working actors hundreds of
dollars a year for upgrades that they hope will get them noticed.
"By exploiting actors' desire to live out their dreams, Defendant
has inserted itself between actors and casting directors, forcing
hardworking actors into paying for the opportunity to apply for a
job," the lawsuit alleges.
The plaintiffs' attorney, Ryan Clarkson, filed a similar lawsuit
last week against Casting Networks, a major site in the world of
commercial casting. Both lawsuits accuse the platforms of operating
"pay-to-play" systems in violation of California labor law.
In a statement, Clarkson said he received an "outpour of support"
after filing the Casting Networks lawsuit, prompting him to go
after Actors Access as well.
"Actors Access, a massive Hollywood institution that even predates
the internet, is guilty of the same deception – scamming actors
and taking advantage of their career dreams," he said. "It is time
that they are held accountable."
Both sites have a free tier as well as a paid subscription tier,
which offers more features. On Actors Access, the paid tier costs
$10 a month or $68 per year. The site charges $2 per submission to
those who do not pay for a subscription, while paid subscribers get
"unlimited" submissions.
The lawsuit alleges that the "unlimited" submissions claim is
misleading, however, because actors with paid subscriptions must
pay additional fees to upload media tailored to each job.
According to the suit, actors who upload more media to their
profile rank higher in the sorting algorithm used to display
candidates to casting directors.
"Thus, even for those actors able to pay their way onto the
platform, a significant casting factor becomes have they paid
enough," the suit states. "The resultant financial strain and the
emotional distress from navigating this pay-to-play system have
diminished the fair chance of talent discovery, effectively
prioritizing those who can afford to pay over equally or more
talented individuals facing financial constraints."
SAG-AFTRA, the actors' union, sought to address this issue during
last year's negotiation with the Alliance of Motion Picture and
Television Producers. The contract precludes studios from using
sites that give preferential treatment to actors with paid
subscriptions.
Actors Access is operated by Breakdown Services, which claims that
over 97% of scripted productions in North America use its casting
services. Casting sites have taken on greater importance as much of
casting has transitioned to "self-taping," a trend that accelerated
due to the pandemic.
Instead of meeting in person at a casting office, actors will film
their own audition tape and upload it to the site. [GN]
BUMBLE TRADING: Johnson Sues Over Discriminatory Policies
---------------------------------------------------------
Christine Johnson and Diane Foster, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. BUMBLE TRADING, LLC; and DOES 1
THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 5:24-cv-00740 (C.D. Cal., April 9,
2024), is brought on behalf of all heterosexual female consumers
seeking redress for Defendant's discriminatory policies and
practices via Defendant's sex- and sexual orientation-based
business model, which is arbitrary, invidious, unlawful, and
unreasonable and has intentionally denied equal accommodations,
advantages, facilities, privileges, or services based on
Plaintiffs' and the putative class's sex and/or sexual
orientation.
Nearly 40 years ago the California Supreme Court held unanimously
that businesses operating in the State of California that treat
consumers unequally based on their sex violate the Unruh Civil
Rights Act. During Bumble's account setup process, users
self-identify their gender--male, female, or nonbinary--and then
choose the people they desire to match with – male, female, or
nonbinary. This means a female user could match with men, other
women, or nonbinary persons. Virtually all dating apps allow either
user to initiate contact once the users have matched. However, on
Bumble, once the users match, Defendant imposes discriminatory,
gender- or sex-based, and sexual orientation-based rules related to
which person is required to initiate contact.
The Defendant's sex--and sexual orientation--based business model
also simultaneously prohibits heterosexual male consumers from
initiating contact with a female match. But for any male-to-male
match, Defendant's sex- and sexual orientation-based business model
allows either man to initiate contact.
Many women, including Plaintiffs, are uncomfortable making the
first move and would prefer to be approached by a man after
expressing her initial interest by matching with him. Many, if not
most, heterosexual women who match with men online want to be
pursued, not to be the pursuers. This is consistent with everyday
realities and modern culture, i.e., whether at a bar or a library
or a grocery store, when heterosexual women in the dating market
are interested in men, they generally expect and prefer men to
approach and make the first move. Thus, Defendant unlawfully and
intentionally discriminates against heterosexual women by limiting
their freedom to choose whether they make the first move, but
provides that very same freedom to non-heterosexual women, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs visited the www.bumble.com website.
The Defendant operates a popular online dating app called
Bumble.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg Adler, Esq.
GREG ADLER P.C.
35111F Newark Blvd., Suite 500
Newark, CA 94560
Phone: (844) 504-6587
Email: greg@adler.law
BUZZFEED INC: Chang Sues Over Privacy Rights Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Chih-Yuan Chang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BUZZFEED, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02753-RA (S.D.N.Y.,
April 11, 2024), is brought to prevent Defendant from further
violating the privacy rights of California residents, and to
recover statutory damages for Defendant’s violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).
When users visit the Website, Defendant causes three Trackers—the
Sharethrough Tracker, IQM Tracker, and Dotomi Tracker
(collectively, the “Trackers”)--to be installed on Website
visitors’ internet browsers. Each of these Trackers collects
Website visitors’ IP addresses. By installing and using these
Trackers without Plaintiff’s prior consent and without a court
order, Defendant violated CIPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Chang was in California when she visited the
Website.
Buzzfeed, Inc. owns and operates a news and entertainment website,
buzzfeed.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
C.R. ENGLAND INC: Lopez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Vermyttya Lopez, individually and on behalf
of all individuals similarly situated v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah
corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05294 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 9, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-02867.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that C.R.
England owes her civil penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA"), for purported failure to pay her reporting
time pay; failure to compensate her for all hours worked in
violation of California Labor Code; failure to provide her meal and
rest periods and to pay her premiums for such missed meal and rest
periods in violation of California Labor Code; failure to pay her
overtime and double time compensation in violation of California
Labor Code; failure to pay her minimum wages in violation of
California Labor Code; "derivative" failure to timely furnish
accurate itemized wage statements and to maintain accurate records
pertaining to total hours worked in violation of California Labor
Code; "independent" failure to timely furnish accurate itemized
wage statements and to maintain accurate records pertaining to
total hours worked in violation of California Labor Code;
"derivative" violations of California Labor (i.e., failure to pay
all wages owed at termination or resignation); "independent"
violations of California Labor (i.e., failure to pay all wages owed
at termination or resignation); failure to reimburse her for
necessary business-related expenses in violation of California
Labor Code; and failure to timely pay her at the time of the
regular pay check in violation of California Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Drew R. Hansen, Esq.
Seth M. Goldstein, Esq.
NOSSAMAN LLP
18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949.833.7800
Facsimile: 949.833.7878
Email: dhansen@nossaman.com
sgoldstein@nossaman.com
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Fifth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Bell Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 2, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 2, 2024, that on January 9, 2023, a class
action suit against the company and several defendants captioned
"Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foodset al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-246, in
the Western District of Texas, Austin Division was dismissed on
January 9, 2023. On February 8, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed the
lower court's judgment to the United States court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 23-50112. On February 12, 2024, the
court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Case filed in March 15, 2022 alleged that the defendants violated
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act by
allegedly demanding exorbitant or excessive prices for eggs during
the COVID-19 state of emergency. The plaintiffs request
certification of a class of all consumers who purchased eggs in
Texas sold, distributed, produced, or handled by any of the
defendants during the COVID-19 state of emergency.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the company and other defendants from
selling eggs at a price more than 10% greater than the price of
eggs prior to the declaration of the state of emergency and damages
in the amount of $10,000 per violation, or $250,000 for each
violation impacting anyone over 65 years old. On August 12, 2022,
the company and other defendants in the case filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' class action complaint.
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is primarily engaged in producing, grading,
packaging, marketing, and distributing fresh shell eggs based in
Mississippi.
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS': MESVision's Bid to Stay Bosley Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants MESVision's motion to stay the
lawsuit entitled BRADFORD BOSLEY and PATRICIA BOSLEY, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS'
SERVICES, doing business as BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA and MEDICAL
EYE SERVICES, INC. doing business as MESVision, Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00229-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal.).
On Dec. 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a
Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego, assigned Case No.
37-2023-00054940-CU-CO-CTL. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
Medical Eye Services, Inc. ("MESVision"), which provides vision
services to many members of California Physicians' Services d/b/a
Blue Shield of California ("Blue Shield"), was involved in a data
breach that included the Plaintiffs' and the class members'
personal and health information.
The Plaintiffs bring the following claims against the Defendants:
(1) negligence; (2) breach of implied contract; (3) invasion of
privacy; (4) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law;
(5) violation of California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act; (6) declaratory relief; (7) unjust
enrichment/quasi-contractual relief; (8) violation of the
California Consumer Privacy Act; (9) violation of the California
Consumer Records Act; (10) breach of confidence; and (11) breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
On Feb. 2, 2024, MESVision removed the action to the Court on the
basis that this action "satisfies the requirements stated in the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005." In the Notice of Removal,
MESVision states that Defendant California Physicians' Services
d/b/a Blue Shield of California consents to this removal.
Specifically, the Notice of Removal asserts that this action
involves more than 100 putative class members, the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000 based on the Complaint's
allegations, and minimal diversity exists between the Plaintiffs
and the Defendant.
On Feb. 9, 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") issued a Conditional Transfer Order for the present case
to a multidistrict litigation pending in the District of
Massachusetts ("MDL") (In re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 3083; In re MOVEIT Customer Data Security
Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB).
The Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Conditional Transfer
Order. The JPML issued a briefing schedule on a Motion to Vacate
with Brief in Support, with the briefing period to conclude on
April 2, 2024.
On Feb. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Remand, which
requests that the Court remand this action to state court on the
basis that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. On March 11, 2024,
Defendant MESVision filed a Response in opposition to the Motion to
Remand, opposing the Motion and requesting the Court stay this
action and defer ruling on the Motion to Remand.
Defendant MESVision contends that this matter has been
conditionally transferred to MDL No. 3083 and that there are
several other matters that have been transferred or will be
transferred to the MDL that may raise remand issues similar to the
one in this case. Defendant MESVision contends that many cases
similar to this one before the Court were or will soon be
transferred to the MDL.
Defendant MESVision asserts that deferring a ruling on the Motion
to Remand would advance judicial economy and MDL consistency, as
well as avoid duplicative litigation. It contends that any
inconvenience to the Plaintiffs is minimal and outweighed by a
greater interest in promoting judicial economy and consistency.
On March 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of the
Motion to Remand, and also opposed Defendant MESVision's request to
stay. The Plaintiffs contend that the pending JPML determination of
whether this action should be transferred to the MDL will be fully
briefed on April 2, 2024, but a stay is not warranted in this case
because federal jurisdiction is lacking. The Plaintiffs contend
that judicial economy would be furthered by quickly putting the
case in the court that has jurisdiction.
On March 27, 2024, Defendant MESVision filed a Notice of
Supplemental Authority in support of Opposition to Remand, citing
to a Northern District of California order staying a similar case
pending resolution of transferability to the MDL.
Judge Hayes notes that the Plaintiffs have made no showing that
they would be prejudiced by a stay of the case pending the JPML's
decision on whether the case should be transferred. The Court finds
that the prejudice to the Plaintiffs would be minimal, especially
considering that the briefing on the transfer issue concluded on
April 2, 2024, and the JMPL is likely to issue a timely decision.
The Defendants, on the other hand, could be exposed to the risk of
needlessly re-litigating issues before the MDL court, unnecessary
proceedings, and facing inconsistent rulings on the same issues of
fact and law pending in numerous cases.
The Court also finds that judicial resources would be saved if a
stay is implemented in this case as duplicative litigation and risk
of inconsistent results could be avoided. In fact, there is at
least one other case, which is in the briefing stages of
determining whether it should be transferred to the MDL, that
raises the same jurisdictional issues in a motion to remand that
are raised in this case (see Lew v. Med. Eye Servs., Inc., Case No.
4:24-cv-00532-JST, ECF No. 7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2024)).
Accordingly, Judge Hayes grants the motion to stay pending the
JPML's final decision as to transferability of this action. The
Plaintiffs will file a status report within seven days of the
JPML's determination on the request to consolidate this action with
the MDL proceedings. The Motion to Remand remains pending.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4www8rtx from PacerMonitor.com.
CANADA: Class Action Suit Seeks Treaty Annuity Payments
-------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Macnab, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that Lake
Manitoba and Fisher River First Nations have brought class action
lawsuits against the federal government seeking compensation for
annual Treaty annuity payments that have not kept pace with
150-years' worth of inflation, among other damages.
The lawsuits are part of a wider trend of First Nations across
Canada seeking indemnification for annuity payments that have
fallen short of the commitments they say Canada made in the
treaties. These two class actions have been filed on behalf of
First Nations and their members in Treaties 2 and 5, which cover
large swathes of eastern Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and northwestern
Ontario.
In another similar case, Canada and Ontario recently settled with
21 First Nations for $10 billion to compensate for their unpaid
share of natural resource revenues that were agreed to in the 1850
Robinson-Huron Treaty, which roughly covers the region in Ontario
between Georgian Bay and the Quebec border.
Annuity payments were a key component of Indigenous peoples'
compensation under the treaties, says Maxime Faille, partner in the
Vancouver office of Cochrane Saxberg LLP, who is counsel for the
Lake Manitoba and Fisher River First Nations.
"For which, settler society and Canada received enormous benefits
-- just incalculable benefits -- in terms of peaceable access to
this enormous and rich-in-natural-resources country that that we
call Canada."
Canada entered the numbered Treaties, which covered much of western
and northern Canada, from 1871 to 1921. Lake Manitoba First Nation
is part of Treaty 2, and Fisher River First Nation is signatory to
Treaty 5.
Under both treaties, the promised annuities amounted to $5 per year
for every member, $25 for every chief, and $15 for every
councilor.
In their statement of claim, the applicants argue that the treaties
committed Canada to ensuring that the First Nations had "the means
to ensure their survival in the face of encroaching settlement and
the host of social, economic, and personal ills brought on by
colonization." At the time the annuities for members were "enough
to allow an industrious family to buy what they needed to make a
living and survive the winter."
The applicants argue that the Crown committed to provide the same
level of purchasing power for all future generations, which was
demonstrated by the wording of the treaties: the annuities would
continue in perpetuity "while the water flows and the sun rises . .
. for your children, grand-children, and children unborn."
"These are and were -- and again, this is very much to Canada's
benefit -- permanent agreements without an expiry date," says
Faille. "They were intended to last forever. I don't think anyone
can seriously challenge that."
There is "no possible way," he says, that the parties intended to
agree to an annuity payment that gradually depreciated until it was
"basically worthless."
"There's just no possible way in which that was the intention of
either the Crown or the Indigenous parties."
The First Nations are seeking class action certification,
liquidated damages of the difference between annuities paid and the
annuities adjusted for purchasing power and special damages for the
"improper or wrongful withholding of money, due, or an allowance
for the loss of opportunity to invest the amount." They also seek a
declaration that the Crown breached and continues to breach
treaties 1 and 2, among other relief.
The claim is "tremendously important," says Aaron Christoff, a
lawyer for the First Nations. "We are talking about reconciling
these treaty promises, ensuring that the nations are receiving what
they were promised." [GN]
CARE MATTERS: Hester Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shirlene Hester, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Care Matters, LLC, and Kimberly Diaz, Case No.
1:24-cv-00956 (D. Colo., April 9, 2024), under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, ("FLSA"), the Colorado Wage Act, ("CWA") and
Colorado Minimum Wage Order No. 34 ("CMWO") for declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a
result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and others similarly
situated lawful overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of forty per week.
The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff or other Caregivers an
overtime premium of 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for all
hours worked in excess of 40 each week. weeks in which Plaintiff
and other Caregivers worked hours over forty, the additional fines
and fees paid to Defendants out of Plaintiff's and other
Caregiver's wages constitute additional wages owed. The Defendants
knew or should have known that they were not paying Plaintiff and
other Caregivers sufficient wages. Defendants knew or showed
reckless disregard for whether the way they paid Plaintiff and
other Caregivers violated the FLSA, the CWA and the CMWO, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants from January of
2023 until September of 2023 as a Caregiver.
Care Matters, LLC is a domestic limited liability company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
Sean Short, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
CARGILL MEAT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 31, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE LUVIANIO, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CARGILL
MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; And DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-00959-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Sheila Oberto entered a modified scheduling order as
follows:
a
-- Class Certification Discovery Cut-Off: Feb. 26, 2025
-- Plaintiff's deadline to file Motion for March 31, 2025
Class Certification:
-- Defendant's deadline to file its Opposition: April 30, 2025
-- Plaintiff’s deadline to file their Reply: May 14, 2025
-- Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class June 4, 20251
Certification:
Cargill operates as a processor and distributor of fresh beef,
pork, turkey, and cooked and marinated meats.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KRaKOv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Nourmand, Esq.
James A. De Sario, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 553-3600
Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com
jdesario@nourmandlawfimr.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard H. Rahm, Esq.
Timothy L. Reed, Esq.
Ethan Lai, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 442-4810
Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
E-mail: richard.rahm@ogletree.com
timothy.reed@ogletree.com
ethan.lai@ogletree.com
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Bid to Deny Class Status Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AURORA ASTRO PRODUCTS LLC,
et al., v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC, et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-03642-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered
an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to strike and granting in
part and denying in part Defendants' motion to deny class
certification.
The Parties are not permitted to re-raise arguments decided by the
Court in this Order in their briefings on the Plaintiffs'
anticipated motion for class certification, the Court said.
The Court finds that resolving the Defendants' particular motion at
this stage of litigation may aid the Parties in the proceedings
moving forward.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and a proposed class of plaintiffs who directly
purchased telescopes ("direct purchaser plaintiffs" or "DPPs")
manufactured or sold by the Defendants between 2005 and the time of
class notice, alleging conspiracy to unlawfully monopolize and fix
prices in the
telescope market.
The Plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint on Sept. 1,
2023, adding three new class representatives after the Court
dismissed the former class representative, Radio City, due to its
spoilation of evidence. The three new class representatives are
Pioneer, Steele, and Aurora Astro.
Celestron manufactures life science equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZbbB2Y at no extra
charge.[CC]
CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLODIN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, BREEDER'S
CHOICE PET FOODS, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
4:21-cv-01631-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
Order that the case proceed to the merits as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
California Subclass:
"All residents of California who purchased the Products from
March 8, 2017 through Dec. 1, 2020."
Washington Subclass:
"All residents of Washington who purchased the Products from
March 8, 2017 through Dec. 1, 2020."
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendant, its assigns,
successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities in which
Defendant has controlling interests; (iii) federal, state, and/or
local governments, including, but not limited to, their
departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections,
groups, counsels, and/or subdivisions; and (iv) any judicial
officer presiding over this matter and person within the third
degree of consanguinity to such judicial officer.
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court certify the Class
(and each of its Subclasses), appoint Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives, and appoint Fox Law, APC as Class Counsel pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
The Plaintiffs filed a complaint on March 8, 2017, which was
amended pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(B) on June 7, 2021, in response
to the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants falsely represented that
avocado is a main ingredient in AvoDerm.
Central is an innovator, marketer and producer of quality branded
products for the pet and lawn and garden supplies markets.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pBCm5B at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dave Fox, Esq.
Joanna Fox, Esq.
Courtney Vasquez, Esq.
FOX LAW, APC
201 Lomas Santa Fe Dr., Suite 420
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Telephone: (858) 256-7616
Facsimile: (858) 256-7618
E-mail: dave@foxlawapc.com
joanna@foxlawapc.com
courtney@foxlawapc.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Eye Surgeons Sues Over Cyberattack
-----------------------------------------------------
Eye Surgeons of Central New York, P.C., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Case
No. 3:24-cv-00420 (M.D. Tenn., April 9, 2024), is brought for the
Defendant's failure to secure and safeguard their information
systems from a foreseeable cyberattack.
On February 21, 2024, Change disclosed that it was the subject of a
massive data breach (the "Data Breach"). A ransomware group,
"ALPHV/Blackcat", claims to have gained unauthorized access to
Change's networks. Change suffered network outages when Blackcat
seized 6 terabytes of critical confidential and highly sensitive
information and encrypted portions of Change's networks. Millions
of patients and physicians have been impacted by the network
outages. Blackcat is a notable cybergroup that infiltrates
healthcare institutions' internal servers through vulnerabilities
in their networks.
Change stored highly sensitive information for millions of people,
including active-duty US military personnel, on its servers. Such
information included Personal Identifiable Information (phone
numbers, addresses, Social Security numbers, etc.) ("PII") and
Personal Health Information (medical, dental, and insurance
records, claims information, etc.) ("PHI"). Blackcat accessed,
copied, and exfiltrated massive amounts of this information.
Worsening this crisis, Change has not provided adequate guidance to
healthcare providers. Healthcare providers must notify their
patients that their PHI may have been compromised by the Data
Breach. And, under certain conditions, they must report this breach
to the federal government. However, Change has not provided
adequate accounts about the Data Breach that would allow healthcare
providers to satisfy their obligations. Without Change's guidance,
direction, and compliance, healthcare providers are in a state of
uncertainty.
As a result of Change's negligence, healthcare providers will feel
the impact of the Data Breach and network outage for some time. As
the outage stretched into weeks, many healthcare providers faced
the prospect of going out of business. To avert disaster,
healthcare providers are incurring extra costs from switching to
different claim processing platforms to assist with revenue and
payment management. Small and mid-sized practices are harmed the
most, as they continue to treat patients, adjust to a new system,
and pay for another service, all while they are weeks behind on
receiving payment. Despite the disruption in its services and its
failure to connect with healthcare providers, Change still manages
to collect payment from subscribers
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failures, Plaintiff
and the Class Members have suffered serious injury. Accordingly,
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated healthcare
providers who were harmed by the Data Breach and ransomware attack,
seeks to hold Defendant responsible for harms caused by Defendant's
failure to act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Eye Surgeons of Central New York, P.C. is a
professional service company organized in the State of New York
Change is a healthcare technology company that connects providers,
payers, patients, and pharmacies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514-1851
Phone: (516) 873-9550
Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut St., Ste 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Dr., Ste. 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
tnaylor@gs-legal.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL
SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all
aggrieved employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order
granting stipulation to continue various deadlines and hearing
dates as follows:
Event New Deadline/Date
Plaintiffs' Reply In Support of May 17, 2024
Reconsideration:
Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for May 28, 2024 at
1:30pm
Reconsideration:
Motion for Class Certification: June 28, 2024
Opposition to Class Certification: Aug. 9, 2024
Reply In Support of Class Certification: Sept. 6, 2024
Hearing on Class Certification Motion: Sept. 16, 2024 at
1:30pm
Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gFEu8U at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monteiro, et al., v. The
Children's Hospital Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10069 (D.
Mass., Filed Jan. 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge Julia E. Kobick entered
an order granting joint motion entry of amended scheduling order as
outlines:
-- Fact Discovery to be completed by: Sept. 3, 2024
-- The Plaintiffs to move for Class Sept. 17, 2024
Certification by:
-- Any opposition to Motion for Class Oct. 8, 2024
Certification due:
-- Any reply to opposition to Motion Oct. 22, 2024
for Class Certification due:
-- Parties to serve affirmative Expert Oct. 3, 2024
Reports by:
-- Parties to serve rebuttal Expert Nov. 4, 2024
Reports by:
-- Close of Expert Discovery is: Dec. 16, 2024
-- Dispositive Motions and Daubert Jan. 16, 2025
Motions to be filed by:
-- Oppositions to Dispositive and Feb. 17, 2025
Daubert Motions to be filed by:
-- Replies in Support of Dispositive March 10, 2025
and Daubert Motions to be filed by:
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).
Children's Hospital operates as a non-profit health care
organization.[CC]
CINTAS CORP: Employee Retirement Suit Settlement for Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation disclosed in its form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending February 29, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2024, that the settlement in
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act class suit is subject
to the approval of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.
The Company, the Board of Directors, Scott Farmer (Executive
Chairman) and the Investment Policy Committee are defendants in a
purported class action, filed on December 13, 2019, pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging
violations of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA).
The lawsuit asserts that the defendants improperly managed the
costs of the employee retirement plan, breached their fiduciary
duties in failing to investigate and select lower cost alternative
funds and failed to monitor and control the employee retirement
plan’s recordkeeping costs.
In November 2023, an agreement in principle was reached with the
plaintiffs, which would require a payment of an immaterial amount
that would be covered by the Company's insurance.
The settlement remains subject to approval of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Cintas Corporation is into men's & boys' furnishings, work
clothing, and allied garments based in Ohio.
CINTAS CORP: Tentative Settlement in Laurel City Suit for Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation disclosed in its form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending February 29, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 5, 2024, that the City of Laurel
class suit tentative settlement is subject to the approval of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit,
City of Laurel, Mississippi v. Cintas Corporation No. 2, filed on
March 12, 2021.
This is a contract dispute whereby plaintiffs allege that Cintas
breached its contracts with participating public agencies and seek,
among other things, contract-based damages.
In March 2024, and subsequent to the consolidated condensed balance
sheet date, an agreement in principle was reached with the
plaintiff which would require a one-time monetary payment related
to the contract dispute of $45.0 million, which was accrued for and
included in accrued liabilities on the consolidated condensed
balance sheet at February 29, 2024.
The amount accrued for this matter did not have a material impact
on the consolidated condensed statements of income for any period
presented.
The Company will also make certain future investments such as
people and technology.
These future investments will not be material to the Company.
The tentative settlement remains subject to confirmatory discovery
and approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
however, the Company does not anticipate any material changes in
the amounts reflected in the consolidated condensed financial
statements.
Cintas Corporation is into men's & boys' furnishings, work
clothing, and allied garments based in Ohio.
CJ BERRY WELL SERVICES: Browden Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Leland Browden, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CJ BERRY WELL SERVICES MANAGEMENT,
LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. BCV-24-100660 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Kern, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on April 8, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-at-00293.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts seven causes of action styled as
follows: Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest
Periods; Failure to Pay Hourly Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Failure
to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay
All Final Wages; and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
Andrew W. Russell, Esq.
Selwyn Chu, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 315-8200
Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
arussell@mcguirewoods.com
schu@mcguirewoods.com
COCA-COLA CO: Court Denies 3rd Bid to Dismiss Swartz Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies third motion to dismiss the lawsuit
entitled DAVID SWARTZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04643-JD (N.D. Cal.).
The lawsuit is a consumer class action concerning plastic water
bottles that are labeled "100% Recyclable," (second amended
complaint (SAC)). The Court dismissed with leave to amend two prior
versions of the complaint, concluding that the Plaintiffs have
standing to sue but that their consumer deception claims against
Coca-Cola, Bluetriton Brands, and Niagara Bottling were not
plausible under California law and the Federal Trade Commission's
Green Guides.
Judge Donato notes that the parties' familiarity with the record
and these orders is assumed, and the third motion to dismiss is
denied.
Judge Donato opines that the prior versions of the complaint fell
short of plausibility because the Defendants are permitted under
California law to make "unqualified recyclable claims" "if the
entire product or package, excluding minor incidental components,
is recyclable" through established recycling programs that are
available to "a substantial majority" of Californians.
Because the Plaintiffs focused on the recyclability of minor
components of the water bottles, such as caps and labels, Judge
Donato says their misrepresentation claims were not well-pleaded.
The Plaintiffs took a different tack in the SAC, and overcame this
shortfall. The SAC presents a consumer survey commissioned by the
Plaintiffs, which found that most consumers understand the phrase
"100% Recyclable" to mean that the entire water bottle, including
the caps and labels, is recyclable through established recycling
programs. Most survey respondents also believed that the water
bottles labeled "100% Recyclable" were "more capable of being
completely recycled" than identical products labeled simply
"Recyclable.
Judge Donato holds that these allegations are enough to go forward.
It is true that the Defendants are perfectly free to make recycling
statements within the safe harbor and as the law otherwise permits,
irrespective of consumer beliefs or understandings. The problem for
the defendants is that the Green Guides allow "unqualified"
recycling claims under certain circumstances, but the Defendants'
statements expressly qualify recyclability as "100%."
Judge Donato also finds that the SAC plausibly alleges that these
representations to consumers are different from those within the
Green Guides safe harbor, and that consumers understand them to
mean that the entirely of the bottle is recyclable in California.
The SAC also plausibly alleges that the "100% Recyclable" claim may
be false or misleading.
The SAC alleges that California recycling facilities cannot process
plastic film material, like that used to make the Defendants'
product labels, and that the labels are "disposed of as refuse" by
the facilities responsible for "more than 40% of the PET bottle
recycling that occurs in California."
These allegations allow a plausible inference that the Defendants'
products are not capable of being "100%" recycled by plants in
California, Judge Donato opines. That is enough for the deception
claims to move forward, the Judge adds.
The parties were directed to jointly propose an amended scheduling
order on April 25, 2024.
A full-text copy of the Court's Third Order dated April 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/24nwcv7b from PacerMonitor.com.
COFFEE BEAN: Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Surcharge
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that several
lactose-intolerant and milk-allergic consumers allege in a proposed
class action lawsuit that The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf has
discriminatorily charged extra for non-dairy alternatives, such as
oat milk or almond milk.
The 19-page non-dairy surcharge lawsuit says that the plaintiffs
were charged at least an extra $0.80 by The Coffee Bean, one of the
largest coffee chains nationwide, to substitute oat milk or almond
milk in place of regular milk, even though it is medically
necessary for the individuals to avoid consuming drinks that
contain milk.
The case argues that there is no material difference between the
price of lactose-containing milks and the price of non-dairy
alternatives that would justify The Coffee Bean levying the
"excessive" substitution surcharge. Further, the suit points out
that the coffee and tea chain regularly modifies beverage offerings
to, say, remove caffeine at no additional cost for those with
conditions that require them to steer clear of the stimulant.
"Defendant discriminates against Plaintiffs and the putative class
members by levying a Surcharge for its Non-Dairy Alternatives in
the form of Non-Dairy Alternatives added to its coffee-based drinks
and other beverages," the suit alleges, emphasizing that lactose
intolerance and milk allergies are disabilities.
According to the case, the non-dairy alternative surcharge can
comprise up to 17 percent of the average drink price at The Coffee
Bean. The lawsuit contends that the surcharges are not meant to
defray the costs of using non-dairy alternatives as drink
ingredients, but instead for The Coffee Bean to profit from
consumers with lactose intolerance and milk allergies.
The filing relays that various studies have shown that at least 12
percent of the population in the United States is lactose
intolerant, and more than 15 million people have a milk or dairy
allergy.
"Upon information and belief, The Coffee Bean has earned at least
$100 million dollars [sic] in the United States as a result of its
discriminatory and illegal levying of the Surcharge during the
class period," the class action lawsuit alleges.
The suit looks to cover all persons nationwide who suffer from
lactose intolerance, an intolerance to milk or milk-containing
products, or milk allergies and bought drinks or other items from
The Coffee Bean within the last four years. [GN]
COFFEE MEETS: Stores Users' Biometrics Without Consent, Moller Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA MOLLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COFFEE MEETS BAGEL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03015 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated BIPA by
collecting, storing, possessing, using, and disseminating its
users' biometric data to ultimately improve its online dating
platform, among other purposes, without obtaining written releases,
consent, or authorization from its users. In order to use its CMB
dating application, the Defendant requires all its users, including
Plaintiff, to create an account by first logging in with Facebook
account or by providing phone number. The Defendant also requires
its users, including the Plaintiff, to verify their identities by
uploading a self-photograph, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent the Defendant from
further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to
recover statutory damages for its unauthorized collection, storage,
use, and dissemination of individuals' biometrics.
Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc. is an internet-based dating and social
networking service and application company with its principal place
of business in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert M. Foote, Esq.
Bret Pufahl, Esq.
Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
1541 E. Fabyan Parkway, Suite 101
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 228-9091
Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
Email: rmf@fmcolaw.com
bkp@fmcolaw.com
kcc@fmcolaw.com
ecc@fmcolaw.com
- and -
William Audet, Esq.
Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 568-2555
Facsimile: (415) 568-1776
Email: waudet@audetlaw.com
lkuang@audetlaw.com
COFFEE REGIONAL: Extension of Class Cert Bid Deadline Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COFFEE REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00005-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order allowing the
Plaintiff 180 days up to and including October 14, 2024, to move
for class certification.
The Plaintiff initiated this action on Dec. 9, 2023 when she filed
her class action complaint and jury demand in the Superior Court of
Coffee County, State of Georgia. The Defendant filed its Notice of
Removal and removed this action to this Court on Jan. 16, 2024.
The Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction on Feb. 14, 2024.
The Plaintiff's counsel conferred with Defendant's counsel on April
12, 2024, and Defendant represented it does not oppose the filing
of this Motion.
Coffee Regional is a non-profit, acute care hospital, in Douglas,
Georgia.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b3Rg6k at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel P. Purser, Esq.
GDCR ATTORNEYS AT LAW
49 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (678) 784-3554
E-mail: jpurser@gdcrlaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Mary Kate Dugan, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
mdugan@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: Gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
COLORADO: Court Refers Wind Class Cert Bid to Magistrate Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wind v. Colorado
Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01011 (D.
Colo., Filed April 21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer
entered an order referring motion for extension of time to file
response / reply as to motion to certify class filed by Nathan
McDonald, to Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]
COLUMBIA RECYCLING: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 7
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osvaldo de la Fuente and
Victor Hugo Tapia Romero, v. Columbia Recycling Corp. and Gold Pond
Corp., Case No. 4:22-cv-00256-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
William Ray II entered an order granting the Defendants' consent
motion to modify the scheduling order as follows:
a. The initial discovery period will expire on Sept. 6, 2024.
This
discovery period will include discovery relating to merits
and
class certification issues.
b. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 will be due on or before Oct. 7, 2024, thirty days
after the discovery cut-off.
c. After the Court rules on Plaintiffs' class certification
motion,
the parties will have an additional three-month period to
complete merits discovery.
d. Expert disclosures will be due thirty days after the second
discovery cut-off, rebuttal expert disclosures will be due
within 30 days of the expert disclosure deadline, with an
additional 30 days following the rebuttal deadline for expert
discovery.
e. Cross motions for summary judgment will be due 30 days after
the
expert discovery cut-off.
Columbia Recycling recycles plastic, textile, and post consumer
carpet waste streams.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pafJoS at no extra
charge.[CC]
COOLSYS LIGHT: Zimmerman Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joshua Zimmerman, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
COOLSYS LIGHT COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24CV002176 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on April 8, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00429.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts 10 causes of action arising out
of his employment with Defendant: failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods;
failure to permit rest periods; failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statement; failure to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment; failure to reimburse business expenses;
failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to keep
requisite payroll records; and violations of California Business &
Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
12760 High Bluff Drive, Suite 240
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (619) 848.2523
Facsimile: (949) 732.6501
Email: ellen.bronchetti@gtlaw.com
CORPORATE CLIENT: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corporate Client
Services LLC. The case is styled as Erica Cardenas, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corporate Client
Services LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-20647-CMA (S.D. Fla., April 11,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Corporate Client Services -- https://corpclientservices.com/ -- is
a Business Debt Settlement Company.[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.
COLEMAN, PLLC
66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: (877) 333-9427
Email: law@stefancoleman.com
CROCS INC: Bid for Additional Customer Complaints Discovery Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA VALENTINE, et al.,
v. CROCS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07463-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Peter Kang entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' request
for additional discovery relating to customer complaints.
However, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are entitled to, and
should be given an opportunity to review, the documents and/or
materials used by Defendant to generate the spreadsheet of customer
complaints.
Under Rule 34, a responding party has no option to produce only a
"summary" of the documents responsive to a request.
Documents must either be produced as they are kept in the ordinary
course of business or organized and labeled to correspond to the
categories in the request.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' request for additional
discovery of customer and retailer complaints regarding shrinkage
beyond those already produced by the Defendant, even if relevant,
is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the
case.
The case is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiffs
against the Defendant concerning "shoes that the Defendant sells
made of 90% or more Croslite (TM) material."
Crocs is an American footwear company that manufactures and markets
the Crocs brand of foam footwear.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r9QwUe at no extra
charge.[CC]
DEN-MAT HOLDINGS: Vaughn Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lakeysha Vaughn, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. DEN-MAT HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case
No. 24CV01042 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, in and for the County of Santa Barbara, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
April 8, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02844.
The Complaint asserts the following Class Action Claims: Unpaid
Minimum Wages in Violation of California Labor Code; Unpaid
Overtime in Violation of California Labor Code; Unpaid Meal Period
Premiums in Violation of California Labor Code; Unpaid Rest Period
Premiums in Violation of California Labor Code; Wages Not Timely
Paid During Employment in Violation of California Labor Code;
Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of
California Labor Code; Untimely Final Wages in Violation of
California Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business
Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code; and Unfair
Competition in Violation of California Business & Professions
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Khatereh Sage Fahimi, Esq.
Warsame Y. Hassan, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101.3577
Phone: 619.232.0441
Fax No.: 619.232.4302
Email: sfahimi@littler.com
wyhassan@littler.com
DIAMOND SECURITY: Bid for Conditional Status in Shariff Due May 27
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAHAMMAD SHARIFF,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
v. DIAMOND SECURITY SERVICES LTD., Case No. 1:24-cv-00008-LJL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered a case management
plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) April 26,
2024
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall
be completed no later than:
-- All fact discovery is to be completed no later Aug. 12,
2024
than:
-- Plaintiff's motion for conditional May 27, 2024
certification due by:
Diamond provides armed and unarmed security services and expertise
to private and public clients.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qFskcJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
DING FENG LIN: Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Esposorio Gomez Cruz, Jose Reynaldo Perez a.k.a Junior, Juan
Luna, and Rufino Flores Godines, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. DING FENG LIN CONSTRUCTION LLC (D/B/A
DING FENG LIN CONSTRUCTION LLC) and HE SHUN CHEN, Case No.
1:24-cv-02657 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2024), is brought for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the
"NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other
similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy
and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers at the
construction company.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company,
located in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Ding Feng Lin
Construction LLC."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
DISCOPYLABS: Hart Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Orland Hart, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DISCOPYLABS, a California Corporation doing business as
DCL Logistics; D.C.L. Logistics LLC., a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24CV071022 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 9, 2024), is
brought against the Defendants for 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; failure to
indemnify; violation of labor code§ 227.3; 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 Defendant as a non-exempt
employee.
DisCopyLabs is a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jef@tomorrowlaw.com
DOLE PACKAGED: Court Narrows Claims in Broussard Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
entitled SHAMEA BROUSSARD, et al., Plaintiffs v. DOLE PACKAGED
FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-03320-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
On July 3, 2023, Plaintiffs Shamea Broussard and Michael Schirano
brought a consumer class action complaint against Defendant Dole
Packaged Foods, LLC, concerning their labeling of various fruit
parfaits, gels, and juice products. The products at issue include
(a) Fruit Bowls in Gel, (b) Fruit Bowl Parfaits, (c) Fruit Bowls in
Juice, (d) Fridge Packs, (e) Canned Fruit in Heavy Syrup, (f)
Canned Fruit in Light Syrup, (g) Canned Juices, and (h) "Fruitify"
Beverages (collectively, the "Products").
Though the labels of the Products vary, the Plaintiffs challenge as
misleading four statements that appear in different combinations on
the Products' labels: (1) "It's our promise to provide everyone,
everywhere with good nutrition!"; (2) "Dole Fruit Bowls(R) seal in
goodness and nutrition."; (3) "Vitamin C is an antioxidant that
helps support a healthy immune system."; and (4) "Vitamin C to
support a healthy immune system." (collectively, the
"Representations").
The Plaintiffs allege that the Representations are designed to
convince consumers that the Products are healthy, but that this
impression is false and misleading because the Products derive at
least 29% and up to 96% of their calories from sugar (either added
or "free" sugar, which is processed sugar that is "not encased in
the food matrix" of the food from which it is derived, and which
the Plaintiffs argue "act in a physiologically identical manner to
added sugars." This, they allege, is an amount that is allegedly
"toxic" to the human body, definitionally not healthy, and far
above the maximum amount recommended for consumption by
"authoritative" medical bodies.
The Plaintiffs allege, with citations to medical journals and
websites, that consumption of free or added sugar ("FA sugar") is
associated with increased risk of a variety of maladies. Even
though the Representations are positioned near the Products'
nutrition labels, the Plaintiffs allege that the nutrition label is
"an inadequate tool for helping people to plan diets," partially
because "it provides no information on the level of processing of a
food or how that processing affects the healthfulness of the food."
As a result, the Plaintiffs say consumers purportedly lack the
information they need to correct the impression generated by the
Representations (i.e. that the Products are beneficial to health).
The Plaintiffs bring 10 causes of action against the Defendant. On
behalf of the putative nationwide class and California subclass,
the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), the False Advertising Law ("FAL"), the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), as well breaches of express and implied
warranties. On behalf of the New York subclass, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendant's conduct constitutes an unfair and
deceptive business practice and false advertising. And finally, on
behalf of the nationwide class and the two state subclasses, the
Plaintiffs assert unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation,
and intentional misrepresentation claims.
On Sept. 12, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' class action complaint in its entirety. On Jan. 11,
2024, the Defendant filed a motion to stay discovery.
The Defendant moves the Court to take judicial notice of various
materials, including (1) the labels for 13 of the Products, (2)
dictionary definitions of "nourishment" and "nutrition," (3)
contents from the Federal Register, and (4) regulatory guidance
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") website. The
Court grants the Defendant's requests, which are all unopposed.
In its motion to dismiss, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs
lack both statutory standing for their consumer protection claims
and Article III standing for their injunctive relief claims. The
Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that they have adequately pled
statutory standing under consumer protection statutes, but
determines that they have not sufficiently pled an entitlement to
injunctive relief under Article III.
Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly allege that
they were exposed to labels that supposedly touted the healthiness
of the Products in a misleading manner; that the perceived
healthiness of the Products allowed the Defendant to sell them at a
higher price (because consumers are allegedly willing to pay more
for healthy foods); and that the Plaintiffs would not have
purchased the Products or would have paid less for them absent the
misleading branding.
At this stage, Judge Gilliam says it is enough that the Plaintiffs
allege a plausible theory for the premium (i.e., the label's
allegedly misleading invocation of healthiness), and causally
connect that misleading labeling to their purchase. Accordingly,
the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have statutory standing under
the UCL, FAL, CLRA and GBL to pursue their claims, and denies the
Defendant's motion to dismiss on this basis.
The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek
injunctive relief. On this point, the Court agrees. To the extent
the Products continue consisting of anything other than just intact
fruit, the Court is skeptical of the notion that the Plaintiffs
could "reasonably, but incorrectly" assume improvement of the
Products. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief.
The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiffs' claims based on two
of the Representations are preempted, namely those that
characterize the effect of vitamin C on the immune system: the
Fruitify statement and the Antioxidant Statement.
The Court agrees with the Defendant that the Fruitify statement and
Antioxidant Statement are preempted and cannot serve as a basis for
the Plaintiffs' other claims. However, it finds that the
Plaintiffs' omission-based claims are not preempted.
While the Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that were it subject to
the policy, the Defendant would bear the burden of demonstrating
that it fortified the Products within the parameters specified by
Section 104.20, it was the Plaintiffs' duty in the first instance
to adequately plead that the provision both applies and was
violated.
The Court, therefore, concludes that in the absence of a well-pled
violation of the fortification (or other) policy, the Antioxidant
Statement is a preempted implied content claim. It, accordingly,
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss on this ground and finds
the Plaintiffs' claims that rely on the Defendant's use of this
statement preempted.
According to the Defendant, since the FDA does not require that
products containing naturally occurring or added sugar bear a
warning, the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendant had a "duty to
disclose" information about the alleged dangers of sugar
consumption is preempted as a non-identical requirement under the
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA").
Since the Court does not read the Plaintiffs' theory as seeking to
impose a non-identical requirement, it declines to dismiss on this
basis. While the Court does not ultimately find the alleged
omission actionable, it concludes that any omission-based claims
are not preempted. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss on this basis.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' UCL, FAL, and CLRA
claims fail because the challenged statements are puffery and would
not deceive reasonable consumers as a matter of law. The Court
agrees. Here, however, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not
plausibly alleged that the Representations mislead reasonable
consumers as to the healthfulness of the product.
Finally, the Plaintiffs' omission-based claims are nonstarters for
the same reason: having concluded that the "good nutrition" and
"goodness and nutrition" Representations do not imply a
representation concerning the general healthiness of the Products,
the Court finds that no additional, curative disclosure is required
to address the adverse health effects of sugar. The omission of
such a disclosure is, therefore, not actionable. Accordingly, the
Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' UCL,
FAL, and CLRA claims.
The Court also grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' additional claims, including UCL Claim, Express and
Implied Warranty Claims, Negligent Misrepresentation Claim,
Intentional Misrepresentation Claim and Unjust Enrichment Claim.
The Defendant also seeks to stay discovery until 30 days after the
Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
Having found that the underlying motion to dismiss warrants
dismissal of the complaint in its entirety, as the Defendant urged,
the Court believes it is sounder practice to determine whether
there is any reasonable likelihood that the Plaintiffs can
construct a claim before forcing the parties to undergo the expense
of discovery. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is good cause
under Rule 26(c) to temporarily stay discovery until otherwise
ordered.
Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court further grants the
Defendant's motion to stay. Since the Court cannot conclude that
amendment would be futile, the Plaintiffs may file an amended
complaint within 21 days of the date of this order.
The Court further sets a telephonic case management conference on
May 21, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. and directs the parties to submit a
joint case management statement by May 14, 2024. All counsel will
use the following dial-in information to access the call: Dial-In:
888-808-6929; Passcode: 6064255.
All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for a telephonic case
management conference are required to dial in at least 15 minutes
before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy. For call
clarity, parties will not use speaker phone or earpieces for these
calls, and where at all possible, parties will use landlines.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc4rvu45 from PacerMonitor.com.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Bid Amend to Scheduling Order Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARD BROCKINGTON, v.
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-06666-LJL (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff Leonard Brockington requests to amend
the operative Scheduling Order.
Accordingly, the Court extends the deadline for the Plaintiff to
make the Motion for Class Certification to May 20, 2024.
Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification is due by June 20,
2024.
Dollar General is an American chain of discount stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4rSu7c at no extra
charge.[CC]
DOWNEAST OUTFITTERS: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Downeast Outfitters,
Inc. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Downeast Outfitters, Inc., Case
No. 1:24-cv-02620 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Downeast Outfitters Inc. -- https://www.downeastbasics.com/ --
retails and distributes casual and outdoor apparels. The Company
offer t-shirts, dresses, skirts, tops, denim, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Class Action Over 'Risk-Free' Bets
--------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Graf of Claims Journal reports that DraftKings Inc. was hit
with a class-action lawsuit accusing the sports betting website of
misleading new users into believing their first wager would be risk
free.
Advertisements promised DraftKings customers that if they lost
their "risk-free bet," instead of having to pay up, they'd be
credited with a "free bet." But customers who won with this credit
were paid less than half what they'd have made placing the same
wager with cash, according to the lawsuit filed last week in New
York federal court.
"The difference renders the supposed ‘risk-free' promotion
anything but risk free," according to the complaint.
A representative for DraftKings didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment.
Samantha Guery, who filed the complaint, alleged DraftKings created
the promotion to win over new or unsophisticated gamblers most
likely to lose money. The promise of a risk-free bet was especially
appealing to newcomers who might have a "natural resistance" to
gambling, Guery claimed.
"After DraftKings lured users into opening accounts based on the
promise of Risk-Free Bets, many new users discovered their money
was indeed at risk," according to the complaint.
DraftKings didn't tell customers that the risk-free bet would
actually become a "far less valuable" "free bet," according to the
complaint, which notes that several state regulators have cracked
down on the use of misleading language by sportsbooks.
Guery is seeking unspecified damages on behalf of other DraftKings
users who lost their risk-free bets in New York.
The case is Guery v. DraftKings, Inc., 24-cv-02921, US District
Court, Southern District of New York. [GN]
DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Ct. Endorses Granting Bid to File Amended Answer
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN PETRI, et al., v.
DRIVE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-20510-CPO-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal
recommends granting the Defendants' motion for leave to file an
amended Answer.
The Court said that Green's claim is predicated on Garden State's
obligation to pay her total-loss claim. That requires proof that
each condition of the contract—including the truth of the address
listed—was satisfied. In other words, the same facts that
establish Defendants' liability also establish the validity of the
Defendants' proposed counterclaims.
The Plaintiffs in this putative class action seek damages from two
automobile insurance companies that allegedly undervalued the
total-loss claims of their insured vehicles.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants "artificially
decrease[d] the market value of the comparable vehicles [in the
market valuation report]" by applying an arbitrary "projected sold
adjustment" variable, thereby "decreasing the amount Defendants
[were] required to pay to their insureds" under the policies and
New Jersey law.
The Plaintiffs assert that Defendants' evaluation methodologies are
"arbitrary and capricious," conflict with the plain terms of their
insurance contracts, and violate New Jersey law.
Drive New offers property and casualty insurance products.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated April 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TblaWR at no extra
charge.[CC]
ENVOY MEDICAL: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
fox4kc.com reports Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law
firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of Envoy Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: COCH)
resulting from allegations that Envoy may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Envoy securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21369 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 19, 2023, Envoy disclosed in a
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that "[o]n
December 14, 2023, the audit committee (the 'Audit Committee') of
the board of directors of Envoy . . . concluded that the Company's
previously issued unaudited interim financial statements included
in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2023 (the 'Previous Financial
Statements' and such period, the 'Affected Period'), should no
longer be relied upon."
Envoy stated that "[t]he determination relates to the Company's
interpretation of the accounting guidance applicable to the forward
purchase agreement, dated April 17, 2023, by and among the Company,
Envoy Medical Corporation, Meteora Special Opportunity Fund I, LP,
Meteora Capital Partners, LP, Meteora Select Trading Opportunities
Master, LP and Meteora Strategic Capital, LLC (as amended to date,
the 'FPA'). The Company expects to restate the accounting treatment
of the FPA for the Affected Period to reclassify the prepayment
amount [.]" Envoy further stated "that the error above is
consistent with the Company's existing material weaknesses in
internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2023,
as previously disclosed in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023."
On this news, Envoy's stock price fell $0.27 per share, or 10%, to
close at $2.25 per share on December 20, 2023.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
EPOCH EVERLASTING: Class Cert Opposition Extended to May 17
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES,
individually and on behalf of all others situated, v. EPOCH
EVERLASTING PLAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, TARGET
CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order granting joint
stipulation to extend certain briefing deadlines and hearing on
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The briefing deadlines and hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be adjusted as set forth below:
Current Date Proposed
Date
Deadline to File Opposition to May 3, 2024 May 17,
2024
Motion for Class Certification:
Deadline to File Reply re May 17, 2024 June 7,
2024
Motion for Class Certification:
Hearing on Motion for Class June 10, 2024 June 24,
2024
Certification:
Epoch is creates innovative toys and playsets.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E00itx at no extra
charge.[CC]
EPOCH EVERLASTING: Plaintiffs Can Seal Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES,
individually and on behalf of all others situated, KAREN SANTOS,
individually and on behalf of all situated, v. EPOCH EVERLASTING
PLAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, TARGET
CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' application to file under seal plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and supporting exhibits.
The following unredacted documents shall be filed under seal
pursuant to Local Rule 79-5: Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification only, the redacted version of which is presently
filed at ECF No. 63-1.
Epoch is a manufacturer and distributor of entertaining products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OyZUJC at no extra
charge.[CC]
ERNEST HEALTH: Lara Files Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ernest Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Joe Lara, Laurie Cook, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ernest Health,
Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00883-X (N.D. Tex., April 10, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Ernest Health -- https://ernesthealth.com/ -- is a network of
rehabilitation and long-term acute care hospitals.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Robinson Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA
-------------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all otheres
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-02163-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 11,
2024) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case
is assigned to Judge Donna M. Ryu.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. operates as an information
services company. The Company offers credit information, analytical
tools, and marketing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julie Pollock, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
505 Montgomery St, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 906-0684
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
Email: jpollock@bm.net
- and -
John G. Albanese, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5999
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
Email: jalbanese@bm.net
FCA US: Court Tosses All Claims in Tarsio Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismisses without prejudice all claims filed
in the lawsuit titled ANTHONY TARSIO, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-09993-NSR (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Anthony Tarsio filed this action on Nov. 23, 2022,
individually and on behalf on behalf of a putative class consisting
of all persons in the United States and its territories, who
purchased or leased any 2022 Ram 1500, Ram 2500, and Ram 3500
Chassis Cab Vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
less than 10,000 pounds (collectively, "Vehicles"). The Vehicles
are designed, manufactured, warranted, marketed and sold by
Defendant FCA US LLC ("Defendant") and Stellantis N.V. f/k/a Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles N. V.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Vehicles were built with a defective
rearview camera system and asserts violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (Count I); fraud by omission/fraudulent concealment
(Count II); violations of N.Y. G.B.L. Section 349 (Count III);
violation of N.Y. G.B.L. Section 350 (Count IV); breach of implied
warranty of merchantability (Count V); breach of express warranty
(Count VI); fraud/fraudulent concealment (Count VII); and unjust
enrichment (Count VIII).
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2),
and 12(b)6), the Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint. For
reasons discussed in this Opinion & Order, the Court grants the
Defendant's Motion.
In its Motion, the Defendant seeks to dismiss all the causes of
action in the Complaint on standing grounds.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to allege
plausibly a concrete, imminent injury that is traceable to the
Defendant's conduct. The Court, therefore, dismisses all the
Plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Court does not reach the Defendant's arguments
that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's
claims against the Defendant or that the Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
The Court holds that the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
allege an injury due to overpaying for the Vehicle. The Plaintiff
alleges that he and the other putative class members would not have
purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them if
the Defendant did not conceal material information about the
existence of the alleged Defect.
Moreover, Judge Roman explains, the Plaintiff does not allege that
he or any other putative class member experienced any problem
related to rear-camera functionality after receiving the free
recall repair. It is, therefore, unclear how the Plaintiff can
demonstrate injury in light of the Defendant's offer to completely
repair the alleged Defect.
The Plaintiff's theory of injury involving diminished value and
decreased performance is not credible because his allegations that
the Vehicles are worth less or perform worse are conclusory and
unsupported by any facts, Judge Roman opines. The Plaintiff also
argues that lost or diminished use, enjoyment and utility of the
Vehicles establish an injury. Once again, Judge Roman says, this
allegation is conclusory and devoid of any factual support.
The Plaintiff seeks an injunction against further deceptive
distribution, sales, and lease practices, a voluntary recall, an
order compelling the Defendant to reform its warranty to cover the
injury alleged. Judge Roman points out that there is no need for
the Court to order a recall when the Defendant, prior to the filing
of this lawsuit, has already initiated one.
Without a concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the
Defendant's alleged wrongdoing, Judge Roman says the Plaintiff
cannot sustain his claim. The Court, therefore, dismisses the
Complaint for lack of standing, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). However,
because the Plaintiff could allege additional facts to establish
standing, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to amend.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Complaint and dismisses all claims without prejudice.
The Plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint as to
all claims. If the Plaintiff chooses to do so, he will have until
April 29, 2024, to file an Amended Complaint. The Defendant is then
directed to answer or otherwise respond by May 13, 2024.
If the Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within the time
allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, any
claims dismissed without prejudice by this Order will be deemed
dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate the motion at ECF No. 16.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated April 8,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3heekh9j from
PacerMonitor.com.
FHI LLC: Farias Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Geraldo Farias, on his behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. FHI, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No.
8:24-cv-00877 (M.D. Fla., April 9, 2024), is brought to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages owed to Plaintiff under the
Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938 ("FLSA").
Due to the following policies and procedures, Plaintiff, and others
who were similarly situated, were deprived of wages for hours
actually worked: Defendant required Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees to work prior to their regularly scheduled
shifts and before they were clocked in; Defendant required
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to clock out at the end
of the day and remain onsite performing unpaid work; and Defendant
manually edited Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees' time
cards to remove hours in order to reduce and/or eliminate overtime
hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Polk County, Florida.
FHI, LLC, is a Foreign Limited Liability Company that operates and
conducts business in Polk County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Phone: (954) 617-6017
Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com
FLORIDA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Faulty Renewal Forms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ganny Belloni of Bloomberg Law reports that a federal court cleared
the way for a class action challenging the adequacy of notices used
by Florida to terminate benefits for hundreds of thousands of the
state's Medicaid recipients.
In an order released on April 23, 2024, the US District Court for
the Middle District of Florida certified class status to all future
and past beneficiaries in Florida issued written notices that don't
identify the income eligibility threshold used in their termination
of Medicaid benefits.
The court also certified a subclass for those who received written
notices that failed to provide a designated reason for their
coverage termination or included reasons . . .. [GN]
FLUENT INC: Settlement in Berman Suit Gets Court OK
---------------------------------------------------
Fluent Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 2, 2024 that the company has been named in a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) class action
captioned "Daniel Berman v. Freedom Financial Network," which was
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California in 2018. The parties entered into a
settlement agreement which the court approved.
On May 31, 2023, the parties entered into an Amended Class Action
Settlement Agreement, which includes injunctive provisions and
payment to plaintiffs of $9.75 million for legal fees and a
consumer redress fund. On July 28, 2023, the court preliminarily
approved the settlement and the company contributed $3.1 million,
payable following the final approval of the settlement. The final
approval of the settlement agreement was filed on February 23,
2024, with payment required last March 15, 2024.
Fluent, Inc. is into digital marketing services, primarily customer
acquisition services by operating highly scalable digital marketing
campaigns, digital media properties and auxiliary syndicated
performance marketplace products.
FRONT PORCH: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by May 17
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA RAINES, v. FRONT
PORCH COMMUNITIES AND SERVICES, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana Sabraw
entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for extension
of time to file an opposition to the motion for class certification
as follows:
-- Defendants shall file their Opposition to the Motion for Class
Certification on May 10, 2024.
-- Plaintiffs shall file their Reply on May 17, 2024.
-- The hearing remains scheduled for May 24, 2024, at 1:00 P.M. in
Courtroom 13A.
Front is a not-for-profit system that supports communities,
programs, and services nationwide.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qDgFcl at no extra
charge.[CC]
GARDAWORLD CASHLINK: Sued Over Failure to Secure Information
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Gawronski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GARDAWORLD CASHLINK, LLC d/b/a GardaWorld Cash U.S.,
Case No. 0:24-cv-60555-DSL (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2024), is brought
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its employees.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual
understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure--was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed due
to the Data Breach. GardaWorld collected and maintained certain
personally identifiable information and protected health
information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are
(or were) employees at Defendant.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, dates of birth, driver's
license numbers, and Social Security numbers ("personally
identifiable information" or "PII") and health insurance
information, which is protected health information ("PHI," and
collectively with PII, "Private Information") as defined by the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
("HIPAA"). The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach
was exfiltrated by cyber criminals and remains in the hands of
those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value
to identity thieves.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect consumers' Private Information from
a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Moreover, upon
information and belief, Defendant was targeted for a cyber-attack
due to its status as a financial company that collects and
maintains highly valuable Private Information on its systems.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps
to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and
Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. The
Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because
of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private Information
that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and
acquired by data thieves, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees at
Defendant.
The Defendant provides "cash management solutions for financial
institutions and consumer businesses."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (786) 879-8200
Fax: (786) 879-7520
Email: mweekes@milberg.com
GATOS SILVER: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Law Times, reports that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice has approved a settlement agreement in a
securities class action, paving the way for the resolution of
claims against multiple defendants involved in alleged securities
misrepresentations.
In Przybylska v. Gatos Silver, Inc., 2024 ONSC 2196, the court
approved a $1,000,000 settlement with Tetra Tech and its two
employees, concluding a segment of the litigation surrounding
inaccuracies in mineral reserve statements reported by Gatos
Silver, Inc.
The plaintiff initiated the action after discovering that Gatos
Silver, a reporting issuer, had materially overstated the mineral
reserves of its primary mine. Tetra Tech is a provider of
consulting and engineering services that prepared the technical
report in which the alleged overstated mineral reserve was
presented. The Statement of Claim alleges that the overstated
mineral reserve in the technical report was incorporated in
Gatos’s offering and continuous disclosure documents released
throughout the class period, leading to significant financial
losses for investors.
The settlement, reached after arm's length negotiations and
thorough examination by class counsel and a geology expert, was
deemed fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class
members by the court. This decision came early in the legal
process, supported by disclosure from the defendants, which helped
accurately assess the claim's merits.
The Superior Court’s approval was based on the principle that
while settlements need not be perfect, they must fairly address the
interests of all class members. This settlement provides immediate
compensation to class members, which the court found to be an
important consideration given the potential for prolonged
litigation and the uncertainties of trial outcomes.
Simultaneously, the court is processing the preliminary steps for a
proposed $3,000,000 settlement with the remaining defendants,
including Gatos Silver and affiliated entities from The Electrum
Group. This next phase involves the court granting leave for the
plaintiff to proceed under section 138.8 of the Securities Act
against these defendants, addressing claims of misrepresentation in
the secondary market.
The court endorsed several preliminary orders as part of the
preparatory steps for the upcoming Gatos settlement. These include
discontinuing certain common law claims, certifying the action for
settlement purposes, and appointing RicePoint Administration Inc.
as the administrator of the settlement proceeds. Additionally, the
court approved a comprehensive notice plan to inform class members
about the settlement details and their rights, including how to
file claims and object to the settlement terms.
In approving the settlement, the court emphasized timely
compensation for affected investors while ensuring procedural
fairness and thorough judicial oversight. The final approval of the
Gatos settlement is scheduled to be considered in two months. [GN]
GEICO: Parties Seek to Seal Joint Record Relating to Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC,
SERIES PMPI, et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et
al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00711-TDC (D. Md.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order sealing the joint record relating to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law.
The Joint Record contains extensive testimony and documents
discussing confidential private health information of individuals
protected under HIPAA, including claims data, claim file excerpts,
expert reports, and expert and fact witness testimony on these
subjects.
The Joint Record also contains extensive testimony and documents
discussing non-public, proprietary business information, including
various models developed by Plaintiffs under which they have
attempted to identify potentially actionable claims under the
Medicare Secondary Payer Act and Defendants' claims handling
systems and practices.
On March 19, 2018, the Court entered a Protective Order governing
the designation and use of confidential information exchanged in
the litigation.
Government Employees is an American auto insurance company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7rjWEP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andres Rivero, Esq.
RIVERO MESTRE LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 445-2500
E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
- and -
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
Karl Amelchenko, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
The Defendants are represented by:
Laura A. Cellucci, Esq.
Joseph L. Beavers, Esq.
Michael L. Haslup, Esq.
Alexander P. Creticos, Esq.
MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P.C.
100 Light Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 727-6464
E-mail: lcellucci@milesstockbridge.com
jbeavers@milesstockbridge.com
mhaslup@milesstockbridge.com
acreticos@milesstockbridge.com
GIGSMART INC: Refuses to Withdraw Arbitration Suits, Johnson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN JOHNSON and CHRISTI MCCRACKEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GIGSMART, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02233 (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, and violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's refusal to withdraw the
Arbitration Proceedings and acknowledge that its choice of venue
and choice of law clauses are void or otherwise invalid. The
Arbitration Proceedings seek declaratory and injunctive relief
finding that the Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate all disputes
between Plaintiffs and Defendant in Cincinnati, Ohio under Ohio law
based on Gigsmart's Terms of Use and End User License Agreements.
On April 10, 2024, the Plaintiffs advised that, pursuant to Labor
Code section 925, they are voiding the out-of-state (Ohio) venue
and choice of law clauses contained in the Terms of Use to the
extent these clauses were ever valid in the first place. Relatedly,
the Plaintiffs asked the Defendant to confirm by April 12, 2024
that it accepted and understood that Ohio law and Ohio venue were
no longer enforceable such that the Arbitration Proceedings should
be withdrawn.
As of today's date, the Arbitration Proceedings have not been
withdrawn and the Defendant has not confirmed that its out-of-state
venue and choice of law clause is void or otherwise invalid. As a
result, the Plaintiffs shouldered the time and expense of dealing
with and responding to these illegal attempts, says the suit.
Gigsmart, Inc. is a staffing company in Denver, Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Shaun Markley, Esq.
Jordan Belcastro, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
jbelcastro@nicholaslaw.org
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC DBA CHARGEBACKS911, GARY CARDONE, MONICA
EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiffs' deadline to
file a motion for class certification until a date no less than 60
days from the current deadline, i.e., to June 18, 2024, and
extending Defendants' deadline to oppose the motion for class
certification to, and including, Aug. 1, 2024.
The Parties believe that amending the Case Management and
Scheduling Order to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Class Certification until June 18, 2024 -- when the pleadings
are likely to be more certain—would efficiently conserve judicial
resources and the resources of the Parties.
An extension will allow the Parties to make argument about, for
example, predominance, with a clear understanding of the legal
claims and issues actually raised by the operative pleadings.
If the Parties are forced to litigate class certification before
there is clarity about the scope and nature of the legal claims in
the case, they may have to make contingent arguments about the need
for class certification that depend upon the disposition of the
Motion to Dismiss the SAC and Motion for Leave to File a Third
Amended Class Action Complaint. Thus, given the Parties’
diligence throughout the course of this action, an extension of the
deadline is warranted.
The Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint
("SAC") on Jan. 3, 2024. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
SAC on Feb. 2, 2024. On March 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for
leave to file a Third Amended Class Action Complaint. Both
Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the SAC and Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third
Amended Class Action Complaint are currently pending before the
Court.
Chargebacks911 is a global company fully dedicated to mitigating
chargeback risk and eliminating chargeback fraud.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pIGI0d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin M. Kneupper, Esq.
A. Lorraine Weekes, Esq.
A. Cyclone Covey, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC
17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Telephone: (657) 845-3100
E-mail: kevin@kneuppercovey.com
lorraine@kneuppercovey.com
cyclone@kneuppercovey.com
- and -
Jordan Wagner, Esq.
KIBBEY WAGNER PLLC
73 SW Flagler Ave.
Stuart, FL 34994
Telephone: (772) 444-7000
E-mail: jwagner@kibbeylaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Neal Ross Marder, Esq.
Joshua A. Rubin, Esq.
Corey W. Roush, Esq.
Robert S. Strauss Tower
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
FELD LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 229-1000
E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com
rubinj@akingump.com
croush@akingump.com
- and -
William J. Schifino, Jr., Esq.
Justin P. Bennett, Esq.
Gregory L. Pierson, Esq.
GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART,
P.A.
401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 1500
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 228-9080
E-mail: wschifino@gunster.com
jbennett@gunster.com
gpierson@gunster.com
GLOBE LIFE: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Globe Life Inc. (NYSE: GL) resulting from allegations that Globe
Life may have issued materially misleading business information to
the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Globe Life securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24072 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 11, 2024, Fuzzy Panda Research
published a report entitled, "Globe Life (GL): Executives
Disregarded Wide-Ranging "Insurance Fraud" While They Received
Millions in Undisclosed Kick-Back Scheme." The report alleged many
issues, including insurance fraud which was reported and
subsequently ignored by management. Additionally, the report made
allegations of policies written for dead and fictitious people,
forced signatures, funds withdrawn from consumers' bank accounts
without approval, and fictitious bank accounts used to fund
numerous fake policies.
On this news, Globe Life's stock fell $55.76 per share, or 53%, to
close at $49.17 per share on April 11, 2024, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN]
GMRI INC: Hearing on Bid to Deny Class Cert. Continued to May 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN GAYE, et al, v.
GMRI, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01144-L-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz entered an order granting joint motion
to set briefing schedule on defendant's motion to deny class
certification.
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file an opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Deny Class Certification is continued from April 22,
2024, to May 10, 2024.
-- The Defendant's deadline to file a reply to Plaintiff's
opposition
is continued from April 29, 2024, to May 17, 2024.
-- The hearing on Defendant's motion to Deny Class Certification
presently set for May 6, 2024, is continued to May 24, 2024.
GMRI is a privately held company that operates a chain of
restaurants.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ksEpu0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GMRI INC: Hearing on Bid to Deny Class Status Continued to May 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Parties
ask the Court to enter an order setting briefing schedule for
Defendant's motion to deny class certification:
a. Plaintiff's opposition deadline to be continued from April
22,
2024, to May 10, 2024;
b. Defendant's reply deadline to be continued from April 29,
2024,
to May 17, 2024; and
c. The hearing on Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification
to
be continued from May 6, 2024, to May 24, 2024.
On Sept. 6, 2023, the Parties filed a joint motion to stay this
action pending mediation in which they agreed, among other things,
that if mediation did not result in a settlement, the Parties would
file a joint motion requesting the Court to set a briefing schedule
on Defendant's then-anticipated Motion to Deny Class
Certification.
On Oct. 6, 2023, the Court granted the Parties' request to stay
the case pending the Parties' April 2, 2024 mediation.
On March 26, 2024, the Defendant filed and served its Notice of
Motion and Motion to Deny Class Certification, which is set for
hearing on May 6, 2024.
On April 2, 2024, the Parties participated in a private mediation,
which did not result in a settlement.
GMRI operates a chain of restaurants.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VtsesC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Herman, Esq.
Sergio J. Puche, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
E-mail: norm@bamlaw.cam
kyle@bamlawca.com
aj@bamlawca.com
jeffrey@bamlawca.com
sergiojulian@bamlawca.com
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
GRANT & BOWMAN: Horn Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Christophor Horn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GRANT & BOWMAN, INC., a California Corporation; a
Delaware Limited Liability Corporation; DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 24STCV09064 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 10,
2024), is brought alleging Labor Code violations to recover unpaid
wages, restitution, penalties, and other related relief for himself
and all other similarly situated aggrieved employees.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay all overtime
compensation and sick pay wages at the proper legal rate by failing
to properly calculate the "regular rate of pay," In addition,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' meal and rest period policies
and practices failed to allow and permit aggrieved employees to
take all compliant and timely meal and rest periods or pay premium
wages at the "regular rate of pay" in lieu thereof, Plaintiff
further alleges that Defendants failed to provide aggrieved
employees with accurate written itemized wage statements in
violation of Labor Code, failed to reimburse all necessary business
expenses, and failed to timely pay all final wages upon separation
of employment in violation of Labor Code, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendants on May 22, 2023, until
his separation from employment on October 25, 2023.
Grant & Bowman is a licensor and global distributor that emphasizes
children-focused brands and value retail channels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 975-1493
Fax: (310) 675-0861
Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
- and -
Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (818) 456-6168
Fax: (888) 505-0868
Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
GREYLOCK MCKINNON: Robertson Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
DALE ROBERTSON, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREYLOCK MCKINNON ASSOCIATES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10970-DJC (D. Mass., April 15,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information and personally
identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its information networks and servers
following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and
Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Greylock McKinnon Associates, Inc. is a provider of expert economic
analysis and litigation support, with its principal place of
business located in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
GRINDR LLC: Faces Class Action Over Users' HIV Status Data Sharing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Connor Jones, writing for The Register, reports that hundreds have
joined a UK class action lawsuit against LGBTQ+ dating app Grindr,
seeking damages over a historical case of the company allegedly
forwarding users' HIV status as well as other sensitive data to
third-party advertisers.
A total of 670 individuals have joined the class action, filed
today in England's High Court, and lawyers Austen Hays believe the
number could rise into the thousands.
The lawsuit alleges Grindr violated UK data protection law by
sharing user data without their consent and focuses largely on
alleged data disclosures that took place before April 3, 2018, and
between May 25, 2018 and April 7, 2020.
As El Reg reported at the time, researchers at SINTEF published
information in 2018 that appeared to show Grindr was bulk sending
users' sensitive information to analytics companies Localytics and
Apptimize.
This data included a user's HIV status and their last test date,
their sexual preferences, and their GPS location -- all of which
were added to public profiles by users and later gathered up by
Grindr's trackers.
The discovery that the data may have been shared with analytics
firms led to heavy criticism of the app maker, which at the time
didn't apologize for its alleged role in the furor, but did alter
its privacy policy soon after.
Its then-CTO Scott Chen said Grindr would never sell the kind of
sensitive data researchers specified to third parties, and reminded
users that any information they themselves added to their profile
would become public.
Users branded the response "sloppy," and deemed the alleged
incident to be a "gross violation of privacy." Critics said that
the information was added to a public profile in aid of meeting a
likeminded person, and that no reasonable user would expect their
data to be misused in the way it was.
Austen Hays, the law firm bringing the case to Grindr, told The
Register: "The claim filed today in the English Court states that
Grindr unlawfully processed and shared users' data with third
parties, including advertising companies Localytics and Apptimize.
This would allow a potentially unlimited number of third parties to
target and/or customize advertisements to its users. Austen Hays
further claims that these third parties either served the
advertisements themselves or acted as "adtech' intermediaries,
potentially passing on data to fourth parties.
"Additionally, the claim alleges that third and/or fourth parties
may have retained some of the shared data for their own purposes
after the advertisement had been served. It further alleges that
Grindr received payment or commercial benefits from the third and
fourth parties with whom it shared users' personal data as a source
of revenue in exchange for such sharing."
The Norwegian Data Protection Authority (NO DPA) fined Grindr 65
million Norwegian kroner in 2020 ($5.9 million at today's exchange
rate) for violating GDPR's consent rules.
NO DPA's case didn't mention any violations regarding the sharing
of HIV data or information about a user's sexual preferences.
However, it ruled that third parties had received a user's GPS
location, IP address, advertising ID, age, gender, and the fact
that they used the app, and concluded that Grindr had disclosed
user data to third parties "for behavioural advertisement without a
legal basis."
Grindr appealed the fine, but the original decision was upheld in
September 2023 by Norway's Personal Protection Board. A month
later, Grindr sued the NO DPA over the validity of its decision.
In addition to the claim brought to Grindr in the UK, the company
is also facing flak in the US, as recently as October 2023, again
for alleged data protection failings.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said in October
last year it was pushing for the FTC to probe the app maker after
finding that it was retaining user data even after accounts were
deleted -- a practice Grindr's privacy policy explicitly says it
wouldn't do.
Grindr told The Register at the time: "Privacy is a top priority
for Grindr and the LGBTQ+ community we serve, and we have adopted
industry-leading privacy practices and tools to protect and empower
our users."
It also said the "unfounded" claims were made by a disgruntled
former employee, its ex-chief privacy officer Ron De Jesus. Months
earlier, De Jesus filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the
company, which also included allegations of privacy violations.
We asked Grindr to comment on the news but the US-based company
didn't immediately respond.
Chaya Hanoomanjee, managing director at Austen Hays and the lawyer
leading the UK claim, said: "Our clients have experienced
significant distress over their highly sensitive and private
information being shared without their consent, and many have
suffered feelings of fear, embarrassment, and anxiety as a result.
"Grindr owes it to the LGBTQ+ community it serves to compensate
those whose data has been compromised and have suffered distress as
a result, and to ensure all its users are safe while using the app,
wherever they are, without fear that their data might be shared
with third parties.
"Grindr users who think they may be affected by this breach should
join the claim so that we can seek redress for them."
A spokesperson at Grindr sent us a statement:
"We are committed to protecting our users' data and complying with
all applicable data privacy regulations, including in the UK. We
are proud of our global privacy program and take privacy extremely
seriously." [GN]
GSE SYSTEMS: Settlement Deal Reached in Adams Suit
--------------------------------------------------
GSE Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2024, that a former employee of its
subsidiaries Absolute Consulting, Inc. and Hyperspring, LLC, filed
a putative class action lawsuit against the company, alleging that
the company failed to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and state law. The case captioned "Natalie
Adams v. Absolute Consulting, Inc.," Case No. 6:20-cv-01099, filed
on December 2, 2020, has been settled.
On August 22, 2023, Adams, GSE Systems, Inc., Hyperspring and
Absolute participated in private mediation. The mediation was
successful and an agreement in principle was reached before the
conclusion of the mediation to resolve and dismiss all pending
matters in exchange for a settlement payment.
The settlement agreement was executed on October 30, 2023 and will
result in the dismissal. In addition to customary terms, GSE
Systems, Hyperspring and Absolute will be obligated to make a
series of payments in 2024, eventually totaling $750,000 inclusive
of attorneys' fees and costs.
GSE Systems, Inc. is a provider of engineering services and
technology, expert staffing and simulation software to clients in
the power and process industries, providing customers with
simulation, engineering technology, engineering and plant services
that help clients reduce risks associated with operating their
plants, increase revenue through improved plant and employee
performance, and lower costs through improved operational
efficiency.
GSE SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Pharr Suit
---------------------------------------------
GSE Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2024, that a former employee of its
subsidiaries Absolute Consulting, Inc. and Hyperspring, LLC, filed
a putative class action lawsuit against the company, alleging that
the company failed to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and state law. The case is captioned "Don Pharr
v. Absolute Consulting, Inc.," Case No. 23-cv-01558-JRR, filed on
June 8, 2023. The case has been settled.
On August 22, 2023, Pharr and GSE Systems, Inc., Hyperspring and
Absolute participated in private mediation. The mediation was
successful and an agreement in principle was reached before the
conclusion of the mediation to resolve and dismiss all three
pending matters in exchange for a settlement payment.
The parties' settlement agreement was executed on October 30, 2023
and will result in the dismissal of said case. In addition to
customary terms, GSE Systems, Hyperspring and Absolute will be
obligated to make a series of payments in 2024, eventually totaling
$750,000 inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs. This amount is
included in accrued legal settlements as of December 31, 2023, and
included as a part of selling, general and administrative costs for
the year ended 2023.
GSE Systems, Inc. is a provider of engineering services and
technology, expert staffing and simulation software to clients in
the power and process industries, providing customers with
simulation, engineering technology, engineering and plant services
that help clients reduce risks associated with operating their
plants, increase revenue through improved plant and employee
performance, and lower costs through improved operational
efficiency.
GSE SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Waldecker Suit
-------------------------------------------------
GSE Systems, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2024, that a former employee of its
subsidiaries Absolute Consulting, Inc. and Hyperspring, LLC, filed
a putative class action lawsuit against the company, alleging that
the company failed to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and state law. The case is captioned "Matthew
Waldecker v. Hyperspring, LLC," Case No. 2:20-cv-1948, filed on
December 15, 2020. The case has been settled.
On August 22, 2023, Waldecker and GSE Systems, Inc., Hyperspring
and Absolute participated in private mediation. The mediation was
successful and an agreement in principle was reached before the
conclusion of the mediation to resolve and dismiss all pending
matters in exchange for a settlement payment.
The settlement agreement was executed on October 30, 2023 and will
result in the dismissal. In addition to customary terms, GSE
Systems, Hyperspring and Absolute will be obligated to make a
series of payments in 2024, eventually totaling $750,000 inclusive
of attorneys' fees and costs.
GSE Systems, Inc. is a provider of engineering services and
technology, expert staffing and simulation software to clients in
the power and process industries, providing customers with
simulation, engineering technology, engineering and plant services
that help clients reduce risks associated with operating their
plants, increase revenue through improved plant and employee
performance, and lower costs through improved operational
efficiency.
H & M HENNES & MAURITZ: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H & M Hennes &
Mauritz, L.P. The case is styled as Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. H & M Hennes &
Mauritz, L.P., Case No. 1:24-cv-02789 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP -- https://hmgroup.com/ -- retails apparels
and cosmetic products. The Company offers shirts, blouses, pants,
shorts, skirts, lingerie, swim wear, sleep wear, socks, shoes,
jackets, coats, blazers, waistcoats, sweaters, and accessories to
teenagers, men, women, and children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
HILCO REDEVELOPMENT: Judge OKs $12.25MM Dust Storm Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Chase, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that thousands
of Little Village residents are eligible for payments after a
federal judge approved a more than $12 million class-action
settlement Monday, April 22, for the botched implosion at a former
coal plant that left the community blanketed in dust in 2020.
Hilco Redevelopment and its subcontractors consented to the
settlement, which will thwart potential future lawsuits from those
residents covered by the agreement.
Planning for the implosion of an almost 400-foot smokestack at the
former Crawford power plant failed to contain a massive cloud of
dust that rose when the chimney came crashing down.
One resident, Elizabeth Rodriguez, told U.S. District Judge Young
B. Kim that her husband still has difficulties breathing four years
after the event. She and her family were left out of the agreement
because she was just outside of the agreed boundaries for payouts.
Rodriguez said she lives directly across the street from residents
eligible for payments for either property damage or personal
injury.
Kim told Rodriguez that although she cannot benefit from the
agreement, she is not bound by its restrictions, meaning that she
can individually sue the companies because she's not part of the
class action.
The Easter weekend implosion was a failure of the developer Hilco,
former Mayor Lori Lightfoot said shortly after the incident. Months
later, the city's former inspector general, Joe Ferguson, also
pointed to city officials overseeing the demolition, accusing them
of being "negligent" and showing "incompetence" in their jobs to
protect the public from harm.
The Ferguson report has never been officially released, though the
Sun-Times posted it in full early last year.
Kim Wasserman, executive director of the Little Village
Environmental Justice Organization, said Mayor Brandon Johnson
should officially release the report and explain how any city
employees involved with Crawford planning were reprimanded.
In his report, Ferguson recommended David Graham, a public health
official, be disciplined for his role, including possibly being
fired. Marlene Hopkins, the city's new commissioner for the
Department of Buildings, was also singled out by Ferguson for
discipline.
Lightfoot declined to discipline Hopkins. Graham reportedly
received a written reprimand.
Johnson's representatives didn't respond to requests for comment on
the report or the city officials' roles in the failure.
Hopkins was approved with unanimous City Council support last week.
Council members praised the longtime city employee, including Ald.
Michael Rodriguez (22nd), who represents Little Village.
More than 20,000 residents are expected to receive payouts.
"Our clients held the corporations responsible," said Scott
Rauscher, a lawyer with Loevy & Loevy who represented the
residents. "It's a great result."
Hilco officials declined to comment.
The $12.25 million is considerably larger than penalties Hilco paid
to the state or city over the incident.
Still, Wasserman said the amount is "pennies" to a large developer
like Hilco.
"Many communities have been gearing up to celebrate Earth Day,"
Wasserman said. "For our community, it is a continuation of the
mourning." [GN]
JASON D. BOROFF: Prince Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jason D. Boroff &
Associates, PLLC, et al. The case is styled as Maritza Prince,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Jason D. Boroff & Associates, PLLC, Boston Tremont Housing
Development Fund Corporation, Phipps Houses Services, Inc., Process
Server Plus, Inc., Enrique Diaz, Emmanuel Lanzot, Case No.
1:24-cv-02706 (D. Del., April 10, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Jason D. Boroff & Associates, PLLC is a legal services
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Grace Ranucci, Esq.
NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
100 Pearl Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 613-7578
Email: jranucci@nylag.org
KRAFT HEINZ: Lunchables "Not Safe" for Children, LaSpisa Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA LASPISA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 7:24-cv-02822 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the
New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its prepackaged
meal kits sold under the brand name Lunchables. Lunchables are
marketed primarily at and for consumption by children. The appeal
to parents is captured by the Lunchables's slogan: "foods kids love
and parents trust." However, Consumer Reports found that the
prepackaged meal kits contain high levels of lead and cadmium, as
well as phthalates. The Plaintiff and the Class would not have
purchased the product if they knew that it contained high levels of
heavy metals, the suit says.
Kraft Heinz Foods Company, LLC, is a food company with
co-headquarters in Chicago, Illinois and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
Catherine H. Friesen, Esq.
DENLEA & CARTON LLP
2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 331-0100
Facsimile: (914) 331-0105
Email: jcarton@denleacarton.com
cfriesen@denleacarton.com
LEWIS & CLARK COLLEGE: Unsworth Files Suit in D. Oregon
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lewis & Clark
College. The case is styled as Lisa Unsworth, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lewis & Clark College,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00614-SB (D. Ore., April 10, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Lewis & Clark College -- https://www.lclark.edu/ -- is a private
liberal arts college in Portland, Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 682-5600
Email: kstephens@tousley.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 13, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FRALISH, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00336-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind.), the
Hon. Judge Michael. G. Gotsch, Sr. entered an order granting third
motion for extension of all case deadlines (unopposed):
Description Current New
Deadline
Deadline
Fact Discovery Ends: May 30, 2024 Aug. 28,
2024
Expert Report (for Purposes of July 1, 2024 Sept. 30,
2024
Class Certification) for the Party
with the Burden of Proof Due:
Response Expert Report Due: July 31, 2024 Oct. 30,
2024
Discovery-Related Non-Dispositive Aug. 30, 1024 Nov. 29,
2024
Motion Deadline:
All Discovery Ends/Deadline to Sept. 30, 2024 Dec. 30,
2024
Depose Experts:
Plaintiff's Class Certification Oct. 15, 2024 Jan. 13,
2025
Motion Due:
Defendant's Class Certification Nov. 5, 2024 Feb. 3,
2025
Response Due:
Plaintiffs Reply Due: Nov. 26, 2024 Feb. 24,
2025
Liberty is an American diversified global insurer
A copy of the Court's order dated April 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SxK842 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LLOYD AUSTIN: Bid to Stay Class Cert Briefing in Arzamendi OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY ARZAMENDI, ET AL., v.
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, ET AL., Case No. 4:23-cv-00770-P (N.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order granting the
Defendants' motion to stay briefing on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification pending the resolution of Defendants' motions to
dismiss.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vIRE4l at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOVESAC COMPANY: Faces Gutknecht Suit Over SEC Disclosures
----------------------------------------------------------
The Lovesac Company disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended February 4, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2024, that on December 19, 2023, a
putative securities class action was filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut captioned "Gutknecht v. The
Lovesac Company," Case No. 3:23-cv-1640 seeking to recover damages
allegedly caused by violations of federal securities law in
connection with the restatements.
Suit alleges that all defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and
that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The complaint generally alleges that the company made
certain misrepresentations or failed to disclose certain accounting
errors related to the restatement of its financial statements and
that the company's disclosure controls and procedures and internal
controls over financial reporting were deficient. The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.
On March 11, 2024, the court appointed Susan Cooke Pena as Lead
Plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel. The court's
scheduling order provides for Lead Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint by May 10, 2024. The litigation is in its early stages.
Lovesac is a technology company that designs, manufactures and
sells modular couches, premium foam beanbag chairs and their
associated home decor accessories. It market and sell through
showrooms, mobile concierge and kiosks and online directly at
www.lovesac.com.
MADONNA: Faces Another Class Action Over Concert Delays
-------------------------------------------------------
Deirdre Durkan-Simonds and Rachel Bowman, writing for dailymail.com
reports that Madonna is in hot water, yet again, for the late
starts to her concerts.
In a complaint, filed on Friday in Washington D.C., three ticket
buyers accused her of breaking the law by arriving two hours late
to both of her shows at the city's Capital One Arena in December.
Her fans, Elizabeth Halper-Asefi, Mary Conoboy, and Nestor Monte,
Jr., alleged that while she was scheduled to take the stage for The
Celebration Tour at 8:30 p.m., the Queen of Pop didn't begin her
set until 10:30 p.m.
According to the filing, obtained by Rolling Stone, the D.C. fans
said they felt 'deceived' and had 'to leave the concerts early
prior to the concerts,' depriving them of experiencing the complete
concert that they paid to see.
Additionally, they accused the Holiday hitmaker of maintaining 'a
hot and uncomfortable temperature in the venue during her
performance.'
They also claimed she 'lip sync[ed] much of her performance.'
The disgruntled concertgoers declared that these alleged actions
represent 'Madonna's arrogant and total disrespect' for
ticketholders.
'In essence, Madonna and Live Nation are a consumer's worst
nightmare,' the lawsuit states.
At her tour stop in D.C., on December 18, the plaintiffs recalled
the mother-of-six told the crowd: 'I am sorry I am late… no, I am
not sorry, it's who I am… I'm always late.'
'Defendants failed to provide any notice to the ticketholders that
the Concerts would start much later than the start time printed on
the ticket and as advertised, which resulted in the ticketholders
waiting for hours for the Concerts to begin at the Venue,' the suit
claims.
Per Rolling Stone, 'One of the plaintiffs, Halper-Asefi, spent
$992.76 on tickets from StubHub, while the others purchased theirs
from Ticketmaster. Conoboy spent $537.70 on two tickets while Monte
shelled out $252.44 for two.'
The lawsuit cited previously examples of Madonna's tardiness.
'There have been myriad articles in the media and the internet over
the years of fans complaining about Madonna not taking the stage
for several hours after the advertised start time of her concerts,'
read the complaint. 'Unfortunately, not all people who rely on
advertising for the concerts know this.'
The complaint also noted that 'even if some ticket purchasers know
of Madonna's unfortunate history of starting her concerts late,
they do not know how late she will show-up on stage at any
particular concert, so ticket purchasers arrived at the start time
as advertised.'
Ultimately the suit calls her 'deceptive trade practices, a breach
of contract for not starting at 8:30, and misrepresentation, among
other claims.'
The plaintiffs are seeking damages and 'any other relief.'
DailyMail.com has reached out to Madonna's representative, but has
not heard back, at this time.
Earlier this month, she fired back at another group of fans that
sued her starting her concert three hours late at Brooklyn's
Barclays Center on December 13.
The lawsuit filed in January, by concertgoers Michael Fellows and
Jonathan Hadden, claimed the late starts constitute a 'wanton
exercise in false advertising, negligent misrepresentation and
unfair and deceptive trade practices.'
Court documents obtained by DailyMail.com show attorneys for the
Material Girl filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it was
illogical for them to expect her to start the show on time.
'No reasonable concertgoer - and certainly no Madonna fan - would
expect the headline act at a major arena concert to take the stage
at the ticketed event time,' the filing said.
'Fans got just what they paid for: a full-length, high quality show
by the Queen of Pop.'
Her attorney's also referenced a Facebook post by Hadden from the
day after the concert which he share a photo of the tour poster and
said, 'Caught her North American tour opener last night! An homage
to NYC! Incredible, as always! I've never missed a Madonna Tour!'
'In other words, the concert met or exceeded his expectations,'
said the filing.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued it was false advertising
that they experienced damages because the concert did not start at
the time listed on the ticket.
They said because the show started much later than expected, it put
ticketholders at risk due to 'limited public transportation,
limited ride-sharing, and/or increased public and private
transportation costs at that late hour.'
'In addition, many ticketholders who attended concerts on a
weeknight had to get up early to go to work and/or take care of
their family responsibilities the next day,' said the lawsuit.
Madonna's team argued they have nothing to back that up to and said
ticketholders who had to stay up late then get up early the next
day 'is not cognizable injury.'
'The Complaint itself concedes that Madonna fans, like Mr. Hadden,
would not expect Madonna to appear onstage at the printed 8:30 p.m.
event time, alleging that she has a "years-long history" of
"arriving several hours late to prior concerts," such that
"Plaintiffs knew or should have known that the Concerts would not
start at 8:30 p.m.,"' said the filing.
'Reasonable concertgoers also know that concert lengths vary based
on numerous factors, such as the duration of the opening act and
the artist’s set list for the night. So, they would not
reasonably expect the night to end by 10:30 p.m. unless an
advertisement or ticket says as much—and none did here.'
The plaintiffs acknowledge Madonna had health issues - she faced a
life-threatening bacterial infection last year - which caused the
original concert dates to be postponed from July to December - but
do not see that as an excuse for the delays on the night.
Despite the delay, she put on a very raunchy show and amazed her
fans while performing her 45-song setlist highlighting her
record-breaking 40-year career.
Later, it was explained the delay was due to technical issues and
had been pushed by only one hour as the opening act, DJ Honey
Dijon, took the stage at 8:30 p.m.
The Queen of Pop eventually took the stage and began her show at
10:45 p.m.
However, many of the music icon's fans took to social media to
gripe about waiting for the Material Girl hitmaker to begin her
show.
One X user tweeted: 'I don't give a f*** if you're Madonna, if
you're 3 hours late, you're just f***ing rude.'
'Concert supposed to start at 8:30. Madonna started at 11pm. Whole
arena chanting bulls*** at her lateness. Great show but went way
too late,' another person wrote, adding that DJ Honey Dijon opened
the show with 'boring house music'.
'2:30 hours late. I WANT A REFUND NOW,' another X user demanded.
'I love Madonna but it's really f***ed up how she's literally like
2 hours late for her FIRST show in the us,' another tweeted. [GN]
MARSHALLS OF MA: Au Files Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marshalls of MA,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Juliana Au, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. Marshalls of MA, Inc., The TJX
Companies, Inc., Stephen Cheung, Patrick Diaz, Case No.
1:24-cv-02662-TAM (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Job
Discrimination (Sex).
Marshalls -- https://www.marshalls.com/us/ -- is an American chain
of off-price department stores owned by TJX Companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Phone: (718) 762-2332
Email: johntroy@troypllc.com
MAZDA MOTOR: Jarvis Sues Over Defective Engine Coolant
------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jarvis, Christopher Bajwa, Ronald Belanger, and Grant
Rockwell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., and MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, Case
No. 8:24-cv-00785 (C.D. Cal., April 10, 2024), is brought arising
from the Defendants' failure to disclose to Plaintiffs and
similarly situated consumers, despite their longstanding knowledge,
that the engines in the Class Vehicles contain, inter alia, a
latent manufacturing and/ design defect that results in significant
structural weakness at the cylinder head around the exhaust
manifold, causing engine coolant leakage which results in the
engine overheating and catastrophic engine failure (the "Engine
Coolant Defect" or "Defect").
The sudden and unexpected catastrophic engine stalling and/or
failure causes the Class Vehicles to unexpectedly stop, posing a
danger to the drivers and occupants of the Class Vehicles, and
others who share the road with them, as other vehicles can collide
with the Class Vehicles after they suddenly stop moving. Not only
did Defendants actively conceal the fact that the Class Vehicles
were prone to the Defect, which require costly repairs to fix, but
they also did not reveal that the existence of this Defect would
diminish the intrinsic and resale value of the Class Vehicles.
Defendants have long been aware of the Defect. Despite their
longstanding knowledge, Defendants have been unable or unwilling to
adequately repair the Class Vehicles for free when the Defect
manifests.
The Defendants have also refused to take any action to correct this
concealed Defect when it manifests in the Class Vehicles outside of
the warranty period. Because the Defect can manifest shortly
outside of the warranty period for the Class Vehicles--and given
Defendants' knowledge of this concealed, safety-related
defect--Defendants' attempt to limit the warranty with respect to
the engine defect is unconscionable and unenforceable here. As a
result of Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business
practices, owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles, including
Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or
property and/or loss in value. The unfair and deceptive trade
practices committed by Defendants were conducted in a manner giving
rise to substantial aggravating circumstances.
Had Plaintiffs and other Class Members known of the Defect at the
time of purchase or lease, they would not have bought or leased
their Class Vehicles, or would have paid substantially less for
them. The Plaintiffs are also informed and believe, and on that
basis allege, that as the number of complaints increased, and Class
members grew dissatisfied with the performance of the Class
Vehicles, Defendants were forced to acknowledge that the Class
Vehicles suffer from an inherent defect.
As a direct result of Mazda's wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and
members of the Classes have been harmed and are entitled to actual
damages, including damages for the benefit of the bargain they
struck when purchasing their vehicles, the diminished value of
their vehicles, out-of-pocket costs, statutory damages, attorneys'
fees, costs, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs leased the Class Vehicles.
The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and/or service corporations doing business within the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison M. Bernal, Esq.
NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP
33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Email: alison@nshmlaw.com
- and -
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
Juliette T. Mogenson, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (610) 200-0581
Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
Email: mds@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
jtm@sstriallawyers.com
MEDICURE INC: Subsidiary Faces TCPA Suit in Missouri Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Medicure Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 9, 2024, that a class action claim was filed in
Missouri state court against the company's subsidiary, with regards
to an unsolicited fax advertisement which has been claimed to be in
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(TCPA).
Medicure focuses on the development and commercialization of
pharmaceuticals and healthcare products for patients and
prescribers in the United States market and sales to the Retail
Public of pharmaceutical products. Its present focus is the sale
and marketing of its cardiovascular products, AGGRASTAT(R),
ZYPITAMAG(R) and increasing its e-commerce and mail order
pharmaceutical business in all 50 U.S. states through Marley Drug.
Its registered office and head office is located at 2-1250 Waverley
Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 6C6.
MERCY INVESTMENT: Reynolds Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercy Investment
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Amanda Reynolds,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Mercy Investment Services, Inc., Mercy Education System of the
Americas, Sisters of Mercy of The Americas Mid-Atlantic Community,
Inc., Our Lady of Mercy Academy, Corp., Sister Lisa Griffith,
Executive Director; Margaret Myhan OLMA President; Patricia
DiLollo, OLMA Director of Advancement; Jane and John Doe,
fictitious names for the remaining Board of Directors members;
Board of Directors of Our Lady of Mercy Academy; Case No.
2:24-cv-02636-NJC-JMW (E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending for
Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
Mercy Investment Services -- https://mercyinvestmentservices.org/
-- is a nonprofit organization that offers portfolio screening,
shareholder advocacy, and impact investing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda S. Reynolds, Esq.
3 Harvard Drive
Woodbury, NY 11797
Phone: (516) 367-9795
Email: amanda.reynolds@rivkin.com
METRO SERVICES GROUP: Portillo Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Claudia E. Ramirez De Portillo, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. METRO SERVICES GROUP;
and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No. 21STCV14860 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 8, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 3:24-cv-02118.
On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint
("TAC"), the operative complaint as of the date of this removal.
The TAC alleges nine causes of action against Defendant as follows:
Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, Cal. Labor Code & California
Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order; Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages, Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Failure to Permit
Rest Breaks, Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses, Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, Failure to Pay All Wages
Upon Separation of Employment, Violation of California Business and
Professions Code, Enforcement of Labor Code ("PAGA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dennis C. Huie, Esq.
Sharon Ongerth Rossi, Esq.
Emily A. Murphy, Esq.
Ruby Zapien, Esq.
ROGERS JOSEPH O'DONNELL
311 California Street, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415.956.2828
Facsimile: 415.956.6457
Email: dhuie@rjo.com
srossi@rjo.com
emurphy@rjo.com
rzapien@rjo.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Tosses Rodriguez-Ocasio's Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismisses the Plaintiffs' amended complaint filed in the
lawsuit titled LUIS A. RODRIGUEZ-OCASIO; CRYSTAL BALLY-CHOONOO; and
JOYCE R. LINIS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and JOHN
DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03630-ES-MAH (D.N.J.).
Plaintiffs Luis A. Rodriguez-Ocasio, Crystal Bally-Choonoo, and
Joyce R. Linis sue Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc.
("MCM") on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated for
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15
U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.
Currently before the Court are the Plaintiffs' objections to the
Report and Recommendation issued by the Honorable Michael A.
Hammer, U.S.M.J. ("Report and Recommendation" or "R&R")
recommending dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and
Judge Hammer's subsequent denial of the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the Report and Recommendation. The Court adopts
in full Judge Hammer's recommendation to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint with prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
As alleged in the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs incurred or
owed certain financial obligations arising from certain accounts,
which were primarily for their personal, family, or household
purposes (the "Accounts"). They further maintain that the Accounts
were assigned to or placed with MCM for collection when they were
past-due and in default. MCM sought to collect those debts by
mailing collection letters to the Plaintiffs ("Collection
Letters").
Those letters, the Amended Complaint alleges, were the first
communications between MCM and the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
allege that the Collection Letters failed to include specific
language mandated by Section 1692g(a)(5) in an initial written
communication between a debt collector and a consumer. They allege
that it is the policy and practice of MCM to send initial written
communications without the Missing Statement.
In bringing their claim under the FDCPA, the Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class consisting of:
All natural persons with an address within . . . the State
of New Jersey, to whom, from May 20, 2016 through the final
resolution of this case, the Defendant sent one or more
letter(s) in an attempt to collect a consumer debt, which
failed to include the statement required by 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692g(a) and/or 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(5).
The Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against the Defendant on May 20,
2017. They filed the Amended Complaint on Sept. 13, 2017. On Aug.
25, 2021, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration. On Nov. 15, 2022, Judge Hammer issued an Order to Show
Cause seeking to determine whether the Plaintiffs have Article III
standing on their FDCPA claims in the wake of the Supreme Court's
decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021).
On April 13, 2023, Judge Hammer issued a Report and Recommendation,
which recommended dismissing the matter for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, concluding that the Plaintiffs lack standing to
pursue their claims under the FDCPA. (R&R). The Plaintiffs moved
for reconsideration of the Report and Recommendation on April 27,
2023, arguing that the newly-decided Third Circuit case Deutsch v.
D&A Servs. LLC, No. 22-1042, 2023 WL 2987568 (3d Cir. Apr. 18,
2023), indicates that they have standing to pursue their claims.
Judge Hammer denied the motion for reconsideration on May 24, 2023.
The Plaintiffs filed objections to the Report and Recommendation
and the denial of reconsideration on June 7, 2023 (Plaintiffs'
Objections), and the Defendant filed a brief in opposition. On Nov.
1, 2023, the Plaintiffs submitted supplemental authority to the
Court, highlighting the Third Circuit's recent decision in Huber v.
Simon's Agency, Inc., 84 F.4th 132 (3d Cir. 2023). The Defendant
responded to the supplemental authority brief on Nov. 16, 2023.
In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Hammer found that the
Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring their asserted claims
under the FDCPA. More specifically, Judge Hammer concluded that the
Plaintiffs did not allege a concrete injury.
The Court agrees with Judge Hammer and the Defendant: the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege a concrete injury and, thus, do
not have standing to assert their claims.
Judge Salas points out that the Plaintiffs have failed to set forth
any facts indicating that the information they claim they were
entitled to influenced their decision-making with respect to the
debt. As such, the Court finds that they have not alleged a
sufficient informational injury to confer standing.
In sum, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs do not have
standing to bring their claims, and the case must be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
For these reasons, the Court overrules the Plaintiffs' Objections
and finds itself in substantial agreement with Judge Hammer's
well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. The Court, thus, adopts
the Report and Recommendation in full. The Amended Complaint is,
therefore, dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mtjjdsw8 from PacerMonitor.com.
MORGAN STANLEY: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
streetinsider.com reports that Rosen Law Firm, a global investor
rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities
claims on behalf of shareholders of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS)
resulting from allegations that Morgan Stanley may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Morgan Stanley securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24096 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 11, 2024, during market hours, The
Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Morgan Stanley's
Wealth Arm Probed by Multiple Federal Regulators." The article
stated the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, an independent bureau within
the United States Department of the Treasury, and other Treasury
Department offices, are investigating how Morgan Stanley "vets
clients who are at risk of laundering money through the bank's
sprawling wealth-management division." In addition, the article
stated the main issues "boil down to whether Morgan Stanley has
been sufficiently investigating the identities of prospective
clients and where their wealth comes from, as well as how it
monitors its clients" financial activity. Some of the probes are
focused on the bank's international clients.'
On this news, Morgan Stanley's stock fell $4.81 per share, or 5.2%,
to close at $86.84 per share on April 11, 2024, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Settles Class Suit Over Sellers' Home Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Segers of The Union reports that the National Association of
Realtors (NAR) announced recently it would settle the class-action
lawsuit accusing the association and brokerages of inflating the
price of the sellers' homes for having to pay for both the seller
and buyer brokerages commission. What does this mean to you, the
buyers and sellers, and will this reduce the cost of real estate
transactions and home prices overall? Here are the actual proposed
changes taking place in July of 2024 from The California and local
association based on the NAR settlement agreement –
1. Buyer-side commissions will be decided by Buyer and agent via a
Buyer's Broker Agreement prior to commencing activities that may
include touring property. This fee may be paid by Seller, Buyer or
a combination of the two.
2. Listing agents will not be able to market any cooperating broker
fee in MLS; rather any such incentive may be negotiated and
ratified within the offer and acceptance process.
First off, It's important to understand what this lawsuit was
about. It was about transparency and who pays for what. In
understanding transparency let's look at how it was done
historically.
The seller paid for both their agent/broker and the buyer's
agent/broker. This was typically 5-6% of the sales price of the
property. Why, you may ask, because that's how it's always been
done and that's how I was taught. I've worked for a few brokerages
over the years and in writing a listing agreement for less than 5%,
I had to get the brokers permission as they are the ones who "own"
the listing. In effect, it belongs to them and not the agents.
Let's do a simple example regarding transparency: In the Historical
model of selling a home: a home sells for $500,000.00 at 5% costs
the seller $25,000.00. A home sale of $1,000,000.00 at 5% costs the
seller $50,000.00. What's the difference in work effort on the sale
that cost $25,000.00 more than the other? What was the seller
paying for in the extra $25,000.00 fee in the sale of the
$1,000,000.00 home? That's very hard to quantify and therefore not
very transparent.
So, could you pay less than what has been historically charged to
the seller? Sure, simply ask what you are paying for and expect a
transparent answer for their fees. Meaning, something you
understand what you are paying for in the fee structure. This is a
different business model than the current industry practices but
it's one that should be used. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has
received authorization from a DC Appellate court to look at the NAR
lawsuit settlement regarding commissions, so there could be more
changes coming to the industry than the two that will be made in
July 2024. There are many transparent business models out there so
it can be structured in lots of ways, but the result should be
easily understood by the consumer. My guess is most agents will
still ask for 2.5% of the sales price of your property as their
payment and 2.5% for the buyer's agent/broker to induce them to
show the home.
What does this mean to you in terms of signing a listing for
sellers and signing a buyer broker agreement for a buyer? It can
and should lower the cost of your real estate transaction, for both
buyers and sellers. I don't see it affecting the total price of the
property much as that's set mainly by supply and demand, interest
rates, and other market forces.
Some seller considerations: Sellers won't have to pay both brokers
after July. That's good for them. The current listing contracts
might have to be updated due to MLS changes that the property is
listed with regarding the buyer broker cooperating fee the seller
is willing to offer, usually 2.5% of the sales price. Remember that
this will no longer be displayed in the MLS. I spoke with a seller
recently and let her know that we will have to change the listing
most likely due to these changes in the MLS that affects the
contract. That's done on April 24, 2024 with a simple one-page
document called a modification of terms. This might be a good time
to talk about transparency as well. For instance, why would a
seller pay the buyer's agent/broker to show their buyer a bunch of
homes they don't own? I see paying them to show them their home.
Maybe the seller pays their agent to show the homes. Totally
negotiable.
Some buyer Considerations: Buyers will most likely have to sign a
buyer broker agreement before looking at property. You will want to
negotiate a transparent fee structure with them as it's a contract
between you and the agent on how they get paid. How long is the
contract? How do you cancel it if it doesn't work for you? Those
are important points to keep in mind. It might be a little tougher
to see homes quickly. Also, which agent gets paid to show the
homes? The seller's agent or the buyer's agent? What if the seller
is offering 2.5% to induce an agent to show the home and the
buyer's agent has negotiated a lower fee than 2.5%. Maybe the buyer
gets the difference? Or give it back to the seller to lower the
price for the buyer? Sure!
Should you use a Realtor? Emphatically, yes! An unrepresented buyer
is like representing yourself in court, just not a good idea. Since
there are more possible changes coming in the industry due to
transparency I have decided to go ahead and create my own
transparent business model that is lower priced potentially and
easy for the consumer to understand. I hope the industry does the
same! [GN]
NAVVIS AND COMPANY: Clark Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Detrick Clark, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NAVVIS AND COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
8:24-cv-00458 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on April 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00514-PLC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Navvis & Company -- https://www.navvishealthcare.com/ -- provides
end to end total population health management solutions for health
systems and physician networks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO PA
401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 S.E. 6TH Street, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 628-5793
Fax: (954) 507-9974
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Amy Lea Drushal, Esq.
Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis,
101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2700
Tampa, FL 33602-5150
Phone: (813) 223-7474
Fax: (813) 229-6553
Email: aldrushal@trenam.com
- and -
David M. Mangian, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St. Louis
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2700
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 552-6540
Fax: (314) 552-7000
Email: dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com
NAVY FEDERAL: Phlaum Sues Over Improper Charging of Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
BLANCHE PHLAUM; and JASON JONES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION;
and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00765 (C.D. Cal.,
April 11, 2024) is an action seeking monetary damages, restitution,
and injunctive relief due to the Defendants' policy and practice to
assess Overdraft or Non-Sufficient Funds Fees on items that had
previously triggered NSF Fees.
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION operates as a financial cooperative. The
Union provides financial solutions such as loans, investment,
savings, credit and debit cards, online banking, and other related
services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Taras Kick, Esq.
Tyler J. Dosaj, Esq.
THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Telephone: (310) 395-2988
Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
Email: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
Tyler@kicklawfirm.com
NORTH AMERICAN LIGHTING: Buescher Sues Over Fiduciary Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Buescher, individually, and as a representative of a Class
of Participants and Beneficiaries of the North American Lighting,
Inc. Command Plus Plan and the North American Lighting, Inc. Group
Health and Life Insurance Plan v. NORTH AMERICAN LIGHTING, INC. and
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NORTH AMERICAN LIGHTING, INC., and
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NORTH AMERICAN LIGHTING, INC.
COMMAND PLUS PLAN, and ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NORTH
AMERICAN LIGHTING, INC. GROUP HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE PLAN, Case
No. 2:24-cv-02076-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., April 10, 2024), is brought
alleging two different type of ERISA fiduciary breach claims: an
ERISA claim for fiduciary breach of prudence for Defendants
charging excessive and unreasonable bundled recordkeeping and
administrative (RKA) fees under the NAL 401(k) Plan (Counts I and
II); and an ERISA claim for unlawful tobacco surcharges, charged
against tobacco-using employees and their spouses under the NAL
Health Plan (Counts III, IV, and V).
The Plaintiff alleges two ERISA violations against Defendants with
regard to the NAL 401(k) Plan: a violation of the duty of prudence
by the Administrative Committee under 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1) for
allowing the Plan recordkeeper, Principal Life Insurance Company
("Principal"), to charge excessive Bundled RKA fees; and (2) a
claim against NAL and its Board of Directors for failure to monitor
the Administrative Committee with regard to excessive Plan Bundled
RKA fees.
Count I alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by Defendants for
incurring unreasonable Bundled RKA fees. Among other things,
Defendants paid an 85% premium per-participant for Bundled RKA fees
for the Plan to the Plan recordkeeper, Principal. Defendants should
have lowered
its Bundled RKA expenses by soliciting bids from competing
providers and using its massive size and correspondent bargaining
power of the Plan to negotiate for fee rebates. Count II alleges a
breach of fiduciary duty by NAL and its Board for failing to
monitor those members of its Administration Committees responsible
for paying reasonable Bundled RKA fees.
These breaches of fiduciary duty caused Plaintiff and Class Members
millions of dollars of harm in the form of lower retirement account
balances than they otherwise should have had in the absence of
these unreasonable Plan fees. To remedy these fiduciary breaches,
Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of the Plan to enforce
Defendants' liability, to make good to the Plan all losses
resulting from these breaches, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an engineering technician at the NAL.
North American Lighting, Inc. ("NAL"), a fully-owned subsidiary of
Koito Man ufacturing of Japan, is an American leading supplier of
automotive lighting systems in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (414) 828-2372
Email: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com
- and -
Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Phone: 877-656-7602
Email: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL: Wells Sues Over Denied Meal Breaks and Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Wells, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. NORTHEAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CORPORATION, JENNIFER
CULLEN, and HILARY JACOBS, Case No. 2477CV00359-B (Commonwealth of
Mass., April 11, 2024), is brought seeking relief under state and
federal wage laws on behalf of the numerous current and former
employees of Northeast Behavioral that have been denied meal breaks
and wages for the time they were forced to work.
Employees who work for more than six hours in a calendar day are
required io be given a thirty-minute meal break. Northeast
Behavioral Health Corporation (hereinafter, "Northeast Behavioral")
is an outpatient clinic that knowingly withheld wages for
thirty-minute meal breaks but denied employees the ability to take
those meal breaks. Northeast Behavioral directly benefits from this
practice as their employees are forced to work for at least thirty
minutes without pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a medication
specialist in October of 2021.
Northeast Behavioral operates a network of outpatient clinics
throughout Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Patton, Esq.
Raven Moesiinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
One Boston Place, Suite 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 338-9400
Email: mdp@nass-legal.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Mismanages Pension Plan, Lorusso Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM LORUSSO, MARGARET GURLIDES, LINDA MORIARTY, RICHARD
SEABERG, GARY LEONARD, CAROL VORPERIAN, NICHOLAS CAMPAGNOLA, JEROLD
SCHERER, DENISE BEVILACQUA, and KAREN CERVANTES, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
NORTHWELL HEALTH PENSION PLAN, NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL,
NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC., and PENSION COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-02785 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to make decisions in
the best interests of the Northwell Health Pension Plan and its
participants. The Defendants undervalued the value of each
participant's accrued benefit in calculating each participant's
opening account balance. The result was that participants' cash
balance account opening balances were in amounts significantly
lower than the amounts required to provide the participants the
benefits that each had already accrued under the Legacy Plans at
their normal or early retirement age. In addition to effectively
freezing future benefit accruals for periods of time, the
Defendants' conversion to the Cash Balance Provisions of the
amended Plan also significantly reduced the rate of future benefit
accruals for the Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed
Class. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and
the Class are harmed, says the suit.
North Shore University Hospital is a hospital in Manhasset, New
York.
Northwell Health, Inc. is a nonprofit integrated healthcare network
in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
Jessica L. Lukasiewicz, Esq.
THOMAS & SOLOMON PLLC
693 East Avenue
Rochester, NY 14607
Telephone: (585) 272-0540
Email: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com
jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com
OCUGEN INC: Faces Patterson Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCUGEN, INC.; SHANKAR MUSUNURI;
SANJAY SUBRAMANIAN; JESSICA CRESPO; QUAN VU; and MICHAEL
BREININGER, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01500 (E.D. Pa., April 11,
2024) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Ocugen securities
between May 8, 2020 and April 1, 2024, inclusive, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the reports submitted
by the Defendants with the Securities and Exchange Commission were
materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Ocugen's financial statements from May 8, 2020
to the present were materially misstated; (2) Ocugen did not have
adequate internal controls; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all times.
Ocugen's stock fell $0.16 per share, or 10.38 percent, to close at
$1.38 per share on April 2, 2024, damaging investors. As a result
of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's common shares,
Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages, says the suit.
OCUGEN, INC. operates as a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company. The Company offers products for improving the body's
ability to regenerate healthy cartilage, joint function, and
prevention of degenerative diseases. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 600-2817
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40 th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
OH K-TERING LLC: Kim Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yeon Hee Kim, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. OH K-TERING LLC DBA DURI CATERING, and HYUNJUN AHN,
Case 2:24-cv-04760 (D.N.J., April 10, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, retaliation in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, (FLSA), New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL), and
New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL") arising from Defendants'
various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies,
patterns, and practices.
The Defendants have willfully, maliciously, and intentionally
committed widespread violations of the FLSA, NJWHL, and NJWPL by
engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees,
including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked
over 40 each workweek. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, and
maliciously failed to pay Plaintiff her lawful New Jersey State
minimum wage and overtime compensation of one and one-half times
her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty (40) in a
given workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff started her work at DURI CATERING in about August 23,
2023 and ended on December 1, 2023.
Oh K-Tering LLC is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd., Suite 490
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com
OLD DOMINION: Wiesenbach Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Andrew Wiesenbach, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., and DOES 1 through 25, Case No.
30-2024-01376153-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California in and for the County of Orange, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on April 8, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-00766.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges 5 purported causes of action for:
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide itemized statement
to employee; failure to pay upon termination or quitting employee;
unfair business practices pursuant to the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"); and claim for a civil penalty pursuant to
the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508
Phone: 310.820.8800
Facsimile: 310.820.8859
Email: mkane@bakerlaw.com
abeverlin@bakerlaw.com
ksakaue@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Transamerica Pyramid
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94111-2806
Phone: 415.659.2600
Facsimile: 415.659.2601
Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com
ON Q FINANCIAL: Castellaw Files Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against On Q Financial LLC.
The case is styled as Isaiah Castellaw, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. On Q Financial LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00828-SMB (D. Ariz., April 11, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Declaratory
Judgment.
On Q Financial LLC -- https://onqfinancial.com/ -- operates as a
mortgage company. The Company offers investment, loan information
and advice to companies and individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Marc H Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP - NEWTOWN, PA
3 Terry Dr., Ste. 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Phone: (215) 867-2399
Fax: (267) 685-0676
Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
- and -
Michael Craig McKay, Esq.
MCKAY LAW LLC
5635 N Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 170
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
Phone: (480) 681-7000
Fax: (480) 348-3999
Email: mmckay@mckaylaw.us
ON Q FINANCIAL: Feathers Files Suit in D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against On Q Financial LLC.
The case is styled as Jack Feathers, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. On Q Financial LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00811-MTL (D. Ariz., April 10, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Declaratory
Judgment.
On Q Financial LLC -- https://onqfinancial.com/ -- operates as a
mortgage company. The Company offers investment, loan information
and advice to companies and individuals.[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 -
Kenneth Noel Ralston, Esq.
Kevin David Neal, Esq.
GALLAGHER & KENNEDY PA - PHOENIX
2575 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 1100
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 530-8146
Fax: (602) 530-8000
Email: ken.ralston@gknet.com
kevin.neal@gknet.com
ON Q FINANCIAL: Squier Files Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against On Q Financial LLC.
The case is styled as Barbara Squier, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. On Q Financial LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00818-DJH (D. Ariz., April 10, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.
On Q Financial LLC -- https://onqfinancial.com/ -- operates as a
mortgage company. The Company offers investment, loan information
and advice to companies and individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC
7508 N 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85301
Phone: (623) 826-5593
Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
ONTARIO: Agrees to Pay Legal Fees to Basic Income Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Alberga, writing for cp24.com reports that the Ontario
government has agreed to pay $320,000 in legal fees to a class
action seeking $200 million in damages for the early termination of
a basic income pilot project.
The 4,000 members involved argue the cancellation of a
government-run basic income program equates to a breach of
contract.
"On April 22, we're calling on Ontario to stop spending taxpayer
money, $320,000 in costs to lawyers is the latest, and resolve this
matter fairly and with justice," Stephen Moreau, Cavalluzzo LLP
partner and lead counsel of the class action, said at a news
conference.
The government fought to prevent the class action from going
forward -- and as a result they are now paying $320,000 for the
legal fees spent over the last five years.
The legal action, which was certified last month, was pursued in
response to the early cancellation of a three-year basic income
pilot for low-income earners in Hamilton, Lindsay, and Thunder Bay,
launched in 2017. The goal of the research study was to determine
if the government should consider introducing a fixed income.
The 6,000 people who signed onto the pilot completed regular
surveys and provided personal information to the researchers. In
exchange, single participants received just under $17,000 a year
while couples received just over $24,000.
A year later, following an election and change of hands in
government, the province abruptly announced it was terminating the
pilot. The final payment date was set as March 25, 2019.
At the time, the government claimed the program didn’t help
people contribute to the economy and that it discouraged them from
getting back on track. The class argues the province was motivated
by "unjust enrichment."
'DEVASTATING'
Jess Golem, one of the pilot participants, called the cancellation
devastating.
Prior to joining the basic income program, Golem said she was
working several contract jobs while recovering from a
financially-abusive relationship. She explained how she was
exhausted and constantly working, yet barely able to afford the
cost of living.
"The income floor enabled me to feel secure enough to take a risk
in starting a business while knowing that my basic needs would be
covered," Golem said on Monday.
"I actually predicted that if the basic income pilot had continued,
I would only have been on the pilot for two out of the three years
it was supposed to run because my business would have been making
enough money that I would no longer been eligible to be on the
pilot."
However, the program was cancelled, pulling Golem into poverty.
"This sort of government needs to be held accountable for the
promise that they have broken, for the lives that they've
carelessly thrown into disarray, and the permanent damage they have
caused by breaking their contract with us and prematurely canceling
the basic income." [GN]
OSCAR DEVEZE: Castillo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Castillo, Mario Portillo, Rene Reyes, and Israel Sanchez,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Oscar Deveze and Worldwide Remodeling Services LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-01295 (S.D. Tex., April 9, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants to recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Defendants have a business plan that includes hiring
construction workers and misclassifying them as independent
contractors. Defendants do this to avoid paying social security and
Medicare taxes, unemployment premiums, workers compensation
premiums, and overtime pay, and to gain an unfair advantage over
competitors who follow the law in their employment practices.
The Plaintiffs worked with numerous other individuals who were
misclassified as independent contractors. These individuals were
also construction workers who also regularly worked over 40 hours
per week, and they were also not paid overtime pay for hours they
worked over 40 per workweek. Instead, the Defendants also paid
these other individuals at the same rate for all hours that they
worked in a workweek, even those hours over 40, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are four of the many workers hired by Defendants as
a construction worker "contractor."
The Defendant Worldwide is a Texas limited liability company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Phone: 713-868-3388
Facsimile: 713-683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
OUTFOX HOSPITALITY: Faces Class Suit Over Abrupt Shutdown
---------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Shepherd of Axios Chicago reports that a former employee at
the Foxtrot store in Old Town filed a proposed class action lawsuit
on April 24, 2024, a day after the market/cafe chain closed all its
stores.
State of play: Plaintiff Jamil Moore alleges that all employees
were terminated without prior notice, which may be a violation of
the federal and state Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act (WARN).
Moore alleges that he was terminated in the middle of his shift on
April 23, 2024 around 11:30am, and that other employees found out
they were let go in the same manner.
The suit claims Foxtrot's parent company Outfox Hospitality failed
to pay employees' wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued
holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, and/or accrued PTO for 60 days
following their respective terminations.
Context: The WARN Act requires large employers to give at least 60
days notice of large-scale layoffs.
The Act was designed to help workers find new jobs before losing
their current positions.
The big picture: Outfox closed 33 Foxtrot stores in Chicago,
Austin, D.C. and Dallas, as well as two Dom's Kitchen and Markets
in Chicago abruptly on April 23, 2024, with customers showing up to
signs saying the stores were closed immediately.
The other side: Calls to Outfox were not returned, but in a
statement on April 23, 2024 the company said, "We explored many
avenues to continue the business but found no viable option despite
good faith and exhaustive efforts." [GN]
PACERS RUNNING: Wins Summary Judgment Bid; Gonzalez Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled YANILZA GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACERS RUNNING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-07808-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J.
Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and
dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.
In this putative class action, Plaintiff Yanilza Gonzalez brings
claims against Defendant Pacers Running, LLC, under Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the New York State
Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law Section 290, et seq.;
the New York State Civil Rights Law ("NYSCRL"); and the New York
City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL").
Pacers Running moves to dismiss the Complaint, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim for
relief or in the alternative for summary judgment, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
According to her Complaint, the Plaintiff is visually impaired and
legally blind, and therefore, requires screen-reading software to
access website content on her computer. The Plaintiff alleges that
Pacers Running maintains the website https://www.runpacers.com/
(the "Website"). She avers that Pacers Running has failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Website such that it
is fully accessible to and independently usable by her and other
blind or visually impaired persons. She alleges that she twice
attempted to use the Website to purchase a pair of sneakers, but
she was unable to do so due to the absence of accessibility
features.
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against Pacers Running on
Sept. 1, 2023, claiming that Pacers Running's Website violated the
ADA, NYSHRL, NYSCRL, and NYCHRL. On Dec. 19, 2023, Pacers Running
filed this motion to dismiss, or alternatively for summary
judgment, contending that Pacers Running does not own or operate
the Website, so Pacers Running is not a proper defendant in this
action.
The Court ordered Pacers Running to file a Local Rule 56.1
statement detailing the undisputed material facts upon which its
motion for summary judgment might be decided, which Pacers Running
subsequently did. The Plaintiff sought an extension to respond to
Pacers Running's motion, which the Court granted. However, the
Plaintiff instead filed an amended complaint on March 11, 2024,
that purported to change the named Defendant from Pacers Running to
Farley Enterprises, Inc.
On March 12, 2024, the Court struck that filing as procedurally
improper, as the Plaintiff had not moved for relief under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The Court also instructed the Plaintiff
to file a formal motion under that rule if she wished to substitute
Farley Enterprises for Pacers Running as the Defendant in this
case. The Plaintiff has not done so. Thus, Pacers Running remains
the sole Defendant and its motion for dismissal or summary judgment
is unopposed.
The Defendant moves for dismissal of the Complaint for failure to
state a claim, or in the alternative for summary judgment, on the
basis that Pacers Running is not a proper defendant in this
action.
In its Rule 56.1 statement, Pacers Running cites to the Declaration
of James Christopher Farley III for the following propositions: (1)
the Website is not owned or operated by Pacers Running; (2) the
Website is owned and operated by Farley Enterprises; (3) Pacers
Running and Farley Enterprises are legally separate and distinct
entities; and (4) Farley Enterprises is the sole member of Pacers
Running.
While Farley Enterprises is the sole member of Pacers Running,
Pacers Running does not own or operate the Website; Judge Liman
says Farley Enterprises does. Under the ADA, a parent and
subsidiary cannot be found to represent a single, integrated
enterprise in the absence of evidence of (1) interrelation of
operations, (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3) common
management, and (4) common ownership or financial control.
Judge Liman opines that the Plaintiff has not argued, let alone
established, that Pacers Running and Farley Enterprises satisfy
this test. Thus, the Court holds that Pacers Running is entitled to
summary judgment as it is not a proper defendant for the
Plaintiff's ADA claim.
The Plaintiff's NYSHRL, NYSCRL, and NYCHRL claims fare no better,
Judge Liman says. Those statutes permit disability discrimination
claims against an owner, franchisor, franchisee, lessor, lessee,
proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any
place of public accommodation. However, the Plaintiff has neither
alleged nor argued that Pacers Running is a franchisor, franchisee,
lessor, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or
employee of the Website.
Because there is no genuine issue as to whether the Website is
owned or operated by Pacers Running and the Plaintiff does not
assert any alternative bases for finding Pacers Running liable, the
Court grants Pacers Running's motion for summary judgment on the
Plaintiff's NYSHRL, NYSCRL, and NYCHRL claims.
Accordingly, the Court rules that the motion for summary judgment
is granted. The Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close Dkt. Nos. 6 and
18, and to close this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated April 8,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p2usjyy from
PacerMonitor.com.
PACIFIC GREEN ENERGY: Brown Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Green Energy,
LLC. The case is styled as Stephanie Brown, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated v. Pacific Green Energy, LLC Doing
business as: Apricot Solar, Case No. 2:24-cv-01089-AC (E.D. Cal.,
April 10, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Pacific Green Energy, LLC doing business as Apricot Solar --
https://apricotsolar.com/ -- are dedicated to making solar energy
affordable and accessible to everyone.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 89148
Phone: (615) 485-0018
Email: gustavo@kazlg.com
PACIFIC STEEL: Berber's Bid for Class Certification Due on June 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California continued to June 3, 2024, the
Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class certification
in the lawsuits styled BRANDON GAY, individually, and on behalf of
the general public similarly situated; ISRAEL BERBER, individually,
and on behalf of other aggrieved employees similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, an unknown business entity; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-08442-HSG (N.D. Cal.); ISRAEL BERBER, individually, and on
behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California
Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, an
unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-03446-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Administrative Relief Seeking Further Revisions to the Court's
Relief Order Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11. For good cause shown, the
Court grants the Plaintiffs' request.
The Court orders as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' May 20, 2024 deadline to file their motion
for class certification ("MCC") is continued to Monday,
June 3, 2024;
2. The Defendant's July 8, 2024 deadline to file its
opposition to the Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Monday,
July 22, 2024;
3. The Plaintiffs' Aug. 11, 2024 deadline to file their reply
to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' MCC is
continued to Monday, Aug. 26, 2024; and
4. The MCC hearing is continued to Thursday, Sept. 26, 2024,
at 2:00 p.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/k82ksxj6 from PacerMonitor.com.
PATHWARD NATIONAL: Rappaport Sues Over Prepaid Visa Cards
---------------------------------------------------------
PERI RAPPAPORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PATHWARD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02718 (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2024) seeks
compensatory and exemplary damages for the Defendant's violation of
consumer protection statutes in New York and other states arising
from its sale of SecureSpend Prepaid VISA cards ("Prepaid Visa
cards" or "the Product").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant sells
these Prepaid Visa cards throughout the nation and falsely asserts
that that they are usable for paying bills.
These misrepresentations on Defendant's cards and advertisements
are deceptive and cause consumers damages by causing them to
purchase the Produce in the mistaken belief that these cards may be
used for paying bills when they cannot.
PATHWARD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION provides banking services. The
Company offers online banking, current accounts, mobile banking,
personal loans, debit cards, e-banking, mortgage loan, commercial
lending, cash management, and insurance services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
Bradley F. Silverman, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-
PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
bsilverman@fbfglaw.com
- and -
Paul M. Sod, Esq.
337R Central Avenue
Lawrence, NY 11559
Telephone: (516) 295-0707
Facsimile: (516) 295-0722
Email: paulmsod@gmail.com
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Alleged Corruption
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 12, 2024, that it and its affiliates
are facing a securities suit with regards to its involvement in a
2009 Brazilian federal police investigation aimed at criminal
organizations engaged in money laundering in several Brazilian
states.
On January 23, 2017, Stichting Petrobras Compensation Foundation
filed a class action in the Netherlands, at the District Court of
Rotterdam, against the company, Petrobras International Braspetro
B.V. (PIB BV), Petrobras Global Finance B.V. (PGF), Petrobras Oil &
Gas B.V. (PO&G) and some former Petrobras managers. The Foundation
alleges that it represents the interests of an unidentified group
of investors and asserts that the defendants acted illegally before
the investors in the "Lava Jato" operation where the Brazilian
federal police began an investigation on irregularities involving
the company's contractors and suppliers and uncovered a broad
payment scheme that involved a wide range of participants,
including its former personnel.
On May 26, 2021, the District Court of Rotterdam decided that the
class action should proceed and that the arbitration clause of
Petrobras' bylaws does not prevent the company's shareholders from
having access to the Dutch Judiciary and have their interests
represented by the Foundation. However, investors who have already
started arbitration against Petrobras or who are parties to legal
proceedings in which the applicability of the arbitration clause
has been definitively recognized are excluded from the scope of the
action. The collective action moved to the discussion phase of
merit issues.
On July 26, 2023, the court issued an intermediary decision on the
merits, ordering the production of evidence, in relation to which
the parties may express their views before the publication of the
decision on the merits, which is appealable. In addition, the Court
expressed in advance some understanding, which must be included in
the decision on the merits, among which, the requests made against
PIB BV, PO&G and certain former members of the company's management
were rejected, the court declared that Petrobras and the PGF acted
illegally in relation to their investors, although the court
expressed it does not consider itself sufficiently informed about
relevant aspects of Brazilian, Argentine and Luxembourger laws to
definitively decide on the merits of the action, and the alleged
rights under Spanish legislation are prescribed.
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. is a Brazilian mixed capital company, one
of the largest producers of oil and gas in the world primarily
engaged in exploration and production, refining, energy generation
and trading.
PETS BEST: Roberts Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------
KASI ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PETS BEST INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-005178 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir.,
Broward Cty., April 15, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending electronic
mail communication to the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers in connection with the collection of consumer debt
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM without their prior
consent.
Pets Best Insurance Services, LLC is an insurance company based in
Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
PHP OF NC INC: Court Endorses Partial OK of Conditional Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PHP OF
NC, INC. and JUSTINE WIGGINS, Case No. 5:23-cv-00462-M-RJ
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert Tonk recommended that Johnson's
motion to conditionally certify collective action and approve
notice, be allowed in part and denied in part.
Mr. Johnson alleges that he and the other HAB Techs were paid by
PHP on an hourly basis and misclassified as independent contractors
so that PHP would not have to pay them overtime for working over 40
hours in a week, which was a regular occurrence.
Johnson also alleges that PHP required HAB Techs to perform
off-the-clock, unpaid work, including training and attending staff
meetings, and bear expenses associated with the use of their
personal vehicles to transport Medicaid consumers.
Mr. Johnson first began working for PHP as a HAB Tech in 2015. He
left PHP in October 2019 and was rehired in January 2020, where he
then worked as a HAB Tech until June of 2023.
PHP provides support services to individuals who are intellectually
and/or developmentally disabled.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and recommendation dated April 12,
2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5iq0Fh at no extra charge.[CC]
PLUG POWER INC: Lopez-Gomez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Samuel Lopez-Gomez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLUG POWER, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
CIVSB-2331230 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on April 11, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-00756.
The Plaintiff filed the action in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Bernardino, by filing a Complaint with that Court on
or about November 29, 2023 (the "Complaint").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffery F. Allen, Esq.
350 Linden Oaks, Third Floor
Rochester, NY 14625-2825
Phone: (585) 362-4700
POWER SYSTEMS (PS): Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Power Systems (PS),
LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Power Systems (PS), LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02622 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Power Systems (PS), LLC was founded in 2008. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of industrial
machinery and equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
POWERHOUSE RETAIL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ramirez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POWERHOUSE RETAIL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants,
Case 5:24-cv-02170 (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2024) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the
personal information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals who worked for the Defendant.
The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
implement or follow reasonable data security procedures as required
by law and failed to protect Plaintiff and the proposed Class
members' Sensitive Information from unauthorized access.
As a result of the Defendant's inadequate data security and
inadequate or negligent training of its employees, Plaintiff's and
other proposed Class members' Sensitive Information, including
their names and social security numbers were made available on the
dark web, says the suit.
POWERHOUSE RETAIL SERVICES, LLC provides construction and
maintenance services. The Company offers construction, facility
maintenance, and rollout services. [BN]
The Plaintiff
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
Facsimile: (866) 219-8344
Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
- and -
Ben Travis, Esq.
BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 353-7966
Email: ben@bentravislaw.com
PRIMIS BANK: Kline Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Kline, on behalf of himself individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Primis Bank, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00574 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on April 10, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10929-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for
Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.
Primis Bank -- https://primisbank.com/ -- provides banking
services. The Bank offers checking accounts, credit and debit
cards, loans, insurance, payment protection, phone banking, bill
pay, and merchant services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
Sarah G. Sauble, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23223
Phone: (804) 351-9040
Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
Email: Lee@bbtrial.com
Sarah@bbtrial.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David Parker Phippen, Esq.
CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE LLP (VA)
12500 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 300
Fairfax, VA 22033
Phone: (202) 508-5800
Email: dphippen@constangy.com
- and -
Allen Sattler, Esq.
CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH & PROPHETE LLP (NA-CA)
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (315) 430-4888
- and -
Christopher Deubert, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP
535 Boylston Street. Suite 902
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (201) 410-4125
Email: cdeubert@constangy.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Tlaib Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mohamad Tlaib, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Publix
Supermarkets, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-13840 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April
11, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-02739-BMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Account Receivable.
The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an
American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
Daniel Tropin, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Ryan J. Gott, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Phone: (612) 389-0600
Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com
rgott@pwfirm.com
- and -
Erin Ruben, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Email: eruben@milberg.com
- and -
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (630) 796-0903
Email: hbryson@milberg.com
- and -
Karl Amelchenko, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Email: kamelchenko@milberg.com
- and -
Jimmy Mintz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Ave., 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (786) 876-8200
Email: jmintz@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew James Soukup, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 662-5066
Fax: (202) 778-5066
- and -
Alyssa Marie Gregory, Esq.
Phillip Russell Perdew, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
111 S. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 443-0355
Email: alyssa.gregory@lockelord.com
rperdew@lockelord.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Tucker Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Freddie Tucker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, and
DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 24SL-CC00837 was removed from the
Circuit Court for St. Louis County, Missouri, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on April 11,
2024, and assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00535.
The Plaintiff alleges that P&G improperly advertises certain of its
DayQuil cold and cough products as “Non-Drowsy.” In particular,
the Plaintiff brings claims related to his and others’ purchases
of DayQuil products that contain dextromethorphan hydrobromide
(“DXM”) and have been marketed as Non-Drowsy (the
“Products”). The Plaintiff claims that it is misleading for P&G
to advertise the Products as Non-Drowsy because DXM is
“scientifically proven to cause drowsiness.” The Plaintiff has
brought claims against P&G for breach of warranty, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”) and “Other Consumer
Protection Laws".[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Britton St. Onge, Esq.
POLSINELLI PC
7676 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: 314-889-7024
Email: bstonge@polsinelli.com
PROFORM GROUP: Hackler Sues Over WARN Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Joshua Hackler, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. PROFORM GROUP, INC.; Case No. 6:24-cv-00127-GLJ (E.D. Okla.,
April 10, 2024), is brought under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"), by the Plaintiff on
his own behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated
persons against Defendant, his employer for WARN Act purposes.
On March 13, 2024, Defendant abruptly made a mass layoff by,
unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff,
terminating over 100 employees, including Plaintiff, at the PGI
Facility. On March 13, 2024, Plaintiff went to work as normal, and
there was no indication that the company would be permanently
closing that night. By the end of the day, at around 6:00 p.m., the
employees received an e-mail, terminating their employment.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of former employees who
worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable
result of a mass lay off or plant closing ordered by the Defendant
on March 13, 2024 and within 90 days of that date and who were not
provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by
Defendant, as required by the WARN Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at the PGI Facility.
The Defendant operates a manufacturing plant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dallas L.D. Strimple, Esq.
INDIAN & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP, PLLC
233 South Detroit Ave, Suite 200
Tulsa, OK 74120
Phone: (918) 347-6169
Facsimile: (918) 948-6190
Email: dallas@iaelaw.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: 615/254-8801
Facsimile: 615/255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Fax: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Jury Awards $98MM for Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Dave Muoio of Fierce Healthcare reports that a Seattle jury
determined that Providence had underpaid thousands of its hourly
employees by denying second meal breaks during long shifts and
rounding down the minutes they clocked in for a shift.
In a verdict reached April 18, the jury awarded over 33,000
employees represented in the class-action suit about $98 million,
according to court documents and reports. About $90 million of the
total stemmed from the unpaid and missed meal breaks, with a little
over a million deducted due to some class members knowingly
agreeing to waive the breaks.
However, the nonprofit system is likely on the hook for
substantially more due to state law requiring the total amount to
be doubled because King County Superior Court Judge Averil Rothrock
determined the violations to be willful. This could bring the total
closer to $220 million inclusive of statutory interest, per reports
and comments from the plaintiffs' legal representation. [GN]
RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF: Ali Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ramsey County Sheriff
Office, et al. The case is styled as Tamir Malik Ali, "a/n/f" of
Sherrice Shatanya Williams and all others similarly situated v.
Ramsey County Sheriff Office, Kelly Wolford, County of Ramsey,
Community Behavioral Health Hospital, Case No.
0:24-cv-01298-DWF-TNL (D. Minn., April 11, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
The Ramsey County Sheriff's Office --
https://www.ramseycounty.us/your-government/leadership/sheriffs-office
-- provides law enforcement and public service in accordance with
our constitutional and statutory mandates.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Groundtree Seeks Production of Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY ROUNDTREE, OLLIE
DAILEY, GERRY LEWIS, ANTONIO JAMES, COREY POLITE, HEATHER DAVIS,
LATOYA STUART, SYLVIA MATTHEWS, MARIAN PAYNE, NYEZI-ABASI EDET, and
BILLY KELLY, v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLGIES CORP., Case No.
3:22-cv-02675-M (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order to compel the Raytheon to answer interrogatories and
produce documents responsive to requests for production.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant their motion to compel
and order Defendant to produce the documents within 21 days of the
Court's order.
Personnel files of Plaintiffs' comparators, including performance
evaluations, peer reviews, compensation history, information
regarding awards or promotions earned, benefits, and records of
disciplinary actions and past termination, are needed to compare
Raytheon’s treatment of its non-Black employees as opposed to the
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs have sued Raytheon for race discrimination and
retaliation under the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The Machinists claim that Raytheon paid them less than their
non-Black peers who did not complain of discrimination and denied
them transfers and promotions granted to their non-Black peers who
did not complain of discrimination.
The Accountants worked in Raytheon's accounts payable department in
Richardson, Texas. After a reorganization, Raytheon terminated all
Accountants in the accounts payable department who were Blace
(nine), retaining less qualified, non-Black employees with less
tenure
at the company.
Roundtree, Dailey, Lewis, James, and Polite were machinists at
Raytheon's Lemmon Avenue, Dallas, Texas facility.
Davis, Stuart, Matthews, Payne, and Kelly were accountants in
Raytheon's accounts payable department in Raytheon's Richardson,
Texas
Facility.
The Defendant is an American multinational aerospace and defense
conglomerate.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4cWOPp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian P. Sanford, Esq.
Elizabeth "BB" Sanford, Esq.
THE SANFORD FIRM
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 15400
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 717-6653
Facsimile: (214) 919-0113
E-mail: bsanford@sanfordfirm.com
esanford@sanfordfirm.com
RENT THE RUNWAY: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Over IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
Rent The Runway, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2024, that it is currently facing a
lawsuit for violations of securities laws. All defendants have
moved to dismiss the amended complaint and that motion, which was
fully submitted on February 23, 2024, remains pending.
On November 14, 2022, a purported stockholder of the company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO), entitled "Rajat
Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc., et al." Case No. 22-cv-6935. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, by making allegedly materially
misleading statements, and by omitting material facts necessary to
make the statements made therein not misleading concerning, inter
alia, the company's growth at the time of the IPO.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, an
award of attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief as deemed
just and proper by the court. On June 8, 2023, the court appointed
Delaware Public Employees' Retirement System and Denver Employees
Retirement Plan as lead plaintiffs. On August 21, 2023, lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the company, certain
of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO. The
amended complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act by allegedly making certain
false and misleading statements, and by omitting material facts
necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading,
concerning, among other things, the company's growth prospects and
fulfillment costs at the time of the IPO.
Rent The Runway, Inc. is a shared designer closet that provides
customers access to thousands of styles by hundreds of brand
partners through subscription. It currently has 3 million lifetime
customers across all of its offerings with 173,247 total
subscribers (active and paused) as of January 31, 2024.
RIOT GAMES INC: Garrison Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edwin Garrison, Brandon Orr, Leandro Cabo, Ryan
Henderson, Michael Livieratos, Alexander Chernyavsky, Gregg
Podalsky, Vijeth Shetty, Chukwudozie Ezeokoli, Michael Norris,
Shengyun Huang, Vitor Vozza, Kyle Rupprecht, & Sunil Kavuri, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. RIOT
GAMES, INC., & NORTH AMERICA LEAGUE OF LEGENDS CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01841 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-21296 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Riot Games, Inc. -- https://www.riotgames.com/en -- is an American
video game developer, publisher, and esports tournament organizer
based in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
service@moskowitz-law.com
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 740-1423
Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
Reed Forbush, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 293-6800
Facsimile: (415) 293-6899
Email: rforbush@bsfllp.com
RISAS DENTAL: Manzano Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Risas Dental
Management LLC. The case is styled as Efren Manzano, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Risas Dental
Management LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00810-JFM (D. Ariz., April 10,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Risas Dental Management LLC -- https://risasdental.com/ -- is a
home of affordable dental and braces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
RISAS HOLDINGS: Daley Files Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Risas Holdings LLC.
The case is styled as Steven Daley, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Risas Holdings LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00789-DMF (D. Ariz., April 8, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.
Risas Holdings LLC doing business as Risas Dental --
https://risasdental.com/ -- provide quality and affordable dental
care and braces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 9
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA BETANCOURT, v.
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01299-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint
motion and extending the remaining class certification phase
deadlines by one month (adjusted as necessary to avoid weekends),
as follows:
(a) Disclosure of the Plaintiff's experts (and expert reports)
in
connection with class certification: May 20, 2024.
(b) Plaintiff's experts deposed by: June 17, 2024.
(c) Disclosure of the Defendant's experts (and expert reports)
in
connection with class certification: July 15, 2024.
(d) Defendant's experts deposed by August 12, 2024.
(e) Completion of class discovery phase: Aug. 26, 2024.
(f) Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Sept. 9, 2024.
(g) Defendant's opposition: Oct. 21, 2024.
(h) Dispositive motions on the merits of the named Plaintiff's
claims: Oct. 21, 2024.
On March 21, 2024, the Plaintiff requested a 30-day extension of
her April 20, 2024, deadline to disclose expert witnesses and
expert reports.
The parties conferred about this issue on April 4, 2024, at which
time they agreed that the parties should seek a one-month extension
of all remaining class certification phase deadlines to allow them
time to: (1) explore the possibility of settlement; and (2)
negotiate appropriate parameters and deadlines for completing class
certification phase discovery.
Rivian is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive
technology and outdoor recreation company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gr2FbW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
Amanda Burns, Esq.
CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60604
E-mail: acaffarelli@caffarelli.com
amartin@caffarelli.com
aburns@caffarelli.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Diandra "Fu" Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq.
Eviealle J. Dawkins, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT
10 N. Dearborn St., 6th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
fu@dicellolevitt.com
edawkins@dicellolevitt.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew Gagnon, Esq.
Katherine Mendez, Esq.
Christopher Kelleher, Esq.
Adam Rongo, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
E-mail: kmendez@seyfarth.com
mgagnon@seyfarth.com
ckelleher@seyfarth.com
arongo@seyfarth.com
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Betancourt Due Sept. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Betancourt v. Rivian
Automotive, LLC. Case No. 1:22-cv-01299 (C.D. Ill., Filed Sept. 6,
2022), the Hon. Judge James E. Shadid entered an order granting
joint motion to extend remaining class certification phase
deadlines.
-- The schedule previously set in the case is Aug. 26,
2024
vacated and the Court adopts the class
certification phase schedule set out in the
motion including Completion of Class Discovery
phase on:
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification due Sept. 9,
2024
by:
-- Defendant's opposition is due by: Oct. 21,
2024
-- Dispositive motions on the merits of the names Oct. 21,
2024
Plaintiff's claims are due:
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -– Employment.
Rivian is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive
technology and outdoor recreation company.[CC]
ROCANDA USA: Drake Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Drake, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rocanda USA Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00368 (W.D. Tex.,
April 10, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Portal-to-Portal Act (collectively, the "FLSA") seeking damages
for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each
seven-day workweek while working for Defendant paid on a day rate
basis.
The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek
for Defendant. The Plaintiff's weekly work schedule typically
encompassed 98 hours of work for Defendant. However, Defendant did
not pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 during each and every workweek.
The Defendant employs/employed numerous other employees in
connection with its oil and gas services business operations who
are/were similarly situated to Plaintiff. Those employees are/were
also paid on a day rate basis, are/were not paid on a salary or fee
basis, routinely work/worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek,
and are/were not paid time and one-half their respective regular
rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each and every
workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on October 11, 2023.
The Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Phone: (214) 489-7653
Email: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
RSG CONST: Parties Must Discuss Class Cert Items in April 16 Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez et al v. RSG
Construction Corp. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03469 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
June 13, 2022), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order
reminding the Parties that they must be prepared to discuss the
items listed in the Court's April 16, 2024 order, including
Plaintiffs' failure to seek class certification and Defendants'
failure to adequately explain their defenses in the 24 Joint
Pre-Trial Order, as required by the Court's Individual Practice
Rules, IV.A.4.
The parties are on notice that they should be prepared to proceed
to jury selection and trial starting on Monday, May 6, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
RSG is a full-service general construction and real estate
development company.[CC]
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: May 17 Reply in Support of Class Cert Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN JOHNSON, AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON
BEHALF OF THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRIUSES LTD. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN,
v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY (F/K/A RUSSELL TRUST COMPANY),
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., AND ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:22-cv-21735-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order enlarging the time for
filing and serving
(i) the Defendants' response to the motion for class
certification
from April 19 to April 26, 2024; and
(ii) the Plaintiff's reply in support of her Motion for class
Certification from May 10 to May 17, 2024.
the Defendants expect the Plaintiff's deposition testimony to be
important to the Court's adjudication of the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, and therefore expect to use the Plaintiff's
deposition testimony in any opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification.
Moreover, granting this Motion will not prejudice any party nor
will it affect any other deadlines given that fact discovery does
not close until July 12, 2024, dispositive motions are not due
until Sept. 30, 2024, expert discovery does not close until Oct.
18, 2024, and trial is not scheduled to begin until Feb. 10, 2025.
Russell is a global investment management partner.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=quvQfn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL, FENTON, CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Brock J. Specht, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: lukas@nka.com
bspecht@nka.com
bbauer@nka.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David M. DeMaio, Esq.
Two Datran Center, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
9130 S. Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1625
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 455-3700
Facsimile: (305) 374-0456
E-mail: david.demaio@ogletreedeakins.com
- and -
Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
Samuel I. Levin, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 861-6615
E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com
slevin@groom.com
- and -
Alejandro J. Paz, Esq.
David P. Ackerman, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
777 South Flagler Drive
Suite 1100 West Tower
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 273-5567
E-mail: alejandro.paz@akerman.com
david.ackerman@akerman.com
- and -
Sean M. Murphy, Esq.
Robert C. Hora, Esq.
MILBANK LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 530-5688
E-mail: smurphy@milbank.com
rhora@milbank.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: White Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Thomas Roger White, Jr., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
Case No. 9:24-mc-80360 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on April 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-04625-MCA-JSA to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Samsung Electronics -- https://www.samsung.com/us/ -- is a global
leader in technology, opening new possibilities for people
everywhere.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Sonam Mullens, Esq.
CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY LLP
1085 Raymond Blvd.
One Newark Center, 14TH FLOOR
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (862) 208-1888
Email: gmullens@ck-litigation.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Hector Daniel Ruiz, Esq.
Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
Three Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street, 15th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 757-1100
Email: hruiz@walsh.law
lwalsh@walsh.law
SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL: Silva Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Joaquin General
Hospital Foundation. The case is styled as Erica Silva,
individually and on behalf of others individuals similarly situated
v. San Joaquin General Hospital Foundation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0004272 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April
8, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
San Joaquin General Hospital Foundation --
https://www.sanjoaquingeneral.org/giving-foundation -- is a
non-profit organization which promotes health care services in San
Joaquin County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: 805-270-7100
Fax: 805-270-7589
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Class Cert Filing in Ablaza Extended to May 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHIE ABLAZA, JOHN
BARONE, LINDA CHESLOW, BETTY FELLOWS, MICHAEL FALCO, MELISSA
ALDRIDGE, and LEE WEINMAN, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-01942-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an
order enlarging time for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for
class certification:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Class certification motion due: Apr. 22, 2024 May 21,
2024
Plaintiffs' class certification Apr. 22, 2024 May 21,
2024
expert disclosures due:
Class certification opposition July 22, 2024 Aug. 22,
2024
due:
Defendant's class certification July 22, 2024 Aug. 22,
2024
expert disclosures due:
Defendant's class certification July 22, 2024 Aug. 22,
2024
Daubert motions due:
Class certification expert Aug. 12, 2024 Sept. 18,
2024
discovery cut-off:
Class certification reply due: Aug. 26, 2024 Sept. 27,
2024
Plaintiffs' class certification Aug. 26, 2024 Sept.
27/2024
Daubert motions and oppositions
to Defendant's Daubert motions
due:
Defendant's oppositions to Sept. 23, 2024 Oct. 25,
2024 Plaintiffs' Daubert motions due:
Sanofi-Aventis develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gH2ugo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Randi Singer, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 1019
Telephone: (212) 839-5300
Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
E-mail: randi.singer@sidley.com
- and -
David R. Singh, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 6th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
Telephone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
E-mail: david.singh@weil.com
SEAWORLD PARKS: Burns Loses Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTON BURNS et al., v.
SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., SEAWORLD PARKS &
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC AND JOHN DOES 1, 2, 3 AND 4, Case No.
2:22-cv-02941-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, Defendants' response in opposition, and Plaintiffs'
reply in support.
SeaWorld is an American theme park and entertainment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NDq8gR at no extra
charge.[CC]
SHIELD CO MANAGEMENT: Dykstra Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dylon Dykstra, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. THE SHIELD CO MANAGEMENT, LLC DBA
ECOSHIELD MANAGEMENT CO, LLC, an Arizona limited liability
corporation; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 24-2-05701-3 KNT was removed
from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
on April 11, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00492.
The Complaint sets forth one cause of action against Defendant,
premised on Defendant’s alleged requirement to enter into
noncompetition covenants as a condition of employment in violation
of RCW.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew J. Macario, Esq.
Sieu K. Che, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-682-2308
Facsimile: 206-682-7908
Email: mmacario@fisherphillips.com
sche@fisherphillips
SHUTTERFLY LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shutterfly, LLC. The
case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Shutterfly, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02623-JPC (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shutterfly, LLC -- https://www.shutterfly.com/ -- is an American
photography, photography products, and image sharing company,
headquartered in Redwood City, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
SILICON VALLEY MECHANICAL: Brenan Files Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Silicon Valley
Mechanical, Inc. The case is styled as Patrick James Brenan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Silicon Valley Mechanical, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-02147-SVK (S.D.
Cal., April 10, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Silicon Valley Mechanical Inc. -- https://www.svminc.com/home/ --
is a construction company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
SMITH TEAMAKER: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith Teamaker, LLC.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Smith Teamaker, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02728 (S.D.N.Y., April 10, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Smith Teamaker, LLC -- https://www.smithtea.com/ -- offers
uncommonly delicious black teas, green teas, and herbal infusions;
imported directly from friends and blended and packed in Portland,
OR with artistry and care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Fried Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Albert Fried, and others similarly situated
v. SNAPPLE BEVERAGE COMPANY, Case No. 37-2024-00010545-CU-BT-CTL
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on April 8, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-00653-DMS-DDL.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the marketing and labeling
of Snapple's Products are false or misleading due to the presence
of citric acid. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the presence
of this substance renders the representation "All Natural" false or
misleading.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles C. Sipos, Esq.
Thomas J. Tobin, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: +1.206.359.8000
Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000
Email: CSipos@perkinscoie.com
TTobin@perkinscoie.com
SOUTH DAKOTA: Irvine Suit Seeks to Amend Class Definition
---------------------------------------------------------
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, v. Jeremy Johnson,
Administrator, South Dakota Human Services Center, sued in his
official capacity, and Matt Althoff, Secretary of the South Dakota
Department of Social Services, sued in his official capacity, Case
No. 4:21-cv-04224-KES (D.S.D.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order for leave to amend the class definition.
Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C), which allows a court to
alter or amend an order denying class certification, the plaintiff
moves for an order altering or amending the March 25, 2024 order
denying class certification, and certifying the amended class.
The proposed amended definition is:
"mentally ill people who are accused of crimes in South Dakota,
have been found incompetent, and incarcerated for more than
seven
days after being found incompetent before competency
restoration
begins; and mentally ill people who in the future will be
accused
of crimes in South Dakota, found incompetent, and incarcerated
for
more than seven days after being found incompetent before
competency restoration begins."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 16, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yA2NLu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James D. Leach, Esq.
1617 Sheridan Lake Rd.
Rapid City, SD 57702
Telephone: (605) 341-4400
E-mail: jim@southdakotajustice.com
SPORTS BASEMENT INC: Fong Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cheyenne Fong, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. The
Sports Basement, Inc., Case No. CGC-24-612753 was removed from the
San Francisco County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on April 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-02116-KAW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Sports Basement, Inc. -- https://shop.sportsbasement.com/ -- offers
best prices on the best outdoor gear, apparel and rentals in the
San Francisco Bay Area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Lawrence Walter Beall, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
lbeall@justicelawcorp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi, Esq.
Robert Yang, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Phone: (415) 394-9400 x5407
Fax: (415) 394-9401
Email: shannon.nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com
rob.yang@jacksonlewis.com
SPRUCE POWER: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Spruce Power Holding Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report
filed for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2024, that on
January 18, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York preliminarily approved a proposed settlement as being
fair, reasonable, and adequate, and scheduled a hearing for April
30, 2024, to, among other things, consider whether to approve the
proposed settlement.
On March 8, 2021, two putative securities class action complaints
were filed against the company, and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the federal district court for the
Southern District of New York. Those cases were ultimately
consolidated under C.A. No. 1:21-cv-2002, and a lead plaintiff was
appointed in June 2021. On July 20, 2021, an amended complaint was
filed alleging that certain public statements made by the
defendants between October 2, 2020, and March 2, 2021, violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Following negotiations with a mediator, in September 2023, the
Company and the plaintiffs agreed on a settlement in principle in
the aggregate amount of $19.5 million, and on December 6, 2023, the
lead plaintiff and the defendants entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement requiring the Company to pay the Settlement
Amount to resolve the class action litigation and the related legal
fees and administration costs.
Spruce Power Holding Corporation and its subsidiaries is an owner
and operator of distributed solar energy assets across the United
States, offering subscription-based services to approximately
75,000 home solar assets and contracts, making renewable energy
more accessible to everyone.
ST. DOMINIC: Bosewell Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENDA BOSWELL,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. ST.
DOMINIC HEALTH SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Case No.
3:23-cv-00151-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order Certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
requiring the Defendants to provide the names, addresses, email
addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers of all
putative Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective members as
alleged in this lawsuit.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:
A. Directing the Defendants to produce to undersigned Counsel a
readable, data computer file containing the names, last known
mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, and dates of
employment of all individuals falling into the following
class
definition:
"All current and former hourly and overtime employees who
worked
for St. Dominic's Health Services, Inc. and/or Franciscan
Missionaries of Our Lady Health System, Inc, anywhere in the
United States, at any time from December 11th, 2022, through
the
final disposition of this matter."
B. Setting a timeline for the Plaintiff to submit and the court
to
approve a Notice to Potential Class Members, and once
approved,
setting a 90-day opt in deadline during which time the Court
shall authorized the undersigned to mail and email copies of
the
approved Notice to Potential Class Members.
St. Dominic offers cancer, adult patient care, medical cancer and
radiation therapies, behavioral health, computerized tomography,
magnetic resonance imaging, and neonatal services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aHNJ29 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Rueff, Esq.
LUNSFORD, BASKIN, & PRIEBE, PLLC
Lamar Life Building, Suite 600
317 East Capitol Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 983-2667
Facsimile: (601) 983-2076
E-mail: Andrew@lunsfordbaskin.com
STIIIZY INC: Faces Multi-State Class Suit Over Marijuana Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo of Madison - St. Clair Record reports
that a multi-state class action was filed in federal court in the
Southern District of Illinois, seeking more than $5 million from
hemp manufacturer Stiiizy Inc. for allegedly misrepresenting
illegal marijuana products containing as much as 200% more
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) as the law allows.
The suit states that products containing THC levels greater than
0.3% are considered marijuana and do not qualify as legal Delta 8
hemp products under federal, Illinois and Missouri laws. Stiiizy
allegedly deceives consumers and bypasses cannabis regulations by
misrepresenting the amount of active THC in its products, including
Delta 8 vape pens and edibles.
"As one of the nation's largest cannabis product manufacturers,
Stiiizy is well-aware of the THC requirements for all types of
products, including Delta 8, CBD, and traditional cannabis, yet is
willfully disobeying those requirements for its own profit and to
the detriment of consumers," the suit states.
St. Louis attorney Jamie L. Boyer filed the proposed class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on
behalf of plaintiffs Taylor Byron and Taylor Berry against Stiiizy
Inc. The suit accuses the defendant of violating the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, violating the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, Byron and Berry purchased a Delta 8
Stiiizy Starter Pack on Feb. 16. Byron purchased the product at
Vape X in Swansea, and Berry purchased it at Green Dragon CBD in
Chesterfield, Mo. They claim they relied upon the accuracy of the
product's labeling, including the percentage of active THC in the
product.
"Plaintiffs represent the thousands of consumers in Illinois and
Missouri who purchased Stiiizy's D8 Products based upon the
misrepresentations being made in Stiiizy's advertising, labeling,
and packaging," the suit states. "The Delta 8 market is a
multi-million dollar industry and is growing exponentially each
year in terms of both customers and profits."
The plaintiffs claim they would not have purchased the D8 products
if Stiiizy had not misrepresented the level of active THC.
Congress passed the Agriculture Improvement Act, commonly known as
the 2018 Farm Bill, authorizing the production of Cannabis sativa
L, or hemp, and removing hemp and hemp seeds from the Drug
Enforcement Administration's list of controlled substances. Prior
to the Farm Bill, the domestic production of hemp was limited to
individuals registered under the Controlled Substances Act to grow
marijuana.
Under the bill, "hemp" refers to any part of the Cannabis sativa L.
plant, including the seeds and all derivatives, extracts,
cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers with a
delta-9 THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry
weight basis. This type of hemp is referred to as "Delta 8 THC."
Cannabis with a THC level exceeding 0.3 percent is still considered
marijuana, but remains a controlled substance under the Controlled
Substances Act.
Following the 2018 Farm Bill, the sales in hemp-based products
increased steadily with the U.S. hemp market estimated between $1
billion and $2.2 billion with revenues expected to rise, the suit
states. Additionally, the public interest in Delta 8 THC "increased
rapidly."
"Researchers studying the spike in interest determined the global
rate of interest searches for Delta 8 THC was stable between 2011
and 2019, then rose by 257% from 2019 and 2020 and by another 705%
from 2020 to 2021," the suit states.
"Wary of this drastic rise in popularity, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has cautioned consumers against Delta 8 THC
products, noting they 'have not been evaluated or approved by the
FDA for safe use in any context,' and 'they may be marketed in ways
that put the public health at risk and should especially be kept
out of reach of children and pets,'" it continues.
The plaintiffs claim Stiiizy intentionally misrepresents to
consumers that its D8 products are legal hemp products containing
less than 0.3% of active THC via product labels, packaging, and
advertisements.
"Stiiizy D8 products lack any of the protections afforded consumers
as a result of the licensing, testing, labeling, warning, and
advertising restrictions applicable to cannabis products, meaning
consumers are being placed at increased health, safety, and medical
risk by Stiiizy D8 Products that are, in fact, a controlled
substance," the suit states.
According to the complaint, a laboratory test performed on the
Stiiizy Skywalker OG Pen D8 showed that the product contained 3.57%
of Delta-9 THC.
"Stiiizy D8 products contain enough active THC that they qualify as
cannabis under the 2018 Farm Bill, federal CSA, IL CRTA, Missouri
Constitution, USDA regulations, and state enforcement agency
regulations," the suit states.
Attorney Boyer seeks to certify Illinois and Missouri classes,
including anyone "who bought one or more of the same or similar D8
products" purchased by Byron and Berry.
She seeks an order requiring Stiiizy to cease its alleged wrongful
conduct, requiring it to refund the class members of the funds they
paid for the products, and enjoining the defendant from continuing
to misrepresent and conceal material information about the D8
products.
Boyer also seeks compensatory damages as well as actual, treble,
punitive, or statutory damages for injuries suffered by the class
members, plus attorney's fees and all other costs deemed
appropriate.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:24-cv-1082 [GN]
STOP & SHOP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Fuller Due June 13
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edward Fuller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The
Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-09824-CS
(S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel entered an order granting the joint
proposed expert discovery plan as follows:
1. All expert discovery is to be completed by Aug. 14, 2024.
2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and expert
disclosures will be due by June 13, 2024.
3. Deposition of the Plaintiff's expert will be completed by
July
17, 2024.
4. The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion and
expert
disclosures will be due by July 24, 2024.
5. Deposition of the Defendant's expert will be completed by
Aug.
7, 2024.
6. The Plaintiff's reply, if any, will be due by Aug. 7, 2024.
The Defendant is a regional chain of supermarkets located in the
northeastern United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PoPnOs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul W. Garrity, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
30 Rockefeller Plz
New York NY 10112
Telephone: (212) 653-8700
E-mail: pgarrity@sheppardmullin.com
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Amato Must File Class Cert Bid by April 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH AMATO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU CORPORATION, Case No. 18-16118
(JHR/AMD) (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Ann Marie Donio entered an order
as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' time for filing the class certification motion
is
extended to April 30, 2024.
2. The parties shall submit to the Court a proposed consent
order
setting forth a revised briefing schedule on the motion for
class certification and pending motions in limine and for
summary judgment, as set forth on the record on April 17,
2024.
Subaru wholesales and markets new and used cars.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=18eY3c at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Aquino Must File Class Cert Bid by April 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO AQUINO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU CORPORATION, Case No. 22-990
(JHR/AMD) (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Ann Marie Donio entered an order
as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' time for filing the class certification motion
is
extended to April 30, 2024.
2. The parties shall submit to the Court a proposed consent
order
setting forth a revised briefing schedule on the motion for
class certification and pending motions in limine and for
summary judgment, as set forth on the record on April 17,
2024.
Subaru wholesales and markets new and used cars.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3TlOXU at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUMIDEN WIRE PRODUCTS: Berry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sumiden Wire Products
Corporation. The case is styled as Brent Matthew Berry, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated v. Sumiden Wire Products
Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0004242 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., April 8, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Wrongful Termination."
Sumiden Wire -- https://www.sumidenwire.com/ -- has provided
high-quality wire products to our customers since 1979.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
880 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205-1218
Phone: 818-962-6465
Fax: 818-962-6469
Email: r.shkodnik@d.law
SUPER SHINE: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Hernandez, Adrian Cortes, Jose Luis Sanchez, Jerson Cruz,
Delmys Aguilar, and Abelardo Pastrana, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. SUPER SHINE, L.L.C. LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, LARRY ENGEL, ERIC ENGEL, SAMUEL ENGEL, ENGEL
INVESTMENTS, LLC, ENGEL PROPERTIES LLC, ENGEL HOMES, LLC, GRAND
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC and ENGEL GARDENS, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-04703 (D.N.J., April 9, 2024), is brought arising out of
the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation,
the minimum wage, and other monies, as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
("NJWHL").
The Plaintiffs regularly were required by Super Shine and the
Individual Defendants to perform work without receiving proper
overtime compensation as required by applicable federal and state
law. part of their regular business practices, Super Shine and the
Individual Defendants intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly have
engaged in a policy, pattern, and/or practice of violating the FLSA
and the NJWHL. This policy, pattern, and/or practice has included
but is not limited to: Failing to pay Plaintiffs the proper
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times the
regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek under the
FLSA and the NJWHL; Failing to pay many of the Plaintiffs the
minimum wage under the NJWHL; Failing to pay Plaintiffs for work
they performed after the official closing time of the car wash; and
Failing to record on Plaintiffs' paystubs all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek in violation of the FLSA and the NJWHL,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.
Super Shine and Individual Defendants have employed numerous
individuals as car washers, cleaners, driers, detailers, and other
occupations related to the business of the washing and cleaning of
automobiles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Mermelstein, Esq.
ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 490-3600
TEVA CANADA: High Court Denies Certification in Contamination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Macnab of Law Times reports that the Ontario Court of Appeal
recently denied certification in a class action claiming damages
from the allegedly heightened cancer risk caused by a contamination
in an over-the-counter blood pressure medication.
Palmer v. Teva Canada Limited, 2024 ONCA 220 dealt with the fallout
from a Health Canada recall of Valsartan, which was found to
contain the contaminants N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) and
N-Nitrosodiisopropylamine (NDIPA). The class action plaintiffs
alleged NDEA and NDIPA are toxic carcinogens, and they sought
compensation for an increased future cancer risk, medical services
and monitoring costs, refunds for the Valsartan that they consumed
or threw away after the recall, and psychological and punitive
damages.
According to the decision, written by Justice Bradley Miller, the
defendants' supplier changed the valsartan manufacturing process
and contaminated the medication in 2012. The recall occurred in
2018.
The Superior Court dismissed their certification motion, finding
the causes of action were based on speculation rather than a
concrete injury and were unviable. The Court of Appeal dismissed
the appeal, finding that the drug manufacturers' wrongful conduct
was non-compensable. The physical harm had yet to materialize, and
the psychological harm that had materialized "was not sufficiently
serious to be compensable in tort law," said Miller.
The problem with the claim was that the plaintiffs were not
alleging that anyone had developed cancer as a result of the
contaminated medication but that they had an enhanced risk of doing
so in the future, says Peter Pliszka, a senior partner in Fasken's
litigation group who acted for Sandoz Canada Inc., Pro Doc Limitee,
Sanis Health Inc., and Sivem Pharmaceuticals, four of the
defendants.
"The law of tort is intended to protect people from actual harms,
not the mere creation of a risk," he says.
"The Court of Appeal emphatically affirmed that important principle
of tort law, which has actually been repeatedly reiterated by a
series of court decisions over the last five years," says Pliszka.
"The law of torts serves to compensate those who have suffered
damage from the wrongdoing of others. Not every instance of an
alleged wrongful act supports a legally viable cause of action."
"Where there is no legally compensable harm, there is no legally
viable claim. And where there's no legally compensable harm,
there's nothing to certify."
The recall impacted 316,000 Canadians and caused "significant
economic losses for medical consultation and discarding useless,
expensive prescription medicines," says Paul Bates, who acted for
the plaintiffs in the appeal. "Some of them suffered a nervous
shock from the situation because of the uncertainty about the
degree of risk from the contaminants."
The Superior Court looked at the epidemiological data and found
that there was a "measurable increase" in cancer risk as a result
of being prescribed the product and taking it for years, says
Bates.
"But he said the evidence did not yet show that it was a legal
cause of cancer," he says. "And the Court of Appeal upheld those
views and held therefore that there was not sufficient risk of harm
for purposes of tort compensation, that the epidemiological
connection to a cancer risk in statistics was not enough."
Palmer does not represent a significant change in the law as the
appeal court relied on and applied established legal principles,
says Robert Carson, a litigation partner at Osler Hoskin & Harcourt
LLP. The Supreme Court of Canada has already confirmed that an
increased risk of future injury is not compensable, he says.
"It's meaningful because it's a Court of Appeal decision in the
class action context. It applies a line of caselaw that focuses on
the need for plaintiffs to show actual harm before a product
liability class action can be certified. But it is not a sea change
in the law." [GN]
THEBATHOUTLET LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TheBathOutlet, LLC.
The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. TheBathOutlet, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-02625 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TheBathOutlet -- https://www.thebathoutlet.com/ -- is a leading
online store of high-end bathroom accessories and fixtures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
TIM HORTONS: Wrongly Tells Customers They've Won Boat, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irish Mae Silvestre of Daily Hive reports that according to Tim
Hortons, a class action lawsuit about a wrongly sent email telling
customers they won a boat doesn't hold any water.
On April 19, LPC Avocat Inc., a Montreal-based law firm, filed a
proposal for a class action that would force Tim Hortons to
"deliver the boats it informed customers they had won."
"Despite this human error, we firmly believe there is no merit to
the lawsuit, and we will address this through the court," stated a
Tim Hortons representative in an email to Daily Hive.
According to the proposal, Tim Hortons emailed around 500,000
customers on April 17 to inform them that they had won a Tracker
Targa 18 WT 2024 boat that retailed for $64,000.
Customers were disappointed to learn that the email had been
erroneous and that they wouldn't receive the flashy prize after
all. Those who tried to claim their prize then received an email
from Tim Hortons telling them to "disregard" the content of the
previous email.
The Tim Hortons spokesperson said they sent out a recap email
message giving guests "an overview of their play history."
"Unfortunately, there was a human error that resulted in some
guests receiving some incorrect information in this recap message,"
they stated. "When we became aware of the error, we quickly sent
out an email to guests notifying them of the error and
apologizing."
However, LPC Avocat Inc. pointed out that according to the Consumer
Protection Act, "the statements or advertisements are binding on
that merchant or that manufacturer." It further details that a
written or verbal statement by the representative of a merchant or
manufacturer "is binding on that merchant or manufacturer."
The class action aims to ensure that Tim Hortons fulfills its
obligation and delivers the boats, pays an undetermined amount in
damages, and pays class members punitive damages of $10,000.
Those eligible are consumers who received an "email from Tim
Hortons declaring that they won a Tracker Targa 18 WT 2024 boat and
its trailer as part of the Roll Up To Win promotion or any other
prize that was never delivered to them."
The lawsuit is still pending authorization hearing. [GN]
TIMOTHY PADGETT: Opposition Response to Class Cert Bid Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE TIRPAK GENSEY
and LESTER GENSEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. TIMOTHY D. PADGETT, P.A. doing business as PADGETT LAW
GROUP, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01007-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge John M. Gallagher entered an order that Padgett's Response in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motions to Certify Class is deemed
filed.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=649PRK at no extra
charge.[CC]
TOHVT MOTORS: Lazo Files TCPA Suit in D. Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TOHVT Motors, LLC.
The case is styled as MaKenzie Lazo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TOHVT Motors, LLC, Case No.
8:24-cv-00127-JFB-SMB (D. Neb., April 10, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Tohvt Motors is located in Elkhorn, Nebraska and primarily operates
in the Automotive Dealers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Highway, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
- and -
Stefan L. Coleman, Esq.
COLEMAN, PLLC
66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33130
Phone: (877) 333-9427
- and -
Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED
539 W Commerce Street, Suite 1899
Dallas, TX 75208
Phone: (972) 767-9099
The Defendant is represented by:
Frank J. Catalano, Esq.
CLARK, HILL LAW FIRM - FRISCO
2600 Dallas Parkway, Suite 600
Frisco, TX 75034
Phone: (469) 287-3900
Fax: (469) 287-3999
TOMER WEINGARTEN: Stochevski Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Walter Stochevski, Derivatively on Behalf of
Nominal Defendant Sentinelone, Inc. v. TOMER WEINGARTEN, DAVID
BERNHARDT, CHARLENE T. BEGLEY, AARON HUGHES, MARK S. PEEK, ANA
PINCZUK, DANIEL SCHEINMAN, TEDDIE WARDI, and JEFFREY W. YABUKI,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00025 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-02096-AGT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Stockholders Suits for the
Securities Exchange Act.
Tomer Weingarten co-founded SentinelOne in 2013.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth Rigrodsky, Esq.
Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 295-5310
Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
hwm@rl-legal.com
- and -
Gina M Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
825 E. Gate Blvd., Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (302) 295-5306
Email: gms@rl-legal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jay L. Pomerantz, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Phone: (650) 988-8500
Fax: (650) 938-5200
Email: jpomerantz@fenwick.com
- and -
Thomas Parker Will, Esq.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
1201 North Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 351-9178
Email: twill@mnat.com
TORRID HOLDINGS: Faces Waswick Shareholder Suit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Torrid Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
fiscal year ended February 3, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 2, 2024, that in November 2022, a
class action complaint was filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California captioned
"Sandra Waswick v. Torrid Holdings Inc., et al."
An amended complaint was filed in May 2023. The amended complaint
alleges that certain statements in the company's registration
statement on Form S-1 related to its IPO and in subsequent SEC
filings and earnings calls were allegedly false and misleading.
Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on December 22, 2023,
and defendants again moved to dismiss.
Torrid Holdings Inc. owns a direct-to-consumer brand of apparel,
intimates and accessories in North America aimed at fashionable
women who are curvy and wear sizes 10 to 30. It generates revenues
primarily through its e-Commerce platform www.torrid.com and stores
in the United States of America, Puerto Rico and Canada.
TOTAL SECURITY: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TOTAL SECURITY RESOURCES GROUP INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-04824 (D.N.J., April 11, 2024), is brought contending that
Defendant unlawfully failed to pay him and other similarly-situated
Security Agents overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(“PMWA”).
The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant employed in the position
of Security Agent. Plaintiff and, upon information and belief,
Class Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but
were not properly compensated for their work in that Plaintiff and
Class Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times
their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek. Rather, Defendant paid Plaintiff and, upon
information and belief, Class Plaintiffs a straight time rate, with
no overtime premium, for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff first began his employment with Defendant in December
2021, when he was hired as a Security Agent.
Total Security Resources Group Inc., is a business corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Murphy, Esq.
Michael Groh, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 267-273-1054
Fax: 215-525-021
Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
TRI-SUN INTERNATIONAL: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tri-Sun
International, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Tri-Sun
International, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02729 (S.D.N.Y., April 10,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tri-Sun International Inc. -- https://www.trisuninternational.com/
-- is a company that operates in the Pharmaceuticals industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
TRISTAR INSURANCE: Garrote Sues Over Failure to Implement Security
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Garrote, individually an on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRISTAR INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02927
(C.D. Cal., April 10, 2024), is brought arising out of Defendant's
and their related entities, subsidiaries, and agents' failure to
implement and maintain reasonable security practices to protect
consumers' sensitive personal information that Defendant collected
and maintained from Plaintiff and the Class members.
The Defendant further failed to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class members that their information had
been stolen. Defendant is among the nation's leading resources for
workers' compensation, property and casualty programs, and risk
control1 that manages more than 350 alternatively funded entities
in both the private and public insurance segments. For their
business purposes, Defendant obtains, stores, and transmits a
substantial amount of personally identifiable information ("PII")
from individuals like Plaintiff, in their servers and/or networks,
including but not limited to their name, date of birth, and Social
Security Number.
On February 1, 2024, data breach notice letters were issued by or
on behalf of Defendant announcing that on or about November 10,
2022, Defendant became aware of suspicious activity on certain
computer systems. Defendant launched an investigation with the
assistance of third-party forensic specialists who determine that
an unknown unauthorized party gained access to Defendant email
environment beginning on November 4, 2022, and subsequent
unauthorized access to certain systems containing consumer data.
which contained Plaintiff's sensitive personal information (the
"Data Breach").
The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class members a duty to implement
and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect, and safeguard the PII it collected and maintained for
business purposes and stored on its servers, databases, and/or
networks. The Defendant breached their duty by, inter alia, failing
to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and
practices to protect PII from unauthorized access and storing and
retaining Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information on
inadequately protected servers, databases, and/or networks, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a consumer who provided their personal information
and PII to Defendant.
TRISTAR Insurance Group, Inc. is a California corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, XA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
david@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Aquino Seeks Conditional Cert. of Employee Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY AQUINO,
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RAISER, LLC, and SCHLEUDER, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04267-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
1. Conditionally certifying a class of persons who at any point
in
the last 3 years (a) worked for Defendants Uber Technologies,
Inc., Raiser, LLC and Schleuder, LLC (together "Defendant" or
"Uber") in New York as a driver; (b) were paid hourly wages;
and
(c) opted out of arbitration with Uber.
2. Directing Uber to produce a computer-readable list
identifying
by name, last known mail address, last known email address,
and
telephone number all persons described above within 10 days
of
entry of the Order;
3. Authorizing the Plaintiff to issue the Notice attached as
Exhibit L to the Declaration of Catherine E. Anderson to
putative class members via U.S. Mail and/or email and the
Consent to Join form attached thereto; and
4. Authorizing Uber to post the Notice in a conspicuous area of
the
Uber Driver portal website located at
https://www.uber.com/global/en/sign-in.
Uber provides ride-hailing services, courier services, food
delivery, and freight transport.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HpNMYa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 847-8315
E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com
- and -
David R. Markham, Esq.
THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
888 Prospect St., Suite 200
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (619) 399-3995
Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
- and -
Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF
ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH LLC
400 Broadacres Drive, Suite 260
Bloomfield, NJ 07003
Telephone: (973) 259-6990
Facsimile: (866) 848-1368
E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com
- and -
Russell S. Warren, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES
OF RUSSELL S. WARREN, JR.
473 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Telephone. (201) 503-0773
Facsimile: (201) 503-0776
E-mail: mail@rwarrenlaw.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Impostor Pages
-------------------------------------------------------
Johnathan L. Wright of Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that Four
Las Vegas restaurants have filed a class-action lawsuit against
Uber alleging fraud, conversion of funds, civil RICO, racketeering
and negligence in connection with the Uber Eats delivery service.
The lawsuit, filed on April 24, 2024 in Clark County District
Court, involves restaurant pages appearing on the Uber Eats
platform that allegedly impersonated the plaintiffs and other
restaurants, allowing malicious actors "to siphon business for
themselves using the goodwill created by the actual business
owners," according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs are Esther's Kitchen, Gaetano's Ristorante,
Manizza's Pizza and BabyStacks Cafe. None is on Uber Eats, yet
"imposter" pages used their names or a similar name on the
platform. After the Review-Journal and other outlets reported the
discrepancies, Uber removed the "imposter" pages on April 23,
2024.
"Of course, these restaurants are all very different, but they have
something in common beyond all being great restaurants in their own
right. They are all victims of having their identities stolen and
their reputations tarnished to some degree by Uber Eats," Kimball
Jones, a partner in Bighorn Law, said in remarks on April 19, 2024
at Manizza's.
Bighorn, a Vegas firm, is representing the plaintiffs.
'Going on for years'
Jones continued his remarks: "Moreover, the complaint alleges that
Uber has known that this was going on for years, and rather than
shut down the fraud, it made the platform fraud-friendly."
"We allege in our Complaint that Uber made the deliberate decision
to keep this fraud gateway open because they did not care about any
business that was not their customer, and because Uber itself was
benefiting to the tune of 30 percent from all of these fraudulent
transactions."
The lawsuit also names Rasier LLC (a third-party company Uber uses
to pay its drivers), Berchman Melancon (a territory lead for Uber
Eats overseeing the service in Nevada), Nick Doe and Karina Doe
(two Uber Eats drivers whose true identities have yet to be
ascertained), and other individuals and entities whose true
identities also have yet to be ascertained.
The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on their own behalf and on behalf
of similarly situated entities (together, the Class). The size of
the Class "is believed to be in excess of 1,000 restaurants, past
and present," the complaint said.
An Uber-backed proposal
In his remarks, Jones also noted that a new political action
committee backed by Uber and some other Nevada businesses is
proposing a statutory initiative that would limit the fees that
Nevada attorneys can charge in civil cases.
"This would create a scenario where a lawsuit against every bad
actor in our state, including lawsuits against Uber, whether it be
a car crash or the numerous sexual assault cases against Uber
drivers or more cases like this, where local businesses are being
harmed, the victim would have their ability to find a great
attorney restricted unless they happen to have the money to pay for
that up front."
"On the other hand, Uber, with its billions of dollars, would still
be able to hire any lawyer it wanted, at a thousand dollars or more
and hour, giving it an unfair advantage in these cases."
Jones said plaintiffs had no choice but to file suit. "We don't
think there is any other way to get this multi-billion-dollar
company to do the right thing."
Uber has not responded to a request for comment. [GN]
UNDER ARMOUR: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Under Armour Inc. The
case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Under Armour Inc., Case No.
0:24-cv-01231-DWF-ECW (D. Minn., April 8, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Under Armour, Inc. -- https://www.underarmour.com/en-us/ -- is an
American sportswear company that manufactures footwear and apparel
headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
St. Michael, MN 55376
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
- and -
Patrick W Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE, LLC
222 South Ninth Street, Ste. 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Fax: (763) 226-2515
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
UNDER ARMOUR: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ENDURANCE AM. INS. CO. et
al., v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02481-RDB (D. Md.),
the Hon. Judge Richard Bennett entered memorandum as follows:
-- Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings is denied; and
-- Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted.
The case involves cross-motions for declaratory judgment with
respect to insurance coverage for the Defendant/Counterclaim
Plaintiff Under Armour, Inc. Specifically, this insurance coverage
dispute stems from a consolidated securities class action, several
derivative matters, and government investigations against Under
Armour.
The lead insurance company, Endurance American Insurance Company
and Under Armour have reached an agreement and there is no longer
any dispute between those two parties with respect to insurance
coverage during relevant time periods.
On Feb. 10, 2017, Brian Breece filed a class action complaint
against Under Armour, Kevin Plank, and another Under Armour
executive, Lawrence Molloy. The Breece Complaint was based on
allegations of false and overly optimistic public statements about
Under Armour's net revenue projections and growth rates, and
allegedly misleading statements regarding inventory growth,
discounting, and margin decline.
On March 23, 2017, this Court consolidated Breece's Complaint with
other suits filed against Under Armour, Plank, and numerous other
defendants, all of which centered on similar allegations.
On Aug. 17, 2016, Under Armour received a demand for inspection of
its books and records on behalf of shareholder Chad Sorenson.
The Defendant is an American sportswear company that manufactures
footwear and apparel.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated April 15, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uUfrsM
at no extra charge.[CC]
UNILEVER UNITED: Hossain Must File Class Cert Bid by May 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOSSAIN v. UNILEVER UNITED
STATES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02833 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 19,
2021), the Hon. Judge Natasha C. Merle entered a scheduling order:
-- The Plaintiff Candelaria is ordered to file May 31, 2024
her motion for class certification by:
-- The Defendant's opposition is due by: July 1, 2024
-- The plaintiff's reply, if any, is due by: July 19,
2024
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product
Liability.
Unilever manufactures personal care products.[CC]
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Heiting Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Anne Heiting, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV05618 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on April 9,
2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02881-ODW-BFM.
The Complaint alleges a singular cause of action against UHC for
violation of California Penal Code section 638.51.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David B. Carpenter, Esq.
Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq.
Gillian H. Clow, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410
Phone: 213-576-1000
Facsimile: 213-576-1100
Email: david.carpenter@alston.com
rachel.lowe@alston.com
gillian.clow@alston.com
UNITED PARCEL: Court Narrows Claims in Beddingfield Employee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned UNITY
BEDDINGFIELD, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-05896-EMC (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Unity Beddingfield, an African American woman, filed this
action against her employer Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.
("UPS") alleging she was discriminated against on the basis of
race, gender and pregnancy. She alleges that she was subjected to
consistent and frequent discrimination and harassment by UPS severe
enough to cause her anxiety, debilitation and illness. She asserts
seven claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Equal Pay
Act, and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, as well as intentional
infliction of emotional distress, retaliatory disparate treatment
in violation of public policy, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff advances seven causes of action against Defendant
United Parcel Service, Inc., as well as its employees and agents
including Managers Aimee/Amy Vice, Jeffrey Davies, "Omar," Ryan
Perrault, Rene Reyes, and Does from 1 through 20: (1) retaliatory
disparate treatment in violation of public policy; (2) harassment,
Cal. Gov. Code Section 12940(j) (FEHA); (3) discrimination, Cal.
Gov. Code Section 12900, et seq. (FEHA); (4) Intentional Infliction
of Emotional Distress; (5) unfair business practices; (6) violation
of the Equal Pay Act; and (7) violation of the Pregnant Workers
Fairness Act.
Now pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case for the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust her administrative
remedies and failure to plead sufficient facts. The Court grants in
part and denies in part the Defendant's motion.
The Plaintiff initially joined the class action lawsuit Goins v.
United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 21-CV-08722-PJH, 2023 WL 3047388
at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2023) as a class representative along
with numerous other class representatives. There, the court
dismissed the Plaintiff (and others) for failure to exhaust her
administrative remedies.
Prior to Goins, the Plaintiff filed her first administrative charge
with the California Civil Rights Division ("CRD") on June 14, 2022
("First CRD Charge"). She has not attached her right-to-sue notice
for her First CRD Charge to the Complaint, but alleges that the CRD
granted her the right-to-sue. However, in dismissing the Plaintiff
from Goins, the court never considered her individual
administrative charge. Instead the court ruled on the adequacy of a
class-based charge.
Following her dismissal from the Goins action, the Plaintiff filed
her second administrative complaint to the CRD on Sept. 1, 2023
("Second CRD Charge"). She received a CRD notice of case closure
and right-to-sue notice on the same day. She did not receive a
formal federal right-to-sue notice. A week later, on Sept. 5, 2023,
the Plaintiff filed the instant suit against Defendants UPS,
Aimee/Amy Vice, Jeffrey Davies, "Omar," Ryan Perrault, and Rene
Reyes in the Superior Court of Contra Costa, California.
On Nov. 15, 2023, the Defendants removed the case to the Northern
District of California.
In its motion to dismiss, Defendant UPS argues that the Plaintiff's
first claim "Retaliatory Disparate Treatment in Violation of Public
Policy" against UPS is not a common law cause of action. However,
Judge Chen opines, California courts have recognized "a common law
tort action for wrongful discharge in cases in which the
termination contravenes public policy," citing Tameny v. Atlantic
Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167, 172 (1980).
Judge Chen notes that for a policy to support a wrongful discharge
claim, it must be: (1) delineated in either constitutional or
statutory provisions; (2) public in the sense that it inures to the
benefit of the public rather than serving merely the interests of
the individual; (3) well established at the time of the discharge;
and (4) substantial and fundamental, citing Stevenson v. Superior
Ct., 16 Cal. 4th 880, 894 (1997).
Here, the Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination and that UPS
discriminated against her on the basis of race and sex.
Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiff satisfies the first prong of
the Stevenson test. Although she fails to expressly cite specific
underlying statutory provision or incorporate them by reference in
her Tameny claim, she makes a claim of sex and race discrimination
under the FEHA later in her complaint. As to the other prongs of
the test, the Stevenson court has held that race and sex
discrimination under FEHA is "public," "well established," and
"substantial and fundamental."
Thus, the Plaintiff has satisfied all prongs of the Stevenson test
and the Court denies dismissal of the Plaintiff's wrongful
discharge in violation of public policy claim.
The Plaintiff's second and third causes of action assert claims
under the FEHA. The second cause of action is harassment based on
race, disability (pregnancy) and gender in violation of the FEHA.
The third cause of action is discrimination on the basis of "race,
sex, gender amongst several others" in violation of the FEHA
against Defendant UPS.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's FEHA claims fail
because 1) they are precluded by the Goins decision, 2) the
Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and 3) her
claims are time barred.
Judge Chen finds, among other things, that Complaint was reasonably
within the scope of the Plaintiff's Second CRD Charge, and that
Charge was reasonably specific. The Plaintiff, thus, properly
exhausted her administrative remedy, and her Second CRD Charge is
factually sufficient to exhaust her administrative remedies.
Accordingly, the Defendant UPS's conduct from December 2021 through
August 2023 is actionable and the Court denies dismissal of the
Plaintiff's FEHA claims.
The Plaintiff's seventh cause of action arises under the Pregnant
Workers Fairness Act ("PWFA"), which requires employers to grant
reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees and prohibits
discrimination against employees which require such accommodation.
She alleges that UPS failed to accommodate her requests to be taken
off "Sort/Packages," where there was a high risk of falling heavy
packages; to be removed from a workspace where she was placed on a
metal folding chair in a cold upstairs office with no handrails; to
be transferred closer to her home (instead transferring her farther
than 75 miles and a total of seven times during her pregnancy); and
to breast pump for her child.
The Court dismisses the Plaintiff's PWFA claim with leave to amend.
Unless she demonstrates the PWFA has retroactive application, Judge
Chen says she must clearly alleged which conduct occurred after the
effective date of the PWFA, and why it is covered. If she asserts
breastfeeding is a related medical condition or limitation, she
must put forth legal theory and allege facts so showing. Finally,
she must allege facts demonstrating challenged conduct which is
timely relative to the constructive filing of her administrative
charge on Sept. 1, 2023.
The Court denies dismissal of the intentional infliction of
emotional distress ("IIED") claim because the Plaintiff has
adequately alleged "extreme and outrageous" conduct, and that claim
is not barred by the worker's compensation act.
With respect to the Plaintiff's claim under the Equal Pay Act
("EPA"), Judge Chen opines that the Defendant is correct that she
does not allege any facts about the work she performed for which
she was allegedly underpaid, how her work was substantially similar
to work performed by similarly situated men, or that those men
worked in the same establishment. The Plaintiff does not specify
which facts support violations of the Equal Pay Act in the
Complaint, but re-alleges and incorporates the entirety of her
factual pleadings as part of her claim.
The Court has identified certain portions of the Plaintiff's
factual allegations as potentially demonstrative of sex-based pay
disparity, but finds a claim is not adequately alleged and, thus,
dismisses this claim with leave to amend.
Because at least one of the Plaintiff's claims that would underlie
an unlawful business act of practice survives, the Court denies
dismissal of the claim alleging unfair business practices.
Accordingly, the Court grants dismissal with leave to amend Counts
Seven (PWFA), and Six (EPA). The Court denies dismissal of Counts
One (Retaliatory Disparate Treatment in Violation of Public
Policy), Two and Three (FEHA), Four (IIED), and Five (UCL).
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 8, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/54e84jzt from PacerMonitor.com.
UNITED STATES: Civil Standing Order Entered in He Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as XU HE, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-00802-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered a civil standing order as
follows:
-- Proposed Orders
Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the
determination of any matter shall serve and electronically
lodge a
proposed order setting forth the relief or action sought and a
brief statement of the rationale for the decision with
appropriate
citations.
-- Order Setting Scheduling Conference
The parties must strictly comply with Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 16 and 26, and Local Rule 26. The parties must
propose a
trial date that is within 18 months of the filing of the
complaint.
-- Settlement Conference and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
As stated in Local Rule 16-15, the parties in every case must
participate in a Settlement Conference or Alternative Dispute
Resolution ("ADR") procedure. The court will not hold a final
pretrial conference or convene any trial unless and until all
parties, including the principals of all corporate parties,
have
completed ADR.
-- Notice of This Order
Counsel for Plaintiff shall immediately serve this Order on all
parties, including any new parties to the action. If this case
came to the court by noticed removal, the Defendant shall serve
this Order on all other parties.
United States is a country in North America that is a federal
republic of 50 states.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WOiULd at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: May 10 Extension for Class Cert Opposition Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA RAINES and
DARRICK FIGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP, a corporation; U.S.
HEALTHWORKS, INC., a corporation; SELECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, a corporation; SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a
corporation; CONCENTRA GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, a corporation;
CONCENTRA, INC., a corporation; CONCENTRA PRIMARY CARE OF
CALIFORNIA, a medical corporation; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTERS OF
CALIFORNIA, a Medical Corporation; and DOES 4 and 8 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the
Defendants to file an Opposition to the motion to May 10, 2024.
The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply and the date/time
of the Hearing shall remain the same.
The Parties have also set the deposition of Plaintiff Figg for
April 18, 2024.
On Jan. 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification, with a hearing date set for March 22, 2024.
On Feb. 13, 2024, the Defendants took the deposition of Plaintiff
Raines.
Due to scheduling conflicts, the Defendants could not take the
depositions of Plaintiff Figg and Dr. Durrani before their deadline
to oppose the Motion, March 8, 2024.
On Feb. 20, 2024, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Application to
Continue Class Certification hearing and Set Amended Briefing
Schedule.
On Feb. 27, 2024, the Court granted the Ex Parte and set May 3,
2024, as the deadline for Defendants to file an Opposition to the
Motion, May 17, 2024, as the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their
Reply, and May 24, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. as the Hearing on the Motion.
US HealthWorks is an urgent care & occupational health service
provider.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O3qrMm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Scott Erlewine, Esq.
Kyle P. O'Malley, Esq.
PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
39 Mesa St 201
San Francisco, CA 94129
Telephone: (415) 398-0900
The Defendants are represented by:
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq.
Cameron O. Flynn, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
tim.johnson@ogletree.com
nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com
cameron.flynn@ogletree.com
UNITED STATES: Volkova Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
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
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class
certification be granted.
On March 14, 2024, Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom issued an Order
recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
On April 2, 2024, this Court granted "the defendant's letter
application to stay the filing of objections to MJ Bloom's
pending oral Report and Recommendation as to class certification
until after the Zoom settlement conference scheduled on April 8,
2024 before MJ Bloom."
As Plaintiff previously advised the Court, the Defendants do not
object to the granting of class certification.
USCIS oversees immigration to the United States and approves (or
denies) immigrant petitions, and more.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1suoAQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charlotte E. Loper, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
E-mail: cloper@motleyrice.com
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Sept. 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, et al., v.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01559-LB
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered a case management
and pretrial order as follows:
Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure
Deadline/Hearing
Date
ADR completion date: Sept. 5, 2024
Updated joint case-management-conference Sept. 5, 2024
Statement:
Further case-management conference: Sept. 12, 2024
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Sept. 19, 2024
including class expert reports:
Defendants' opposition to class Oct. 17, 2024
certification, including class expert
reports:
Plaintiffs' reply ISO class certification, Oct. 31, 2024
including rebuttal reports
Hearing on class-certification Nov. 14, 2024
motion/further case-management
conference/further case-management
conference:
University of San Francisco is a private Jesuit university in San
Francisco, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nF5JZH at no extra
charge.[CC]
VALENTINO USA: Opposition Brief in Benitez Suit Due May 31
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Josefina Benitez, et al.,
v. Valentino U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-11463-JGLC-RWL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an order
granting the Parties propose briefing schedule as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' opening brief: April 19, 2024
-- Defendant's opposition brief: May 31, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' reply brief: June 28, 2024
Valentino operates men's and boy's clothing stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o3ILK8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC
69-06 Grand Avenue, 3rd Floor
Maspeth, NY 11378
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-189
E-mail: michael@employeejustice.com
VICTORIA: Redevelopment Plan Violates Human Rights, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Lucas of The Age reports that Awil Hussein is at home in his
comfortable North Melbourne apartment with his two daughters,
Fatima and Aisha.
It's the school holidays, outside it's pelting down and Hussein,
like many parents with kids home for the holidays, is desperately
trying to come up with new things for his playful daughters to do
on a bleak Melbourne day.
Hussein, though, has another type of stress also hanging over his
head: the imminent destruction of the public housing estate he has
called home for the last 23 years. It's a place that he loves.
"It's very safe to live here and there's a really good community
atmosphere too," says Hussein, of the tower where he and his girls
live, in Sutton Street, North Melbourne, and the adjacent tower
where his mother lives, in Alfred Street.
His mother's tower is among the first of three to be demolished
under the state government's plans for the high-rise housing
estates dotted all over inner Melbourne. Once those three are gone,
the rest will gradually follow.
"That community, that's what's going to be destroyed," says
Hussein, a community advocate and the president of Melbourne Somali
Community Inc. "There is a really great sense of belonging,
particularly for the elderly people that live in these buildings."
Hussein says his apartment was upgraded not too long ago and while
it lacks cooling, it is otherwise a perfect place to raise a
family.
In September, then-premier Daniel Andrews promised that all the
public housing towers would be razed and rebuilt to fit three times
as many residents on the sites over the next 30 years. Soon after,
a class action was filed in the Supreme Court by a community legal
centre acting on behalf of residents.
That class action sought to scuttle the demolition plan, with the
lead plaintiff arguing the redevelopment would adversely affect the
human rights of thousands of tenants.
On April 23, lawyers acting for the Victorian government and
Housing Minister Harriet Shing will go back to the Supreme Court
and attempt to have that class action struck out -- or
"de-classed", as it's technically known.
The government said last September that the 44 public housing
towers "fail against noise, sustainability, waste and recycling,
bedroom area dimensions, room depth, ventilation, private open
space, accessibility and minimum amenity standards".
And they argued that if housing authorities did only critical
repair and maintenance works over the next 20 years to apartments
in the towers, it would cost $2.3 billion.
About 30,000 people would live on the estates to be demolished and
rebuilt by 2051 under the plan – with 11,000 in social housing,
about 1000 more than occupy the towers now. The remainder would be
private apartments, with an unspecified number of so-called
"affordable" housing tenants.
But Inner Melbourne Community Legal, the law centre that is working
with residents to bring the class action to court, said the attempt
to quash the case was more about secrecy than it was serving the
community.
"It is [an] attempt to maintain secrecy around the government's
decision to demolish [the] towers and deny residents their
opportunity to understand whether their rights have been properly
considered," the legal centre said in a statement.
In a writ filed in the Supreme Court in January on behalf of
residents in both the Flemington and North Melbourne public housing
estates, lead plaintiff Barry Berih said the government had made
the decision to raze the buildings "in a manner that was
incompatible with human rights".
"Public authorities have failed to properly consider their rights
throughout the process," Berih's writ said.
Inner Melbourne Community Legal, acting on behalf of the residents,
has also argued that Victoria's state Cabinet did not have the
authority to make the decision to demolish the towers.
The legal centre's managing lawyer, Louisa Bassini, said the entire
process has occurred without transparency or procedural fairness.
"The public housing estates aren't just bricks and mortar that
belong to the state government. The towers are home to 10,000
Victorians and their rights matter. The Victorian government should
not prefer expedited and secretive decision-making ahead of proper
consideration of peoples' rights," she said.
The writ filed in the Supreme Court by the community legal centre
also challenges the state Cabinet's authority to greenlight the
tower demolition plan. It argues that such a decision must be made
by the Housing Minister, Harriet Shing, and by the state's housing
agency, Homes Victoria.
"The decision to demolish ought to have been undertaken by the
Housing Minister or Homes Victoria in a manner consistent with the
established legislation, in consultation with the communities
affected, and with reference to the Charter [of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Act]," Ms Bassini said.
The demolition of public housing and subsequent sale of the land
that housing once stood on to the private sector is the subject of
a new documentary to be released next month at the Setting Sun
International Film Festival, which runs annually in Melbourne's
western suburbs.
Things Will Be Different is a documentary that follows two
residents in their final months living in the now-demolished Walker
Street public housing estate in Northcote.
The estate was knocked down and most of the block, which overlooks
the Merri Creek, given to developers for sale.
The state government has never divulged the deal with developer
MAB, or what proportion of profits from the sale has gone back into
the public housing sector. A new building on one corner of the site
will be constructed for the disadvantaged, with 106 social housing
units (the old public housing estate had 79 units).
Lucie McMahon is one of the directors of Things Will Be Different,
and said there were many similarities between what was unfolding at
the North Melbourne and Flemington public housing estates and what
had happened in Northcote.
"What's happening at Flemington and North Melbourne estates will
displace people from their communities, their children's schools
and their workplaces and health care facilities. We saw this happen
at the Walker Street estate in Northcote, and it has had really
detrimental effects on the families involved," McMahon said.
She said the redevelopment of Northcote had taken far longer than
residents were promised, and it was still unclear whether they
would ultimately be able to return.
Many had now established lives elsewhere and couldn't face moving
again. McMahon said alternatives to simply demolishing the
high-rise towers should be found, "such as building infill housing
on existing estates and renewing the existing buildings, rather
than knocking them down and rebuilding".
A Victorian government spokeswoman said redeveloping Melbourne's
public high-rise towers would be the largest urban renewal project
in Australian history and boost social housing by at least 10 per
cent, "delivering modern, fit-for-purpose housing that every
Victorian can be proud to call a home".
She said it would be inappropriate to comment further because the
matter was before the courts. [GN]
VILLAGE PRACTICE: Sued Over Illegal Disclosure of PII & PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VILLAGE PRACTICE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A VILLAGE
MEDICAL D/B/A VILLAGEMD, Case No. 1:24-cv-02882 (N.D. Ill., April
10, 2024), is brought to address Defendant's outrageous, illegal,
and widespread practice of disclosing the confidential Personally
Identifying Information1 ("PII") and/or Protected Health
Information ("PHI") (collectively referred to as "Private
Information") of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members to third
parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta, Google, LLC,
and others ("the Disclosure").
The Defendant encourages patients to use its Website, along with
its various web-based tools and services (collectively, the "Online
Platforms"), to learn about Village on its main website page, to
research treatment services, to find providers to schedule
appointments, to access a patient portal14 and more, including to
find locations, to research insurance information, and to learn
about health information via a blog. When Plaintiff and Class
Members used Defendant's Websites and Online Platforms, they
thought they were communicating exclusively with their trusted
healthcare provider.
Unbeknownst to them, Defendant embedded pixels from Facebook and
others into its Website and Online Platforms, surreptitiously
forcing Plaintiff and Class Members to transmit intimate details
about their medical treatment to third parties without their
consent. A tracker (also referred to as "tracking technology") is a
snippet of code embedded into a website that tracks information
about its visitors and their website interactions.
The Defendant utilized data from these trackers to market their
services and bolster their profits. Facebook utilizes data from the
Meta Pixel and CAPI to build data profiles for the purpose of
creating targeted online advertisements and enhanced marketing
services, which it sells for profit.
Despite willfully and intentionally incorporating the Meta Pixel,
potentially CAPI, and other third-party trackers into its Website
and servers, Defendant have never disclosed to Plaintiff or Class
Members that it shared their Information with Facebook, and
possibly others. The Defendant further made express and implied
promises to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information and maintain the privacy and confidentiality of
communications that patients exchanged with Defendant.
The Defendant owed common law, statutory, and regulatory duties to
keep Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications and Private
Information safe, secure, and confidential. The Plaintiff seeks to
remedy these harms and bring causes of action for: Negligence;
Invasion of Privacy—Intrusion Upon Seclusion; Breach of Implied
Contract, Unjust Enrichment; Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and
Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act ("CFDPA"), says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been a patient of Village since January 2023.
The Defendant is an Illinois healthcare provider which renders
primary care medical treatment to patients across the country under
a mission "to make primary care more caring."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Mary Kate Dugan, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
WALDENCAST PLC: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
fox44news.com reports that Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights
law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of Waldencast plc (NASDAQ: WALD, WALDW)
resulting from allegations that Waldencast may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Waldencast securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18362 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On July 5, 2023, after the market closed,
Waldencast filed a current report with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in which it disclosed, among other things, that it
intended to "restate its consolidated financial statements for the
Relevant Periods", which were the periods ending December 31, 2021,
March 31, 2022, June 30, 2022, and September 30, 2022. Waldencast
announced it had "determined that a material weakness existed in
the Company's internal control over financial reporting during the
relevant periods."
On this news, Waldencast's stock fell $0.76 per share, or 10%, to
close at $6.63 per share on July 6, 2023.
Then, on January 16, 2024, Waldencast reported its financial
results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, which included
restated financial statements.
On this news, Waldencast's stock fell $1.57 per share, or 15%, to
close at $8.70 per share on January 16, 2024.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Second Amended Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint in the lawsuit styled IN RE:
WALMART INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-00055-CFC (D.
Del.).
Lead Plaintiff Kim Kengle, as trustee of the Kim K. Kengle 2000
Trust, along with named Plaintiff Roseanne Lacy, filed this Class
Action against Defendants Walmart Inc., Douglas McMillon, and M.
Brett Biggs. A corrected version of the operative Second Amended
Complaint (SAC) was filed on May 2, 2023.
The SAC has two counts. In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege that all
three Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), and Securities Exchange Commission
(SEC) Rule l0b-5. In Count II, the Plaintiffs allege that McMillon
and Biggs violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period (March 31, 2017
- Dec. 22, 2020), the Defendants violated these securities laws by
failing to timely and completely disclose to investors in 13
different forms filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) that Walmart was the subject of parallel criminal and civil
investigations (the Investigations) conducted by the Eastern
District of Texas (EDTX) United States Attorney's Office.
The Defendants have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the SAC.
Although the lawsuit is a securities class action, much of the
Plaintiffs' SAC focuses on whether Walmart complied with the
Controlled Substance Act (the CSA).
The CSA was enacted to provide meaningful regulation over
legitimate sources of drugs to prevent diversion into illegal
channels. The Act created a category of drugs--controlled
substances--that are strictly monitored because of their high abuse
potential. Opioid painkillers are categorized as controlled
substances, and anyone who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses
opioid painkillers is required by the CSA to register with the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA)
Distributors and pharmacists are subject to numerous CSA
requirements. The CSA imposes civil penalties for failing to report
suspicious orders to the DEA and for violating the dispensing
rules.
In addition to selling retail products, Walmart operates
approximately 5,000 pharmacies. Customers can use these pharmacies
to fill prescriptions for controlled substances, including
prescription opioids. Until 2018, Walmart "self-distributed" these
controlled substances to its pharmacies. Thus, Walmart both
employed pharmacists and was a controlled substance distributor.
On Dec. 27, 2007, the DEA sent letters to every registered
controlled substance distributor, including Walmart. The letters
warned distributors about the dangers of prescription drug abuse.
In October 2013, Walmart created a document titled "Controlled
Substance Risk Assessment: Executive Summary" (CSRA). That document
stated that Walmart had not designed and operated a system to
detect suspicious orders and report them to the DEA when
discovered.
In the summer of 2016, the DEA began investigating two Texas
doctors, who were prescribing opioids. On Dec. 7, 2016, the DEA
raided a Walmart store and obtained records relating to the Texas
doctors. Walmart has acknowledged that on Dec. 7, 2016, it learned
that the EDTX DOJ was criminally investigating Walmart following
the DEA's raid.
In March 2017, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in the
EDTX U.S. Attorney's Office obtained and served on Walmart a
warrant to search Walmart emails for documents related to certain
pharmacists in Texas.
On Dec. 1, 2017, Walmart filed its 3Q 2017 10-Q. That filing
included Walmart's representation that "where a liability is
reasonably possible and may be material, such matters have been
disclosed."
The Plaintiffs allege that by this point, Walmart knew that EDTX
had launched a parallel civil investigation and was issuing
administrative subpoenas.
On March 28, 2018, an EDTX AUSA "informed Walmart of her intention
to indict the Company." Walmart responded by requesting a meeting
with federal prosecutors to resolve any criminal or civil
proceedings in one shot.
Two days after the EDTX AUSA informed Walmart of her intent to
indict it, on March 30, 2018, Walmart filed its annual 2017 10-K.
Walmart again represented that "where a liability is reasonably
possible and may be material, such matters have been disclosed." In
addition to other unrelated legal proceedings and investigations,
Walmart disclosed multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending in the
Northern District of Ohio.
On May 3 and 4, 2018, EDTX prosecutors, including the EDTX United
States Attorney, met with senior Walmart attorneys. During the
meetings, prosecutors said that they would "imminently" indict
Walmart, and Walmart had to pay "$1 billion to resolve the matter
civilly."
On June 4, 2018, Walmart filed its IQ 2018 10-Q statement. Once
again, Walmart stated that it had disclosed "where a liability is
reasonably possible and may be material," and it also referred to
the pending Northern District of Ohio MDL. This time, Walmart also
included the following statement: "The Company has also been
responding to subpoenas, information requests, and investigations
from governmental entities related to nationwide controlled
substance dispensing practices involving the sale of opioids."
Walmart met with Department of Justice (DOJ) officials throughout
the summer of 2018.
The Plaintiffs allege that Individual Defendant Robert McMillon
personally knew about PowerPoint presentations that Walmart made to
DOJ officials during a July 26, 2018 meeting. The Plaintiffs
further allege that McMillon was consulted during the formulation
and approval of Walmart's response to the DOJ investigation.
Despite the EDTX attorneys' earlier statements, on Aug. 31, 2018,
the DOJ informed Walmart that it was declining to criminally
prosecute Walmart. At the same time, the DOJ informed Walmart that
it had formed a working group to investigate Walmart for civil CSA
violations and determine whether criminal charges should be brought
against individual Walmart employees.
On March 25, 2020, the journalism outlet ProPublica published an
article that revealed the civil and criminal investigations into
Walmart for potential CSA violations. That "article was based on
hundreds of internal Walmart documents and investigative documents,
correspondence Walmart exchanged with the DOJ, and nine people
'familiar with the investigation.'" The same day that the
ProPublica article was published, Walmart's stock dropped nearly
five percent.
On Dec. 22, 2020, the DOJ announced in a press release that it had
filed a civil lawsuit against Walmart for alleged CSA violations.
By Dec. 23, 2020, Walmart's stock had fallen by 1.88%.
In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue that the SAC
should be dismissed for three reasons. First, they say that the
Defendants' statements in the SEC filings challenged by the
Plaintiffs were not false or misleading. Second, they argue that
the Plaintiffs have failed to plead particularized facts that
support an inference of scienter. And third, they say that the
Plaintiffs did not properly plead loss causation.
Judge Connolly agrees with the Defendants that the SAC does not
allege actionable false or misleading statements in the challenged
SEC filings. Accordingly, Judge Connolly grants the Defendants'
motion and dismiss the SAC, and needs not and does not address the
Defendants' arguments regarding scienter and loss causation.
The Defendants do not dispute that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
alleged that the Defendants were made aware of potential material
liabilities when EDTX prosecutors told Walmart in April 2018 that
it would be indicted. But the Defendants say that Walmart "promptly
disclosed the Investigation" in its 1Q 2018 10-Q in June 2018, and
that because of that disclosure, Walmart's representation that
"where a liability is reasonably possible and may be material, such
matters have been disclosed" was neither false nor misleading.
Judge Connolly agrees. The Defendants made clear in the disclosure
that Walmart had "been responding to subpoenas, information
requests and investigations from governmental entities related to
nationwide controlled substance dispensing practices involving the
sale of opioids" and that Walmart could "provide no assurance as to
the scope and outcome of these matters and no assurance as to
whether its business, financial condition or results of operations
will not be materially adversely affected.
At bottom, Judge Connolly says no investor could read Walmart's
disclosures regarding the Investigations without understanding what
was true--namely, that Walmart potentially faced losses if the
Investigation resulted in criminal charges or civil claims and that
the scope of any such losses was indeterminate. Accordingly, the
Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that
nondisclosures by the Defendants with respect to the Investigations
rendered Walmart's statement that "where a liability is reasonably
possible and may be material, such matters have been disclosed"
false or misleading.
Judge Connolly opines, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have
not pleaded with sufficient particularity that Walmart's Class
Period disclosure statements violated ASC 450. The Judge adds that
there are no allegations in the SAC that the DOJ would have claimed
damages in the EDTX's contemplated criminal and civil proceedings
against Walmart that exceeded ten percent of the assets of Walmart
and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.
Because Plaintiffs have failed to allege with particularity
actionable false and misleading statements in the challenged SEC
filings, Judge Connolly grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated April 8,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/56z5rfhf from
PacerMonitor.com.
Brian E. Farnan -- bfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- Michael J. Farnan --
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- FARNAN LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Sara
Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A., in New
York City, Counsel for the Plaintiffs.
Robert W. Whetzel -- whetzel@rlf.com -- Raymond J. DiCamillo --
dicamillo@rlf.com -- John M. O'Toole -- otoole@rlf.com -- RICHARDS,
LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; Sean M. Berkowitz
-- sean.berkowitz@lw.com -- Nicholas J. Siciliano --
nicholas.siciliano@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, in Chicago,
Illinois, Counsel for the Defendants.
WEBSTER BANK: Agrees to Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert of nrlitchi.org reports that the data incident involves
Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (Guardian), a life
insurance company based in the United States. The breach impacted
the personal data of specific customers of one of its clients,
Webster Bank.
The data incident happened because of a mistake in the security
system, which allowed someone to access the sensitive information
of some Webster Bank customers.
The company found out about this on January 24, 2023, but it was
not until February 10, 2023, that the Guardian confirmed that
Webster Bank's data had been impacted. The compromised information
included the customers' Social Security numbers, names, and account
numbers.
The defendants have agreed to pay over $1.4 million to settle the
cases, which were combined with similar lawsuits in July 2023. The
settlement agreement states that those covered will receive notice
about the deal within 21 days of the court granting initial
approval or no later than January 24.
Class members who submit a claim with proof that they paid certain
out-of-pocket expenses due to the breach can receive up to $200 in
compensation. Those covered by the deal can also submit a claim to
receive $25 for each documented hour they spent dealing with the
incident, with a cap of four hours.
In addition, class members who have fallen victim to documented
identity theft or fraud cases can receive up to $5,000. Eligible
consumers can also submit a claim for two years of three-bureau
credit and identity theft monitoring with $1 million in insurance.
The final approval hearing is scheduled for May 20, 2024.
Who is Eligible?
The settlement covers anyone notified that their personal
information might have been impacted during the data security
incident that affected Guardian's systems between November 27,
2022, and January 22, 2023.
Who is Representing the Plaintiffs?
The case has ten representative plaintiffs: Mark S. Holden, Richard
Andisio, Edward Marshall, Ann Marie Marshall, Arthur Christiani,
Johnielle Dwyer, Pawel Krzykowski, Mariola Krzynowek, James Howe,
and Cindy A. Pereira. They represent the interests of all class
members who have experienced similar issues.
Final Approval
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on May 20, 2024. The
Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement and if
approved, the Class Counsel's fees and plaintiffs' service amount
will be decided.
How to file a Webster Bank Class Action Claim?
The forms should be submitted by 24 April 2024 to be eligible for
the settlement.
1. You can complete the claim form online.
2. Fill out the form with all the required details, including
personal information, details about how you were affected by the
incident, and any claims for compensation per the settlement
terms.
3. After filling out the form, review it for accuracy and
submit it through the website.
Submission via Paper Claim Form
1. You can download a paper claim form from the settlement
website or call the Settlement Administrator at 1-888-680-3314 to
request a claim form.
2. Once you have the paper form, complete it with the
necessary information.
3. Then send your claim via post at the following address:
Webster Bank Data Incident Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2408
Portland, OR 97208-2408 [GN]
WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER: Telek Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weirton Medical
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Leslie Telek, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Weirton Medical
Center, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00069-JPB (N.D.W. Va., April 10,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Weirton Medical Center -- https://www.weirtonmedical.com/ -- is a
non-profit hospital focused on providing quality care to patients
across West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Zak Ritchie, Esq.
Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC
P.O. Box 3983
Charleston, WV 25339
Phone: (681) 265-3802
Fax: (304) 982-8056
Email: zritchie@hfdrlaw.com
rdonovan@hfdrlaw.com
- and -
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: pkrzeski@chestnutchambronne.com
WELLS FARGO: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Martin
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ricardo Martin, et al. v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01969-JAK-DTB
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Kronstadt entered an order:
-- granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and
-- mooting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Because the MSJ has been granted, there is no basis to consider the
merits of the MCC. Consequently, the MCC is MOOT.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class (the "Putative
Class"):
"All non-exempt employees of Defendant who were paid
'OverTimePay-Override' wages within the one prior to the
initiation of this action until the date that the class is
certified."
The Defendant allegedly failed to provide accurate wage statements
to the Plaintiff whenever the Defendant paid OverTimePay-Override
("OTPO") wages.
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HK2zoa at no extra
charge.[CC]
WEST HILLS: Unger's Bid to Dismiss Glahn Securities Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eric F. Melgren of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas denies Defendant Joseph Unger's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit captioned JOHN CLIFFORD GLAHN, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST HILLS CAPITAL, LLC and
JOSEPH UNGER, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01064-EFM-BGS (D.
Kan.).
Before the Court are two motions: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Pro se Defendant Joseph Unger filed
a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of himself and his company, Defendant
West Hills Capital ("WHC"). Specifically, Unger argues that the
Plaintiff fails to meet the heightened pleading standard required
for a securities fraud action under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1951 (the "PSLRA").
In moving to strike Unger's Motion, the Plaintiff admits that Unger
may represent himself pro se but argues that companies must appear
by counsel under Kansas law. The Court grants the Plaintiff's
motion in part--striking only the parts of the Motion to Dismiss
that pertain to WHC--and denies what remains of Unger's Motion to
Dismiss.
Defendant Joseph Unger is the CEO of WHC, a company that
specializes in the sale and promotion of precious metals, primarily
to older individuals. WHC directs its customers to create an
individual retirement account ("IRA") specifically designated for
these precious metals. WHC markets precious-metal-IRAs as a
low-risk method for growing wealth.
In May 2019, Plaintiff John Glahn decided to purchase precious
metals from WHC through an IRA. At WHC and Unger's urging, the
Plaintiff decided to purchase American Silver Eagles ("ASEs"), the
official silver bullion coin issued by the United States Mint. To
facilitate this purchase, WHC and Unger directed the Plaintiff to
open an IRA at New Direction Trust Company.
Following the Defendants' advice, the Plaintiff executed an
Interested Party Designation Form, identifying the interested party
as "West Hills Capital/Joe Unger/WHC IRA Team." This form gave WHC,
Unger, and the WHC IRA Team unlimited access to the Plaintiff's IRA
at New Direction.
The Plaintiff also executed a Precious Metals Buy Direction Letter,
identifying WHC as the precious metals dealer. This authorized New
Direction to allocate $176,700 from the Plaintiff's IRA for the
purchase of ASEs from WHC. Finally, the Plaintiff executed a
Depository Election Form, designating First State Depository
Company ("FSDC") as the place where the Plaintiff's ASEs would be
physically stored.
Following the execution of these documents, $176,700 from the
Plaintiff's IRA was purportedly used to purchase 10,000 ASEs from
WHC. During this transaction, WHC asked the Plaintiff if he would
be interested in participating in the Silver Lease Program. This
program promised WHC customers the opportunity to earn a fixed fee
in exchange for leasing their ASEs to WHC. WHC and Unger
represented that ASEs leased from customers under the Silver Lease
Program would be fully insured and promptly returned to the
customer's account. The Plaintiff agreed to participate in the
Silver Lease Program and entered into a Lease Agreement with WHC.
In reality, WHC had little or no control or oversight over the ASEs
that customers leased to WHC as part of the Silver Lease Program.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, WHC was leasing its customers' ASEs
to a company known as Argent Asset Group. Argent and FSDC are owned
and controlled by the same person: Robert Higgins. Just a few years
prior, a different Higgins entity and FSDC were found liable for
tortious conversion of collateral related to a $10 million loan.
Neither Unger nor WHC disclosed these facts to their customers.
As it turns out, the Plaintiff's ASEs were not physically and
securely stored at FSDC. Rather, the ASEs were transferred to
Argent and Higgins, who sold the Plaintiff's ASEs and pocketed the
money. For other customers, WHC never purchased any ASEs. Instead,
it forwarded the customers' money directly to Argent so that Argent
could make the purchase. But instead of purchasing ASEs, Higgins
did not purchase anything and kept the money for himself. WHC
failed to tell the Plaintiff and other customers that it was
forwarding their money to a third party to purchase the ASEs that
only WHC had been authorized to purchase.
Through its Silver Leasing Program, WHC helped funnel more than
600,000 ASEs with a market value exceeding $10 million to Argent
where they were pilfered by Higgins. The Plaintiff lost all the
ASEs he purchased or believed he purchased through WHC. Hundreds of
other WHC customers participating in the Silver Lease Program also
lost all the ASEs they purchased or believed they purchased through
WHC. These losses led to the present lawsuit.
On April 20, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this securities class action
against WHC and Joseph Unger for violations of federal securities
law. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). On Aug. 29, 2023, the
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on
the basis that Unger cannot represent his company because he is not
a licensed attorney.
The Plaintiff timely responded to the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, but the Defendants failed to respond to the Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike or reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Motion
to Dismiss.
In his Motion, the Plaintiff asks the Court to strike Unger and
WHC's Motion to Dismiss. He argues that WHC cannot represent itself
nor can it be represented by its owner, Joseph Unger, unless Unger
is a licensed attorney--a fact lacking support in either the
Complaint or the Defendants' Motion.
Judge Melgren notes that Kansas law is clear: corporations and
limited liability companies cannot appear in court pro se and must
be represented by licensed counsel. As such, WHC cannot move to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against itself. Accordingly, the
Court strikes the parts of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss that
pertain to WHC.
However, the Court declines to strike the parts of the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss that pertain to Unger. Because Unger retains the
right to represent himself, he may properly move to dismiss the
claims against him. And he may continue to represent himself
throughout this litigation if he so chooses. Thus, the Court grants
in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.
Proceeding pro se, Unger asks the Court to dismiss this case,
arguing that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Unger makes two arguments: (1) the Lease Agreement is
not a security, so federal securities law does not apply, and (2)
the Plaintiff fails to meet the heightened scienter requirement as
outlined in Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA.
Mr. Unger argues that the Plaintiff's purchase of ASEs and entry
into the Lease Agreement does not constitute a security under
federal securities law. In SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., the Supreme Court
developed a test to distinguish an investment contract from other
commercial dealings.
Taking the Plaintiff's allegations concerning the Lease Agreement
as true, the Court finds that an investment contract existed. As
Unger does not dispute any other Howey elements, the Court
concludes that the Plaintiff has plausibly pled the common
enterprise element of the Howey test. Thus, the Court finds that
the Lease Agreement is a security and will subsequently apply
federal securities law in this case.
Next, Mr. Unger states that the Plaintiff utterly failed to plead
that he acted with the requisite scienter, or intent to defraud.
But instead of supporting this allegation with facts and legal
arguments, Unger instead spends the remainder of his motion
shifting the blame to Robert Higgins. Unger argues that Higgins is
solely responsible for the theft, falsification, and other crimes
to which the Plaintiff fell victim. Moreover, Unger claims that he
lacked motive to participate in Higgins's fraud and should not be
held responsible for Higgins's actions.
Although Unger may assert lack of knowledge or motive as an
affirmative defense, the Court will not weigh the credibility of
the Plaintiff's allegations against Unger's defenses. Rather, on a
motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as true all factual
allegations in the complaint. As such, the Court will only analyze
whether the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled scienter under Rule
9(b) and the PSLRA.
Judge Melgren finds that the Plaintiff alleges plenty of facts
giving rise to a strong inference that Unger acted with scienter.
Despite marketing the program as "safe," Unger failed to disclose
that WHC exercised little to no control over its customers' ASEs,
instead relying exclusively on the competency and integrity of
Argent and Higgins to safeguard its customers' assets. Thus, Judge
Melgren points out, Unger must have known that, given WHC's
arrangement with Argent, it was impossible to satisfy the Lease
Agreement's terms that obligated WHC to promptly return the
Plaintiff's borrowed silver or its equivalent value to his
account.
These facts, among others mentioned in the Complaint, allow the
Court to reasonably infer that Unger acted with the requisite
scienter when making misleading statements to the Plaintiff. As
such, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has met the heightened
pleadings standard under both Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA. Accordingly,
Unger's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
The Court, therefore, grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The
Court strikes the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to
Defendant West Hill Capital but not as it pertains to Defendant
Unger.
The Court denies Defendant Unger's Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated April 8,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/38xbvc6d from
PacerMonitor.com.
WORKFORCE7 INC: Bid for Reconsideration in Ballast Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration in the lawsuit styled VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS SIMONE,
RICHARD WALKER and ORLANDO OBRET, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. WORKFORCE7 INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON
COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES, INC., and RONALD
HILTON, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiffs Victor Ballast, Luis Simone, Richard Walker, and Orlando
Obret bring this collective and class action on behalf of all
similarly situated construction site flaggers against Workforce7
Inc., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ("Con Ed"),
Vali Industries, Inc., and individual Defendant Ronald Hilton. The
Plaintiffs allege the Defendants failed to pay minimum wage and
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
various provisions of New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
On Jan 25, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts 10 and 11 of the Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC") ("the Opinion"). Before the Court is the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of portions of the Opinion.
The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on Feb. 16, 2024. First,
the Plaintiffs request clarification as to whether the Opinion
dismissed the Counts with or without prejudice, and they also
assert that the Court failed to specify which elements of a breach
of contract cause of action the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently
allege in the SAC. Second, the Plaintiffs move for reconsideration
of the Court's dismissal of the Counts as to Con Ed. In the
alternative, if the Court does not reinstate the Counts, the
Plaintiffs ask that the Court certify the Opinion for interlocutory
review.
Count 10 alleged that that the Defendants entered into contracts
containing schedules of the prevailing rates of wages and
supplemental benefits or containing reference to NYLL prevailing
wage provisions, such that prevailing wages were effectively made
part of the contracts--but the Defendants failed to pay prevailing
wages. The Plaintiffs also alleged that projects involving street
opening, or excavating, in New York City required that Con Ed
and/or Vali obtain Street Opening Permits from the New York City
Department of Transportation ("the DOT Permits"), which include a
stipulation requiring that the Plaintiffs be paid prevailing wages
pursuant to New York City Administrative Code Section 19-142.
The Opinion dismissed Count 10 as to Con Ed because: (1) the Con Ed
Contracts did not require Con Ed to pay the Plaintiffs prevailing
wages; (2) the Plaintiffs failed to plead the existence of any
agreement that "shall have been entered into" before the issuance
of the DOT Permits in the SAC, and they could not amend their
pleadings by opposition to a motion to dismiss; and (3) the DOT
Permits are not contracts.
The Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the third of these
bases--that the DOT Permits are not legally cognizable as
contracts.
On that issue, in the Opinion, the Court held that several of the
Plaintiffs' and the Defendants' cited authority was inapposite: the
cases did not address whether flaggers like the Plaintiffs could
bring a prevailing wage claim based on a breach of contract theory
predicated on the theory that DOT Permits are contracts, which
plaintiffs may enforce as third-party beneficiaries. But the Court
found persuasive two of the Defendants' cases: Santana v. San Mateo
Constr. Corp., No. 650029/2022, 2023 WL 4106949, at *2 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct. June 21, 2023), and Ross v. No Parking Today, Inc., 192
N.Y.S.3d 872 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023).
The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' arguments that Santana and Ross
are inadequately reasoned and wrongly decided. Rather--given that
the Plaintiffs had not mustered persuasive authority that DOT
Permits are contracts and, in accordance with a federal court's
general deference to state courts' construction of state law--the
Court followed the reasoning of Santana and Ross in dismissing
Count 10 insofar as it was based on the DOT Permits. Accordingly,
the Court declines to reconsider its prior decision to dismiss
Count 10.
Count 11 sought to recover, in the alternative in quasi-contract on
the basis that the Defendants were unjustly enriched by failing to
pay the Plaintiffs prevailing wages. Con Ed moved to dismiss the
claim on the basis that a property owner, who contracts with a
general contractor, does not become liable to a subcontractor on a
quasi-contract theory unless it expressly consents to pay for the
subcontractor's performance, and Con Ed never assumed Vali's
obligations to directly pay its subcontractors (including
Workforce7) for their work.
Judge Ramos notes that to be clear, the Plaintiffs allege in the
SAC that Con Ed supervised, directed, and controlled their work
while on site; but only the Workforce7 Defendants are alleged to
have been responsible for approving paychecks, setting payroll and
other office policies, and for day-to-day operations, including
hiring and discipline.
Accordingly, the Court declines to conflate the relevant inquiries
under the FLSA for joint employer liability and quasi-contract
theories of liability with tiered contractor structures. The
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is denied.
The Plaintiffs requested that, if the Court denied the motion for
reconsideration (as it has), then the Court certify the Opinion for
interlocutory review. They focused particularly on the significance
of the question of whether DOT Permits constitute contracts and the
lack of relevant authority on the issue.
Judge Ramos opines that the First Department's decision in Ross,
however, lessens the uncertainty as to the status of the
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims, as even they acknowledge on
reply. Accordingly, the Court declines to certify the Opinion for
interlocutory appeal.
For these reasons, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration.
The Plaintiffs were allowed to amend the complaint by April 22,
2024, to include additional factual allegations with respect to the
existence of any agreement that "shall have been entered into"
before the issuance of the DOT Permits.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated April 8,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/96j5txzb from
PacerMonitor.com.
[*] Summary Judgement Bid in Overdraft Class Action Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan entered an opinion and order granting defendant bank's
motion for summary judgment in an overdraft fee-related consumer
class action. In this case, plaintiffs claimed that defendant
breached its account agreements in connection with two related but
distinct practices that the plaintiffs claimed were inconsistent
with their account agreement. The first practice involved the
assessment of overdraft fees on transactions that were initially
authorized with a positive balance but settled at a time when the
account had a negative balance, labeled Authorize Positive,
Purportedly Settle Negative transactions (APPSN). The second
practice imposed insufficient fund (NSF) fees each time the same
item was re-presented by a merchant and declined by the bank due to
a lack of funds. The complaint alleged a breach of contract and
conversion against the bank based on these two fee practices.
In a previous order in 2021, the court denied defendant's motion to
dismiss as to plaintiff's breach of contract claim but granted
dismissal as to plaintiff's conversion claim. In denying the motion
to dismiss the breach of contract of claim, the court determined
the account agreement was ambiguous as to the overdraft fees since
it was unclear whether defendant would assess overdraft fees at the
time of a debit's authorization or at the time of its settlement.
The court held that the account agreement was similarly ambiguous
as to the NSF fees, since the agreement's language lent itself to
multiple reasonable interpretations of the meaning of "item."
In the current opinion, the court held that the language of the
updated disclosure guide provided to the plaintiff removed the
perceived ambiguity in the contractual language, finding that
plaintiff's interpretation was "unreasonable because it
contradict[ed] the language of the [a]greement as a whole,
including the updated disclosure guide." The court explained that
the updated disclosures made it clear that customers could still
incur an overdraft fee if their balance goes negative before a
debit authorization hold would be lifted and the actual transaction
settled, despite having a positive balance at the time the hold was
placed. The court highlighted that the new disclosure guide
included a practical example demonstrating the impact of a
temporary debit authorization hold on an account's available
balance.
Further, the court noted that even if the agreement was ambiguous,
plaintiff would still be unsuccessful in pursuing her breach of
contract claim because it had been established that she did not
actually read the specific contract terms in question. The court
noted, under Michigan law, there cannot be a factual question as to
the meaning of a contract where one party had not read the contract
to form a different understanding of the contract. The court
applied a similar analysis to dismiss the allegations relating to
the NSF fees. Finally, the court held that plaintiff failed to
demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding her claim of
breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
because the applicable fees were contemplated by the parties'
agreement. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***