/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250203.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 3, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 24
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Torres-Diaz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Castro et al. Sue Over Deceptive Product Label
ABBVIE INC: Sheet Metal Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme for Humira
ACCELLION INC: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Lucas
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Class Settlement in Cevasco Gets Initial Nod
ALLSTATE CORP: Collects Private Data Without Consent, Sims Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Cain Suit Seeks to Certify Class
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Stays Discovery in Amazon Prime Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Miller Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in 5-Star Suit
ARBOR GREEN: Class in Holden Suit Obtains Conditional Certification
ARIZONA LABOR: Wins in Part Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Bozek
AT&T MOBILITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weller Alleges
BAIL BOYS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Montoya Alleges
BANCO NACIONAL: Court Refuses to Dismiss MGBs Antitrust Suit
BARON FINANCIAL: Levi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BAY AREA COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spraggins Says
BDO USA: Taylor Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
BET INFORMATION: David Suit Removed to N.D. California
BLOCKCHAIN.COM INC: Collects Data Without Consent, Bello Says
BLOOMBERG LP: Intercepts and Shares Financial Data, Santoro Claims
BLUE CROSS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Paul Suit Due March 6
BOBOSLW INC: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BREAKING MEDIA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Seal Commercial Info OK'd in Martin
BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE: Can Compel Arbitration in Herman Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Case Management Order Entered in Quevedo
CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Negrete Suit Removed to C.D. California
CAPITAL ONE: Storm Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
CAPITAL ONE: Wild Fundraising Sues Over Access to Bank Account
CEMAYLA LLC: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
CIGARETTE STORE: Ehrenberg Suit Remanded to State Court
CINMAR LLC: Seeks to Dismiss Greben Class Action
CJJ FAY DA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Trippett Says
CLASSIC RESIDENT: Settles Class Action Data Breach Lawsuit
COMMUNITY CLINIC: Jackson Files Suit in D. Hawaii
CRAZY SUSHI: Faces Chesley Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Fla.
D&V PACKAGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Alleges
DALE STOHR: Motion to Quash in Hall Suit Transferred to Michigan
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Trigueiro Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: District Court Narrows Claims in Love v. BOP
DRAFTKINGS INC: De Leon Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
ECOM FITNESS: Faces Young Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ENVOY AIR INC: Javaughny Suit Removed to C.D. California
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order
FARHA ROOFING: Ford Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
FCA US: Delaware Court Resolves Discovery Disputes in Maugain Suit
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Purcell Due March 28
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Removes Tighe Suit to C.D. Calif.
FIRST TECH: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
FLORIDA CREDIT: Fonseca Sues Over Credit Discrimination
FLUENT INC: Smith Sues Over Telemarketing Text Messages, Calls
FLY FISHERS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Schultz Says
FTAI AVIATION: Shannahan Sues Over False Statements on Securities
GILEAD SCIENCES: Must Face FLSA Claim in Myers, et al. Lawsuit
GOOGLE LLC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Rodriguez
GRAND ISLE: Ortiguerra Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
GRAVY ANALYTICS: Faces Cole Suit Over Private Data Breach
GREIF INC: Lujano Suit Removed to E.D. California
GROUNDGAME.HEALTH: Rosado Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Catered Fit Sues Over Deceptive Practice
GROUP US: Seeks Reconsideration of Jan. 6, 2025 Order
H & L RESTAURANT: Bonner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HAIR & CO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Solis Suit Claims
HATCHITT TAX: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response
HEALTH INSURANCE: Carter Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
HEMPSTEAD, NY: Rotenberg Suit Removed to E.D. New York
HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Simoni Sues Over Misleading Promotion
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Svoboda Alleges Failure to Protect Personal Info
HNTB CORP: PAGA & Class Settlement in Morel Suit Gets Initial Nod
HOME RESTAURANT: Rosado Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
HORIZON OXYGEN: Cano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HPG PIZZA: Mighell Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
HSBC BANK: Plaintiff's Attorneys Awarded $550,506.50 in Fees, Costs
IDEXX LABORATORIES: Mayhew May Respond to Dismissal Bid by Feb. 5
INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS: Disclose Private Data Without Consent
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Magana Suit Removed to C.D. California
INTERNATIONAL STAR: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Class
INTERTEK TESTING: Pons Suit Transferred to N.D. New York
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Petzel Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
ISLAND HOSPITALITY: Settlement Class Gets Final Approval
JEFFREE STAR: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JOHN BEL EDWARDS: Must Produce Required Documents in Juvenile Suit
JOHN MCGOWAN: Fails to Properly Pay Laborers, Chavez Suit Alleges
KAISER FOUNDATION: Newton Suit Removed to N.D. California
KAISER FOUNDATION: Wilson Sues Over Unlawful Voice Calls
KIRAT GAS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kucuk Alleges
KLIPSCH GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Says
LAZER QUICK LOAN: Berman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
LIBERTY FIRST CREDIT: Loos Suit Removed to D. Nebraska
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Removes Badin Suit to S.D. Calif.
LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Data-Sharing
LINKEDIN CORP: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Messages
LOGILITY SUPPLY: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Aptean
LOS ANGELES, CA: Standing Order Entered in Ortiz Class Suit
LOS ANGELES: Coast Citrus Seeks Common Fund for PACA Trust Claimant
LOVE MANAGEMENT: Court Sets Rule 16 Case Conference in Spurlock
LPL FINANCIAL: Baurnes Sues Over Improper Business Practices
MARRIOTT INT'L: Cahill Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court
MASTEC SERVICES: Byler Suit Removed to C.D. California
MAT KING: Bid to Certify Class in Lindke Tossed w/o Prejudice
MAV KG LLC: Forrest Suit Removed to E.D. California
MAVERICK TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in Lewis Gets Initial Nod
MD GROUP II: Butcher Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MDL 2724: Court Approves Special Master's Recommendation
MEDTRONIC MINIMED: Class Settlement in A.H. Suit Gets Initial Nod
MEDUSIND INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Strong Says
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Tosses Rakofsky BlueTEC Turbo Defect Suit
META PLATFORMS: Judge Rejects Data Privacy Class Action Bid
MISSION CEVICHE: Class Cert Discovery in Flores Due March 17
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Hearing Set for June 5
NESTLE WATERS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended
NEW YORK TIMES: Settlement in Perkins Suit Gets Final Court Okay
NEXT STEP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walker Says
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bid to Exclude Harnett's Opinion Denied in Part
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Court Won't Exclude Geoffrey Coates' Opinion
O'REILLY AUTO: Class Settlement in Pipich Suit Gets Final Nod
OKLAHOMA: Court Ready to Enter Amended Consent Decree in Briggs
OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Kelley Suit Removed to E.D. California
OUR WORLD: Bland Seeks More Time to File Response on Dismissal Bid
PACIFIC MARKET: Babiarz Sues Over Defective Products
PACIFIC PULMONARY: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Wislocki Says
PAYCOR INC: Allowed to File Bid to Strike New Arguments & Evidence
PAYCOR INC: Seeks to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Reply Brief
PAYPAL INC: Wade Sues Over Poaching of Commissions
PFIZER INC: Greeno Files Suit in C.D. California
PIEDMONT HEALTHCARE: T.D. Appeals Case Dismissal to 11th Cir.
PIM BRANDS: Faces Soto Suit Over Mislabeled Fruit Snacks
PINNACLE WEST: Skrtich Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
PINTO VALLEY MINING: Valtierra Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Crockran Sues Over Data Security Failures
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Campbell Says
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Schwartz Says
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Greci Alleges Unlawful Personal Info Access
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Greci Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Habbal and Afzal Sue Over Private Data Breach
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: White Balks at Compromised Personal Info
PREMIER NUTRITION: Seeks More Time to File Petition in Montera Case
PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION: Sanders Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Mislabels Skincare Retinol Products, Kobus Says
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Pettitt Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
RALEY'S: Smith Suit Removed to E.D. California
RAPHAEL WASHINGTON: McCarren Bid for Appointment of Counsel Tossed
RASA WORLD: Hoven Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
REJOICE DELIVERS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Webb Due Jan. 16, 2026
RISE INTERACTIVE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit
ROSKAM FOODS: Mancillas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RUBY'S MIDTOWN: Trippett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
RUBYCLAIRE BOUTIQUE: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says
SCALE AI: Schuster et al. Sue Over Unsafe Workplace Practices
SEA WORLD: Bid to Remand Joseph Suit to State Court Denied
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Gao and Gao Sue Over Nonpayment of Property Taxes
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
SELLARS ABSORBENT: Class Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Baer Securities Suit
SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Parties in Baer Suit Must File Briefs by Feb. 13
SONDERMIND INC: TikTok Software Collects Info, Schallert Says
STANLEY STEEMER: Data Breach Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
STIIIZY INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hatch Alleges
TAXACT INC: Final OK of Smith-Washington Suit Settlement Appealed
TAYLOR & HART: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TERRY S. JOHNSON: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Beers Suit
TESLA INC: Appeals Final Judgment in Tornetta Suit
TESLA INC: Musk Appeals Rulings in Tornetta Suit to Del. Sup. Ct.
TESLA INC: Steffens Appeals Final Judgment in Tornetta Class Suit
THOMAS L CARDELLA: Must Produce Docs by Feb. 28 in Munoz Suit
THOMAS L CARDELLA: Settlement Conference in Munoz Suit on April 24
TOKIO MARINE: Acosta Suit Removed to C.D. California
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Approves Class Action Settlement in Salas
TRL SYSTEMS INC: Quiroz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TYCON MEDICAL: Thomas Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
UNION PACIFIC: Barnhart Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach
UNION PACIFIC: Malone Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach
UNION PACIFIC: Rieux Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach
UNITED PARCEL: Malone Must File Renewed Class Cert Bid by May 23
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Total Care Says
UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES: Settlement in Samson Suit Has Prelim. OK
UNIVERSAL BRANDS: Riley Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
US MORTGAGE LENDERS: Biscaha Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
USA DEBUSK: Alexander Suit Removed to N.D. California
USA FRUGAL CLUB: Berman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
USC: Favell Seeks to File Confidential Exhibit Under Seal
UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Szymakowski Suit Seeks to Certify Class
VANNGUARD UTILITY: Harris Sues Over Inadequate Security Practices
VESTAS-AMERICAN: Schmitt Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
VISTA OUTDOOR: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WALT DISNEY: Faces Unger Suit Over Anticompetitive Tactics
WASHLAND LLC: Plaintiff Awarded $60,489.75 Damages in FLSA Suit
WELLNESS GROUP: Sued Over Mislabeled Cannabis-Infused Products
WELLS FARGO: Fact Discovery in Morris Class Suit Due Feb. 14
WHOLE FOODS: Wilson et al. Allege ERISA Violations
WILDFANG CO: Henry Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
XTO ENERGY: Kriley Seeks OK of Amended Class Certification Bid
*********
3M COMPANY: Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Harris, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-07534-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries 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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
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 man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to 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 Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Torres-Diaz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Torres-Diaz, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX
CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-07532-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 20,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries 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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
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 man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to 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 Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United
States Army and National Guard.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: james@ferrarolaw.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Castro et al. Sue Over Deceptive Product Label
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Castro, Damary Santa, and Nancy Helmold, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated in California,
Massachusetts, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Jersey, New York, and Washington, Plaintiffs v. Abbott
Laboratories, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00377 (N.D. Ill., January
14, 2025) arises from Defendant's deceptive marketing of its two
milk-based powders, "Go & Grow Toddler Drink by Similac" and "Pure
Bliss Toddler Drink by Similac."
The said products are labeled in a manner designed to give
caregivers of toddlers the false impression that they are
nutritionally appropriate for children in the targeted age group of
12 to 36 months. Contrary to the recommended nutritional needs of
children in this age range, these products contain four grams of
added sugars per serving, says the suit.
Headquartered in Abbott Park, IL, Abbott Laboratories manufactures
medical devices and nutrition products, including infant formulas.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Charles Moore, Esq.
121 N. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com
- and -
Andrew Rainer, Esq.
PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCACY INSTITUTE
360 Huntington Avenue, CU117
Boston, MA 02115
Telephone: (617) 304-6052
E-mail: arainer@phai.org
mark@phai.org
ABBVIE INC: Sheet Metal Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme for Humira
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHEET METAL WORKERS' HEALTH PLAN OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA,
AND NEVADA, Plaintiff v. ABBVIE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00615 (N.D. Ill., January 17, 2025) is a class action
seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars of overcharges,
put a stop to Defendant's scheme, and restore healthy price
competition to the adalimumab market.
The suit arises under federal antitrust law and state antitrust and
consumer protections statutes. It concerns anticompetitive
agreements in restraint of trade entered into by AbbVie, Inc. These
agreements have crushed low-cost competition for AbbVie's
blockbuster drug, Humira, since 2023 and continuing through the
present, at the expense of Plaintiff and health plans nationwide.
Moreover, AbbVie's anticompetitive scheme impaired the sale of
affordable biosimilar adalimumab products in the United States,
thereby allowing AbbVie to sell brand Humira at artificially high
prices, maintain an artificially high adalimumab demand and market
share, and cause heath plans to pay artificially high net prices,
says the suit.
AbbVie, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Chicago,
IL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul E. Slater, Esq.
Matthew Slater, Esq.
SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC
321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
E-mail: jvanek@sperlingkenny.com
pes@sperlingkenny.com
mslater@sperlingkenny.com
- and -
Phillip F. Cramer, Esq.
SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC
1221 Broadway, Suite 2140
Nashville, TN 37212
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
E-mail: pcramer@sperlingkenny.com
- and -
Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
Sean M. Akchin, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California St, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: tseaver@bermandetabacco.com
mpearson@bermantabacco.com
sakchin@bermandetabacco.com
- and -
Steven L. Groopman, Esq.
Brooke Lowell (pro hac forthcoming)
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 542-8300
Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
E-mail: sgroopman@bermantabacco.com
blowell@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
Austin, TX 78703
Telephone: (855) 344-3298
E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
ACCELLION INC: Brown Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc.
(RE ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No.
5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court,
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) or,
alternatively (c)(4), to certify Class and Subclasses specified
below.
-- Negligence Class:
"All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised as a
result of the Data Breach of the following Accellion customers
(i) The Regents of the University of California, (ii) Centene,
(iii) Flagstar, (iv) Washington State Auditor's Office, and
(v) Kroger, and who resided in California, Georgia, Illinois,
Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, or Washington at the
time of the Data Breach"
-- Negligence Subclasses:
"California Subclass:
"All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised
as a result of the Data Breach of the following Accellion
customers (i) The Regents of the University of
California, (ii) Centene, 1 and (iii) Flagstar and who
resided in California at the time of the Data Breach."
Michigan Subclass:
"All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised
as a result of, and who resided in Michigan at the time
of, the Data Breach of Kroger's FTA.
Oklahoma Subclass:
"All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised
as a result of, and who resided in Oklahoma at the time
of, the Data Breach of Kroger's FTA."
Washington Subclass:
"All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised
as a result of, and who resided in Washington at the time
of, the Data Breach of the Washington State Auditor's
Office's FTA."
WCPA Subclass:
"All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised
as a result of, and who resided in Washington at the time
of, the Data Breach of the Washington State Auditor's
Office's FTA."
Excluded from the Class and all Subclasses are Accellion, and
Accellion's officers, directors, and employees; any entity in which
Accellion has a controlling interest; and the affiliates, legal
representatives, attorneys, successors, heirs, and assigns of
Accellion.
Also excluded from the Class and all Subclasses are members of the
judiciary to whom this case is assigned, their families and members
of their staff.
The Plaintiffs also seek the appointment of Girard Sharp LLP and
Susman Godfrey L.L.P., current Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, as
Co-Lead Class Counsel.
A hearing on this motion will be held on April 17, 2025, at 9:00 AM
in the Courtroom of the Honorable Edward J. Davila.
The Plaintiffs are ten individuals who had their personally
identifiable information ("PII") exfiltrated between Dec. 16, 2020,
and Jan. 20, 2021, when hackers twice infiltrated Accellion's file
transfer application ("FTA") and compromised the personal
information of millions of consumers ("Data Breach").
Accellion is a provider of on-demand secure file transfer solutions
with an extensive customer base covering industries.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wMdYkF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
kquackenbush@girardsharp.com
- and -
Krystal K. Pachman, Esq.
Michael Gervais, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Madeline M. Yzurdiaga, Esq.
Kevin R. Downs, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
E-mail: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
mgervais@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
myzurdiaga@susmangodfrey.com
kdowns@susmangodfrey.com
AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Lucas
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rougeau, Lucas, et al., v.
Ahlstrom Rhinelander, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00546 (W.D.
Wisc., Filed Aug. 09, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley
entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to amend the
scheduling order:
-- Consistent with the court's original scheduling order,
briefing will proceed on a 30/15-day briefing schedule for
both class certification and dispositive motions and the court
will not order a separate briefing schedule for Daubert
motions.
-- In addition, the final pretrial conferences are reset to Feb.
17 and 24, 2027, both at 2:30 p.m.
-- The parties should continue to consult the guidance in the
original preliminary pretrial conference order and
attachments.
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.[CC]
ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Class Settlement in Cevasco Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CEVASCO, JACK
JONES, PATRICK JACKSON, and PAUL RADVANSKY, on behalf of the
Allegiant 401(k) Retirement Plan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY, Case No.
2:22-cv-01741-JAD-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Dorsey
entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement:
The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class
for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(1) in this litigation:
"All persons who were participants or beneficiaries of the
Plan at any time during the Class Period."
The "Class Period" shall be defined as Oct. 17, 2016, through
the date of the Preliminary Approval Order. A person was a
participant in or beneficiary of the Plans during the Class
Period if they had an account balance in any of the Plans
during such period.
The Court finds that Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., McKay Law, LLC,
Edelson Lechtzin LLP, and Kind Law have and will continue to
represent fairly and adequately the interests of the Settlement
Class. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g)(2) the Court designates: Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., McKay
Law, LLC, and Edelson Lechtzin LLP as Class Counsel and Kind Law as
Local Counsel, with respect to the Settlement Class in this
Action.
The court heard Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement, which seeks certification of a non-opt-out
settlement class and preliminary approval of the settlement of this
class action over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), with respect to the
Allegiant 401(k) Retirement Plan against the Defendant Allegiant
Travel Company, on Nov. 12, 2024, and Jan. 6, 2025. The motion is
unopposed.
Allegiant is an American airline holding and hospitality company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RAF9WL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
- and -
Michael C. McKay, Esq.
MCKAY LAW, LLC
5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 117
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
- and -
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
The Defendant is represented by:
Rene E. Thorne, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
601 Poydras St., Suite 1400
New Orleans, LA 70130
ALLSTATE CORP: Collects Private Data Without Consent, Sims Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRIC SIMS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ARITY,
LLC, ARITY 875, LLC, and ARITY SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-00407 (N.D. Ill., January 14, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for surveillance of insureds and invasion of
their clients' privacy by collecting data on their clients'
location and driving habits, surreptitiously, and without clients'
consent.
According to the complaint, the Defendants, each a company owned by
The Allstate Corporation, an insurance company, conspired to
secretly collect and sell "trillions of miles" of consumers'
"driving behavior" data from mobile devices, in-car devices, and
vehicles. The Defendants used the illicitly obtained data to build
the "world's largest driving behavior database," housing the
driving behavior of over 45 million Americans. The Defendants
created the database for two main purposes: (1) to support Allstate
Defendants' car insurance business, including relative to
under-writing and coverage decisions, and (2) profit from selling
the driving behavior data to third parties, including other car
insurance carriers, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and other consumers did not consent to, nor were
aware of Defendants' collection and sale of driving data. The
Defendants never informed consumers about their extensive data
collection, nor did Defendants obtain consumers' consent to engage
in such data collection. The Defendants never informed consumers as
to how they would analyze, use, and monetize their sensitive data,
the suit asserts.
The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company,
headquartered in Glenview, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
Shannon McNulty
CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
120 North LaSalle Street, 36th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com
smm@cliffordlaw.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
Riya Sharma, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
rsharma@forthepeople.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Cain Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER CAIN, JOSE
GRINAN, KIMBERLY HALO, KELLY KIMMEY, JUMA LAWSON, SHARON PASCHAL,
and PHILIP SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS,
INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23:
"All individuals who performed tipped delivery services
using Amazon Flex for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon
Logistics, Inc., anywhere in the United States between
January 2017 and August 2019;
2. appointing Christopher Cain, Jose Grinan, Kimberly Halo,
Kelly Kimmey, Juma Lawson, Sharon Paschal, and Philip
Sullivan as class representatives;
3. appointing Hillary Schwab, Brant Casavant, and Brook Lane of
Fair Work, P.C. and Beth Terrell, Toby Marshall, and
Jennifer Rust Murray of the Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
as class counsel.
The Court should grant that request because the case presents a
common challenge to a common practice on behalf of a "cohesive
group of individuals [who] suffered the same harm in the same way"
due to a "company's mass marketing efforts."
The case concerns an "outrageous" "bait-and-switch" that Defendants
used "to pocket more than $60 million in tips" from over 150,000
delivery drivers throughout the United States. Plaintiffs filed
this action on behalf of those drivers to recover statutory damages
and interest from Amazon under the Washington Consumer Protection
Act ("WCPA").
Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t4fc7K at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Brant Casavant, Esq.
Brook Lane, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
brant@fairworklaw.com
brook@fairworklaw.com
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
jmurrary@terrellmarshall.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Stays Discovery in Amazon Prime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington granted
Amazon.com, Inc.'s motion stay discovery in In re Amazon Prime
Video Litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-186 (W.D. Wash.).
This consolidated matter is proceeding as a putative class action.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. altered the terms
of its Amazon Prime subscription and, in particular, access to
Prime's ad-free streaming video service, in violation of various
Washington state laws. Currently before the Court is Amazon's
Motion to Stay Discovery pending resolution of its Motion to
Dismiss, which was filed on Oct. 4, 2024 and was fully briefed on
Nov. 22, 2024. The Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of this matter
in its entirety, on the merits and with prejudice.
Having considered the foregoing factors, the Court finds that a
brief stay is warranted under the instant circumstances.
Judge Rothstein concludes that the case does not appear to be one
in which a modest delay of discovery poses a threat of undue
prejudice or particular hardship to either party and, in contrast,
a short stay may preserve the parties' resources in the event the
Motion to Dismiss is granted. Accordingly, Amazon has shown good
cause for the Court to grant its motion to stay discovery.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wfWD1C from PacerMonitor.com.
AMAZON.COM INC: Miller Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MILLER,
CHRISTOPHER CAIN, KIMBERLY HALO, KELLY KIMMEY, JUMA LAWSON, SHARON
PASCHAL, and PHILIP SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON
LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to file "confidential" documents in support of
their motion for class certification under seal or in open court.
On Sept. 10, 2024, the Parties entered into an Agreement Regarding
Discovery of Electronically Stored Information.
On Sept. 11, 2024, the Court endorsed that Agreement and entered a
Stipulated Protective Order.
Pursuant to Local Rule 5(g)(1)(A) and (3)(A), counsel for the
Parties have met and conferred in an attempt to reach agreement on
the need to file the Confidential Exhibits under seal, to minimize
the amount of material filed under seal, and to explore redaction
and other alternatives to filing under seal.
As a result of that meet-and-conferral process, Amazon has agreed
to remove the confidentiality designation as to two of the proposed
exhibits so that they may be filed on the public docket. Plaintiffs
thus propose to file the remaining 32 exhibits identified in the
Affidavit of Brant Casavant under seal pursuant to Local Rule
5(g).
Additionally, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification uses
excerpts from and directly quotes several Confidential Exhibits.
Plaintiffs submit these excerpts and quotes are integral to the
motion, necessary to give context to the facts alleged, and will
aid the Court by limiting the extent to which it must reference the
Confidential Exhibits when reviewing the motion.
In order to ensure that no confidential or sensitive information
contained in the Confidential Exhibits are disclosed in the motion
for class certification itself, Plaintiffs propose to file a
redacted version of the motion on the public docket (with the
redactions limited solely to the excerpts or quotes taken directly
from the Confidential Exhibits), and a non-redacted version under
seal.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S6y0uK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
jmurrary@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Paul M. Botros, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 327-5352
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
pbotros@forthepeople.com
vfish@forthepeople.com
ctacher@forthepeople.com
- and -
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Brant Casavant, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
brant@fairworklaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Walter F. Brown, Jr., Esq.
Shawn Estrada, Esq.
Matthew Patrick Merlo, Esq.
Amy Lynn Barton, Esq.
PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in 5-Star Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN EXPRESS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motions to compel arbitration and strike class
allegations in the lawsuit entitled 5-Star General Store, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. American Express, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00106-MSM-LDA, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Rhode Island.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
bring this action as a class action to restrain
American Express' (Amex) ongoing unlawful practices and to obtain a
judicial declaration establishing Amex's liability and enabling
class members to prosecute their claims for compensation in
separate proceedings before courts and/or arbitral bodies of
competent jurisdiction. Allegedly, Amex has implemented rules that
prohibit U.S. merchants from using discounts, surcharges, verbal
prompting, signage, and other techniques to incentivize shoppers to
use cheaper payment cards, suit says.
On May 21, 2024, the Defendants filed motions to compel arbitration
and strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations, which Judge Mary S.
McElroy denied on Dec. 2, 2024.
The Court finds that Amex is in default, thus its motion to compel
arbitration is denied. Amex has not shown that the request for
declaratory relief under Rule 23(c)(4) must, at this early point in
the litigation, be taken off the table. The Court, thus, did not
strike it from the complaint.
The appellate case is captioned 5-Star General Store, et al. v.
American Express, et al., Case No. 25-1023, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on January 8, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees 5-STAR GENERAL STORE, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Eric Citron, Esq.
Deepak Gupta, Esq.
Thomas Scott-Railton, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER LLP
2001 K. St. NW, Ste. 850 N
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 888-1741
- and -
Robert W. Cohen, Esq.
1901 Ave. of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 282-7586
- and -
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
- and -
Tracey Kitzman, Esq.
26 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
- and -
Anthony R. Leone, II, Esq.
John J. O'Brien, Esq.
LEONE LAW LLC
1345 Jefferson Blvd.
Warwick, RI 02886
Telephone: (401) 921-6684
- and -
Peggy Wedgworth, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Ste. 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Defendants-Appellants AMERICAN EXPRESS, et al. are represented by:
Peter T. Barbur, Esq.
Helam Gebremariam, Esq.
David Korn, Esq.
Kevin Orsini, Esq.
Rebecca Schindel, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP
375 9th Ave.
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
- and -
Robert Clark Corrente, Esq.
Christopher N. Dawson, Esq.
WHELAN CORRENTE & FLANDERS LLP
100 Westminster St., Ste. 710
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 270-4500
ARBOR GREEN: Class in Holden Suit Obtains Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin granted the plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of the FLSA collective action and
authorization of notice to similarly situated persons in the case
captioned as CHRIS HOLDEN, DREU LULOW and SAMUEL SCHMUCKER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. ARBOR GREEN, INC. and CHRISTY WADE, Defendants, Case No.
23-cv-461-wmc (W.D. Wis.).
In this putative class and collective action, named plaintiffs
Chris Holden, Dreu Lulow, and Samuel Schmucker contend that
defendants Arbor Green, Inc. and Christy Wade violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin state law. Before the
Court is plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the
FLSA collective action and authorization of notice to similarly
situated persons.
Plaintiffs Holden, Lulow, and Schmucker were employees of defendant
Arbor Green, a Wisconsin-based construction company. Defendant
Christy Wade is the registered agent of Arbor Green.
Plaintiffs allege that four of Arbor Green's common compensation
policies violate the FLSA:
(1) paying employees time and a half overtime at their morning
shop rate while only paying time and a half at the higher jobsite
rate for any additional hours that the employee had worked over 40
at the jobsite;
(2) not paying employees, after they had loaded trucks at the
shop, for riding time from the shop to the first jobsite of the
day;
(3) not treating as hours worked time spent driving company
trucks to overnight storage locations; and
(4) not paying an overtime premium on annual bonuses.
Defendants object that plaintiffs improperly rely on documents that
Arbor Green produced during discovery (e.g., timecard lists,
policies, bonus lists, and check stubs) because those documents are
unauthenticated and inadmissible. Because defendants acknowledge
that Arbor Green itself produced these obvious business records in
question, the Court will overrule their challenge to the
authenticity of the documents, at least for the limited purpose of
considering the certification of a conditional collective.
Overtime Offset Collective
In this case, plaintiffs claim that Arbor Green paid them, and
other laborers, time and a half for shop work performed at the
beginning of each day and during the first 40 hours of each week,
but did not pay overtime for an equal number of hours worked beyond
40 hours. In support, plaintiffs point to several policies and
practices sufficient to meet their initial burden to certify a
collective.
The Court emphasizes that while defendants argue that plaintiffs
only speculate yard work on their time sheet occurred in the
morning, evidence that most of the named plaintiffs' shop time
happened in the morning, and that Arbor Green improperly classified
shop time as occurring later in the day, means plaintiffs have made
more than a modest factual showing that they and other putative
members of a collective were victims of Arbor Green's policy of
improperly crediting lower paid time worked in the shop in
calculating overtime owed them.
Travel Time Collectives
Even taking defendants' assertion that the named plaintiffs
sometimes unloaded and loaded their trucks in the morning for their
own personal convenience, an employer does not have to require work
for it to be compensable; the work need only be suffered or
permitted. Thus, plaintiffs have met their burden, and the Court
will conditionally certify a collective action as to laborers'
riding time (to and from the jobsite).
The Court finds plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that they
and a putative collective together may well have had their rights
violated by Arbor Green's common policy of not paying employees for
driving vehicles to overnight storage locations.
Bonus Collective
As evidence that Arbor Green's year-end bonuses should have been
included in the regular rate for each employee, plaintiffs point to
Schmucker's declaration that, at its Christmas parties between
2021 and 2023, the company consistently announced all employees who
worked through the end of construction season would receive $1 per
each hour worked and employees with commercial driver's licenses
would receive an additional $.50 for each hour worked.
At this stage, plaintiffs have met their burden, given:
(1) the reasonable inference that the bonuses were intended to
encourage Arbor Green employees to stay employed through the end of
the next season and to earn and maintain their commercial driver's
licenses, and
(2) Arbor Green's admitted practice not to consider those
bonuses in fixing the employees' overtime pay.
Accordingly, the Court will also conditionally certify a collective
action as to all non-exempt employees who received a bonus for
working through the end of the construction season.
Defendants also object that plaintiffs' proposed notice to "all
hourly non-exempt employees who worked for Arbor Green" is too
broad because it would capture non-exempt employees who are not
similarly situated to the named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs propose
addressing this objection by limiting the first three collectives
to non-exempt laborers, while defining the bonus collective as all
non-exempt Arbor Green employees who received a bonus. Accordingly,
the Court will limit the first three collectives to laborers, but
allow the bonus collective to include all non-exempt, Arbor Green
employees.
Subject to modification of the plaintiffs' proposed notice, the
Court will grant plaintiffs' motion.
A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rdgkQj from PacerMonitor.com.
ARIZONA LABOR: Wins in Part Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Bozek
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan M. Brnovich of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona grants in part and denies in part the motion for
judgment on the pleadings filed in the lawsuit captioned Daniel
Bozek, et al., Plaintiffs v. Arizona Labor Force Incorporated, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00210-SMB (D. Ariz.).
A group of hackers used ransomware to breach Defendant Arizona
Labor Force Inc.'s ("Labor Force") data system and to extract
sensitive information of its employees. Plaintiffs Daniel Bozek and
Brandon Gaines filed this lawsuit representing a proposed class of
current and former employees, who had their data stolen.
Labor Force operates a nation-wide staffing agency. Labor Force
collects and maintains its employees' data electronically on its
systems. On Jan. 9, 2023, a ransomware group attacked Labor Forces'
data system, stealing its current and former employees' sensitive
data. The stolen data included employees' personally identifiable
information ("PII") like names, addresses, social security numbers,
and tax information (collectively, "sensitive information"), and
wound up on the dark web for sale where unauthorized individuals
had unfettered access. Labor Force did not notify the employees nor
a state attorney general about the breach.
The Plaintiffs allege that Labor Force knew or should have known
about the risk of breaches and failed to adequately safeguard its
system given the rise of breaches across the nation in the past few
years. And Labor Force was keenly aware of the sensitive nature of
their employees' data. Additionally, the failure to keep the data
secure exposed the Class to a robust cyber black market where their
data can be purchased and used to commit various crimes.
The Plaintiffs further allege that Labor Forced failed to comply
with the Federal Trade Commission's ("FTC") guidelines for data
security or even take basic security measures. They also allege
that Labor Force failed to comply with industry standards of proper
encryption of PII, training employees on how to protect PII, and
correct software and network configurations.
As a result of its failure to safeguard the Class's data, implement
appropriate security measures, and protect against foreseeable
threats, the Plaintiffs allege to have suffered damages caused by
said failure. Those damages include compromise, publication, and
unauthorized use of their data, and expenses associated with
preventing, detecting, and recovering from identity theft or
fraud.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for (1) negligence; (2) invasion of
privacy; (3) breach of implied contract; (4) breach of fiduciary
duty; (5) breach of confidence; (6) violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (7) violation of the California
Customer Records Act ("CRA"); and (8) violation of the California
Consumer Privacy Act ("CPA").
Labor Force now moves for judgment on the pleadings under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Labor Force contends that the
Plaintiffs lack standing and have otherwise failed to state claims
under any cause of action.
Labor Force's standing challenge lies purely in the causation
requirement, of which it argues that the Plaintiffs fail to
adequately allege a connection between their injuries and the data
breach. According to Labor Force, the Plaintiffs' allegations boil
down to conclusory allegations that they were once employed, the
breach occurred, and that their sensitive information is on the
dark web, and as such the allegations are factually deficient to
support standing.
As alleged, Judge Brnovich opines that the facts fall like dominos,
layering on one another to create reasonable inferences that the
Plaintiffs' sensitive information was posted to the dark web
because it was stolen in the breach from Labor Force's unreasonably
unsecure systems and is, thus, fairly traceable. Accordingly, the
Court declines to grant judgment on standing grounds.
Labor Force also argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
under all causes of action. Labor Force first argues that the
Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead causation, faulting them not
providing the relation between their employment and for relying on
an unclear timeline. The Plaintiffs argue they adequately provided
the facts necessary to establish a timeline and support causation
at this stage in the litigation.
Judge Brnovich finds that the Plaintiffs' damages theories are not
cognizable and insufficient to state a negligence claim. The Court
grants judgment and dismiss the negligence claim.
Labor Force further argues, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
fail to state a claim for invasion of privacy because their
allegations of intentional conduct are merely conclusory recitals
of the elements of the claim. The Plaintiffs in turn argue that
their allegations are beyond conclusory and adequately pleaded
Labor Force's conduct was egregious enough to support their claim.
There are no allegations that Labor Force intended for third
parties to widely disseminate the Plaintiffs' private information,
Judge Brnovich notes. Therefore, Judge Brnovich finds the
Plaintiffs have failed to state an invasion of privacy claim. Judge
Brnovich also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs fail
to state breach of confidence claim and, thus, the Court grants
judgment on this claim.
While the Plaintiffs have not requested leave to amend, Labor Force
has not argued that it would be prejudiced if the Plaintiffs amend
their claims. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
under Causes of Action One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven and the
Plaintiffs could remedy the deficiencies identified, albeit how
they may cure those deficiencies is not abundantly clear to the
Court. It is inappropriate for the Court to dismiss the claims with
prejudice at this time. Thus, the Court will grant leave to amend
those causes of action, albeit, how they Plaintiffs may cure those
deficiencies is not abundantly clear to the Court.
Accordingly, the Court grants in part Labor Force's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to Causes of Action One,
Two, Four, Five, Six, and Seven, and denies in part otherwise.
The Court dismisses the following claims in the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Class Action Complaint: Negligence; Invasion of Privacy;
Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Confidence; Violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law; and Violation of the California
Customer Records Act without prejudice.
The Court grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend and that they will
file a Second Amended Complaint, if they so choose, no later than
30 days after this Order is filed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2xfsytc from PacerMonitor.com.
AT&T MOBILITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weller Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ESSENCE WELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00326 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2025) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer.
AT&T Mobility Services LLC provides wireless voice and data
communications services. The Company offers on-demand video
streaming, post-paid, prepaid, enterprise voice, and data, as well
as local, long-distance, and roaming services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
BAIL BOYS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Montoya Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
SERGIO MONTOYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BAIL BOYS, INC.; JOSHUA KHORSANDI; JOY
BOILEAU; and DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No.
25STCV01480 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 21, 2025) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
Plaintiff Montoya was employed by the Defendants as a bail bond
agent.
The Bail Boys, Inc. provides security bonds backed by insurance
companies that cover the risk involved in releasing a defendant in
judicial custody. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy S. Ramsey, Esq.
ADVANTAGE ADVOCATES, P.C.
21 Miller Alley
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (626) 310-0100
Facsimile: (626) 310-0103
Email: aramsey@advantage-law.com
BANCO NACIONAL: Court Refuses to Dismiss MGBs Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled IN RE: MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-02830-JPO (S.D.N.Y.).
The Plaintiffs, eight U.S. pension funds, brought this consolidated
putative class action against nine Mexican banks and their
affiliates and ten unidentified "John Does." The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants conspired to manipulate the market for Mexican
government bonds, violating Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and
common law unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs are domestic investors
and pension funds that collectively purchased and sold hundreds of
millions of dollars' worth of Mexican government bonds with the
Defendants.
Six Defendants ("Moving Defendants") have moved to dismiss the
third amended complaint ("TAC") for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Moving
Defendants are Banco Nacional de Mexico, S.A., Institucion de Banca
Multiple, Grupo Financiero Banamex ("Citibanamex"); Banco Santander
(Mexico), S.A., Institucion de Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero
Santander Mexico ("Santander Mexico"); Bank of America Mexico,
S.A., Institucion de Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero Bank of
America ("Bank of America Mexico"); BBVA Mexico, S.A., Institucion
de Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero BBVA Mexico ("BBVA Mexico");
Deutsche Bank Mexico, S.A., Institution de Banca Multiple
("Deutsche Bank Mexico"); and HSBC Mexico, S.A., Institution de
Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero HSBC ("HBMX").
Mexican government bonds ("MGBs") are a genre of debt security that
the Mexican government uses to raise capital, fund budget deficits,
and control Mexico's monetary supply. The Mexican government sells
MGBs to only "an exclusive group" of approved market makers, which
the government requires to compete in a competitive auction when
the MGBs are released.
From Jan. 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2014 (the "Class Period"), the
Mexican government gave the MGB market maker status to only nine
banks: the six Moving Defendants, two other named Defendants that
settled their cases in 2020 (Barclays Mexico and JPMorgan Mexico
("Settling Defendants")), and ING Mexico (collectively the "Market
Makers"). The Market Makers would then turn around and sell the
MGBs on the secondary market to customers, including the
Plaintiffs.
Because of this exclusive access to the primary market, the Market
Makers "control an overwhelming majority of the MGB supply
available in the United States." For one type of MGB, the six
Moving Defendants and two Settling Defendants controlled
approximately 90% of the total number of the bonds sold at auction;
for another type, they controlled 70%.
While the Plaintiffs' previous complaints alleged that the
Defendants rigged auctions in the primary MGB market from 2006 to
2017, the third amended complaint both streamlines the Class Period
and focuses on the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct in the
secondary market (where the Defendants trade MGBs with the
Plaintiffs and other investors).
The Plaintiffs now allege that, between 2010 to 2014, the
Defendants conspired to manipulate the MGB secondary market in two
main ways. First, they allege that the Defendants worked together
to sell the MGBs they purchased in the primary auction "at
artificially higher prices" to investors. Second, they allege that
the Defendants conspired to "fix the bid-ask spread artificially
wider in MGB transactions."
To support their claims, the Plaintiffs rely on (i) dozens of
chatroom transcripts showing electronic communications between the
Defendants' employees, (ii) statistical data purportedly graphing
the economic impact of the Defendants' conspiracy, and (iii) the
outcome of investigations by two Mexican government regulators.
The case was originally filed in 2018, and thus, its procedural
history is lengthy. Applicable to this motion, the Plaintiffs filed
their third amended complaint on June 12, 2024. The Moving
Defendants moved to dismiss and filed a supporting memorandum on
July 29, 2024, and HBMX filed a supplemental memorandum. The
Plaintiffs opposed the motion on Sept. 13, 2024, and the Moving
Defendants replied in support of their motion on Oct. 14, 2024.
In their motion, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim under the Sherman Act or common law because (1) the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege a plausible antitrust conspiracy,
(2) the Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing, (3) the Plaintiffs fail
to adequately allege unjust enrichment, and (4) most claims are
time barred.
Judge Oetken finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden at
this stage to adequately allege the existence of a conspiracy in
violation of the Sherman Act. Judge Oetken also finds, among other
things, that the Plaintiffs have identified an illegal
anticompetitive practice (horizontal price-fixing), have claimed an
actual injury placing them in a worse position as a consequence of
the Defendants' conduct, and have demonstrated that their injury is
one the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
At the motion to dismiss stage, Judge Oetken notes that the
Plaintiffs need only plausibly plead the elements of their claims,
with sufficient particularity. Judge Oetken finds they have done so
here, and thus, the Defendants' motion is denied.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The Defendants will file an answer within fourteen days
after the date of this opinion and order. The Clerk of Court is
directed to close the motion at Docket Number 312.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/239ayr97 from PacerMonitor.com.
BARON FINANCIAL: Levi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BARON FINANCIAL AND
INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. The case is styled as Erica Levi, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Primeflight Aviation Services, Inc., Case No. 25STCV01872 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 23, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Baron Financial & Insurance Service Inc. doing business as
Northwestern Mutual -- https://www.northwesternmutual.com/ -- is a
trusted financial and insurance agency based in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Bijan Mohseni, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Fax: 310-300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
bijan@tomorrowlaw.com
BAY AREA COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spraggins Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JELISA MARGARET SPRAGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAY AREA COMMUNITY RESOURCES; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV107598 (Cal. Super., Alameda
Cty., Jan. 21, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Spraggins was employed by the Defendants as a teacher.
Bay Area Community Resources delivers a wide range of services to
schools and other community settings throughout the greater San
Francisco Bay Area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Lauren Falk, Esq.
Ava Issary, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
BDO USA: Taylor Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
TRISTIN TAYLOR, individually and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the BDO USA Employee
Stock Ownership Plan, Plaintiff v. BDO USA, P.C.; THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF BDO USA, P.C.; WAYNE BERSON; BDO ESOP TRUSTEES;
CATHERINE MOY; STEPHEN FERRARA; MARK ELLENBOGEN; MATTHEW BECKER;
WILLIAM EISIG; and PATRICK DONAGHUE, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-10128 (D. Mass., Jan. 17, 2025) alleges violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint that despite the BDO
USA Employee Stock Ownership Plan purchasing Company stock, neither
employees nor the ESOP obtained control over the Company's future
cash flows or strategic direction. Even worse, the Board adopted an
ESOP governance structure such that the ESOP itself was controlled
by BDO's executives shortly after the ESOP Transaction. BDO's
Executive Team thus retained control and power over the ESOP
including the right to vote all shares held by ESOP. As a result,
BDO executives received $1.3 billion for selling 42% of their BDO
stock but did not give up control over the Company.
Prior to the sale of the Company's stock to the BDO ESOP on August
31, 2023 at an inflated value (the "Transaction"), the BDO ESOP had
no assets with which to purchase the Company's stock. To facilitate
the transaction, the Company entered into a private credit deal
with Apollo Global Management affiliates, through which Apollo
provided the Company the funds required to consummate the
transaction, says the suit.
Based on the best information available to Plaintiff, the loan
between Apollo and the Company carried a floating interest rate
based on the Secured Overnight Financing Rate plus 6%. As of
December 31, 2023, this resulted in an interest rate of 11.36%. BDO
guaranteed and is required to make contributions to the ESOP
sufficient to pay all loan payments due, thereby reducing BDO's
future cash flows by the amount necessary to service the ESOP's
Transaction debt.
Had Defendants provided truthful information concerning BDO's past
and future financial performance and ensured that the ESOP trustee
conducted the rigorous due diligence required by ERISA, the ESOP
would not have purchased 42% of the Company's stock for $1.3
billion while obtaining no control of the Company, the suit
alleges.
BDO USA, P.C. offers professional services. The Company provides
advisory, audit and assurance, climate mitigation, tax strategy,
public housing authority, insurance risk, and recovery services.
BDO USA serves government, healthcare, manufacturing, non-profit,
private equity, real estate, construction, and technology
industries worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq.
Caroline E. Bressman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave NW 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Email: myau@cohenmilstein.com
dsutter@cohemilstein.com
rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com
cbressman@cohenmilstein.com
BET INFORMATION: David Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brian David, as an individual and on behalf of
all other similarly situated Class Members v. BET INFORMATION
SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. 24CV453321 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 22, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00772.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following wage and hour class
claims: Recovery of Unpaid Minimum Wages and Liquidated Damages;
Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods
or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods or
Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Violation of Labor Code Section 226;
Failure to Timely Pay all Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment;
Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and Unfair
Competition..[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
Christina C.K. Semmer, Esq.
Ryan C. King, Esq.
GBG LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 840
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 603-5000
Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
christinasemmer@gbgllp.com
ryanking@gbgllp.com
BLOCKCHAIN.COM INC: Collects Data Without Consent, Bello Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KING BELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLOCKCHAIN.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
215126470 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Jan. 22, 2024) alleges
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, the Defendant failed to inform
customers of any specific purpose for the collection or storage of
their biometrics, and failed to provide customers with a schedule
setting out the length of time during which those biometrics would
be collected, stored, used, or destroyed.
Blockchain.com is a cryptocurrency financial services company.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Levin, Esq.
Kaki J. Johnson, Esq.
LEVIN LAW, P.A.
2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 402-9050
Email: brian@levinlawpa.com
kaki@levinlawpa.com
- and -
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Danielle Izzo, Esq.
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0861
Email: cvillegas@labaton.com
dizzo@labaton.com
BLOOMBERG LP: Intercepts and Shares Financial Data, Santoro Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CLARK SANTORO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMBERG L.P., a New York limited
partnership; DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
25STCV01820 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 23, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful interception
of private financial communications of its website users and
disclosure of this information to third parties without consent.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has embedded multiple
third-party tracking technologies into its website that serve to
deanonymize and profile individuals who visit the website. These
tracking technologies are particularly focused on capturing and
sharing users' search queries, which often reveal sensitive
financial research, investment strategies, and personal financial
planning information. As a result, the privacy rights of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers have been violated.
Bloomberg LP is a financial information and media company based in
New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Wendy Miele, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com
wmiele@taulersmith.com
BLUE CROSS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Paul Suit Due March 6
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUG PAUL and ALEXANDER
BEKO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 5:23-cv-00354-FL
(E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise Flanagan entered case management
order as follows:
1. In lieu of initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1),
defendant shall provide plaintiffs with a copy of the
administrative record for plaintiff Paul on or before Feb.
6, 2025. Defendant shall provide plaintiffs with a copy of
the documents that would comprise an administrative record
if plaintiff Beko's claims were covered by ERISA by Feb. 6,
2025.
2. Discovery will be necessary on the following subjects:
reference is made to the discovery proposed to be undertaken
in the parties' joint report and plan.
3. All discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be
completed by Jan. 30, 2026.
4. Disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(2), including reports from retained experts, shall be
served by Nov. 3, 2025. Disclosures and reports by any
rebuttal experts shall be served by Dec. 3, 2025.
5. Any motion shall be accompanied at time of filing with a
proposed form of order, stating its requested relief.
6. Any motion for leave to join additional parties or to
otherwise amend the pleadings shall be filed by Mar. 31,
2025.
7. Any parties later joined to this action are bound by this
case management order unless otherwise ordered by the court.
8. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by Mar. 6,
2026.
Blue Cross operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization
provides healthcare and insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AmbUYE at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOBOSLW INC: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BOBOSLW, INC. The
case is styled as Daissy Gutierrez, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BOBOSLW, INC. DBA BOBOS
HAMBURGERS, Case No. 25STCV02087 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Jan. 24, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Boboslw, Inc. doing business as Bobo's hamburgers --
https://eatbobos.com/ -- is a family owned restaurant founded in
southern california in 1975.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Fax: 310-300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Robert David Wilson, Esq.
WILSON LAW
5173 Waring Rd. Ste. A Pmb 70
San Diego, CA 92120-2705
Phone: 858-833-8611
Email: wilsonesq3@gmail.com
BREAKING MEDIA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEVEL 12 PRODUCTION LLC,
v. BREAKING MEDIA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-09974-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
pretrial management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss
or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for
summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with
this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on
the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-
moses.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery
set by the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for such an application arises and must comply with Local
Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual
Practices.
-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences are not required but may be requested where
counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may
obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.
-- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance
with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be
entertained.
Breaking Media operates as a digital-first B2B media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wH7I61 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Seal Commercial Info OK'd in Martin
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02923-MMG (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Margaret Garnett entered an order granting
Brighthouse's motion to seal or redact sensitive and proprietary
commercial information relating to the Actuarial Memorandum and
Brighthouse's Expense Assumptions.
Brighthouse offers income and fixed annuities, retirement, and
health care products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lSmmgO at no extra
charge.[CC]
BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE: Can Compel Arbitration in Herman Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as BRUCE HERMAN, Plaintiff, v. BROOKDALE
EMPLOYEE SERIVES LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-04987-PCP
(N.D. Calif.), Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Brookdale
Employee Services, LLC's motion to compel arbitration of Bruce
Herman's claims.
Herman started working for Brookdale on Oct. 10, 2018 as a prep
cook in Brookdale's Scotts Valley assisted living facility. He
received multiple promotions over his five years of employment and
was serving as the Assisted Living Director at Brookdale's San Jose
location when Brookdale terminated his employment on Oct. 18, 2023.
Herman sued Brookdale in Santa Clara County Superior Court,
asserting ten causes of action related to age and disability
discrimination, retaliation, and denial of employment benefits.
Brookdale thereafter removed the case to federal court on the basis
of this Court's diversity jurisdiction.
Herman signed a series of offer letters and other agreements in the
course of his employment.
On Feb. 18, 2019, he received and signed an offer letter for a
security position at Brookdale's San Jose location.
Herman received Brookdale's Dispute Resolution Agreement
("arbitration agreement") and signed it on Feb. 18, 2019.
Based on this agreement, Brookdale moves the Court to compel
arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Herman opposes the
motion, contending that the agreement is unconscionable and
therefore unenforceable.
Herman argues that the contract arose from circumstances involving
both surprise and oppression and that the Court should therefore
find that the contract contains significant procedural unfairness.
The Court finds Herman's agreement to arbitrate his claims was not
the product of a substantial degree of oppression or surprise. His
agreement with Brookdale involved only a minimal degree of
procedural unconscionability.
Given the minimal procedural unconscionability in this case, Herman
must demonstrate a high degree of substantive unconscionability to
render the arbitration agreement unenforceable.
Herman raises three arguments to demonstrate substantive
unconscionability. He contends that the agreement lacks mutuality.
Judge Pitts says Herman is correct that the agreement is not
reciprocal in every respect. For example, though both parties waive
their rights to bring class actions under the arbitration
agreement, in practice Herman is the only party who might sue on
behalf of a class. But class action waivers are enforceable under
the FAA as a matter of settled law. The agreement also waives
Herman's right to bring a representative action under California's
Private Attorneys General Act. Although the agreement preserves his
right to arbitrate individual PAGA claims, its wholesale waiver of
representative PAGA claims is unenforceable as a matter of
California state law. But Herman's complaint does not assert any
PAGA claim, and the agreement's PAGA provision includes a
severability clause that allows the remainder of the agreement to
stand even though the representative PAGA waiver is unenforceable.
Herman argues that the terms of the agreement are overly confusing
or unfair. He also argues that the confidentiality provision is
unconscionable because it prevents future employees from taking
advantage of findings in past arbitrations. He contends that a
confidentiality provision must have a commercial basis to be
enforceable.
The Court finds although the confidentiality provision in Herman's
contract exhibits a degree of substantive unconscionability, it is
insufficient to invalidate the arbitration agreement as a whole
given the limited procedural unconscionability present in this
case.
Because the arbitration agreement covers all of the claims that
Herman asserts in this case and because no party has requested a
stay of these proceedings pending arbitration, the case is
dismissed. Should the parties find themselves unable to select a
mediator, they may, per the terms of the arbitration agreement,
petition the Court to appoint one for them.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ekcUBW from PacerMonitor.com.
CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Case Management Order Entered in Quevedo
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR QUEVEDO, v.
CALIFORNIA CEMETERY AND FUNERAL SERVICES LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-10509-FMO-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin
entered a scheduling and case management order regarding class
actions and representative actions
-- Joinder of Parties And Amendment Of Pleadings:
Any stipulation or motion to amend as to any claims, defenses,
or parties shall be filed by the deadline set forth in the
attached schedule, failing which it shall be deemed that the
party has waived any such amendments
-- Case Deadlines
Any stipulation or motion to amend as to any claims, defenses
and/or parties shall be lodged/filed no later than April 3,
2025, failing which it shall be deemed that party's waiver of
any such amendments in this action. All "Doe" defendants are
to be identified and named on or before April 3, 2025, on
which date all remaining "Doe" defendants will be dismissed,
unless otherwise ordered by the court upon a showing of good
cause.
All fact discovery shall be completed no later than July 3,
2025. The court does not bifurcate discovery.
All expert discovery shall be completed by Aug. 18, 2025. The
parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures no
later than June 17, 2025. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures
shall be served no later than July 17, 2025.
The parties shall complete their settlement conference before
a private mediator no later than July 3, 2025.
Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later
than Sept. 18, 2025, and noticed for hearing regularly under
the Local Rules.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wj8KkM at no extra
charge.[CC]
CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Negrete Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Miguel Negrete, individually, and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. THE CAMPBELL'S
COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation; SNYDER'S-LANCE, INC., a North
Carolina corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV31300 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 22,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00555.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following wage and hour class
claims: Recovery of Unpaid Minimum Wages and Liquidated Damages;
Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods
or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods or
Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Violation of Labor Code Section 226;
Failure to Timely Pay all Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment;
Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and Unfair
Competition..[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher A. Stecher, Esq.
Simon M. Levy, Esq.
Michelle L. Abdolhosseini, Esq.
Bailey Maher, Esq.
KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN
A Professional Corporation
578 Jackson Street
San Francisco, CA 94133
Phone: (415) 398-6000
Facsimile: (415) 981-0136
Email: christopher.stecher@kyl.com
simon.levy@kyl.com
michelle.abdolhosseini@kyl.com
bailey.maher@kyl.com
CAPITAL ONE: Storm Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
STORM PRODUCTIONS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION;
WIKIBUY LLC; and WIKIBUY HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-00102 (E.D. Va., Jan. 21, 2025) alleges violation of the
New York Deceptive Practices Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is engaged in
surreptitiously stealing the Plaintiff's and the Class's rightfully
earned affiliate marketing commissions through the Capital One
Shopping browser extension.
Capital One Shopping is a free browser extension with over ten
million users that claims to help online shoppers search for
discounts, find better prices, and earn rewards. But behind this
consumer-friendly facade, Capital One uses the extension to poach
affiliate marketing commissions from bloggers, influencers, and
other content creators who drive online sales, says the suit.
Capital One Financial Corporation provides commercial banking
services. The Bank accepts deposits and offers personal credit
cards, investment products, loans, and online banking services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven T. Webster, Esq.
WEBSTER BOOK LLP
2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 728
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (888) 987-9991
Email: swebster@websterbook.com
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
Joy D. Merklen, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
vahle@stuevesiegel.com
merklen@stuevesiegel.com
CAPITAL ONE: Wild Fundraising Sues Over Access to Bank Account
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILD FUNDRAISING, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00135-SSV-MBN (E.D. La., Jan. 17, 2025)
is an action concerning a technical issue with one of the
Defendant's third-party vendors, which caused many small business
bank account holders to lose access to their funds.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, on or about January
15, 2025, the Plaintiff noticed that it had lost access to just
under $15,000 in funds in its account, which it was to use to pay
its employees salary and wages.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated cannot access their
funds to pay employees, routine business expenses, and the
principals themselves.
Capital One, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers financial products and services such as personal and
business checking, savings accounts, investment, mortgages, issues
credit card, business loans, and commercial banking solutions.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Michaud, Esq.
MICHAUD CONSUMER LAW, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2900
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 910-6775
Facsimile: (504) 910-6953
CEMAYLA LLC: Young Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CEMAYLA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00710 (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://foundrae.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text, empty links that contain no
text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Cemayla, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
CIGARETTE STORE: Ehrenberg Suit Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned as MORRIS EHRENBERG, PLAINTIFF v.
CIGARETTE STORE, LLC, d/b/a SMOKER FRIENDLY; SAVAGE ENTERPRISES,
LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:24-cv-939-DPM (E.D.
Ark.).
Cigarette Store removed this case in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, relying on the Class
Action Fairness Act and various loose language indicating this was
a class action like Smith v. Cigarette Store, LLC et al., No.
4:24-cv-469-BSM. Ehrenberg moves to remand or do jurisdictional
discovery. He says, unequivocally, that this is not a class action.
Cigarette Store disagrees, plus seeks consolidation with Smith.
The motion to remand is conditionally granted as modified and with
directions.
The District Court concludes that the complaint's class-related
words are strays from a hasty cut-and-paste job using the Smith
complaint, which was filed some time ago by Ehrenberg's lawyers.
Amended complaint with no class-related allegations or damages
requests due by Feb. 14, 2025.
There are other pending motions. The motion to stay and the motion
to consolidate are denied without prejudice. Savage Enterprises's
motion to dismiss will pend and return with the case for decision
by the state court.
The District Court will remand promptly after receiving and
reviewing the Ehrenberg-only amended complaint.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S1cvvz from PacerMonitor.com.
CINMAR LLC: Seeks to Dismiss Greben Class Action
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELANIE GREBEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CINMAR, LLC and FRONTGATE MARKETING, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-10140-MRA-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the
Court on March 31, 2025, to dismiss class action complaint filed by
Plaintiff Melanie Greben.
The Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because:
(1) the economic loss doctrine bars Plaintiff's statutory and
common law misrepresentation claims;
(2) Plaintiff's claims are all fraud-based but are not pled
with sufficient particularity to satisfy Rule 9(b);
(3) Plaintiff does not plead facts giving rise to claims for
breach of contract or express warranty; (4) Plaintiff's
breach of contract claim and failure to allege fraud
preclude her "quasi-contract/unjust enrichment" claim; and
(5) Plaintiff's fungible allegations fail to satisfy Rule 8's
plausibility standard.
The Plaintiff alleges that on Nov. 20, 2023, she purchased a
"Pascal 6 Light Chandelier" on the Frontgate website. This appears
to be the only Frontgate purchase the Plaintiff has ever made.
On Nov. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this action seeking to
represent a nationwide class and a California subclass of consumers
who allegedly "purchased one or more Frontgate Products at a
purported discount on Defendants' website."
The Plaintiff asserts breach of contract and quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment claims on behalf of herself and the nationwide class;
she also asserts claims for violations of the FAL, UCL, CLRA, as
well as breach of express warranty and negligent and intentional
misrepresentation on behalf of herself and the California subclass.
Cinmar provides home furniture.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vJDcpa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason D. Russell, Esq.
Hillary A. Hamilton, Esq.
Meredith C. Slawe, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
2000 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 200N
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (213) 687-5000
E-mail: jason.russell@skadden.com
hillary.hamilton@skadden.com
meredith.slawe@skadden.com
CJJ FAY DA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Trippett Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CJJ FAY DA GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00511 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.fayda.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
is in the grocery and related products merchant wholesalers
industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Gevyfirm@gmail.com
CLASSIC RESIDENT: Settles Class Action Data Breach Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alder, writing for HIPAA Journal, reports that Classic
Resident Management Limited Partnership, which does business as
Chicago-based Vi Living, the operator of 10 continuing care
retirement communities in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,
Illinois, and South Carolina, has agreed to settle a class action
data breach lawsuit for an undisclosed sum.
A network intrusion was detected on or around March 13, 2023, and
it was confirmed that an unauthorized third party accessed files
containing personal data and potentially copied that information
from the network. The compromised data included names, addresses,
dates of birth, Social Security numbers, financial information, and
medical information. Up to 61,425 individuals were affected and had
their information exposed or stolen and were notified about the
data breach on September 9, 2023.
A class action lawsuit Givony, et al. v. Classic Residence
Management Limited Partnership d/b/a Vi -- was filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois that claimed the breach could have
been prevented if reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures
had been implemented. The lawsuit asserted claims of negligence,
negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract,
and unjust enrichment.
Vi Living denies all claims and contentions in the lawsuit but
agreed to a settlement with no admission of liability or
wrongdoing. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can
receive up to $6,500 in cash benefits plus two years of
complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection
services. Up to $1,500 may be claimed for reimbursement of ordinary
losses incurred as a result of the data breach, plus up to $5,000
reimbursement for documented unreimbursed extraordinary losses.
The settlement has received preliminary approval from the court and
the final approval hearing is scheduled for February 19, 2025.
Claims must be submitted by February 3, 2025. [GN]
COMMUNITY CLINIC: Jackson Files Suit in D. Hawaii
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Clinic of
Maui, Inc. The case is styled as William Jackson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Clinic of
Maui, Inc. doing business as: Malama I Ke Ola Health Center, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00031-JMS-KJM (D. Haw., Jan. 24, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury Medical
Malpractice.
Community Clinic of Maui Inc. doing business as Malama I Ke Ola
Health Center -- https://www.ccmaui.org/ -- provides healthcare
services. The Company provides primary health care, dental, health
promotion, and disease prevention services to resident.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandee J. Faria, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRANDEE J.K. FARIA
1164 Bishop St Ste 933
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 523-2300
Fax: (808) 697-5304
Email: brandee@farialawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Cheyne Isao Yong Yonemori, Esq.
DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT
1003 Bishop Street, Suite 1600
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 531-8031
Fax: (808) 533-2242
Email: cheyne@tanakalegal.com
- and -
Joji George Hetherington, Esq.
YAMAMOTO CALIBOSO HETHERINGTON
1100 Alakea Street, Suite 3100
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: (808) 540-4504
Fax: (808) 540-4530
Email: ghetherington@ychawaii.com
CRAZY SUSHI: Faces Chesley Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL CHESLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRAZY SUSHI WIREGRASS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 8:25-cv-00183 (M.D. Fla., January 23, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt server and
bartender in Pasco County, Florida from approximately May 24, 2023,
through April 23, 2024.
Crazy Sushi Wiregrass, Inc. is a Japanese restaurant operator in
Pasco County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Corey L. Seldin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 807-7765
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
Email: cseldin@forthepeople.com
D&V PACKAGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ALICIA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D&V PACKAGE EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:25-cv-00112-BKS-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2025) seeks to
recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Anderson was employed by the Defendant as a delivery
driver.
D&V Package Express, LLC operates out of an Amazon delivery
warehouse at Syracuse, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Files, Esq.
Frank Gattuso, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
The White House
7030 E. Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Telephone: (315) 314-8000
Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
Email: rfiles@gclawoffice.com
fgattuso@gclawoffice.com
DALE STOHR: Motion to Quash in Hall Suit Transferred to Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as DALE STOHR and MGG INVESTMENT GROUP LP,
Petitioners, -against- AARON HALL, KATHERINE GLOD, and JEFFREY
BINDER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Respondents, Case No. 1:24-mc-00569 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the motion filed by the
respondents to transfer Dale Stohr and MGG Investment Group LP's
motion to quash to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.
On Nov. 13, 2022, Respondents initiated the RICO class action
styled as Hall v. Trivest Partners L.P., No. 22-cv12743, in the
Eastern District of Michigan, asserting various claims in
connection with allegedly defective solar panel systems
On Dec. 9, 2024, Dale Stohr and MGG Investment Group LP, moved this
Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Rule
45(d)(3)(A), to quash the nonparty subpoenas served on them by
Aaron Hall, Katherine Glod, and Jeffrey Binder, on behalf of
themselves and all others similar situated, in connection with the
pending RICO case.
On Dec. 17, 2024, Respondents moved this Court, pursuant to Rule
45(f), to transfer Petitioners' motion to quash to the Eastern
District of Michigan. They argue, among other things, that
transferring Petitioners' motion will prevent disruption to the
Hall court's management of the underlying litigation in light of
the case's complexity and procedural posture.
The Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist in this case
that warrant transferring Petitioners' motion to quash to the
Eastern District of Michigan.
According to the Court, judicial economy favors transfer of the
current motion to avoid the obvious risk of disrupting the issuing
court's management of the underlying litigation, by disrupting
potential discovery and other case management deadlines that have
already been set.
Moreover, the Hall Litigation is a nationwide class action that
purportedly includes thousands of members and an amount in
controversy in the millions of dollars. The Court says transfer is
appropriate in cases of such complexity and duration.
The Court finds that these considerations outweigh the interests of
the Petitioners in obtaining local resolution of the motion.
Notably, Petitioners do not provide any evidence indicating that
transfer of their motion to quash would result in any burden to
them, nor do they identify any interest they have in obtaining
resolution of their motion in this District, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dp2bt9 from PacerMonitor.com.
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Trigueiro Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE TRIGUIERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00023 (D.R.I., January 15, 2025) is an action against the
Defendant for failing to properly secure and safeguard the
personally identifiable information and personal health information
of the Plaintiff and Class, resulting in a data breach of the
RIBridges computer software system, which is administered and
operated by Defendant.
The private information of Plaintiff and Class Members -- which
they entrusted to Defendant with the mutual understanding that
Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted,
compromised and unlawfully accessed due to a data breach on or
about December 5, 2024.
The complaint asserts that the Data Breach occurred because
Defendant failed to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity
procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' private information from a foreseeable and preventable
cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are also likely to incur out of
pocket costs as a result of the data breach, such as purchasing
credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or
other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft.
Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose
private information was accessed and stolen during the data
breach.
Deloitte Consulting LLP is a management consultancy firm providing
a range of services, including audit and assurance, cybersecurity,
risk and financial advisory services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent L. Greene, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
40 Westminster St., 5th Fl.
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 457-7700
Facsimile: (401) 457-7708
E-mail: vgreene@motleyrice.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
Nicholas Murphy, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
nmurphy@hausfeld.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: District Court Narrows Claims in Love v. BOP
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit
captioned ARTAVIOUS LOVE, et al., Plaintiffs v. BUREAU OF PRISONS,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02571-APM (D.D.C.).
Plaintiffs Artavious Love and Diamante Butler are individuals
convicted of felony D.C. Code offenses in the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). They filed this class action
lawsuit on Sept. 9, 2024, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated to challenge the BOP's disparate methodology for
calculating criminal history scores for persons convicted in D.C.
Superior Court of felony D.C. Code offenses ("D.C. Code
Offenders"). They raise claims under the Administrative Procedure
Act ("APA") and the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
At present, the Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction that would
require the BOP (1) to stop using a separate scoring system for
D.C. Code Offenders, (2) to begin scoring D.C. Code Offenders in
accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines, and (3) to re-score such
individuals currently in custody, including the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants are (1) the BOP; (2) Collette Peters, in her
official capacity as Director of the BOP; and (3) Merrick Garland,
in his official capacity as Attorney General of the U.S. Department
of Justice. The Defendants oppose the request for injunctive
relief, arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to carry their
burden as to each of the four injunction factors.
The Defendants also move to dismiss on a variety of grounds. At the
threshold, they urge dismissal for lack of standing and the
Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Additionally, they contend that the court is statutorily foreclosed
from reviewing the Plaintiffs' housing designations. Finally, they
contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to state claims under the
APA and the Equal Protection Clause.
For the reasons discussed in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, the
Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction
because they have failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The
Defendants' motion to dismiss will be denied, however, except as to
Plaintiff Butler, who failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Judge Mehta finds that none of the Plaintiffs' claimed injuries
meet the high bar for irreparable harm. The evidence they present
to back up these claims is either weak or non-existent, Judge Mehta
points out.
None of what the Court has written in this Memorandum Opinion and
Order should be taken to diminish the hardships faced by prisoners
while in custody of the BOP, Judge Mehta explains. The question
before the court is a narrow one: whether, absent immediate relief,
the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if they remain in their
present medium-security placements until the court finally resolves
this matter. They have not carried that heavy burden, Judge Mehta
points out.
In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants first contend that the
Plaintiffs lack standing. The Court disagrees. Judge Mehta finds
the Plaintiffs have shown enough at this stage to establish
standing. Next, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims
must be dismissed because they failed to exhaust administrative
remedies. The Court agrees as to Butler, but not Love.
Judge Mehta also finds that it is sufficient for now that the
complaint plausibly establishes that D.C. Code Offenders and
federal code offenders are similarly situated insofar as the BOP is
required to make housing designations for both groups consistent
with the statutory factors set forth in Section 3621. The Court
need not assess the plausibility of the Plaintiffs' remaining
claims.
The Plaintiffs have represented that they will not seek discovery
and are content to litigate the next stage solely on an
administrative record. Accordingly, the Court will defer ruling on
the Defendants' arguments as to the remaining claims and address
them on cross-motions for summary judgment.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction and grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff Butler's claims are
dismissed for failure to exhaust. The Defendants' Motion is denied
as to Plaintiff Love.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3hzd7hfu from PacerMonitor.com.
DRAFTKINGS INC: De Leon Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLARA DE LEON; and ERIC W. MIRSBERGER JR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS,
INC.; and CROWN NY GAMING INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00644
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2025) alleges violation of the New York State
Gambling Commission Regulations.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that DraftKings is engaged
in deceptive practices through a promotion that promises users that
they can place a bet at no risk to them ("Risk-Free Bet" or "No
Sweat Bet").
DraftKings uses false promises of the opportunity to win big with
no risk to lure users into committing more money to the platform
than they otherwise would have. DraftKings uses these tactics to
identify and cultivate the people it wants on its platform: those
who are susceptible to these sorts of advertisements and most
likely to lose a lot of money sports betting, says the suit.
DraftKings Inc. operates as a daily fantasy sports contest and
sports betting company. The Company allows users to enter daily and
weekly fantasy sports-related contests and win money based on
individual player performances in American sports. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anand Swaminathan, Esq.
LOEVY LOEVY
311 North Aberdeen Street
Chicago, IL 60607
Tel: (312) 243-5900
ECOM FITNESS: Faces Young Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ECOM FITNESS PLATFORM LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00535 (S.D.N.Y., January 17, 2025) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights
Law, and the New York State General Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's violations stem from
its failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website.
Moreover, due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind
and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need
screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods,
and services Defendant offers to the public on its website.
Headquartered in Superior, CO, Ecom Fitness Platform LLC offers the
commercial website, https://www.gaiam.com, which offers customers
the information of and the ability to purchase fitness and wellness
products online. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
ENVOY AIR INC: Javaughny Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Javaughny Jenkins, an individual, on behalf of
himself, the State of California, as a private attorney general,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENVOY AIR, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 24STCV33798 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Jan. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-00653.
The Plaintiff brings claims against Envoy for alleged failure to
pay minimum wages, pay overtime wages, provide rest periods,
provide meal periods, maintain accurate employment records, pay
wages timely during employment, pay wages due upon separation from
employment, reimburse necessary business expenses, and provide
accurate itemized wage statements. Plaintiff also alleges that
Envoy committed acts of unfair competition as defined by the
California Unfair Business Practices Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark W. Robertson, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 326-2000
Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
Email: mrobertson@omm.com
- and -
Kelly S. Wood, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 823-6900
Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
Email: kwood@omm.com
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLI LEWIS v.
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00302-FL-BM (E.D.N.C.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order grating motion for
reconsideration, or, in the alternative, for clarification its
Order certifying classes.
1. On Jan. 6, 2025, the Court issued an Order Certifying
Classes which set forth two separate letter classes, neither
of which appeared in the Complaint or the Parties Motion for
(or Opposition to) Class Certification.
2. The Plaintiff cannot sustain her burden for predominance or
numerosity, and Equity requests that this Court set aside
its Order.
3. Alternatively, if Reconsideration is Denied, Equity requests
clarification of the Order at ECF 85, as the newly defined
classes present ambiguities in interpretation.
Equity Experts offers community association recovery solutions,
collection technology and legal services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rNDdI3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Katrina M. DeMarte, Esq.
DEMARTE LAW PLLC
39555 Orchard Hill Pl, Ste 600
Novi, MI 48375
Telephone: (313) 509-7047
E-mail: Katrina@demartelaw.com
FARHA ROOFING: Ford Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA FORD, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. FARHA ROOFING, LLC,
FARHA ROOFING KC, LLC, and SUMMA MEDIA, LLC, Case No.
4:23-cv-00635-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
-- certifying the class for settlement purposes;
-- preliminarily approving the settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate;
-- appointing Plaintiff as the class representative, and
Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel;
-- approving and directing notice to class members; and
-- setting a final fairness hearing date.
The parties agreed to resolve this matter on behalf of the
following class:
"All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Summa
Media, LLC, Farha Roofing, LLC, or Farha Roofing KC, LLC
delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one text
message within a 12-month period, promoting Farha Roofing,
LLC's or Farha Roofing KC, LLC's or their business partners'
goods or services, (2) from Sept. 13, 2019 to Oct. 16, 2024,
and (3) whose residential telephone number is included in the
Settlement Class Data."
To compensate class members, Defendants will create a
non-reversionary common fund in the amount of $250,000.00.
Paid from the common fund will be:
(1) compensation to class members;
(2) the cost of notice to class members and claims
administration for class members;
(3) litigation costs and expenses not to exceed $8,000.00, for
which Plaintiff’s counsel will separately petition this
Court for;
(4) reasonable attorneys' fees, calculated as a percentage of
the common fund, for which Plaintiff's counsel will
separately petition this Court for;
(5) and an incentive award to Plaintiff not to exceed
$10,000.00, for which Plaintiff’s counsel will separately
petition this Court.
Farha is a remodeling & roofing contractor.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IR4m0d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq.
Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq.
PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
7500 Rialto Blvd. Suite 1-250
Austin, TX 78735
Telephone: (561) 726-8444
E-mail: akruzyk@pkglegal.com
bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com
- and -
Anthony E. LaCroix, Esq.
LACROIX LAW FIRM LLC
1600 Genessee, Suite 956
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 399-4380
E-mail: tony@lacroixlawkc.com
FCA US: Delaware Court Resolves Discovery Disputes in Maugain Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware issued a Memorandum Order resolving the
pending motion for teleconference to resolve discovery disputes in
the lawsuit styled Etienne Maugain, et al., Plaintiffs v. FCA US
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-JLH-SRF (D. Del.).
The case involves a putative class action on behalf of consumers,
who purchased or leased 2014 or newer Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, or
RAM-branded vehicles equipped with allegedly defective 3.6L
Pentastar V6 engines (the "Class Vehicles"). The first amended
complaint alleges that the engines of the Class Vehicles have
defects in components of the valve train and in the electronic and
hydraulic modules controlling the timing, phasing, and function of
the camshafts, intake valves, lifters, and related components
causing the engines to fail prematurely.
The causes of action brought by Named Plaintiffs Etienne Maugain,
John Kundrath, Louise Shumate, Richard Archer, Denise Hunter,
Stephen Drekosen, Kenneth Esteves, John Skleres, and Leonel Cantu
are limited to breach of implied warranties and unjust enrichment.
Judge Fallon holds that the Defendant's motion to compel the
Plaintiffs' in-person appearances for a deposition in Delaware is
granted, and the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for a protective order
requiring remote depositions is denied without prejudice. Judge
Fallon opines that the Plaintiffs have not shown hardship or an
inability to attend their depositions in this district.
Judge Fallon also opines that the Plaintiffs do not cite federal
case authority from this district or within the Third Circuit
suggesting that cost benefits and time efficiencies alone are
sufficient to overcome the general rule that the plaintiff must
produce its witnesses in the district in which the plaintiff
instituted the action.
Because the Plaintiffs have not satisfied that standard here, Judge
Fallon grants the Defendant's motion to compel in-person
depositions of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' cross-motion for a
protective order requiring remote depositions is denied without
prejudice to renew.
Judge Fallon grants in part the Defendant's motion to compel
private inspections of the Plaintiffs' vehicles. Judge Fallon
explains that the circumstances of this case weigh in favor of
granting the Defendant's motion to compel private vehicle
inspections, with certain conditions. To balance the interests of
the parties on this record, the Court rules that the Defendant will
be permitted to inspect the Plaintiffs' vehicles privately, subject
to conditions set forth in the Memorandum Order.
The Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of damages
documents in response to Request for Production Nos. 65, 68, 69,
70, 72, and 74 is granted-in-part, the Court holds. Judge Fallon
notes that the Plaintiffs present overbroad Requests for Production
("RFPs") seeking cost, pricing, and market share information, and
the Defendant cites no authority to support its argument that
discovery on all Class Vehicles should not be permitted unless and
until the class is certified.
Limiting the scope of discovery to only the vehicles purchased by
the named Plaintiffs would preclude the Plaintiffs from obtaining
discovery on all Class Vehicles before the merits of the class
certification motion could be considered by the Court, Judge Fallon
explains.
Judge Fallon grants the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendant
to update its production to Request for Production Nos. 3, 7, 12,
and 17 to reflect the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. For
clarity, Judge Fallon says the Defendant may produce post-2023
documents responsive to these requests in the form indicated in
their discovery responses to avoid disclosure of customers'
personal identifying information.
For these reasons, the Court addresses in the Memorandum Order the
pending motion for teleconference to resolve discovery disputes.
The Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of damages
documents in response to Request for Production Nos. 65 and 72 is
granted. The Defendant will produce documents responsive to these
requests on or before Jan. 29, 2025. The Plaintiffs' motion to
compel the production of documents in response to Request for
Production Nos. 68, 69, 70, and 74 is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendant to update its
production to Request for Production Nos. 3, 7, 12, and 17 to
reflect the manufacture and sale of new vehicles is granted. The
Defendant will produce documents responsive to these requests in
accordance with Rule 26(e) on or before Jan. 29, 2025.
The Court cancels the discovery dispute teleconference set for Jan.
15, 2025.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4e43xvv6 from PacerMonitor.com.
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Purcell Due March 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT PURCELL, v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-04927-JD (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an amended scheduling order:
Event Deadline
Expert disclosures: Jan. 31, 2025
Rebuttal expert disclosures: Feb. 21, 2025
Expert discovery cut-off: March 14, 2025
Last day to file motion for class March 28, 2025
Certification:
Pretrial conference: Nov. 13, 2025,
at 1:30 p.m.
Jury Trial: Dec. 1, 2025,
at 9:00 a.m.
All dates set by the Court should be regarded as firm. Counsel may
not modify these dates by stipulation without leave of court.
Requests for continuances are disfavored, and scheduling
Federal offers fire, marine, casualty, accident and health, and
property insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RgCvsz at no extra
charge.[CC]
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Removes Tighe Suit to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MICHAEL TIGHE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERRELLGAS
PARTNERS, L.P.; PEOPLEREADY, INC.; TRUEBLUE, INC.; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside
(Case No. CVRI 2406871) to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Jan. 17, 2025.
The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:25-cv-00155. The case is assigned to Judge Sunshine
Suzanne Sykes and referred to Magistrate Shashi H. Kewalramani.
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. sells, distributes, markets, and trades
propane and other natural gas liquids. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David R. Ongaro, Esq.
Cara R. Sherman, Esq.
ONGARO PC
1604 Union Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 433-3900
Facsimile: (415) 433-3950
Email: dongaro@ongaropc.com
csherman@ongaropc.com
FIRST TECH: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maldef reports that a federal judge granted final approval
Thursday, January 23, 2025, of a class-action settlement between
First Tech Credit Union and recipients of Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and other immigrants who were denied full
consideration for credit because of their immigration status.
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund)
represents DACA recipients and other immigrants who comprise the
settlement class. The settlement is one of nearly a dozen MALDEF
has reached with financial institutions that have been sued for
denying services to DACA recipients and other immigrants based on
their immigration status. Since 2017, MALDEF has filed 19 lawsuits
challenging the policies of financial institutions that are alleged
to discriminate against DACA recipients and other immigrants.
"Regardless of the biased rhetoric streaming from the new
administration, the law protects immigrants from discrimination,"
said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and General Counsel. "When a
credit union like First Tech recognizes that it should provide
immigrants' access to critical financial products, our economy and
society are improved."
As part of the agreement, First Tech has created a settlement fund
of $81,500 to compensate the class of immigrants affected by the
challenged practice. The agreement, which received preliminary
approval in October, also includes a change in First Tech's
policy.
"DACA recipients across the country play an important role in
propelling our nation forward," said Eduardo Casas, MALDEF
attorney. "Perez, for example, is a scientist and engineer who
works in the area of battery research and technology. He may one
day make a discovery that fundamentally changes our understanding
of battery technology. We are pleased that people like him will
have greater access to financial products thereby making upward
mobility and financial well-being more accessible."
MALDEF filed the suit in 2023 on behalf of Ismael Rodriguez Perez,
a recipient of DACA. Perez was initially approved for a Home Equity
Line of Credit (HELOC), but later learned he was denied the loan
because he was not a permanent resident. Attorneys argued that
First Tech's policy was a violation of Section 1981 of the federal
Civil Rights Act of 1866 and of California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act, which prohibit discrimination in certain consumer matters. The
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
"The final approval of the settlement has brought me a sense of
justice," said Perez. "Knowing that those who were also impacted
are receiving part of this settlement gives me hope that they
recognize someone is standing up for them. I am incredibly grateful
for all the support I received from MALDEF in making this possible.
It's inspiring and empowering to know that there are still people
dedicated to helping our cause as immigrants. I will continue to
stand against injustice, and with individuals like them by my side,
I feel empowered to keep fighting."
First Tech Federal Credit Union is an Oregon-based member-owned
credit union that manages $17 billion in assets. It serves nearly
650,000 members. [GN]
FLORIDA CREDIT: Fonseca Sues Over Credit Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ALBERTO FONSECA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-00101-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla., January 14,
2025), arises from Defendant's denial of full access to membership
and credit products to Plaintiff and other applicants who are not
United States citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents, including
those who have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status.
Plaintiff Fonseca suffered harm from Defendant's denial of his
membership application on the sole basis of his alienage. This
denial caused Fonseca to feel the deleterious effects of
discrimination and to suffer harm, including actual damages,
emotional distress, and other negative effects. Accordingly,
Plaintiff now brings this class action against Defendant for
unlawful discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of
1866.
Headquartered in Gainesville, FL, Florida Credit Union is a
member-owned credit union that offers financial and credit
products, including savings and checking accounts, credit cards,
personal loans, auto loans, and mortgages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Saenz, Esq.
Luis L. Lozada, Esq.
634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 629-2512
E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org
llozada@maldef.org
- and -
Andrea Senteno, Esq.
Sebastian Alarcon, Esq.
1016 16th Street NW, Suite 100
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 293-2828
E-mail: asenteno@maldef.org
salarcon@maldef.org
FLUENT INC: Smith Sues Over Telemarketing Text Messages, Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
JODY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLUENT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00425 (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2025) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the TCPA alleging that the Defendant violated the
TCPA by sending telemarketing text messages and calls to Plaintiff
and other putative class members listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry without their written consent.
The text messages were all sent to advertise Fluent's goods and
services. Plaintiff Smith has never been a customer of Fluent.
Despite this, the Plaintiff received at least 40 text messages from
Fluent between approximately August of 2024 continuing through
present, says the suit.
Fluent, Inc. provides data-driven digital marketing services in the
United States and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mount Carmel Avenue
Glenside, PA 19038
Telephone: (215) 225-5529
Facsimile: (888) 329-0305
E-mail: a@perronglaw.com
FLY FISHERS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Schultz Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE FLY FISHERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00663 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 21, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.theflyfishers.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Fly Fishers, Inc. provides a wide range of top-quality fly
fishing supplies from fly fishing rods and reels to fly fishing
waders and boots. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Camarena, Esq.
1016 W. Jackso, No. 32
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 493-7494
Email: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com
FTAI AVIATION: Shannahan Sues Over False Statements on Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SHANNAHAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. FTAI AVIATION LTD., JOSEPH P.
ADAMS, JR., and EUN (ANGELA) NAM, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-00541 (S.D.N.Y., January 17, 2025) pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired FTAI securities
between July 23, 2024 and January 15, 2025, inclusive. Throughout
the said period, the Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) the Company reported one-time engine sales as
Maintenance Repair & Overhaul revenue when FTAI only performs
limited repair and maintenance work on the engine assets sold; (2)
FTAI presents whole engine sales as individual module sales,
thereby overstating sales and demand; and (3) the Company
depreciates engines that are not on lease, which misleadingly
lowers the reported cost of goods sold and inflates EBITDA.
Headquartered in New York City, FTAI owns and acquires aviation and
offshore energy equipment. The company operates through two
segments, aviation leasing and aerospace products. Its ordinary
shares trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol "FTAI." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (213) 521-8007
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
GILEAD SCIENCES: Must Face FLSA Claim in Myers, et al. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied
in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and/or stay proceedings
in the case captioned as AMELIA MYERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-02668-AMO
(N.D. Calif.).
On May 3, 2024, Plaintiffs Amelia Myers and Fatoumata Barry Yapo
filed this instant putative class action against their former
employers, Defendants Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Kite Pharma, Inc.
Myers and Yapo alleging that Gilead and Kite Pharma utilized the
wrong rate of pay to calculate overtime pay, and thus underpaid
overtime in violation of state and federal law.
Plaintiffs formerly worked for Gilead and Kite Pharma in
California. They were Cell Therapy Specialists and classified as
non-exempt. In addition to hourly wages, Defendants provided
Plaintiffs with short-term and annual incentive awards and grants
of Gilead restricted stock units.
Plaintiffs allege violations of the California Labor Code and
Unfair Competition Law on behalf of all non-exempt employees
working for Defendants in California, as well as violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all current and former
nonexempt employees of Defendants in any state.
On Oct. 15, 2024, the parties stipulated to Plaintiffs' filing of
an amended complaint adding a Private Attorneys General Act claim
without impacting Defendants' motion to dismiss. On Oct. 25, 2024,
Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint.
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' FAC, arguing Plaintiffs have
failed to state a plausible claim for unpaid overtime, and that
consequently their claims all fail. They further argue any
surviving claims should be stayed in light of ongoing state court
litigation involving similar parties, facts, and claims to the
instant action.
Motion to Stay
The Court applies the Colorado River doctrine to determine whether
staying any of Plaintiffs' claims is appropriate.
The Court concludes that the Colorado River doctrine favors staying
the state law claims, as the factors related to the duplication of
efforts and risk of conflicting decisions weigh heavily in favor of
allowing the state court to resolve the identical state claims at
issue here. However, recognizing the balance of the Colorado River
factors is heavily weighted in favor of the exercise of
jurisdiction, the Court finds it proper to decline to stay the FLSA
claim.
Motion to Dismiss
Because the Court finds it is proper to stay Plaintiffs' state law
claims, it only considers whether Plaintiffs' surviving FLSA claim
withstands Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Contrary to Defendants' assertions, Plaintiffs do not allege that
Defendants merely had a practice of underpaying overtime without
alleging that they themselves worked overtime. Plaintiffs aver that
they worked overtime, and -- taking as true their allegations that
Defendants failed to accurately calculate employees' regular rates
of pay -- that means when they worked overtime they were not paid
the full overtime wages they were owed. Whether this actually
happened is a factual question Plaintiffs must prove at a later
stage. But at the pleading stage their allegations suffice. The
Court disagrees with Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs'
allegations make it impossible to assess whether Plaintiffs have
even potentially suffered a harm that the Court could redress.
Relying on judicial experience and common sense, the Court finds
the factual allegations, assumed to be true, plausibly give rise to
an entitlement to relief.
The Court grants Defendants' motion to stay Plaintiffs' state law
claims pending further proceedings in Herman Pappoe v. Kite Pharma,
Inc., et al., No 24STCV02259 (L.A. Super. Ct.). The Court denies
Defendants' motion to stay Plaintiffs' FLSA claim. The Court denies
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' FLSA claim. The Court
denies as moot Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law
claims. Should the stay of Plaintiffs' state law claims be lifted,
Defendants may revive their motion to dismiss those claims.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CEO3Xu from PacerMonitor.com.
GOOGLE LLC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment v. Rodriguez
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-04688-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order denying Google's motion for
summary judgment and granting the pending motions to seal.
The parties shall file public versions of their briefs and related
exhibits in accordance with the sealing order within one week of
the date of this order.
The Plaintiffs have a stake in the value of their data. As in
Brown, where the court denied summary judgment on the issue of
damage or loss "because plaintiffs proffer[ed] evidence that there
[was] a market for their data," Plaintiffs here similarly present
evidence that their data has economic value. Accordingly, a
reasonable juror could find that Plaintiffs suffered damage or loss
because Google profited from the misappropriation of their data.
The parties' motions to seal have satisfied the "compelling
reasons" standard for dispositive motions. The sealing questions
are tailored narrowly in order to avoid impacting the public's
understanding of this case. Accordingly, the motions to seal are
granted.
The case is a privacy class action brought against Google. The
Plaintiffs are members of two sub-classes, comprising individuals
with Android and non-Android mobile devices who had certain
privacy-related settings switched off in their Google accounts. In
the Fourth Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs aver that Google contravened its user-facing privacy
representations regarding its Web App and Activity ("WAA") and
supplemental Web App and Activity settings, advancing three
California claims: invasion of privacy under the California
Constitution, common law intrusion upon seclusion, and violation of
the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA").
Google operates as a global technology company specializes in
internet related services and products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DhzcdX at no extra
charge.[CC]
GRAND ISLE: Ortiguerra Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR CAGARA ORTIGUERRA,
DONATO MANALILI AGUSTIN, AMADO TRANATE YUZON, CHRISTOPHER ESCALANTE
RAYOS, ARVIN BANZON SAN PEDRO, WILFREDO BATONG SATUROS, ROSEL
NUFABLE HERNANDEZ, SIEGFRIED TAPIA CARLOS, RENATO ARBOLIDA DECENA,
and ISAIAS SANTIAGO DINGLASAN, v. GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD, LLC., and
GIS, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00309-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file
documents under seal in regard to motion and memorandum in support
of the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class action:
Grand Isle Shipyard provides oilfield and construction services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AMN7Xe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Werner, Esq.
Elaine Woo, Esq.
RADFORD SCOTT, LLC
125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 400-3600
Facsimile: (678) 271-0304
E-mail: dwerner@radfordscott.com
ewoo@radfordscott.com
- and -
Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq.
Amneh Attallah, Esq.
Abigail L. Floresca, Esq.
KENNETH C. BORDES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
4224 Canal St.
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (5040 588-2700
Facsimile: (504) 708-1717
E-mail: kcb@kennethbordes.com
amneh@kennethbordes.com
abigail@kennethbordes.com
GRAVY ANALYTICS: Faces Cole Suit Over Private Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
JASON COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRAVY ANALYTICS, INC., VENNTEL, INC., and
UNACAST INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00470 (D.N.J., January
14, 2025) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive
relief arising from a data breach that resulted in the theft of
Plaintiff's highly sensitive personal data.
On January 4, 2025, a hacker revealed that it had hacked
Defendants' systems and obtained millions of data points revealing
locations of millions of individuals in the United States and
Europe. Moreover, Plaintiff Jason Cole and millions of other
consumers have been injured as a direct and proximate result of
Defendants' failure to adequately secure consumers' sensitive
location data. The Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendants'
unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per
se, declaratory judgment, and for violations of the New Jersey
Customer Security Breach Disclosure Act and the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act.
Headquartered in Ashburn, VA, Gravy Analytics sells multiple data
products based on the consumer geolocation data it has compiled.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stanley O. King, Esq.
JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C.
1000 Haddonfield- Berlin Road, Suite 203
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Telephone: (856) 596-4100
- and -
William Caldes, Esq.
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
Cary Zhang, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
GREIF INC: Lujano Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hildefonso B. Lujano, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREIF, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; GREIF PACKING LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; LIZ CORONA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100
inclusive, Case No. 24CV-03336 was removed from the Superior Court
for the State of California for the County of Merced, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 23,
2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00074.
The Plaintiff's first cause of action is for the alleged failure to
pay overtime compensation pursuant to California Labor Code
Sections as well as applicable Wage Orders. The Plaintiff's second
cause of action is for the alleged failure to pay minimum wages and
wages for all hours worked pursuant to California Labor Code. In
the third cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that he and others
were not provided legally compliant meal periods. The Plaintiff's
fifth cause of action is a derivative claim for waiting time
penalties for the failure to timely pay wages earned and unpaid
prior to termination. The Plaintiff's sixth cause of action alleges
that "Defendants failed to comply with Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cory D. Catignani, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
2211 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 526-7904
Facsimile: (949) 526-7904
Email: cdcatignani@vorys.com
GROUNDGAME.HEALTH: Rosado Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIA ROSADO, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GROUNDGAME.HEALTH, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-01825-MSS-SPF (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(a) conditionally certifying the FLSA Collective of Care
Coordinators/Dialers;
(b) requiring the Defendants to produce in an electronic or
computer-readable format the full name, address(es), and
personal email address(es) for each potential member of the
FLSA Collective;
(c) authorizing notice (substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit C, with a form of Consent to Join (substantially in
the form attached as Exhibit D) to the members of the FLSA
Collective, disseminated by U.S. Mail and email (returnable
via mail, and email);
(d) granting any further relief that this Court deems just and
Proper.
On Aug. 2, 2024, the Named Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging
violations of the FLSA on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated care coordinators/dialers.
The Plaintiff Rosado worked for the Defendant as a care coordinator
remotely from Feb. 12, 2024, till present.
GroundGame.Health provides a holistic solution that scales one
person at a time through human-to-human connection.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lCZ4le at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary L. Printy, Jr., Esq.
THE PRINTY LAW FIRM
5407 N Florida Avenue
Tampa, FL 33604
Telephone: (813) 434-0649
Facsimile: (813) 423-6543
E-mail: garyjr@printylawfirm.com
e-service@printylawfirm.com
GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Catered Fit Sues Over Deceptive Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catered Fit Corp. on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a MERCHANT LYNX
SERVICES, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. CACE-25-000929
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Jan. 22, 2025), is
brought for breach of the agreement between the parties as a result
of the deceptive and
unfair trade practice of the Defendant.
Businesses and organizations rely on the companies that provide
credit card processing to do so fairly, transparently, and in
accordance with existing agreements. This includes, but is not
limited to, the rates and fees credit card processors charge per
transaction.
Unfortunately, some credit card processors, such as Merchant Lynx,
take advantage of their position and implement and charge non
disclosed (and therefore impermissible) rates and fees. Not only do
they charge non-disclosed fees and rates, but they conceal these
impermissible fees by artificially inflating permitted fees and
rates to generate profits.
Merchant Lynx's contracts include specific rates and amounts that
will be charged per transaction. But unbeknownst to the customer,
the actual rate charged is significantly higher than what was
disclosed and the total amounts charged include other undisclosed
amounts that generate a profit for Merchant Lynx. This deception is
a breach Of the agreement between the parties, is a deceptive and
unfair trade practice, and unjustly enriches Merchant Lynx, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a domestic corporation with its principal place of
business in Broward County, Florida.
Merchant Lynx is a Georgia corporation that has been registered to
do business in Florida with its principal place of business in Palm
Beach County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
Kimberly A. Slaven-Hauth, Esq.
Gabriel E. Morales, Esq.
SHAW LEWENZ, LLLP
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2900
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 361-3633
Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
Email: jshaw@shawlewenz.com
kslaven@shawlewenz.com
gmorales@shawlewenz.com
lgcealy@shawlewenz.com
GROUP US: Seeks Reconsideration of Jan. 6, 2025 Order
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSVALDO MUNOZ, on behalf
of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. THE GROUP
US MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a THE GROUP NYC, LA GRANDE BOUCHERIE LLC,
d/b/a LA GRANDE BOUCHERIE, d/b/a KAISEKI ROOM, OLIO RESTAURANTS
LLC, d/b/a OLIO E PIU, BOUCHERIE PAS LLC d/b/a BOUCHERIE UNION
SQUARE, BOUCHERIE LLC d/b/a BOUCHERIE WEST VILLAGE, PETITE
BOUCHERIE LLC d/b/a PETITE BOUCHERIE BISTRO, d/b/a OMAKASE ROOM and
EMIL STEFKOV, Case No. 1:22-cv-04038-MKV-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants will move the Court for an order:
-- granting reconsideration of the Court's Jan. 6, 2025,
Memorandum and Order regarding the notice period, and
-- staying the production of a spreadsheet containing the contact
information of employees in the collective and submission of a
revised notice until this motion is decided, and
Group NYC is a collection of restaurants based in New York City.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z9aLG7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gina E. Nicotera, Esq.
Sonali Setia, Esq.
Alexander W. Leonard, Esq.
GOLENBOCK EISEMAN ASSOR
BELL & PESKOE
711 Third Avenue, Floor 17
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 907-7300
Facsimile: (212) 754-0330
E-mail: aleonard@golenbock.com
gnicotera@golenbock.com
ssetia@golenbock.com
H & L RESTAURANT: Bonner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Dynesha Bonner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. H & L RESTAURANT GROUP, L.L.C., A Florida Limited
Liability Company (dba) BagelWorks and SETH ELLIS, individually,
Case No. 9:25-cv-80094-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 22, 2025), is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for Defendants' failure
to pay Plaintiff unpaid wages and overtime wages for all time
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the FLSA.
The Defendants required and/or permitted Plaintiff Bonner to work
as a non-exempt "restaurant worker" (or other job titles who
performed the same and/or similar job duties) more than 40 hours
per week. Still, they refused to compensate them properly for all
hours worked. The Plaintiff and the putative class members' duties
were to perform kitchen and restaurant duties. Plaintiffs are all
non-exempt employees who worked over 40 hours, seeking their unpaid
overtime compensation over the past 3 years, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a "cook" from
November 7, 2023, through November 16, 2024.
The Defendants were and are a registered Florida company and a
Florida Resident, respectively, doing business in Palm Beach County
where Plaintiff worked for Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
HAIR & CO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Solis Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAIR & CO., BKLYN, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00308 (E.D.N.Y., January 17, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus
denied the benefit of booking a hair service online. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct
and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Hair & Co., Bklyn, LLC owns the website, www.hairandcobklyn.com,
which offers information about its hair care products and
professional salon services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
HATCHITT TAX: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEIL GAIKOWSKI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HATCHITT TAX CLUB, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-14282-AMC (S.D. Fla.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending Defendant's
deadlines to respond to pending discovery by 15 days and to amend
the Parties' class certification expert disclosures deadlines by
affording an additional 30 days for both initial and rebuttal
disclosures.
The Parties request for this Honorable Court to extend the
deadlines for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s first set of
discovery to Jan. 31, 2025, and to amend and extend the deadlines
associated with exchange of expert witness reports and summaries on
class certification as outlined herein, and for any and all other
relief this Court deems just and proper.
The Defendant needs additional time to respond to Plaintiff's
initial discovery requests beyond the current Jan. 16, 2025
deadline, in order to continue its evaluation of Plaintiff's
requests, to gather necessary information and responsive documents,
prepare appropriate responses and to secure its client's express
consent to the substance and form of the responses.
The Parties require additional time for class certification expert
disclosures while fact discovery is ongoing, allowing sufficient
opportunity for the Parties to conduct some initial discovery,
determine if class certification experts will be required, and to
allow these experts time to review and prepare initial opinions and
reports, and then rebuttal opinions and reports, as may be
required.
The Parties agree that neither party will be prejudiced by the
requested extension, and the Parties certify that they are seeking
an extension in good faith.
The proposed extensions will not interfere with any other deadlines
in this case, which may remain the same, and granting these
extensions will allow the Parties sufficient time to conduct
initial discovery, determine if class certification experts should
be retained, and allow those experts a sufficient opportunity to
review the available record to prepare their opinions and reports,
and if required, their rebuttal opinions and reports.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PvfRqY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI, P.A.
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
E-mail: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
- and -
Alexander J. Korolinsky, Esq.
AJK LEGAL
1580 Sawgrass Corp. Pkwy, Suite 130
Sunrise, FL 33323
Telephone: (888) 815-3350
E-mail: korolinsky@ajklegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Eve A. Cann, Esq.
Spencer D. Leach, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 2000
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 768-1600
E-mail: ecann@bakerdonelson.com
sleach@bakerdonelson.com
HEALTH INSURANCE: Carter Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
MONTWAIN CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH INSURANCE KING AGENCY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00005-SHL-WPK (S.D. Iowa, January 14,
2025) alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making telemarketing calls to Plaintiff's number
that was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry on October
23, 2024.
The Plaintiff received at least three calls from the Defendant,
which were sent on November 25, 26, and December 2, 2024 and
solicited him to sign up for health insurance. At no point has the
Plaintiff consented to receive telemarketing calls from the
Defendant regarding the sale of goods or services, including health
insurance services, prior to receiving the automated calls, says
the suit.
Health Insurance King Agency, LLC is a Texas-based health insurance
agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric S. Mail, Esq.
PURYEAR LAW P.C.
3719 Bridge Ave, Suite 6
Davenport, IA 52807
Telephone: (563) 265-8344
E-mail: mail@puryearlaw.com
HEMPSTEAD, NY: Rotenberg Suit Removed to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rachel Rotenberg and Shlomo Marks, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD
and BUSPATROL AMERICA LLC, Case No. 601797/2025 was removed from
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
Jan. 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00438.
The Class Action Complaint asserts two causes of action. The first
cause of action alleges that the BusPatrol and the Town of
Hempstead "issued more than 80,000 Notices of Liability" "without
statutory authorization." The second cause of action alleges that
"VTL § 1174-a, enacted in 2019, authorizes localities such as the
TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD to rely on cameras to issue Notices of Liability
("NOLs") for alleged violations of VTL (the "Program")," and
further that "the entire Program violates due process, and the
entire program is unconstitutional."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Timothy D. Sini, Esq.
Neil P. Diskin, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLP
275 Broadhollow Road
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (516) 832-7500
Email: tsini@nixonpeabody.com
ndiskin@nixonpeabody.com
HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Simoni Sues Over Misleading Promotion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Simoni, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hi-Tech Nutraceuticals,
LLC, Aneeqa Farid, Ariana Jimenez, Ashley Kaltwasser, Cindy Prado,
Etila Santiago, Georgina Mazzeo, Jen Selter, Olga Safari, Sephora
Maria Noori, Nerymar Taneh Gimenez, Case No. 1:25-cv-00795 (N.D.
Ill., Jan. 23, 2025), is brought arising from the deceptive, unfair
and misleading promotion of Hi-Tech products in the state of
Illinois, and throughout the United States in violation of Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Illinois Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act.
During the Class Period, the Influencers misrepresented the
material connection they have with HI-TECH by endorsing, promoting
and recommending Hi-Tech branded products ("Hi-Tech products")
without disclosing the fact that they were paid to do it, a
practice that is highly unfair and deceptive.
In in order to artificially inflate the prices for the Hi-Tech
products, both HI-TECH and the Influencers devised a scheme in
which the Influencers will endorse the Hi-Tech products, by
endorsing or recommending them while pretending they are simply
disinterested consumers. Hi-Tech products are sold mostly online,
most of their customers being social media users exposed to
undisclosed advertising.
Relying on the undisclosed and misleading advertising, Plaintiff
and the Class Members purchased Hi-Tech products and paid a
premium, while the products purchased proved to be of a much lower
quality and value than the price paid, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois who resides in Cook County,
Illinois.
HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., is a corporation registered and
headquartered in Georgia doing business in the United States
including Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW P.C.
586 Duane Street, Suite 102
Glen Ellyn IL 60137
Phone: (630) 677-6745
Email: Keith@KeithGibsonLaw.com
- and -
Bogdan, Enica, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW P.C.
1200 N Federal Hwy., Ste.375
Boca Raton FL 33432
Phone: (305) 306-4989
Email: Bogdan@KeithGibsonLaw.com
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Svoboda Alleges Failure to Protect Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE SVOBODA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHGATE HOTELS, L.P., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00481 (S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2025) is a class
action arising out of the recent data breach involving Defendant
that compromised Plaintiff and other current and former Highgate
employees' personally identifiable information that it collected
and maintained as part of its regular business practices.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members private information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact
this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted
private information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent
and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect
employees' sensitive data.
In breaching its duties to properly safeguard employees' private
information and give employees timely, adequate notice of the data
breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence
and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says
the suit.
Highgate Hotels, L.P. is a company that operates a hotel chain
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
HNTB CORP: PAGA & Class Settlement in Morel Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW MOREL, an
individual on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HNTB CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-00408-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action and
PAGA settlement:
-- Conditional Class Certification
The Court grants the Plaintiff's request for conditional
certification of the Settlement Classes and defines the
Settlement Classes as set forth supra section IV.A.
The Court appoints the Plaintiff Matthew Morel as Class
Representative and APPOINTS Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
LLP and W Employment Law Group, APC as Class Counsel.
-- Preliminary Approval of Settlement
The Court finds, on a preliminary basis, that the proposed
Class and PAGA Settlement appears to be fair, adequate, and
within the range of reasonableness. Considering the settlement
as a whole and based on similar analysis, the Court finds, on
a preliminary basis, that the proposed PAGA Settlement is
reasonable.
-- The Court finds the proposed Notice, as amended, to be
consistent with the requirements of Rule 23 and due process to
provide the best practicable notice under the circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court approves the proposed Notice as amended
supra section V.E.
-- Settlement Administration
The Court appoints Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the
Settlement Administrator to supervise and administer the
notice procedure in connection with the Settlement as well as
the processing of claims set forth in the Settlement
Agreement. The Court approves the implementation schedule of
the Notice Process.
-- Briefing Schedule
The motion for final approval of class action settlement and
motion for attorneys' fees and costs must be filed and served
on all parties no later than May 7, 2025. Responses—including
either an opposition or a notice of non-opposition by
Defendants (only with regard to any motion not filed jointly),
any response by LWDA, or any objections by Settlement Class
Members—must be filed and served on counsel for all parties
no
later than May 21, 2025. Any reply by Plaintiff must be filed
and served on counsel for all parties no later than May 28,
2025.
-- Final Approval Hearing
The Court sets a Final Approval Hearing on Thursday, July 3,
2025, at 2:00 PM.
This wage and hour putative class action centers around Plaintiff's
allegations that Defendant failed to reimburse Plaintiff and the
other putative class members for necessary business-related
expenses, in violation of California Labor Code sections 2802(c),
California Business & Professional Code sections 17200 et seq., and
the Private Attorney Generals Act of 2004 ("PAGA").
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from Jan. 4, 2021, to July
20, 2021, as a Project Controls Manager out of Defendant's Ontario,
California location.
HNTB is an infrastructure engineering and design firm that operates
throughout the United States, including eight locations in
California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pniRCI at no extra
charge.[CC]
HOME RESTAURANT: Rosado Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Rosado, and others similarly situated v. HOME RESTAURANT
SAVP, INC.; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV01505 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 21, 2025), is brought against
the Defendants' violation of the Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA") and violation of Business And Professions Code as a result
of the Defendants' failure to pay wages.
The Defendant violated Labor Code because it failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all
hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours
worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because the
Defendant had a company policy wherein they would
disproportionately round down the number of hours worked, resulting
in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not
being paid for all hours worked. Moreover, to the extent that the
Plaintiff and others would work though their meal breaks, the
latter would also amount to a minimum wage violation because they
were not paid for all house worked. Moreover, the Defendant failed
to provide its employees with proper and accurate reporting time
pay. In addition, Plaintiff and others consistently worked "off the
clock" in terms of setting up the restaurant and or closing the
restaurant after shifts, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff started working at HOME in 2024 as a waiter/server.
HOME RESTAURANT SAVP, INC., is a California corporation, doing
business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and
which employed Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
HORIZON OXYGEN: Cano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HORIZON OXYGEN AND
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, INC. The case is styled as Francisco Cano, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. HORIZON OXYGEN AND
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, INC., Case No. BCV-25-100205 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Kern Cty., Jan. 21, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Horizon Oxygen and Medical Equipment, Inc. --
https://www.horizonoxygen.com/ -- provides high-quality, reliable,
and friendly durable medical equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yoonis Han, Esq.
VERUM LAW GROUP, APC
360 N Pacific Coast Hwy., Ste. 1025
El Segundo, CA 90245-4498
Phone: 424-320-2000
Fax: 424-221-5010
Email: yhan@verumlg.com
- and -
Sam Kim, Esq.
SAM KIM AND ASSOCIATES, APC
5661 Beach Blvd., Ste. 201
Buena Park, CA 90621-1969
Phone: 714-736-5501
Fax: 714-736-9901
Email: samkim@sklaw.org
HPG PIZZA: Mighell Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE MIGHELL is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled Steve Mighell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HPG Pizza I, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-CV-02533-SKC-MEH, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
On Dec. 5, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case.
On Feb. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which the Defendants moved to strike on April 30, 2024.
On Jan. 7, 2025, Judge S. Kato Crews granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the case. The Plaintiff's state law claims were
dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff's motion to certify
class and the Defendants' motion to strike were denied as moot.
The Court ruled that the Plaintiff has failed to show an injury in
fact regarding his alleged FLSA overtime claim, and therefore, he
has failed to establish standing to bring it. The Court, therefore,
dismissed the Plaintiff's FLSA claims, without prejudice, against
each of the Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The appellate case is captioned Mighell v. HPG Pizza I, et al.,
Case No. 25-1019, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, filed on January 8, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant STEVE MIGHELL, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Andy Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
- and -
Laura Farmwald, Esq.
Andrew Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 715-8712
(513) 202-0710
Defendants-Appellees HPG PIZZA I, LLC, et al. are represented by:
Micah David Dawson, Esq.
Hillary Ross, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS
1125 17th Street, Suite 2400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 218-3650
HSBC BANK: Plaintiff's Attorneys Awarded $550,506.50 in Fees, Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Frederic Block of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiff David Rubin's
motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the case
captioned as DAVID RUBIN, Plaintiff, -against HSBC BANK USA, NA,
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, AND EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-4566 (E.D.N.Y.).
Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Plaintiff David Rubin
brought this action against Defendants HSBC Bank USA, NA, Equifax
Information Services LLC, and Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
The dispute concerns alleged credit card fraud. HSBC allegedly
investigated the fraud dispute but had a policy to deny disputes
involving cards seemingly activated from a consumer's telephone
number unless the consumer knew who had stolen and activated the
card. Accordingly, HSBC denied the fraud dispute. When Rubin failed
to make the payment, HSBC reported the account as delinquent to
consumer reporting agencies and the former parties in this
litigation, Experian and Equifax. Rubin subsequently sued HSBC,
alleging that it had violated the FCRA by failing to conduct a
proper investigation of his dispute in negligent and/or willful
violation of the FCRA.
After Equifax and Experian reached settlements with Rubin and were
dismissed from the case, HSBC settled with Plaintiff for $250,000
plus costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff filed this motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, seeking $728,998 in
attorneys' fees, $5,565 in taxable costs, and $15,450 in
non-taxable expenses.
Defendant challenges the reasonableness of the hourly rates sought
for four lawyers, one law clerk/associate and a paralegal, as well
as the reasonableness of the time they spent.
Defendant argues that the hours billed are excessive for a
straightforward FCRA case. HSBC challenges the billing practices on
several grounds: duplicative work performed by multiple attorneys
reviewing the same documents and attending the same conferences;
unnecessary time spent on fruitless third-party subpoenas; improper
billing of clerical tasks at attorney rates; and inflated hours
spent on routine legal research and writing. Based on these alleged
deficiencies, Defendant seeks a 50% reduction in the claimed hours.
The Court finds these arguments unpersuasive. Defendant's
characterization of this case as being straightforward is at odds
with its own litigation conduct and the exceptional result of a
$250,000 settlement. Defendant engaged in aggressive discovery
resistance, filed numerous motions, and delayed production of key
witnesses.
And despite arguing that these hours should be decreased by 50%,
Defendant specifically identifies only 2% of the time billed as
unnecessary. But Defendant's arguments about even those 18.3 hours
miss the mark for three reasons. First, the involvement of multiple
attorneys reflects strategic collaboration rather than
inefficiency. Second, Defendant's own aggressive litigation
strategy necessitated many of these hours. Third, the hours were
well-spent and necessary considering the successful results
obtained -- including the favorable settlement and denial of
Defendant's summary judgment motion. Thus, the Court deems
reasonable the hours claimed by counsel.
The Court awards Plaintiff $550,506.50 in attorneys' fees, $5,565
in taxable costs, and $15,450 in non-taxable expenses, for a total
of $571,521.50.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mfFpZH from PacerMonitor.com.
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
Adam G. Singer, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADAM G. SINGER, PLLC
60 E. 42nd Street, Ste 4600
New York, NY 10165
E-mail: asinger@adamsingerlaw.com
Attorney for the Defendant:
Brian Frontino, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
E-mail: brian.frontino@morganlewis.com
IDEXX LABORATORIES: Mayhew May Respond to Dismissal Bid by Feb. 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JESSICA MAYHEW, Plaintiff v. IDEXX
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00285-SDN (D. Me.),
Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine extends the deadline to Feb. 5, 2025, for the
Plaintiff to file her response to the motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to stay further proceedings and to
extend the deadline for her to file a response to the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiff, who asserts claims under Title VII, the Maine Human
Rights Act, and the Maine Whistleblower Protection Act, seeks a
stay of this matter until after the Court rules on a motion to
amend the complaint in a separate action in this Court, Cavanaugh
v. IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., 2:23-cv-00273-NT. Through the motion
to amend, the Plaintiff requests leave to assert a class action.
According to the Plaintiff, the class action would include her
claims.
In response to the Plaintiff's original complaint, the Defendant
filed a motion to dismiss. With her response to the motion, the
Plaintiff requested leave to amend her complaint. After the Court
granted her motion to amend, the Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.
The Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The Defendant contends that particularly given the length of time
the case has been pending (i.e., 18 months), the case, including a
ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, should not be delayed
indefinitely as a grant of the Plaintiff's request would require.
The Court agrees that a stay at this stage of the proceedings is
not warranted. The Court discerns no prejudice to the Plaintiff if
the parties complete their briefing on the motion to dismiss and
the Court rules on the motion. The other relevant factors also do
not support a stay.
Because the Court discerns no reason to delay resolution of the
Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court will deny the request for
a stay and direct the parties to complete the briefing on the
motion. The Court recognizes that a different assessment of the
stay issue is possible if the Court denies the motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to stay without
prejudice to the Plaintiff's ability to file a motion to stay if
the Court denies the motion to dismiss.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiff's motion to stay and to extend
deadlines. The Court denies the motion to stay without prejudice to
the Plaintiff's ability to file a motion to stay if the Court
denies the motion to dismiss.
The Court grants the Plaintiff's request to extend the deadline to
file her response to the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff will file
her response to the motion to dismiss on or before Feb. 5, 2025.
The Defendant's reply memorandum will be filed in accordance with
District of Maine Local Rule 7.
Any objections to this Order will be filed in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/fyk4mttm from PacerMonitor.com.
INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS: Disclose Private Data Without Consent
---------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN BALLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INSOMNIAC HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00811 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2025) alleges violation of the
Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA").
According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates its
online and mobile applications ("Apps"), including
www.insomniac.com (the "Website") and the "Insomniac Events" mobile
application. Through its Website and Apps, Defendant offers a
massive library of prerecorded videos showcasing Insomniac TV,
trailers for upcoming events, and recaps of past events.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and the Class Members, the Defendant
knowingly and intentionally discloses its users' personally
identifiable information—including a record of every video viewed
by the user or audiovisual content purchased —to unauthorized
third parties without first complying with the Video Privacy
Protection Act, says the suit.
Insomniac Holdings Inc. produces concerts and music festivals. The
Company offers lighting design, large-scale art installations,
interactive circus, theatrical performances, dance festival, and
music events. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq.
Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC.
140 Broadway, FL 46
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
Facsimile: (212) 884-4230
Email: adrian@gr-firm.com
ben@gr-firm.com
nsari@gr-firm.com
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Magana Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Omar Magana, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY; SELECT STAFFING, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24-STCV-32744 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Jan. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00665.
The Complaint purports to assert seven categories of labor code and
wage order violations against IP, each grouped under a single cause
of action for violation of California Labor Code section 2699, et
seq., stemming from the employment of Plaintiff and allegedly
similarly situated, allegedly aggrieved employees. The Complaint
seeks penalties under PAGA for Labor Code violations including
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; failure to provide meal
and rest breaks; failure to timely pay wages during employment;
failure to timely pay wages upon termination; failure to provide
complete and accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse
business expenses; and "Penalties."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron F. Olsen, Esq.
Christopher M. Champine, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Nellis, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
Email: aolsen@fisherphillips.com
cchampine@fisherphillips.com
jnellis@fisherphillips.com
INTERNATIONAL STAR: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHELL SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
INTERNATIONAL STAR REGISTRY OF ILLINOIS, LTD, Case No.
1:24-cv-20083-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
1) certifying a class defined as:
"All persons in the United States who from Sept. 1, 2022, to
Sept. 17, 2024 (1) were sent a text message by or on behalf
of the Defendant; (2) more than one time within any 12-month
period; (3) where the person's residential telephone number
had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at
least thirty-one days; and (4) whose telephone number
appears on the Text Message Records provided by Birdeye,
Inc.,"
2) appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative, and
3) appointing the undersigned attorneys as class counsel.
All the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are
satisfied in this case. And because of the small damages available
to individual Class members ($500 per violation), a class action is
the only realistic way that the thousands of affected consumers
will get their day in court to challenge Defendant’s illegal
texts.
The putative class action alleges that the Defendant, International
Star Registry of Illinois, Ltd., violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), by sending its promotional text messages
to telephone numbers registered on the national do-not-call
registry and without prior express consent.
On June 18, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Default
Judgment.
The Defendant is an Illinois-based company that sells celestial
body naming rights to consumers across the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FH2Fd5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett Berg, Esq.
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
Christopher Berman, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: gberg@shamisgentile.com
ashamis@shamisgentile.com
cberman@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
2875 NE 191st St., Suite 703
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
INTERTEK TESTING: Pons Suit Transferred to N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Stephen Pons, Caroline Coleman, Charles
Bellavia, Terri Kletzman, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. InterTek Testing Services, NA, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-03436-MMC was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York on Jan. 22, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-mc-00003-FJS-TWD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Compel Compliance with
Subpoena.
Intertek -- https://www.intertek.com/ -- is a leading Total Quality
Assurance provider to industries worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher W. Rust, Esq.
THE WEST FIRM, PLLC
575 Broadway, 2nd Floor
Albany, NY 12207-2931
Phone: (518) 641-0508
Fax: (518) 615-1500
Email: cwrust@westfirmlaw.com
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Petzel Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IntraSystems, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Deane Petzel, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. IntraSystems, LLC, Allegheny
Health Network, Case No. 1:25-cv-10191 (D. Mass., Jan. 24, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
INTRASYSTEMS -- https://www.intrasystems.com/ -- provides a wide
range of comprehensive services for the full lifecycle of IT
projects subject to international standards.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
ISLAND HOSPITALITY: Settlement Class Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA GARCIA, an
individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v.
ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT III, LLC, a Delaware corporation;
and, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-00583-DOC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order finally
approving the Settlement Class consisting of means:
"All current and former non-exempt employees who worked for
Defendant in the State of California during the Class Period."
The "Settlement Class" shall not include any person who submitted a
timely and valid Request for Exclusion as provided in the
Settlement. The "Class Period" is the period from Sept. 6, 2019
through July 15, 2024.
The Plaintiff is finally appointed as the Class Representative
solely for purposes of settlement.
Jose Garay of Jose Garay, APLC are finally appointed as Class
Counsel for purposes of settlement.
The Court finally approves the Parties' Joint Stipulation of Class
Action Settlement and Exhibits A-C attached thereto and
incorporates such documents by reference herein.
The Court finally approves the monetary terms of the Settlement.
Defendant agreed to pay up to a maximum potential Gross Settlement
Amount of $140,000. The $140,000 Gross Settlement Amount is
inclusive of all Individual Settlement Payments made to Class
Members, all Settlement Administration Costs, the employees' share
of payroll taxes, the Class Representative Incentive Payment, the
LWDA Payment, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Court finally approves the Class consisting of all current and
former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in the State
of California from Sept. 6, 2019, through July 15, 2024. The final
Settlement Class contains 1,534 Class Members who did not opt out.
On Sept. 30, 2024, the LWDA was provided notice of the Joint
Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement. The LWDA did not
object to the proposed Settlement. 20. The Court FINALLY APPROVES
of the LWDA Payment in the amount of $4,000 out of the Gross
Settlement Amount. The LWDA Payment shall be allocated: as
(1) $3,000 to the California Labor & Workforce Development
Agency (“LWDA”) as the LWDA’s share of the settlement
of
civil penalties paid under this Settlement pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Labor
Code section 2698, et seq.; and
(2) as $1,000 to the Net Settlement Amount for distribution to
Aggrieved Employees based on number of work weeks worked
during the PAGA period, defined as July 3, 2022 through
July 15, 2024.
Island Hospitality oversees a portfolio of hotels and outdoor
resorts as a third-party hospitality management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zn2kfS at no extra
charge.[CC]
JEFFREE STAR: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. JEFFREE STAR COSMETICS, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-00659 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2025), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://jeffreestarcosmetics.com/, including all portions thereof
or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals --thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.
INTELEX USA, LLC, operates the Warmies online retail store, as well
as the Warmies interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
JOHN BEL EDWARDS: Must Produce Required Documents in Juvenile Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. granted in part and
denied in part plaintiffs' renewed motion to compel in the case
captioned as ALEX A., by and through his guardian, Molly Smith;
BRIAN B.; and CHARLES C., by and through his guardian, Kenione
Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
VERSUS GOVERNOR JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as
Governor of Louisiana; WILLIAM SOMMERS, in his official capacity as
Deputy Secretary of the Office of Juvenile Justice, JAMES M.
LEBLANC, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety & Corrections, CIVIL ACTION NO.
22-573-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.).
This is a class action lawsuit pertaining to the transfer of
certain juveniles in the custody of the Office of Juvenile Justice
to a facility located at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in
Angola, Louisiana. The operative pleading in this action is the
First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Alex A., Brian B.,
and Charles C., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, against Governor John Bel Edwards, Deputy Secretary of
the OJJ Williams Sommers, and the Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety & Corrections James M. LeBlanc.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count
I), declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794 (Count II),
and declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.
(Count III).
On August 31, 2023, the district judge granted Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representatives for the following class:
All youth who are now or will be in the custody of OJJ who have
been, might be, or will be transferred to the OJJ site (the
"Transitional Treatment Unit" or "TTU") at Angola or another adult
prison (the "Principal Class"), including a subclass of all current
and future youth with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in the custody of OJJ who
have been, might be, or will be transferred to the OJJ site at
Angola or another adult prison (the "Disabilities Subclass").
The district judge also designated Plaintiffs' counsel as Class
Counsel under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On Sept. 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Renewed Motion to
Compel. Plaintiffs represent that while Defendants have agreed to
produce certain documents regarding the Jackson Parish Jail, as of
the filing of the instant motion, Defendants have only produced the
Memorandum of Understanding between OJJ and JPSO and rosters
listing names but not locations or other information of OJJ youth
held at the Jackson Parish Jail. Plaintiffs now seek an order
compelling Defendants to produce certain documents and
electronically stored information, preserve certain documents and
ESI, and permit an expert site inspection of the Jackson Parish
Jail.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel should
be denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.
Plaintiffs generally seek documents to determine whether the areas
in which the youth are confined within the Jackson Parish Jail
constitute an adult prison or whether the youth are being exposed
to adult detainees by sight or sound. Plaintiffs also seek the
production of documents demonstrating whether and to what extent
(1) the youth are receiving monitoring by OJJ juvenile justice
specialists, (2) the youth are receiving juvenile justice
programming as required by law; and (3) the use of force by JSPSO
employees and/or any OJJ staff.
The Court's review of the record indicates that Plaintiffs are
seeking this information pursuant to Requests for Production Nos.
1, 3, 6, 11 14, 16-21, 25-26.
The Court generally finds the documents in Request for Production
Nos. 1 and 14 to fall within the scope of limited discovery allowed
by the district judge. In particular, floor plans and staffing
assignments are relevant to whether and to what extent the OJJ
youth are being inappropriately held in a section of the Jackson
Parish Jail that is designated for adults, are being improperly
exposed to adult inmates, or otherwise lack monitoring by OJJ
juvenile justice specialists. Accordingly, Defendants must
supplement their responses to Request for Production No. 1 and
Request for Production No. 14 and provide all responsive documents
within their possession, custody, or control.
With respect to documents and information regarding monitoring by
OJJ juvenile specialists, Plaintiffs seek documents indicating
staffing levels, hours, and assignments of all personnel who come
into contact with class members at the Jail, in order to ascertain
whether and how often OJJ youth in each area of the Jail are
overseen by OJJ juvenile justice specialists, or JPSO guards
without training to work with juveniles. Plaintiffs state that this
information is sought pursuant to Request for Production No. 16-18.
Accordingly, documents related to whether and to what extent OJJ
juvenile specialists and/or JPSO staff are monitoring youths
confined to the Jackson Parish Jail generally falls within the
scope of discovery allowed by the district judge.
Plaintiffs also seek documents regarding juvenile justice
programming, including education and special education services,
recreation, counseling and rehabilitative services, medical and
mental health services, and family visitation.
The Court overrules Defendants' objections that documents related
to the presence or absence of juvenile justice programming fall
outside of the scope of discovery. The Court rejects Defendants'
argument that the Jackson Parish Jail cannot be categorized as an
adult prison because it houses OJJ youth.
Plaintiffs also seek documents concerning uses of force by JPSO
employees and/or any OJJ staff who are on site at the Jail. This
information is sought pursuant to Request for Production Nos. 3, 6,
and 11.
The Court will allow Plaintiff to proceed with limited discovery
regarding the presence or absence of monitoring by OJJ juvenile
specialists and juvenile justice programming, which are relevant
issues of confinement on which the district judge allowed discovery
to proceed. Defendants' objections to Request for Production Nos.
3, 6, and 11 based on relevancy are sustained to the extent these
document requests specifically seek information regarding the
improper use of force. Defendants must otherwise produce responsive
documents relevant to monitoring by OJJ juvenile specialists and
juvenile justice programming.
Defendants represent that they have produced the relevant,
responsive documents that are within their possession, custody or
control. To the extent Defendants have withheld documents in their
possession, custody, or control inconsistent with the terms of this
Order, they must produce those documents to Plaintiffs within 14
days of the date of this Order, or as otherwise agreed upon by the
parties.
The Court will not issue an order compelling Defendants to preserve
documents or ESI pursuant to Rule 37. The Court also finds no basis
to issue any sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e) based on the instant
motion. It will not compel an expert site inspection at this time.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QurX6a from PacerMonitor.com.
JOHN MCGOWAN: Fails to Properly Pay Laborers, Chavez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL CHAVEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN MCGOWAN & SONS OF SEA CLIFF, INC.,
d/b/a JOHN MCGOWAN & SONS, and JOHN MCGOWAN & SONS OF N.Y., INC.,
d/b/a JOHN MCGOWAN & SONS, and JOHN MCGOWAN & SONS, INC., d/b/a
JOHN MCGOWAN & SONS, and JAMES MCGOWAN, individually, and JOHN J.
MCGOWAN III, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00411-SIL
(E.D.N.Y., January 24, 2025) 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 overtime wages and
failure to furnish accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-managerial
laborer, performing work at various jobsites in Nassau and Suffolk
Counties in New York, from in or around June 2022 until in or
around July 2023.
John McGowan & Sons of Sea Cliff, Inc., doing business as John
McGowan & Sons, is a construction firm with its principal place of
business in Sea Cliff, New York.
John McGowan & Sons of N.Y., INC., doing business as John McGowan &
Sons, with its principal place of business in Sea Cliff, New York.
John McGowan & Sons, INC., doing business as John McGowan & Sons,
with its principal place of business in Sea Cliff, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew C. Weiss, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
KAISER FOUNDATION: Newton Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Newton, Christa Vital, Scott Schutza
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California Corporation; META
PLATFORMS INC., a Delaware Corporation; GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 24CV073453 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Jan. 22, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 3:25-cv-00570-VC.
On June 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, the First
Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC brings causes of
action under the California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act; under California Unfair Competition Law; claims for
negligence; claims for negligence per se; under common law invasion
of privacy--intrusion upon seclusion; under California Penal Code
Section 631; and under California Penal Code Section 631.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Wynter L. Deagle, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130-4092
Phone: 858.720.8900
Facsimile: 858.509.3691
Email: wdeagle@sheppardmullin.com
KAISER FOUNDATION: Wilson Sues Over Unlawful Voice Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-00802-RS (N.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2025), is brought against
Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a
result of the Defendant's unlawfully prerecorded voice calls.
Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by using an artificial or
prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places
to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service,
without prior express consent. More specifically, upon information
and good faith belief, Defendant routinely uses an artificial or
prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places
to wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is the subscriber to and customary user of his
cellular telephone number and received calls from the Defendant.
The Defendant is a corporation with its principal place of business
in this District.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
KIRAT GAS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kucuk Alleges
---------------------------------------------------
ALI KUCUK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIRAT GAS INC. D/B/A SUNOCO GAS STATION;
BERKSHIRE VALLEY GAS INC. D/B/A LUKOIL.; and CHARANJOT SINGH,
Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00669 (D.N.J., Jan. 22, 2025) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Kucuk was employed by the Defendants as a gas pump
attendant.
Kirat Gas Inc. d/b/a Sunoco Gas Station is a provider of natural
gas and related services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford Tucker, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor,
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2243
Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com
KLIPSCH GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tucker Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KLIPSCH GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00488 (S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.klipsch.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business
Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
December 28, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Klipsch Flexus audio
product from Defendant and to view the information on the website,
the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person
and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate
pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken
links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's website, which prevented him from doing so, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Klipsch Group, Inc. operates the website that provides consumers
with access to an array of goods and services including information
about its audio products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
LAZER QUICK LOAN: Berman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lazer Quick Loan Now,
LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Berman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lazer Quick Loan Now,
LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80096-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 22, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Lazer Quick Loan Now, LLC offers quick and easy loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
LIBERTY FIRST CREDIT: Loos Suit Removed to D. Nebraska
------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Brian Loos, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Liberty First Credit Union, Case No.
CI24-4446 was removed from the District Court of Lancaster County,
Nebraska, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
on Jan. 21, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-03017-JMG-MDN to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Liberty First Credit Union -- https://www.libertyfirstcu.com/ --
offers all things banking to help you plan, save and track your
finances.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG, COLEMAN LAW FIRM - CALIFORNIA
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (858) 209-6941
- and -
Vincent M. Powers, Esq.
POWERS LAW FIRM
411 South 13th Street, Suite 300
Lincoln, NE 68508
Phone: (402) 474-8000
Fax: (402) 474-5006
Email: Vince@Vpowerslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander D. Boyd, Esq.
POLSINELLI LAW FIRM
900 West 48th Place, Suite 900
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 572-4470
Fax: (816) 572-5394
Email: aboyd@polsinelli.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Removes Badin Suit to S.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MARIA BADIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of County of San
Diego (Case No. 24CU029624C) to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Jan. 23, 2025.
The clerk of court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:25-cv-00163-JLS-AHG. The case is assigned to Judge
Robert S. Huie and referred to Magistrate Allison H. Goddard.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company operates provides insurance
services. The Company offers car, motorcycle, boat, life, property,
landlord, and flood insurance. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew J. Antonelli, Esq.
SAUL EWING LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 550
Washington, D.C. 20006-3434
Telephone: (202) 295-6608
Facsimile: (202) 337-6065
Email: matt.antonelli@saul.com
LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Data-Sharing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that LinkedIn Corporation
illegally shared the contents of premium users' private InMail
messages with third parties to train generative artificial
intelligence (AI) models without consent, a proposed class action
lawsuit alleges.
The 21-page lawsuit says LinkedIn "quietly" introduced a new
privacy setting in August 2024 that automatically opted users into
allowing the professional social media network, an unnamed provider
and third-party affiliates—including LinkedIn parent company
Microsoft—to train AI systems using their personal data.
According to the filing, the defendant's AI-related data-sharing
includes messages sent through InMail, a LinkedIn Premium feature
that allows subscribers to contact members they're not connected
with.
"Given its role as a professional social media network, these
communications include incredibly sensitive and potentially
life-altering information about employment, intellectual property,
compensation, and other personal matters," the complaint stresses.
Such unauthorized transmissions were a breach of LinkedIn's
contractual obligations to refrain from disclosing premium
subscribers' confidential communications to third parties, among
other enhanced data protection promises, the filing alleges.
Per the case, LinkedIn neglected to update its privacy policy to
disclose that it was sharing users' personal data for generative AI
training until the new setting garnered media attention on
September 18 of last year. The suit says the defendant also buried
a disclosure informing users that they could opt out of having
their data used for training purposes moving forward. Notably,
LinkedIn admitted that users' data would not be removed from
existing AI models even if they opt out of future disclosure, the
case shares.
"LinkedIn's actions, including discreetly introducing a new privacy
setting, concealing critical data disclosures, and stealthily
altering its privacy policies and statements, indicate a pattern of
attempting to cover its tracks," the complaint claims. "This
behavior suggests that LinkedIn was fully aware that it had
violated its contractual promises and privacy standards and aimed
to minimize public scrutiny and potential legal repercussions."
The case argues that LinkedIn's alleged exposure of users' private
messages to Microsoft without permission raises "grave privacy
issues," as sensitive data pulled from their InMail discussions
could surface across Microsoft's AI product suite. For instance,
the complaint says, confidential job searches could appear as Word
suggestions, or business strategies could pop up in Teams chat
completions.
"Moreover, LinkedIn's own statements suggest that data was
disclosed to other third-party providers not included within
Microsoft's corporate structure, heightening these concerns," the
suit relays. "Embedding personal communications in the AI models of
unknown third-party providers without explicit consent may lead to
unintended profiling, biased decisions, and misuse in sensitive
contexts like employment."
The lawsuit looks to represent any LinkedIn Premium customers who
sent or received InMail messages and whose private communications
were disclosed by LinkedIn to third-party entities, including other
Microsoft affiliates, for AI training purposes prior to September
18, 2024. [GN]
LINKEDIN CORP: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
Alessandro De La Torre, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 5:25-cv-00709 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2025), is brought
againt the Defendant for unlawfully disclosing its Premium
customers' private messages to third parties.
LinkedIn breached its contractual promises by disclosing its
Premium customers' private messages to third parties to train
generative artificial intelligence ("AI") models. Given its role as
a professional social media network, these communications include
incredibly sensitive and potentially life-altering information
about employment, intellectual property, compensation, and other
personal matters.
Microsoft is the parent company of LinkedIn, and Defendant claims
it disclosed its users' data to third-party "affiliates" within its
corporate structure, and in a separate instance, more cryptically
to "another provider." LinkedIn did not have its Premium customers'
permission to do so. This also raises grave privacy issues: private
discussions could surface in other Microsoft products, and
customers' data is now permanently embedded in AI systems without
their consent, exposing them to future unauthorized use of their
personal information.
When it was publicly revealed that LinkedIn had unilaterally
disclosed its users' data for these purposes, there was swift and
harsh public backlash. LinkedIn responded the same day by
discreetly modifying one of its privacy policies to account for
AI-related data sharing and stated that users could choose to "opt
out" of future disclosures for these purposes. But the damage was
already done, and LinkedIn has not offered to delete the data from
the existing AI models or retrain them to eliminate their reliance
on the disclosed information.
The Plaintiff and members of the putative Class are Premium
LinkedIn customers whose private messages were disclosed to third
parties. They were not notified beforehand, did not consent to
these disclosures, and their contracts were breached—especially
egregious since they paid fees for membership subscriptions which
include heightened privacy protections. As a result, they seek
actual damages, statutory damages of $1,000 under the Stored
Communications Act and such other relief as may be allowed by law
or equity, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of
California.
LinkedIn is the internet's largest professional social networking
platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
Jared Lucky, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415.212.9300
Fax: 415.373.9435
Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
jlucky@edelson.com
LOGILITY SUPPLY: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Aptean
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Logility Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: LGTY),
relating to the proposed merger with Aptean. Under the terms of the
agreement, Aptean will acquire all of Logility's outstanding common
stock for $14.30 per share in an all-cash transaction.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/logility-supply-chain-solutions-inc-lgty/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. 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 the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Standing Order Entered in Ortiz Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHYNZIA ORTIZ, ET AL., v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-09997-AH-BFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered a standing order as
follows:
-- All counsel must immediately review and comply with the
Court's Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, available at
https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-
and-professionalism guidelines.
-- Parties appearing as pro se litigants are required to
comply with all Local Rules, including Local Rule 16. Only
individuals may represent themselves.
-- Only one attorney for a party may be designated as lead
counsel (and the designation must appear on the docket if a
party has more than one attorney). Lead counsel must attend
all proceedings set by this Court, including scheduling,
settlement, and pretrial conferences, as well as trials.
-- Counsel must advise the Court immediately if (1) the case or
any pending matter has been resolved or (2) a motion is
pending, and the parties are engaged in serious negotiations
that appear likely to resolve the case or the pending motion.
-- Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in this Court
as a supplement to the Notice of Removal.
-- If this action is a putative class action, the parties are to
act diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that the
motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iSrFuf at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOS ANGELES: Coast Citrus Seeks Common Fund for PACA Trust Claimant
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COAST CITRUS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. D/B/A OLYMPIC FRUIT & VEGETABLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LOS ANGELES PRODUCE DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, MATTHEW CLARK,
SILO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ASHTON M. BRAUN, and DOES 1 through 20,
each individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00805 (N.D. Cal.,
January 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA),
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and
unlawful retention of PACA trust assets, fraudulent transfer,
declaratory relief, breach of the PACA trust, disgorgement of PACA
trust assets, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to deliver good funds
to the Plaintiff in the amount set forth in their invoices despite
repeated demand from the Plaintiff. In this action, the Plaintiff
seeks to create a common fund for the Qualified Unpaid PACA Trust
Claimants beyond the PACA Trust Assets currently held by the
Defendants and to also include funds to be disgorged from Defendant
Silo. The Plaintiff also seeks an award of common fund fees for
such efforts.
Coast Citrus Distributors, Inc., doing business as Olympic Fruit &
Vegetable, is a produce wholesaler, with its principal place of
business in San Diego, California.
Los Angeles Produce Distributors, LLC is a produce distributor,
with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.
Silo Technologies, Inc. is a produce retailer, with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig A. Stokes, Esq.
STOKES LAW OFFICE LLP
P.O. Box 6909
San Antonio, TX 78209
Telephone: (210) 742-2789
Facsimile: (210) 822-2595
Email: cstokes@stokeslawoffice.com
LOVE MANAGEMENT: Court Sets Rule 16 Case Conference in Spurlock
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SENORA SPURLOCK, v. LOVE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-01560-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen Clark entered an order setting Rule 16 Case
Conference pursuant to the Civil Justice Reform Act Expense and
Delay Reduction Plan and the Differentiated Case Management Program
of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Missouri:
-- Case conference
Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
case conference is set for Feb. 6, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. CT in
Courtroom 14-North.
Lead trial counsel must appear in person at the conference. At
the conference, counsel will be expected to discuss in detail
all matters covered by Rule 16 and relevant to the case,
including potential motions for class certification or
conditional class certification.
-- Meeting of counsel
Before the conference set above, counsel for the parties
must meet to discuss the following:
(a) the nature and basis of the parties' claims and defenses;
(b) the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of
the case;
(c) any issues relating to preserving discoverable
information;
(d) any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of
electronically stored information;
-- Disclosure Statement
Every nongovernmental corporate party or nongovernmental
corporation that seeks to intervene in any case, and every
party or intervenor in an action in which jurisdiction is
based upon diversity under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), must
file a Disclosure Statement with the Court pursuant to E.D.Mo.
L.R. 2.09.
Love Management is a commercial and residential property
management, leasing and tenant representation firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b1aV39 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LPL FINANCIAL: Baurnes Sues Over Improper Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY J. BAURNES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LPL FINANCIAL HOLDINGS INC.; and
LPL FINANCIAL LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00708 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 23, 2025) is an action seeking to recover damages arising out
of the Defendants' unlawful conduct related to their Sweep
Programs, where the Defendants swept idle customer cash into
interest bearing accounts at banks selected by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the cash sweep accounts
were highly lucrative for the Defendants but paid unreasonably low,
below-market interest rates to customers. As such, the Defendants
used the Sweep Programs to generate massive revenue for themselves
at the expense of their customers.
The Defendants' use of the Sweep Programs to enrich themselves by
paying unreasonably low interest rates to customers breached their
fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and violated several
state and federal laws including the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO Statute") and the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, says the suit.
LPL Financial Holdings, Inc. offers technology, brokerage, and
investment advisory services through business relationships with
all types of financial advisors. The Company, through proprietary
technology, custody, and clearing platforms, offers access to
financial products and services that enable them to provide
financial advice and brokerage services to retail investors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
Andrew T. Rees, Esq.
Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq.
Scott I. Dion, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Email: sastley@rgrdlaw.com
arees@rgrdlaw.com
rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com
sdion@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Alfred G. Yates, Jr.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
Pittsburgh, PA 15216
Telephone: (412) 391-5164
Email: yateslaw@aol.com
MARRIOTT INT'L: Cahill Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California denied the plaintiff's
motion remand the case captioned as JOSHUA CAHILL, Plaintiff, v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-05065-FLA (JCx) (C.D. Calif.) in its entirety.
Defendants Marriott International, Inc. and Residence Inn by
Marriott, LLC oppose the motion.
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants in Santa Barbara
Superior Court, Case No. 24CV02395, on April 29, 2024. In the class
action Complaint, Plaintiff brings the following causes of action:
(1) Violation of California Labor Code Secs. 510 and 1198
(Unpaid Overtime);
(2) Violation of California Labor Code Secs. 226.7 and 512(a)
(Unpaid Meal Period Premiums);
(3) Violation of California Labor Code Sec. 226.7 (Unpaid Rest
Period Premiums);
(4) Violation of California Labor Code Secs. 1194, 1197, and
1197.1 (Unpaid Minimum Wages);
(5) Violation of California Labor Code Secs. 201 and 202 (Final
Wages Not Timely Paid);
(6) Violation of California Labor Code Sec. 204
(Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment);
(7) Violation of California Labor Code Sec. 226(a)
(Non-Compliant Wage Statements);
(8) Violation of California Labor Code Sec. 1174(d)
(Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records);
(9) Violation of California Labor Code Secs. 2800 and 2802
(Unreimbursed Business Expenses); and
(10) Violation of California Business & Professions Code
Sec. 17200, et seq.
Defendants removed the action to federal court on June 14, 2024. In
the Notice of Removal, Defendants argue this court has jurisdiction
over the action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). Based on Defendants' own investigations and
calculations, Defendants state they determined there are more than
100 current and former employees who worked for them in California
during the four-year period prior to the filing of the Complaint,
and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. In response,
Plaintiff argues removal is improper because Defendants failed to
prove to the required level of certainty that the amount in
controversy exceeds the sum of
$5,000,000.
Defendants estimate the amount in controversy—after considering
waiting time penalties, meal breaks, rest breaks, and inaccurate
wage statements—is between $9,284,005 and $21,926,135. They
calculate this figure based on four of Plaintiff's ten causes of
action, the estimated class sizes for each, the applicable
limitation periods and statutory damages, and average hourly pay
rates.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to provide admissible
evidence to support their amount in controversy calculations and
that, even if the evidence submitted were admissible, Defendants
incorrectly calculated the amount in controversy. The District
Court disagrees. Defendants supplied various declarations to
support their calculations, which it finds are sufficient to meet
their burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction under
CAFA.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PM1pi3 from PacerMonitor.com.
MASTEC SERVICES: Byler Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Scott Byler, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MASTEC SERVICES COMPANY, a Florida
corporation; MASTEC NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation;
MASTEC, INC., a Florida corporation; MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
Florida corporation; MASTEC NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. CVRI2406953 was removed from the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Jan. 22, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 5:25-cv-00181.
On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint
against Defendants which asserts the following seven causes of
action: Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to
Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to
Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final
Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; and
Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven A. Groode, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.932.2468
Fax: 925.946.9809
Email: sgroode@littler.com
- and -
Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.830.7200
Fax: 916.561.0828
Email: njenkins@littler.com
MAT KING: Bid to Certify Class in Lindke Tossed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN LINDKE, et al., v.
MAT KING, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-11767-MFL-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Matthew F. Leitman entered an order:
(1) Denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class and for appointment of class counsel;
(2) Determining that the next step in this action is an in-
person status conference with counsel; and
(3) Prohibiting all additional filings until further order of
the court following the planned status conference.
While the Court is denying Plaintiffs' current effort to certify a
class, the Court is inclined to believe that the action may be
appropriate for class certification if certain modifications are
made to the proposed class and its structure.
The Court therefore believes that the most productive path forward
is to promptly convene a status conference with counsel to discuss
next steps in the certification process.
The Court will schedule that conference in the very near future. In
the meantime, no party shall file any additional motions or
pleadings until further order of the Court.
The Court wants to have a full and frank discussion with counsel
about the direction of this action at the upcoming status
conference. That discussion will inform and guide the next round of
filings.
Lindke and Schultz have not satisfied all of the certification
requirements under Rule 23(a). Certification of their proposed
class would therefore not be appropriate. S
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They propose the following
class definition:
"All individuals confined to the St Clair County jail for
criminal contempt for a period in excess of what is permitted
by Michigan law due the failure to respect "good time" credit
pursuant to M.C.L. section 51.282(1) from April 22, 2019 to
Jan. 10, 2022."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TrYVKL at no extra
charge.[CC]
MAV KG LLC: Forrest Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Devin Forrest, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MAV KG, LLC, a limited liability
company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. S-CV-0053893 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Placer, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Jan. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-at-00116.
The Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint asserts individual and class
claims for: Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure
to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to
Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final
Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; and
Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Spencer S. Turpen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
spencer.turpen@ogletree.com
MAVERICK TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in Lewis Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA LEWIS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MAVERICK
TRANSPORTATION LLC, and LYTX, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00046-NJR
(S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Nancy Rosenstengel entered a
preliminary approval order as follows:
Accordingly, a hearing should and will be held after notice to the
Settlement Class to confirm that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and to determine whether this Court
should enter judgment approving the Settlement and an order of
dismissal of this action based upon the Settlement. For these
reasons, the Court grants the motion and orders as follows:
1. Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms that are
capitalized herein shall have the same meaning ascribed to
those terms in the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) and personal
jurisdiction over the Parties and the members of the
Settlement Class.
The Court finds that, subject to the Final Approval Hearing, the
Court will likely be able to approve the Settlement as fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement
Class.
The Court further finds that the Settlement substantially fulfills
the purposes and objectives of the class action and provides
beneficial relief to the Settlement Class, especially considering
the risks and delay of continued litigation.
Under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and solely for purposes of judgment on the proposed
Settlement, the Court preliminarily approves the following
settlement class:
"All individuals who, while present in the State of Illinois,
operated a vehicle equipped with a Lytx DriveCam (TM) Event
Recorder, and for whom machine vision and artificial
intelligence ("MV+AI") was used to predict distracted driving
behaviors between Oct. 12, 2016, and the earlier of Preliminary
Approval or Jan. 1, 2025."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) any Judge or Magistrate
Judge presiding over this Action and members of their families; (2)
Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have
a controlling interest and their current or former officers,
directors, agents, and attorneys; (3) persons who properly execute
and file a timely request for exclusion from the Settlement Class;
and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any
such excluded persons.
All Persons who are members of the Settlement Class who have not
submitted a timely request for exclusion are referred to
collectively as "Settlement Class Members" or individually as a
"Settlement Class Member."
The Final Approval Hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e) will be held before this Court on July 24, 2025, at
1:30 p.m.
Maverick is a provider of transportation and logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WVejV1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MD GROUP II: Butcher Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
James Butcher, individually and for others similarly situated v.
THE MD GROUP II LLC d/b/a HOMETOWN PHARMACY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00045
(W.D. Wis., Jan. 22, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin law.
The Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees regularly work
more than 40 hours a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay them
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek.
Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Straight
Time Employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including
hours in excess of 40 a workweek ("straight time for overtime").
The Defendant uniformly misclassifies the Plaintiff and the other
Straight Time Employees as exempt from overtime. But the Defendant
never paid the Plaintiff or the other Straight Time Employees on a
"salary basis." The Defendant's straight time for overtime pay
scheme violates the FLSA and Wisconsin law by depriving the
Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees of the "time and a
half" overtime pay they are owed for all hours worked in excess of
40 each workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as one of its Straight
Time Employees.
The Defendant "has 60+ pharmacy locations throughout Wisconsin" and
"services more than 195,000 happy customers each month."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, SC
5150 North Port Washington Road, Suite 243
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Phone: (414) 271-8650
Fax: (414) 207-6079
Email: ljohnson@hq-law.com
cclegg@hq-law.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713.352.1100
Facsimile: 713.352.3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713.877.8788
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MDL 2724: Court Approves Special Master's Recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Cynthia Rufe entered an order approving Special Master
David H. Marion's Sixteenth Report and Recommendation.
The Court agrees with the conclusion of the R&R that Actavis did
not timely bring the discovery motion before the Special Master.
The Special Master's conclusion that the motion to compel was
brought too late is thus well-supported. Although Actavis's conduct
was dilatory, the Court recognizes that fact discovery in the
non-bellwether cases continues.
Therefore, the Court will consider whether Actavis has established
that the discovery is relevant and proportional to the needs of the
MDL with regard to cases other than the clomipramine and clobetasol
bellwethers.
To support its argument that the documents are relevant, Actavis
cites the Eleventh Circuit's decision in a RICO case that held the
plaintiffs had suffered no injury because "typically, insurers
adjust premiums to compensate for known risks assumed under that
coverage."
Actavis argues that those cases concerned the effects of single
drugs and limited conspiracies, different from the broad
conspiracies implicating many drugs over a long period of time that
are included in the MDL. The Court is not persuaded by this
argument as the fundamental principle still applies.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6GLyfF at no extra
charge.[CC]
MEDTRONIC MINIMED: Class Settlement in A.H. Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.H., v. MEDTRONIC
MINIMED, INC. ET AL, Case No. 2:23-cv-07154-JLS-PVC (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order conditionally
granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class
action settlement:
The Court finds that the proposed Class may be certified under Rule
23(b)(3).
The proposed Settlement Class is defined as:
"all registered InPen App users who, from Sept. 2020 through
April 13, 2023, used MiniMed's Digital Platforms while
residing in the United States."
The Settlement does not include a New York subclass.
Excluded from the Class are: "(i) Defendant, any entity in
which the Defendant has a controlling interest, and
Defendant's affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, officers,
directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries,
and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer
presiding over the Litigation and the members of their
immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii) any
individual who timely and validly excludes themselves from the
Settlement."
The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendants will pay
$475,000 to fund the Settlement.
The Settlement proposes the following amounts for these
various categories of payments:
(1) attorneys' fees not to exceed one third of the fund, or
$158,333.00, if approved by the Court at final approval;
(2) litigation costs not to exceed $15,000, if approved at
final approval; and
(3) a service award for the Class Representative not to exceed
$5,000, if approved by the Court at final approval.
The parties also estimate settlement administration costs not to
exceed $24,968. The remaining amount -- $271,699 if all other
payments are approved—will be distributed to Class Members
submitting valid claim forms as relief for all remaining claims.
The amended Settlement Agreement and Notice shall:
-- Account for the possibility of further rounds of payment
distribution to Class Members, prior to payment to a cy pres
beneficiary;
-- State that Class Members may exclude themselves from the
Settlement by timely submitting a notice of intent to exclude
online via the settlement website as an alternative to doing
so by mail;
-- Remove the provision designating the Court as recipient of
objections and instead inform Class Members to address and
submit objections to Plaintiff's Counsel, Defendants' Counsel,
and/or the Settlement Administrator, whether online via the
settlement website or by mail;
-- Make clear that an e-signature is acceptable for all
submissions to the Settlement Administrator;
-- Set forth that Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
costs will be filed before the deadline to object or opt out;
-- State that all papers filed in this action will be available
for review as part of the Court's files in this matter "via
the Court's PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records)
website," along with PACER's URL (http://www.pacer.gov)
Medtronic is a healthcare company that offers a diabetes management
tool, the InPen System, comprised of the InPen device and
corresponding InPen applications.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j7PndN at no extra
charge.[CC]
MEDUSIND INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Strong Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUDEA STRONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDUSIND INC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-20214 (S.D. Fla., January 14, 2025) arises out of Defendant
Medusind's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or
timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired
and stored for its business purposes.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack in or about December 2023 to compromise Defendant's
network that contained personally identifiable information and
protected health information of Plaintiffs and other individuals.
The Defendant confirmed that "cyber incident" occurred on its
network on December 29, 2023 but did not begin sending notices of
the data breach until January 7, 2025, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated to address Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that
it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their
information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party and including in that notice precisely what
specific types of information were accessed and taken by
cybercriminals.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for:
(i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied
contract, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) unjust enrichment,
and (vi) declaratory relief.
Medusind Inc. is an organization that provides medical and dental
billing services to companies that service Plaintiff and Class
Members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Tosses Rakofsky BlueTEC Turbo Defect Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the motions filed by
Euromotors Monterey, Inc., dba Mercedes-Benz of Monterey, Wienik
Bleyenberg, and Devon Thomson to dismiss the first amended
complaint in the case captioned as JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, Plaintiff, v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-04427-EJD (N.D. Calif.). Plaintiff's amended complaint is
dismissed without leave to amend.
Plaintiff alleges that he owned a 2011 Mercedes-Bens ML350 BlueTEC
that required repair due to a broken turbo. In January 2022,
Plaintiff paid a Mercedes-Benz repair facility in Florida to
install a new turbo manufactured and sold by Mercedes-Benz. The
brand-new turbo came with a warranty. Plaintiff thereafter drove
the Subject Vehicle to California where it became inoperable about
a month later, on Feb. 7, 2022.
The repair facility in California, through the Master Technician,
determined that the reason the vehicle became inoperable was
because the turbo was broken.
Plaintiff advised Mercedes-Benz of Monterey that Defendants were
responsible for replacing parts pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement in a previous Class Action lawsuit. Plaintiff also told
Monterey MB, through the Master Technician, that the broken turbo
constituted consequential damages, which flowed from the
fundamental problem, which was the subject matter of the Class
Action lawsuit. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants rejected this
information and expressly refused to perform any repairs until the
automotive parts required in order to repair the Class-Action
repairs arrived first.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants blamed him and the Florida repair
facility for the damage the Subject Vehicle sustained on Feb. 7,
2022. Defendant Bleyenberg allegedly admitted on Feb. 23, 2022,
that the turbo purchased and installed by the Florida repair
facility did nothing improper and agreed to replace the turbo under
Mercedes-Bens parts warranty. Notwithstanding this, Bleyenberg told
Plaintiff that Plaintiff would be liable for the damage because he
elected to have the repair performed at the Florida repair
facility, a certified Mercedes-Benz facility, instead of at a
Mercedes-Benz dealership. Bleyenberg also told Plaintiff on Feb.
25, 2022, that he operated the engine despite it lacking oil and as
a result, the engine suffered damage while the turbo was being
replaced. Defendants, through
Mr. Bleyenberg, refused to repair the damaged engine, and told
Plaintiff the repair would cost approximately $35,000..
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 2, 2022, in the Monterey
County Superior Court. Plaintiff brought claims against all
Defendants for:
(1) unjust enrichment,
(2) unfair business practices in violation of California's
Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200,
(3) breach of contract,
(4) breach of warranties,
(5) negligent misrepresentation,
(6) declaratory and injunctive relief, and
(7) fraud.
Plaintiff seeks relief in the amount of $14,604.79 (the purchase
price of the Subject Vehicle), $10,000 (cost of previous repairs
made within the past six months from filing the Complaint), $35,000
(cost of the repair of the engine), $2,000 (car rental fees), and
$2,000 (hotel fees). Plaintiff also requests attorneys' fees,
costs, and punitive damages.
Defendant MBUSA removed the action to this Court on July 29, 2022
and answered the Complaint on Aug. 10, 2022.
On June 15, 2023, MBUSA filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. After the Court granted the motion with leave to amend,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Both the Dealership Defendants and MBUSA move to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
The Court entered an order as follows:
Having failed to address the defects identified in the Court's
prior order, Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is dismissed.
Though Plaintiff may have legitimate frustrations regarding what
was disclosed to him about the scope of a warranty, he has not
stated a plausible claim for violation of the UCL. Plaintiff's UCL
claim is dismissed.
The Court dismissed Plaintiff's breach of contract claim because
Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead the existence of a contract
between Plaintiff and any Defendant.
Plaintiff alleged no new facts regarding his implied warranty
claim, and the Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff's breach of
warranties claim.
Plaintiff alleges no new facts in support of his negligent
misrepresentation claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff's negligent
misrepresentation claim is dismissed.
The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's request for declaratory
and injunctive relief because Plaintiff failed to state a claim as
to its other causes of action. For the same reasons, Plaintiff
cannot sustain its sixth cause of action for declaratory and
injunctive relief in the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court
dismisses Plaintiff's sixth cause of action.
Having failed to address the defects identified in the Court's
prior order, Plaintiff's fraud claim is dismissed.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZBNOZs from PacerMonitor.com.
META PLATFORMS: Judge Rejects Data Privacy Class Action Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, that a federal judge in
California has refused to allow millions of Facebook users to band
together as a class in a lawsuit accusing the social media company
of duping them about its privacy safeguards in order to maintain
market dominance.
San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge James Donato on Friday,
January 24, 2025, rejected, opens new tab key evidence that the
plaintiffs presented to justify certifying the case as a class
action against Facebook parent Meta Platforms (META.O).
The judge ruled that the consumers could not rely on an expert's
findings that Meta would have paid its users $5 a month for their
personal data in a competitive market. The expert estimated
nationwide damages of more than $52 billion.
Meta had called, opens new tab the expert's analysis "junk science"
and had urged Donato to bar the plaintiffs from using it. The
company has denied any wrongdoing.
In a statement, Meta welcomed Donato's ruling and said the company
"faces fierce competition for the time and attention of people and
businesses."
The consumers' lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.
Granting class action status can place extra pressure on a
corporate defendant to settle, especially in cases where a company
faces claims of billions of dollars.
Donato is presiding over a consolidated lawsuit that was first
filed in 2020.
The consumers told the court, opens new tab that Facebook users
trusted the company's "abundant (and false) assertions that
Facebook respects their privacy and gives users full control over
what data it collects and who uses their data and how."
The consumer plaintiffs had asked Donato to certify a class of
Facebook users between 2016 and 2020.
Meta in a court filing said the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit
"found personalized value" and enjoyment in using Facebook, and did
not base their decision to use the platform on alleged
misstatements about its privacy protections.
The case is Maximilian Klein et al v. Meta Platforms, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD.
For plaintiffs: Shana Scarlett of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and
Kevin Teruya of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
For Meta: Sonal Mehta, David Gringer and Ari Holtzblatt of Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr [GN]
MISSION CEVICHE: Class Cert Discovery in Flores Due March 17
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Flores v. Mission Ceviche,
LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03626-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Arun Subramanian entered an order granting a limited period of
additional discovery to ensure that the central issues in the case
are fairly and fully litigated.
Discovery will close on March 17, 2025.
There will be no further extensions. Post-discovery motions are due
March 31, 2025, regardless of whether the Court has adjudicated
plaintiff's motion for class certification; responses are due April
14, 2025; replies are due April 21, 2025.
In the meantime, if the parties wish to pursue any alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms, such as a settlement conference
before a magistrate judge or participation in the District's
mediation program, they should submit a joint letter indicating so,
and the Court will issue a referral order.
The Plaintiff is ordered to make herself available for a deposition
within the next thirty days.
The parties will have an additional thirty days after that to
conduct any follow up discovery.
The parties are well aware that discovery in this case was supposed
to close in mid-December. They didn't schedule depositions in a
timely matter because they pursued private mediation and then ran
into scheduling conflicts (including the Thanksgiving holiday).
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dgGvtJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
David J. Grech, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
1 Battery Park Plaza, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10004
E-mail: dgrech@grsm.com
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Hearing Set for June 5
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Horti, et al., v. Nestle
Healthcare Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-09812 (N.D. Cal.,
Filed Dec. 20, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley
entered an order vacating case management conference.
-- The further conference scheduled for Jan. 23, 2025, is
vacated.
-- The Court will see the parties in person on June 5, 2025, at
10:00 a.m. for the class certification hearing.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Nestle Healthcare manufactures, markets and/or distributes drugs in
the United States.[CC]
NESTLE WATERS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patane, et al., v. Nestle
Waters North America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381 (D. Conn., Filed
Aug. 15, 2017), the Hon. Judge Vernon D. Oliver entered an order
granting consent motion to extend deadline for motion for class
certification.
-- The parties' consent motion to extend the deadline
for a motion for class certification is granted.
-- Any class certification motions must be filed on or before the
thirtieth business day after the day on which the court issues
a ruling resolving the pending motion for reconsideration and
the pending motion for clarification or, alternatively, for
partial reconsideration.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Nestle Waters is a North American business unit that produces and
distributes numerous brands of bottled water across North
America.[CC]
NEW YORK TIMES: Settlement in Perkins Suit Gets Final Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the
class action settlement agreement in the case captioned as MEGAN
PERKINS on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, d/b/a THE NEW YORK TIMES,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-05202-PKC (S.D.N.Y.).
On Oct. 1, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, conditionally
certifying a Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of: "all
New York Times digital, print, and ancillary subscription consumers
who used a North Carolina billing and delivery zip code and were
directly billed and automatically renewed by NYT from June 21,
2018, to and through June 2, 2023".
The Court has considered the Parties' Class Action Settlement
Agreement, as well as Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the
Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, Expenses, And Incentive Award, together with all exhibits
thereto, the arguments and authorities presented by the Parties and
their counsel at the Final Approval Hearing held on Jan. 21, 2025.
The Court now gives final approval to the Settlement Agreement, and
finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The settlement
consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement constitutes
fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims
against the Released Parties. The Court finds that the
consideration to be paid to members of the Settlement Class is
reasonable, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members, considering the total value of their claims compared to
(i) the disputed factual and legal circumstances of the Action,
(ii) affirmative defenses asserted in the Action, and (iii) the
potential risks and likelihood of success of pursuing litigation on
the merits. The complex legal and factual posture of this case, the
amount of discovery completed, and the fact that the Settlement is
the result of arm's-length negotiations between the Parties support
this finding. These facts, in addition to the Court's observations
throughout the litigation, demonstrate that there was no collusion
present in the reaching of the Settlement Agreement, implicit or
otherwise.
The Court has specifically considered the factors relevant to class
action settlement approval.
The Court finds that the Class Representative and Class Counsel
adequately represented the Settlement Class for the purposes of
litigating this matter and entering into and implementing the
Settlement Agreement.
Accordingly, the Settlement is finally approved in all respects.
The Court dismisses the Action, as identified in the Settlement
Agreement, on the merits and with prejudice.
The Court has also considered Plaintiff's Motion For Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, Expenses, And Incentive Awards, as well as the
supporting memorandum of law and declarations and adjudges that
the payment of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $82,500
is reasonable in light of the multi-factor test used to evaluate
fee awards in the Second Circuit. This award includes Class
Counsel's unreimbursed litigation costs and expenses. Such payment
shall be made pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms
of the Settlement Agreement.
The Court has also considered Plaintiff's Motion, memorandum of
law, and supporting declarations for an incentive award to the
Class Representative, Megan Perkins. The Court adjudges that the
payment of incentive award to Ms. Perkins is not warranted and
creates incentives that risk distorting the role of class
representative.
All payments made to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement that are not cashed within one hundred eighty
(180) days of issuance shall be donated as cy pres to North
Carolina Legal Aid.
A copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r8H37A from PacerMonitor.com.
NEXT STEP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walker Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. Next Step Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00531 (N.D. Ill., January 16, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Next Step Group for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://cushionaire.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The complaint asserts that the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: incorrectly formatted lists,
inaccurate drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go
to the same URL address, unclear labels for interactive elements,
and the requirement that some actions be performed solely with a
mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Next Step Group's policies, practices, and procedures so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Next Step Group, Inc. operates the website that provides consumers
with access to an array of goods and services, including, the
ability to view a collection of footwear for women including
sandals, sneakers, wedges, and dress shoes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (630)-478-0856
E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bid to Exclude Harnett's Opinion Denied in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated case In re: East Palestine Train Derailment,
Case No. 4:23-CV-00242 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
denied in part and granted in part Norfolk Southern Corporation and
Norfolk Southern Railway Company's motion to exclude the opinion of
Peter Harnett, an expert on hazard communication, emergency
response, risk assessment, safety, and industrial hygiene retained
by Third-Party Defendant OxyVinyls LP.
OxyVinyls LP opposes the motion.
Norfolk Southern Train 32N derailed at 8:54 p.m. on Feb. 3, 2023,
in East Palestine, Ohio. At the time of the derailment, Train 32N
was traveling east on Main Track 1 along Norfolk Southern's Fort
Wayne Line and consisted of two lead locomotives, one distributed
power unit, and 149 rail cars. In total, 38 cars derailed. Five of
these cars contained Vinyl Chloride Monomer, which is considered
hazardous and flammable. OxyVinyls was the shipper of all five cars
containing VCM and owned three of them.
Norfolk Southern settled with Plaintiffs represented in the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint. It also lodged a Third-Party
Complaint seeking derivative damages under theories of negligence
and joint and several liability against certain railcar owners:
OxyVinyls LP, GATX Corporation, General American Marks Company, and
Trinity Industries Leasing Company.
Norfolk Southern alleges that OxyVinyls was negligent in connection
with its shipment of the five tank cars containing VCM by, in part,
failing to provide accurate information on the hazard VCM could
present. It also alleges that OxyVinyls' representatives made
conflicting statements on the ability of vinyl chloride to
polymerize, offered inconsistent warnings regarding polymerization,
and stated that polymerization was not possible under the
derailment conditions despite the vinyl chloride having been
exposed to extreme conditions.
Norfolk Southern alleges that the tank cars in which OxyVinyls
shipped VCM had aluminum components in the pressure release devices
and in other components on each of the cars shipping VCM. It also
alleges that the vent and burn and release of hazardous vinyl
chloride was the direct result of the improper shipping containers
and Oxy Vinyls' failure to follow federal regulations and its own
Safety Data Sheet.
Norfolk Southern seeks to exclude certain of Mr. Harnett's
opinions.
Norfolk Southern argues that Mr. Harnett lacks relevant experience
with train derailments, the polymerization of VCM, vent and burns,
and emergency response.
Mr. Harnett's experience includes emergency decision making
generally, and more specifically, he has experience with chemical
releases and field safety. The Court finds Mr. Harnett's lack of
specialized specific knowledge is of little consequence to Mr.
Harnett's qualifications. Rather, Mr. Harnett's lack of specified
knowledge cuts against the weight given to his opinion, the Court
notes.
Norfolk Southern argues that Mr. Harnett's opinions are unreliable
because he engaged in cherry-picking of evidence, and did not have
a reliable methodology or any methodology at all. It asserts that
Mr. Harnett ignored contradictory evidence in rendering his SDS
opinion and that he lacked reliable methodology in rendering his
emergency response opinion.
On the record before it, the Court finds that Mr. Harnett's
opinions on risk assessment, emergency response, and SDS are
reliable. Mr. Harnett did not base his opinion only on facts that
plainly contradict undisputed evidence. He did not ignore or omit
contradictory evidence but weighed all the evidence to determine
which was more relevant to his methodology and analysis. Therefore,
the Court finds that Mr. Harnett's opinions on risk assessment,
SDS, and emergency response are reliable and based on reliable
methodology.
However, Mr. Harnett is not qualified to opine on whether Norfolk
Southern, its representatives, and Unified Command acted with
confirmation bias, the Court finds. According to the Court,
OxyVinyls' argument, that Mr. Harnett has sufficient expertise on
risk assessment and emergency response, and that this background in
risk assessment permits his opinion on whether Norfolk Southern and
its contractors exhibited confirmation bias, is unpersuasive. The
Court finds OxyVinyls' insistence that Mr. Harnett need not be a
psychologist or possess any social science discipline before
reliably testifying about failures to maintain objectivity in
Norfolk Southern's decision-making regarding the vent and burn
equally unpersuasive.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MvpjCM from PacerMonitor.com.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Court Won't Exclude Geoffrey Coates' Opinion
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated case In re: East Palestine Train Derailment,
Case No. 4:23-CV-00242 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
denied in part and granted in part Third-Party Defendant OxyVinyls
LP's motion to exclude the opinion of Dr. Geoffrey Coates, an
expert on polymerization retained by Norfolk Southern Railway
Company.
Norfolk Southern opposes the motion.
Norfolk Southern Train 32N derailed at 8:54 p.m. on Feb. 3, 2023,
in East Palestine, Ohio. At the time of the derailment, Train 32N
was traveling east on Main Track 1 along Norfolk Southern's Fort
Wayne Line and consisted of two lead locomotives, one distributed
power unit, and 149 rail cars. In total, 38 cars derailed. Five of
these cars contained Vinyl Chloride Monomer, which is considered
hazardous and flammable. OxyVinyls was the shipper of all five cars
containing VCM and owned three of them.
Norfolk Southern settled with Plaintiffs represented in the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint. It also lodged a Third-Party
Complaint seeking derivative damages under theories of negligence
and joint and several liability against certain railcar owners:
OxyVinyls LP, GATX Corporation, General American Marks Company, and
Trinity Industries Leasing Company.
Norfolk Southern alleges that OxyVinyls was negligent in connection
with its shipment of the five tank cars containing VCM by, in part,
failing to provide accurate information on the hazard VCM could
present. It alleges that OxyVinyls' representatives made
conflicting statements on the ability of vinyl chloride to
polymerize, offered inconsistent warnings regarding polymerization,
and stated that polymerization was not possible under the
derailment conditions despite the vinyl chloride having been
exposed to extreme conditions.
Norfolk Southern alleges that the tank cars in which OxyVinyls
shipped VCM had aluminum components in the pressure release devices
and in other components on each of the cars shipping VCM. It also
alleges that the vent, burn, and release of hazardous vinyl
chloride were the direct result of the improper shipping containers
and Oxy Vinyls' failure to follow federal regulations and its own
Safety Data Sheet.
OxyVinyls seeks to exclude certain of Mr. Dr. Coates' opinions.
OxyVinyls asserts that Dr. Coates is not qualified to offer his
chief opinion—that OxyVinyls' SDS for VCM contained
Scientifically Inaccurate Hazard Warnings about the polymerization
of VCM due to excessive heat or aluminum nor the various secondary
opinions he offers on OxyVinyls' SDS. It also asserts that Dr.
Coates' lack of familiarity and experience with OSHA Haz Comm
further contradicts his purported expertise on the adequacy of
SDSs. It also points to Dr. Coates' own admission that he is not an
expert in warnings, emergency response, or risk assessment.
The Court finds that Dr. Coates' expertise in polymerization and
his scientific background qualifies him to opine on the scientific
accuracy of the hazard communications, SDS, and warnings. His
background and general experience in polymer science is a
sufficient foundation for him to opine on whether the hazard
communications, SDSs, and warnings accurately reflected the risks
presented VCM, regardless of his expertise in the very specialized
regulatory scheme. Dr. Coates' background in polymerization leaves
him well-positioned to assist the trier of fact on SDSs, hazard
communications, and warnings about the chemical and its
reactiveness and hazards.
OxyVinyls also argues that Dr. Coates has not stated an opinion
about polymerization with the requisite level of certainty because
he is unwilling to opine to a reasonable degree of scientific
certainty whether polymerization was occurring in the five VCM rail
tank cars. Rather, because Dr. Coates' opines that it would be very
reasonable' that some polymerization ‘could have been occurring'
if oxygen or polyperoxides or another initiator were present,
OxyVinyls argues it does not meet the threshold of certainty
necessary to be admitted. OxyVinyls considers it purely
speculative. The Court disagrees. Applying Ohio's standard of
reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the Court finds Dr.
Coates' opinion meets a sufficient level of certainty. Dr. Coates
opines that it was highly likely that some
polymerization occurred under specific hypothetical conditions.
Dr. Coates' opinions on witness credibility are excluded. It is not
the role of an expert witness to weigh in on another witnesses'
credibility.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R88tIp from PacerMonitor.com.
O'REILLY AUTO: Class Settlement in Pipich Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY PIPICH, as an
"aggrieved employee" on behalf of all other similarly situated
"aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorney General
Act of 2004, v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation
d/b/a Express Employment Professionals; and DOES 2-50, inclusive,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01120-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison
Goddard entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of the Settlement.
1. The Court grants final approval of the proposed Settlement
Agreement. All terms and provisions of the Settlement,
including the release of claims contained therein, should be
and are ordered to be consummated, and the Parties shall
effectuate the Settlement according to its terms;
2. This order applies to all claims or causes of action settled
under the Settlement Agreement and binds all Class Members
who did not affirmatively opt out of the Settlement
Agreement by submitting a timely and valid Request for
Exclusion. This order does not bind persons who filed timely
and valid a Request for Exclusion;
3. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and
costs, administration expenses, and class representative
payments. The Court grants Class Counsel attorney fees in
the amount of $1,366,666.67 plus Class Counsel's actual
litigation costs in the amount of $58,918.01;
4. The Court grants class representative awards to Plaintiffs
for their services as follows: (1) $22,500.00 to Jeffrey
Pipich; (2) $10,000.00 to Eve Storm; (3) $7,500 to Gary
Cull; (4) $7,500 to Melissa Kolakowski; and (5) $7,500 to
Daniel Lopez;
5. The Court approves settlement administrator costs of
$38,900.
6. The Court approves payment of $307,500.00 (75% of the PAGA
penalty) to the LWDA.
The Court finds the settlement to be "fair, reasonable, and
adequate" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
The Settlement Class is defined as:
"All individuals employed by one or both Defendants as non-
exempt, hourly employees, either directly or indirectly through
staffing agencies, and who worked at one of Defendant O'Reilly
Auto Enterprises, LLC's distribution centers in California at
any time during the Class Period of July 5, 2018, to May 22,
2024."
The "Aggrieved Employees" are all class members who were employed
by one or both Defendants in California and classified as
non-exempt, hourly employees, either directly or indirectly through
staffing agencies, at one of Defendant's distribution centers in
California at any time during the PAGA Period of May 11, 2020 to
May 22, 2024.
The Settlement Class thus includes all Aggrieved Employees
On June 16, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his initial complaint against
the Defendant, styling his claims as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
O'Reilly provides private-label and generic automotive products for
domestic and imported cars.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UX6gBy at no extra
charge.[CC]
OKLAHOMA: Court Ready to Enter Amended Consent Decree in Briggs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled LESLIE BRIGGS, as next friend of T.W. and
B.S., EVAN WATSON, as next friend of C.R., and HENRY A. MEYER, III,
as next friend of A.M., for themselves and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLIE FRIESEN, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Services, and DEBBIE MORAN, in her official
capacity as Interim Executive Director of the Oklahoma Forensic
Center, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00081-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla.),
Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma issued an Opinion and Order is
prepared to enter the parties' amended proposed Consent Decree as
the final judgment of the Court.
The matter comes before the court on the Joint Motion for Final
Approval and Entry of Amended Consent Decree of Plaintiffs Leslie
Briggs, as next friend of T.W. and B.S.; Evan Watson, as next
friend of C.R.; and Henry A. Meyer, III, as next friend of A.M.,
for themselves and for others similarly situated, and defendants
Allie Friesen, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the
Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
and Debbie Moran, in her official capacity as Interim Executive
Director of the Oklahoma Forensic Center.
For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, should the
Oklahoma Legislature approve the amended proposed Consent Decree,
the Court is prepared to certify the Class and enter the amended
proposed Consent Decree as the final judgment of this Court.
The case relates to Oklahoma's competency restoration system. On
March 1, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint
alleging that, due to a lack of forensic beds, persons who are
declared incompetent in Oklahoma state court criminal proceedings
are forced to wait prolonged periods of time to receive
court-ordered competency restoration treatment and, during the
waiting period, the persons receive little to no mental health
treatment.
The Plaintiffs asserted a claim for violation of Due Process rights
secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, among
others, and brought the case as a class action pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
The Defendants originally approached this matter "from a
traditional defense posture," and filed a motion to dismiss.
However, after "extensive due diligence," both independently and
jointly with the Plaintiffs, the focus shifted to settlement.
On June 17, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Consent Decree, Class Certification, and Plan of Notice
to Class. The proposed settlement consisted of a five-year Consent
Decree that provided for the development and implementation of a
plan designed to reform and improve the Defendants' delivery of
competency evaluations and Restoration Treatment to Class Members,
including to reduce significantly the durations of time during
which Class Members wait to receive Restoration Treatment. The Plan
was comprised of a variety of program components, including the
development and implementation of a Community-Based Restoration
Treatment Pilot Program and an In-Jail Competency Restoration Pilot
Program.
On Aug. 15, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval. During the hearing, the Court questioned
whether the Oklahoma statutory competency scheme--specifically,
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, Section 1175.6a--permitted outpatient
restoration treatment services.
In an Opinion and Order of Aug. 30, 2024, the Court concluded that
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, Section 1175.6a requires that the Department
assume physical custody of the person requiring competency
restoration services and, therefore, does not permit outpatient
restoration treatment. Accordingly, the Court permitted the parties
to submit a modified proposed Consent Decree to address the Court's
concern with respect to the Community-Based Restoration Treatment
Pilot Program provisions.
On Sept. 9, 2024, the parties filed the Third Joint Supplement to
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval wherein the parties agreed to
modify paragraphs 21 and 68-73 of the proposed Consent Decree to
make the development and implementation of the Community-Based
Restoration Treatment Pilot Program contingent upon a future change
in Oklahoma law permitting the Department to provide outpatient
community-based restoration services.
In an Order dated Sept. 19, 2024, the Court granted the Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Consent Decree, Class
Certification, and Plan of Notice to Class, as modified by the
Third Joint Supplement to Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval. In
the Order, the Court preliminarily certified a class pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
The Court appointed Paul DeMuro and Frederic Dorwart of Frederic
Dorwart, Lawyers PLLC, and Nick Southerland and Brian Wilkerson of
the Oklahoma Disability Law Center, Inc., as Class Counsel, and
directed that notice of the proposed settlement be provided in the
manner and method set forth in the Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Consent Decree, Class Certification, and Plan of Notice
to Class, as well as emailed to members of the Oklahoma Bar
Association's criminal law section.
The Final Approval and Fairness Hearing was set for Jan. 15, 2025,
at 9:30 a.m. On Oct. 8, 2024, the Contingency Review Board
disapproved of the proposed Consent Decree.
The Court subsequently held a Status Conference during which the
parties agreed to participate in a settlement conference before
Adjunct Settlement Judge T. Lane Wilson. During the settlement
conference, held on Nov. 13, 2024, the parties reached an agreement
as to an amended proposed Consent Decree and, on Nov. 19, 2024, the
parties filed the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended
Consent Decree.
Judge Frizzell notes that modifications to the original proposed
Consent Decree included a revised definition of "Best Efforts,"
changes to the provisions related to cessation of the existing
In-Jail Competency Restoration Program, and inclusion of an
"off-ramp" provision as to the Decree's five-year term.
In an Order of Nov. 20, 2024, the Court granted the Joint Motion
for Preliminary Approval of the amended proposed Consent Decree. In
that Order, the Court stated that the Class remained preliminarily
certified and appointed Paul DeMuro, Frederic Dorwart, and David
Leimbach of Frederic Dorwart, Lawyers PLLC, and Nick Southerland
and Brian Wilkerson of the Oklahoma Disability Law Center, Inc. as
Class Counsel. Additionally, the Court approved the Amended Notice
of Proposed Class Action Settlement and directed that, on or before
Dec. 4, 2024, the Amended Notice be provided as set forth in the
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Consent Decree.
The Court set a Dec. 30, 2024 deadline for Class Members to
postmark or submit written objections or comments. The Final
Approval and Fairness Hearing remained set for Jan. 15, 2025, at
9:30 a.m. In advance of the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing,
the Plaintiffs' counsel submitted the written objections and
comments received by Class Counsel in response to the Notice and
Amended Notice.
On Jan. 9, 2025, the parties filed the Joint Motion for Final
Approval and Entry of Amended Consent Decree. The Court held the
Final Approval and Fairness Hearing on Jan. 15, 2025. No Class
Members or other persons appeared to object.
In this case, the Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(2), which applies where "the party opposing the class
has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the
class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole."
As stated in the Order dated Sept. 19, 2024, the Court concluded
that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) were
preliminarily satisfied, and the Court would likely be able to
certify the Class for purposes of the original consent decree--i.e.
the proposed settlement agreement. Thus, the Court preliminarily
certified the Class.
In its Nov. 20, 2024 Order regarding the motion for preliminary
approval of the amended proposed Consent Decree, the Court
concluded that nothing in the amended proposed Consent Decree
altered the Court's prior analysis and, therefore, the Class
remained preliminarily certified.
For substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the
Court's Sept. 19 and Nov. 20, 2024 Orders, and based on its review
of the filings in this matter and the statements made during the
Jan. 15, 2025 hearing, the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(2) are satisfied. Accordingly, the Court certifies the
following Class for purposes of settlement:
All persons who are now, or will be in the future, charged
with a crime in Oklahoma State court and are: (i) declared
incompetent to stand trial by the state court; (ii) court-
ordered to receive competency restoration services by the
Department or its designees; (iii) incarcerated in a county
jail or similar detention facility while their criminal
cases are stayed; and (iv) awaiting court-ordered competency
restoration services to be provided by the Department or its
designees, whether or not placed on a competency waitlist
maintained by the Department or its designees.
The Court also concludes the Class Counsel will fairly and
adequately represent the Class. Accordingly, the Court appoints
Paul DeMuro, Frederic Dorwart, and David Leimbach of Frederic
Dorwart, Lawyers PLLC, and Nick Southerland and Brian Wilkerson of
the Oklahoma Disability Law Center, Inc., as Class Counsel.
The Court is satisfied that the amended proposed Consent Decree was
the result of fair, honest, and arm's length negotiations. The
Court also concludes, among other things, that the amended proposed
Consent Decree is an effective method of distributing relief to the
Class, and that the amended proposed Consent Decree is remedial in
nature, sufficiently narrowly tailored, and consistent with
Oklahoma law, provided that it is approved by the Oklahoma
Legislature.
For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, upon the
Oklahoma Legislature's approval of the amended proposed Consent
Decree, the Court is prepared to grant the Joint Motion for Final
Approval and Entry of Amended Consent Decree, certify the class,
and enter the amended proposed Consent Decree as the final judgment
of this Court.
The Plaintiffs are directed to file a Notice advising the Court of
the approval or disapproval of the amended proposed Consent Decree
by the Oklahoma Legislature within three (3) business days of that
legislative action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4wbf3kek from PacerMonitor.com.
OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Kelley Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Nadine Kelley, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Omni Family Health, Case No.
BCV-24-103591 was removed from the Kern County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Jan. 22, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00090-CDB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Omni Family Health -- https://omnifamilyhealth.org/ -- is a growing
network of state-of-the-art health centers located throughout Kern,
Kings, Tulare, and Fresno counties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dimitrios Vasiliou Korovilas, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 335-2001
Fax: (310) 364-5201
Email: dimitri@wukolaw.com
- and -
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
ARNOLD LAW FIRM
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Phone: (916) 777-7777
Email: gharoutunian@justice4you.com
aberry@justice4you.com
- and -
Jason M Wucetich, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 2000
El Segundo, CA 90254
Phone: (310) 335-2001
Email: jason@wukolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ronald I. Raether, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER
100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1500
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 622-2722
Fax: (949) 622-2739
Email: ron.raether@troutman.com
- and -
Tambry L. Bradford, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
350 S. Grand Ave., Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 928-9805
Email: tambry.bradford@troutman.com
OUR WORLD: Bland Seeks More Time to File Response on Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY BLAND, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OUR WORLD
ENERGY, LLC, and SUNSCI MEDIA, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00994-P (N.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
extension of time to file a response to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.
The new response date would be up to and including Jan. 28, 2025
for the motion.
Counsel for Plaintiff has conferred with counsel for both
Defendant, which has indicated that they are not
opposed to the requested relief.
Our World is a full service Solar company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8y49eo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mount Carmel Avenue
Glenside, PA 19038
Telephone: (215) 225-5529
Facsimile: (888) 329-0305
E-mail: a@perronglaw.com
PACIFIC MARKET: Babiarz Sues Over Defective Products
----------------------------------------------------
Leah Babiarz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PACIFIC MARKET INTERNATIONAL, LLC d/b/a PMI WORLDWIDE,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00143 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 22, 2025), is brought on
behalf of consumers who purchased the Stanley Switchback travel
mug, available in 12 oz and 16 oz cups, and/or the Stanley Trigger
Action travel mug, available in 12 oz, 16 oz, and 20 oz cups
(collectively, the "Noticed Products") for personal or household
use and not for resale as a result of the Defendant's defective
products.
On December 12, 2024, the Defendant and the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission ("CPSC") announced a recall of over 2.6 million
stainless steel travel mugs spanning eleven different product
numbers. Consumers were warned to "immediately stop using the
recalled travel mugs" because the "mug's lid threads can shrink
when exposed to heat and torque, causing the lid to detach during
use, resulting in a burn hazard."
The link to the CPSC recall warning consumers to "immediately stop
using the recalled travel mugs" stays tucked away on a remote
portion of Stanley's website that few people are likely to see.
Thus, Stanley admits the travel mugs are unsuitable for their
intended purpose and pose an unreasonable safety hazard; yet, it
refuses to give customers any money back for these defective
products. Instead, Stanley implemented a wholly deficient recall
whose primary objective is to protect its bottom line, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a 16-ounce Stanley Trigger Action travel
mug with the product.
The Defendant is engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, producing, advertising, selling, and/or distributing
the various types of drinkware and cookware, including the Stanley
1913 line of tumblers and travel mugs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd Wyatt, Esq.
WYATT GRONSKI
540 Newport Way NW, Suite 200
Issaquah, WA 98027
Phone: 425.395-7784
Email: todd@wdlawgroup.com
- and -
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
SIRI | GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: 212-532-1091
Facsimile: 646-417-5967
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
PACIFIC PULMONARY: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Wislocki Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WISLOCKI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC PULMONARY MEDICAL GROUP, Defendant,
Case No. 8:25-cv-00075 (C.D. Cal., January 16, 2025) seeks monetary
damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from
Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable
information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other
patients, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information
systems on February 7, 2024 and the compromised and unauthorized
disclosure of that private information.
On or around October 22, 2024, PPMG detected unusual activity in
its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized
third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from
its systems. As a result of the data breach, which Defendant failed
to prevent, the private information of Defendant's patients,
including Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen and
viewed, including, but not limited to, their name, date of birth,
Social Security Number, Medical ID Number and health insurance.
The Defendant's failure to protect patients' private information
has harmed and will continue to harm Defendant's patients, causing
Plaintiff to seek relief on a class wide basis, says the suit.
On behalf of himself and the Class, the Plaintiff brings causes of
action against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of the
California Consumer Privacy Act, violation of the California
Consumer Records Act, and violation of the Confidentiality in
Medical Information Act.
Pacific Pulmonary Medical Group is a pulmonary, sleep and critical
care practice serving the Riverside and Orange County area in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
PAYCOR INC: Allowed to File Bid to Strike New Arguments & Evidence
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johns v. Paycor, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00264 (S.D. Ill., Filed March 11, 2020), the Hon.
Judge David W. Dugan entered an order regarding the Defendant's
motion for leave to file its motion to strike new arguments and new
evidence in plaintiff's reply brief in support of class
certification under seal.
-- the Defendant has filed a redacted version of that motion to
strike on the public docket.
-- The redactions appear to be made to the information discussed
at Doc. 150 and to third-party information.
-- Accordingly, for good cause shown, and consistent with the
Agreed Confidentiality Order previously entered in this case,
the instant Motion is granted.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.[CC]
PAYCOR INC: Seeks to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Reply Brief
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIN JOHNS and JUAN
BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PAYCOR, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00264-DWD (S.D. Ill.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion
to strike those portions of Plaintiff's reply brief in support of
class certification that contain new evidence and new argument, and
granting the Defendant such other and further relief that the Court
deems equitable and just.
The Plaintiffs cite new arguments and evidence in their reply in
support of class certification. Specifically, they respond to
Paycor's argument that the class cannot be certified because
certain of Paycor's customers obtained valid Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA) consents from their respective employees that
mention or release Paycor, by arguing for the first time that
Paycor has not produced "a single signed consent."
The Plaintiffs' implication that there is an absence of evidence of
BIPA consents, is false. In the two weeks prior to Plaintiffs
filing their reply brief, Paycor produced approximately 40 BIPA
consents. Plaintiffs should not be permitted to blatantly
misrepresent facts and evidence without Paycor having an
opportunity to respond.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs' reply brief cites to the deposition of
David Goodwin that was taken only after Paycor had already filed
its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs do so in an attempt to discredit Mr. Goodwin's
declaration filed in support of Paycor's opposition brief. Once
again, Plaintiffs grossly misrepresent the nature of Mr. Goodwin's
testimony in an attempt to mislead the Court without Paycor having
a fair opportunity to respond.
On Jan. 6, 2025, Paycor produced 3 BIPA consent forms from various
of its customers.
On Jan. 9, 2025, Paycor produced 39 additional BIPA consent forms
and/or BIPA privacy policies from various of its customers.
Paycor . operates as a software company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JLCKrQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Melissa A. Siebert, Esq.
Christopher S. Hennessy, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
123 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312)-474-7900
E-mail: msiebert@cozen.com
chennessy@cozen.com
PAYPAL INC: Wade Sues Over Poaching of Commissions
--------------------------------------------------
Victoria Wade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PAYPAL, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00701-NC (N.D. Cal.,
Jan. 21, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant ownership and
use of the Honey browser extension to poach commissions generated
by online content creators and personalities who use affiliate
links to generate and track online sales.
Honey is a browser extension that is marketed as a tool to help
consumers find and apply online coupons to save money. The pitch is
that when consumers are checking out to complete a purchase at an
online merchant, they click on Honey, and it will identify any
online coupon or promotional codes that may be applicable to the
purchase and apply them to save consumers money before they
complete the purchase.
What Honey does behind the scenes, however, is very different.
While pretending to be helpful to the consumer, Honey goes to work
under the hood to replace any affiliate link tracking cookies with
its own tracking cookie so it will appear to the merchant that
Honey originated the sale. Honey then takes the commission,
unbeknownst to the consumer, affiliate or vendor, depriving the
affiliate of the fruits of their marketing efforts. This conduct
has caused significant financial harm to Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals who rely on affiliate marketing for income,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an online influencer who utilizes affiliate
marketing links to earn commissions by promoting products and
directing her audience to merchant websites.
PayPal is a global financial technology company with a primary
focus in online payment systems, and it has become one of the
world's most recognized and trusted platforms for digital
payments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger N. Heller, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Phone: (415) 956-1000
Email: rheller@lchb.com
- and -
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
Beena M. McDonald, Esq.
Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
One Haverford Centre
361 Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Phone: (610) 642-8500
Email: steveschwartz@chimicles.com
bmm@chimicles.com
amk@chimicles.com
mnp@chimicles.com
- and -
James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 725-7700
Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com
PFIZER INC: Greeno Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Makishia Greeno, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia &
Upjohn Co., LLC, Pharmacia, LLC, Prasco, LLC d/b/a Prasco Labs,
Greenstone, LLC, Viatris, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00607 (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 23, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Pfizer Inc. -- https://www.pfizer.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation
headquartered at The Spiral in Manhattan, New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
117 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91105
Phone: (626) 550-1250
Fax: (619) 756-6991
Email: ekim@lcllp.com
PIEDMONT HEALTHCARE: T.D. Appeals Case Dismissal to 11th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
T.D., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their
motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled T.D., et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Piedmont Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-05416-TWT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
arises from the Defendant's alleged wrongful disclosure of the
Plaintiffs' confidential health information to Facebook through the
installation of several data collection and tracking tools on
Piedmont's website and its MyChart patient portal. The Plaintiffs
claim that a tracking tool called the Meta Pixel collected their
personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health
information (PHI) without their consent and then disclosed that
information to Facebook in violation of federal and state laws.
On Jan. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint,
which the Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim
on Feb. 2, 2024.
On Aug. 8, 2024, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. granted the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended
complaint.
On Sept. 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Aug. 8 Order, which Judge Thrash denied on
Dec. 10, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned T.D., et al. v. Piedmont
Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 25-10105, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on January 10, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants T.D., et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Elena Belov, Esq.
Britany Kabakov, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP, LLC
849 W. Webster Ave.
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (708) 529-5418
- and -
Andrew Ready Tate, Esq.
NEXUS CARIDADES ATTORNEYS INC.
44 BROAD St. NW, Ste. 200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 319-9915
- and -
Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
One US Bank Plz., Ste. 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
Defendant-Appellee PIEDMONT HEALTHCARE, INC. is represented by:
Ara K. Ayvazian, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON, LLP
100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 2900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 202-7100
- and -
Joshua Becker, Esq.
Caroline Gieser, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON, LLP
1230 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (470) 867-6010
- and -
Justin R. Donoho, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS, LLP
190 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 3700
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 499-6700
- and -
Alfred John Saikali, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON, LLP
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 3200
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-5171
PIM BRANDS: Faces Soto Suit Over Mislabeled Fruit Snacks
--------------------------------------------------------
RAMON SOTO and CHARLENE MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PIM BRANDS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00405 (N.D. Ill., January 14, 2025)
seeks to redress Defendant's false and misleading marketing
campaign for its "Fruit 'n Yogurt" product line which deceptively
suggests that their Fruit 'n Yogurt Snacks are made with yogurt,
when they are not, in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
and the New York General Business Law.
The Defendant's product packaging prominently features the product
name (Fruit 'n Yogurt Snacks) together with images of different
varieties of fresh fruit being covered in a creamy yogurt dip, the
visual impact of which is reinforced by the words "real fruit
surrounded by creamy yogurt." The ingredient lists on the packaging
for all three varieties of Snacks represent that the products
contain what Defendant misleadingly calls a "yogurt coating." In
reality, the "yogurt coating" contains several ingredients known to
be unhealthy for people to consume in their ultra-processed form,
including palm kernel oil, palm oil, titanium dioxide, carnauba wax
(as used to polish cars), spirulina extract, and sodium citrate,
says the suit.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a price premium
for the Product based upon Defendant's marketing and advertising
campaign, including its false and misleading representations and
omission on the Product's labels. Given that Plaintiffs and Class
Members paid a premium for the Product, the Plaintiffs and Class
Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid, the
suit alleges.
PIM Brands, Inc. markets, sells, and distributes various
fruit-based juices and food products, including Fruit 'n Yogurt
Snacks.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2400
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
- and -
James R. Denlea, Esq.
Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
Craig M. Cepler, 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
E-mail: jdenlea@denleacarton.com
jcarton@denleacarton.com
ccepler@denleacarton.com
cfriesen@denleacarton.com
PINNACLE WEST: Skrtich Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jerome M. Skrtich, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01753-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
-- certifying the proposed Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or
(B), (b)(2) or (b)(3) consisting of:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan who began
receiving a JSA after Nov. 1, 2016 whose monthly joint and
survivor annuity ("JSA") benefit would be greater if
calculated using the Applicable Mortality Table as defined in
Internal Revenue Code section 417(e)(3)(B) in the year of the
participant's Benefit Commencement Date and the Applicable
Interest Rate as defined in Internal Revenue Code section
417(e)(3)(C) from the October of the year preceding the
participant's Benefit Commencement Date."
Excluded from the Class are Plan participants receiving an
"Over/Under" form of payment under section 6.7 of the Plan,
The Defendants, and any individuals who are subsequently to be
determined to be fiduciaries of the Plans.
-- appointing the plaintiffs as class representatives, and
-- pursuant to Rule 23(g), appointing Motley Rice and IKR as
Class Counsel and Keller Rohrback L.L.P. as local counsel.
The Plaintiffs allege that Pinnacle West violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") by paying JSAs that are
too low.
Pinnacle provides retail and wholesale electric services primarily
in the state of Arizona.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LabbKn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
M. Zane Johnson, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 218-2720
E-mail: dneedham@motleyrice.com
zjohnson@motleyrice.com
- and -
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Christopher M. Barrett
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
cbarrett@ikrlaw.com
- and -
Ron Kilgard, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 248-0088
Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com
PINTO VALLEY MINING: Valtierra Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Valtierra III, Individually and for Others Similarly
Situated v. Pinto Valley Mining Corp., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00184-JJT (D. Ariz., Jan. 21, 2025), is brought to
recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Valtierra and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than
40 hours a workweek. However, Pinto Valley does not pay Valtierra
and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked,
including overtime hours. Rather, Pinto Valley requires Valtierra
and the other Hourly Employees to gather tools and equipment
necessary to perform their job duties, suit out in protective
clothing and safety gear necessary to safely perform their job
duties, while on Pinto Valley's premises, all prior to being "on
the clock."
Additionally, Pinto Valley does not pay Valtierra and the other
Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of
pay--based on all remuneration--for the hours they work in excess
of 40 a workweek. Instead, Pinto Valley pays Valtierra and the
other Hourly Employees non-discretionary production and sign on
bonuses that Pinto Valley fails to include in their regular rates
of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rates of pay
(Pinto Valley's "bonus pay scheme"). Pinto Valley's bonus pay
scheme violates the FLSA by failing to compensate Valtierra and the
other Hourly Employees at 1.5 times their regular rates of
pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of
40 a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as one of its Hourly
Employees in Arizona.
Pinto Valley "is an open-pit mine located at the west end of the
historic Globe-Miami mining district of central Arizona."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602.328.0262
Facsimile: 602.926.1479
Email: srandall@randallslaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713.352.1100
Facsimile: 713.352.3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713.877.8788
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Crockran Sues Over Data Security Failures
---------------------------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN CROCKRAN, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian
of her minor child, John Doe, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00171-JDP (E.D. Cal., January 14, 2025), arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information and personal health information from
criminals.
On December 28, 2024, PowerSchool learned that a hacker illegally
accessed the private information of employees and students from
customers worldwide by exploiting the user account of a PowerSchool
technical support employee. The cybersecurity hack resulted in the
hacker gaining unauthorized access and downloading millions of
records from schools worldwide from December 19, 2024, to December
24, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy,
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and unjust enrichment.
Headquartered in Folsom, CA, PowerSchool operates an education
technology platform specializing in data collection, storage, and
analytics. Its primary customers are schools and school districts.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
1650 W. 82nd Street, Suite 880
Bloomington, MN 55431
Telephone: (612) 778-9595
E-mail: rpeterson@4-justice.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Campbell Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICKOLAUS CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC.; and
POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case 2:25-at-00131 (E.D. Cal.,
Jan. 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for their
failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information including, but not limited to full names, Social
Security numbers, grades, email addresses, telephone numbers,
addresses, dates of birth, protected health information including
medical information (collectively, "Private Information").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required, and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.
As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized
criminal third party, alleges the suit.
PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software for K-12
education. The Company offers student information systems,
enrollment, unified classroom, unified administration, unified
talent, unified insights, and more. PowerSchool Holdings conducts
businesses in North America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
Email: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
- and -
Neil Swartzberg, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
55 Montgomery Street, Suite 1205
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
Email: nswartzberg@pwfirm.com
- and -
Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Email: clebsock@hausfeld.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Schwartz Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JONNA SCHWARTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:25-at-00097 (E.D. Cal., January 16, 2025) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other
individuals who had their sensitive personal information disclosed
to unauthorized third parties during a data breach compromising
Powerschool in December 2024.
In December 2024, cybercriminals accessed Defendant's network and
accessed the private information of Plaintiff and the putative
class including "phone book" information such as names, email
addresses, phone numbers, mailing addresses, but also includes
highly sensitive information including SSNs, passwords, and other
highly sensitive information, and in some cases, health-related
information.
As a result of Powerschool's failure to ensure that its impacted
systems and servers were protected and secured, the data breach
occurred. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff's and Class
members' privacy has been invaded, their personal information is
now in the hands of unknown third parties, they face a
substantially increased risk of identity theft and fraud, and they
must take immediate and time-consuming action to protect themselves
from such identity theft and fraud, the suit says.
The Plaintiff is a teacher in the Helena Public Schools who
entrusted her personal information to Powerschool and is a victim
of the data breach.
Powerschool Holdings, Inc. is a provider of cloud-based software to
the K-12 education market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Margot Cutter, Esq.
CUTTER LAW, PC
401 Watt Ave.
Sacramento, CA 95864
Telephone: (916) 290-9400
Facsimile: (916) 588-9314
E-mail: mcutter@cutterlaw.com
- and -
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505-4521
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
John Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Telephone: (406) 839-9091
E-mail: john@lawmontana.com
- and -
Raph Graybill, Esq.
GRAYBILL LAW FIRM
300 4th Street North
Great Falls, MT 59403
Telephone: (406) 452-8566
E-mail: raph@graybilllawfirm.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Greci Alleges Unlawful Personal Info Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT GRECI, L.G., DAVID BROWNLEE, AND A.B., individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00208-CKD
(E.D. Cal., January 14, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure
to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and
practices to protect their users' personal information in violation
of the California Consumer Privacy Act.
Defendant PowerSchool is a provider of cloud-based software for
K-12 education in the U.S. PowerSchool collects and maintains
highly sensitive personal identifiable information for more than 60
million students, parents, and school faculty worldwide.
PowerSchool acquires the PII through its educational technology
products that it sells to schools and school districts.
On December 28, 2024, PowerSchool lost control of this PII when it
was stolen by hackers, who accessed the PII through corrupted login
credentials and negligent website design. PowerSchool failed to
maintain reasonable security safeguards and protocols to protect
its users' PII. For example, it appears that none of the
information accessed in the data breach was encrypted. PowerSchool
also lacked proper controls to determine which students, parents,
and faculty were impacted by the Data Breach, as it was unable to
alert impacted individuals for nearly 10 days, the suit asserts.
As a result of the misconduct alleged herein, the Defendant was
negligent and violated the CCPA.
Plaintiff Scott Greci is the father and legal guardian of Plaintiff
L.G. At all relevant times, he was a resident of Louisiana. During
the relevant period, his child attended a school in the Ascension
Parish School District that used PowerSchool products.
Plaintiff David Brownlee is the father and legal guardian of
Plaintiff A.B. At all relevant times, he was a resident of
California. His child attends a school in the San Diego Unified
School District that uses PowerSchool products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 W. Broadway, Ste. 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
E-mail: lindner@hartleyllp.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Greci Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT GRECI, L.G. DAVID BROWNLEE, AND A.B., individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-00083 (E.D.
Cal., January 14, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to maintain
reasonable security safeguards and protocols to protect its users'
personally identifiable information.
On December 28, 2024, the Defendant lost control of this PII when
it was stolen by hackers, who accessed the PII through corrupted
login credentials and negligent website design. Defendant lacked
proper controls to determine which students were impacted by the
data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek redress for
Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence and
for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act.
Headquartered in Folsom, CA, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. provides
cloud-based software for K-12 education in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 W. Broadway, Ste. 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Habbal and Afzal Sue Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RATIB HABBAL, RUSHDA AFZAL, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:25-at-00075 (E.D. Cal., January 14,
2025) arises from failure to adequately secure and safeguard
Plaintiffs' and the Class's confidential and sensitive
information.
According to Defendant, on or about December 28, 2024, the
Defendant became aware that an unauthorized actor gained access to
PowerSchool's network through unauthorized access to certain
information throughout one of its customer support portals,
PowerSource. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now assert claims for
negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract.
Headquartered in Folsom, CA, PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. provides
cloud-based software for K-12 education in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: White Balks at Compromised Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael White, on behalf of himself and as parent and guardian of
his minor children, Jane Doe and Mary Doe, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00207-DAD-CSK (E.D. Cal., January 15,
2025) seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption
of reasonable and necessary data security practices to protect the
private information in PowerSchool's custody and prevent future
data breaches.
On or around January 7, 2025, PowerSchool confirmed that it
experienced a cybersecurity incident that allowed cybercriminals to
access personal data of students and teachers in elementary,
middle, and high school districts across the United States.
According to PowerSchool, the cybercriminals accessed PowerSchool's
customers' clients' highly sensitive information including their
names, addresses, Social Security numbers, medical information, and
other unspecified personally identifiable information.
The Plaintiff, his minor children, and Class Members, face a
substantially increased and certainly impending risk of fraud,
identity theft, intrusion into medical information,
misappropriation of health insurance benefits, private information
being shared on the dark web, and other forms of criminal activity.
The risk of this harm may remain for the rest of Plaintiff's, his
minor children's, and Class Members' lives, says the suit.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, his minor children, and all
others similarly situated, therefore brings claims for (i)
negligence; (ii) negligence per se; (iii) breach of implied
contract; (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; (v) invasion of privacy;
(vi) declaratory judgement; and (vii) unjust enrichment.
PowerSchool is an education technology platform that specializes in
data collection, storage, and analytics and offers its specialized
services primarily to schools and school districts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis Stewart, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 987-4250
E-mail: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Gabrielle M. Kolb, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
gkolb@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Jonathan R. Marx, Esq.
CHALMERS ADAMS BACKER & KAUFMANN, PLLC
204 N. Person St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 701-0125
E-mail: jmarx@chalmersadams.com
- and -
Chuck Gabriel, Esq.
CHALMERS ADAMS BACKER & KAUFMANN, PLLC
13200 Strickland Rd., Suite 114-177
Raleigh, NC 27613
Telephone: (770) 364-2789
Office: (919) 803-2635
Facsimile: (678) 735-5905
PREMIER NUTRITION: Seeks More Time to File Petition in Montera Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, formerly known as JOINT JUICE, INC.,
filed on January 10, 2025, a request to extend the time to file a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under
Case No. 24-671, seeking a review of the ruling of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case captioned
Mary Beth Montera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, vs. Premier Nutrition Corporation, f/k/a Joint
Juice, Inc., Case Nos. 22-16375, 22-16622. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, formerly known
as JOINT JUICE, INC., is represented by:
Aaron D. Van Oort, Esq.
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South 7th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Email: aaron.vanoort@faegredrinker.com
PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION: Sanders Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primeflight Aviation
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Cassandra Denise Sanders, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Primeflight Aviation Services, Inc., Case No. 25STCV01703 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 22, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
PrimeFlight Aviation Services -- https://www.primeflight.com/ --
provides air carriers and airports with a wide range of aircraft,
passenger and security services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Fax: 310-300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Henry G. Glitz, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd., Fl. 1
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4973
Phone: 310-438-5555
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Mislabels Skincare Retinol Products, Kobus Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE KOBUS; NIESHA LEWIS; MARY DEVANEY SHERENGO; ERNELL VANCE; and
NICOLE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00770 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2025) alleges that the
Defendant is engaged in deceptive and misleading advertisement of
its Retinol Rinse-Off Cleansers.
According to the complaint, P&G exploits consumers' perception of
retinol's benefits and their lack of knowledge about how retinol
works by deceptively advertising and selling an array of retinol
facial and skin cleansers that purport to deliver the commonly
understood dermatologic benefits of retinol—but are rinsed off
right away, therefore minimizing their contact time with the target
organ, in this case the skin. These cleansers are intended to be
used like soap: applied and then washed off.
Washing off retinol within seconds after application means the
retinol will not and cannot provide the advertised benefits.
Further, retinol is a relatively unstable chemical. It must be
properly packaged, shipped, and stored, otherwise it loses its
efficacy. P&G does not properly package, ship or store the subject
retinol products. As a result, by the time a consumer purchases the
subject products, the retinol is no longer active. The retinol
containing rinse-off cleansers do not provide the skincare benefits
associated with topically applied vitamin A.
The Procter & Gamble Company manufactures and markets consumer
products. The Company provides products in the laundry and
cleaning, paper, beauty care, food and beverage, and health care
segments. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Thomas J. O'reardon II Esq.
James M. Davis, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
Email: tblood@bholaw.com
toreardon@bholaw.com
jdavis@bholaw.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Pettitt Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jacquiline Pettitt, on behalf of Plaintiff and
the class members v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING LLC, Case
No. 2024 CH 10854 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Jan. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-00800.
The Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract claim and claims arising
under the Illinois Prizes and Gifts Act ("IPGA"), and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
P. Russell Perdew
Alyssa Gregory
TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP
111 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 443-1712
Email: Rusty.Perdew@troutman.com
Alyssa.Gregory@troutman.com
RALEY'S: Smith Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Saundra Smith, as an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RALEY'S, a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV022838 was removed
from the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on Jan. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00140.
The Plaintiff alleges Defendants had a "consistent policy of
failing to pay Employees for all hours worked." The Plaintiff
alleges that class members "regularly worked shifts greater than
five (5) hours and greater than 10 hours" and "were consistently
denied" meal periods. The Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants had a
consistent policy of not paying Employees wages for all hours
worked including time off the clock working 'pre shift' and
'post-shift' without compensation by completing tasks before
clocking in and after clocking out, waiting in line to access time
clocks in order to clock in at the start of shifts, and being
required to respond to phone calls and texts received while
off-the-clock." The Plaintiff's Eighth Cause of Action alleges
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in writing to
class members.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jon D. Meer, Esq.
Paul J. Leaf, Esq.
Justin J. Jackson, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com
pleaf@seyfarth.com
jujackson@seyfarth.com
- and -
Natalie C. Kreeger, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
Phone: (916) 448-0159
Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
Email: nkreeger@seyfarth.com
RAPHAEL WASHINGTON: McCarren Bid for Appointment of Counsel Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DAVID MCCARREN,
MAURICE ALLEN-JULIUS STEWART, LEVERTIS RILEY, IV, and WALTER
GALLOWAY, v. RAPHAEL WASHINGTON, ROBERT DUNLAP, ANTHONY BOYER,
PAMELA DONOHO-ROSE, KARMEN RAMIREZ, KENNETH TOTH, TONIA WILLIAMS,
CIERRA CRAWFORD, and PRYOR, Case No. 2:23-cv-13129-BRM-APP (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Patti entered an order granting
Defendants' motion to sever misjoined Plaintiffs and denying
without prejudice Plaintiff McCarren's July 11, 2024 motion for
appointment of counsel.
The record indicates that the motion to sever was duly and
separately served on Plaintiffs Galloway and Stewart. To date,
neither Stewart nor Galloway have filed a response to the motion to
sever; they have only signed the renewed emergency motion for PI
and for a TRO. Accordingly, the Court may assume Stewart and
Galloway do not oppose Defendants' motion to sever
For the time being, McCarren's July 11, 2024 motion for appointment
of counsel is denied without prejudice for the various reasons
stated in this Court's Feb. 13, 2024 order denying the four
Plaintiffs' earlier motion for the appointment of counsel.
The Plaintiffs' factual allegations stem from the onset of the
Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and concern lack of in-person visitation,
outside and inside recreation, fresh-air, proper dental care, phone
slots, and priority mail for indigent inmates, as well as
stockpiling mail, storing notarized documents, and not providing
"certified trust account statements."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sf0Slx at no extra
charge.[CC]
RASA WORLD: Hoven Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rasa World Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Amira Hoven, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Rasa World Group, Inc., Case
No. 0:25-cv-60121-DSL (S.D. Fla., Jan. 21, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
RASA World Group, Inc. -- https://rasa.world/ -- is a
next-generation entertainment company with seasoned tech and
entertainment executives backed by the most prominent unicorn
founders and investors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq.
Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq.
Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
REJOICE DELIVERS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Webb Due Jan. 16, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN WEBB, v. REJOICE
DELIVERS LLC, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-07221-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case management order as
follows:
Event Date Or Deadline
Last Day File Motion Class Jan. 16, 2026
Certification:
Last Day to Hear Dispositive Dec. 3, 2026 at 9:00 AM
Motions:
Final Pretrial Conference: Mar. 18, 2027 at 1:30 PM
Trial: Apr. 19, 2027 at 9:00 AM
On Jan. 16, 2025, the parties appeared before Judge Beth Labson
Freeman for a Case Management Conference. The Court ORDERS as
follows:
(1) The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case
unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
(2) The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or
other amendments to the pleadings, is sixty days after
entry of this order unless stated otherwise below.
(3) The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a
stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the
Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert
disclosure deadlines, is Jan. 31, 2025.
(4) All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are
referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge.
(5) Unless previously ordered or stipulated, the parties shall
meet and confer further in order to reach an agreement on
an ADR process within 10 days of the date of this Order.
Within that same time frame, the parties shall either (1)
file the form entitled "Stipulation and (Proposed) order
Selecting ADR Process" if an agreement is reached, or (2)
file the form entitled "Notice of Need of ADR Phone
Conference".
(6) The parties shall comply with the Court’s standing orders,
which are available on the Court’s website and in the
Clerk's Office.
Rejoice is an Amazon Delivery Service Partner operating out of San
Jose and covering the South East Bay.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oIN9DY at no extra
charge.[CC]
RISE INTERACTIVE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rise Interactive agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to
resolve claims it suffered a 2022 data breach resulting in the
potential unauthorized access to sensitive customer information.
The Rise Interactive settlement benefits individuals whom Rise
Interactive or Edgepark Medical Supplies notified that the November
2022 data breach potentially compromised their sensitive personal
information.
The Rise Interactive data breach reportedly exposed sensitive
personal information, such as names, email addresses, phone
numbers, provider information, diagnoses, expected delivery dates
and health insurance information. Plaintiffs in the data breach
class action lawsuit claim Rise Interactive failed to protect this
information through reasonable cybersecurity measures.
Rise Interactive is a digital marketing agency that provides
analytics, media, creative and technology services. Edgepark
Medical Supplies is a medical supply company that provides products
for diabetes, ostomy, incontinence, wound care and other
conditions.
Rise Interactive and Edgepark Medical Supplies haven't admitted any
wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data
breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Rise Interactive settlement, class members
can receive up to $250 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses
related to the data breach, such as bank fees, communication
charges, travel expenses, credit-related expenses and damages from
identity theft or fraud.
In addition, class members can receive a pro rata cash payment from
the settlement fund. These payments are estimated to be around $50
but may be higher or lower depending on the number of claims filed
with the settlement.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was Jan. 20, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the Rise Interactive data breach
settlement is scheduled for March 11, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Feb. 18, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whom RGH Enterprises Inc. d/b/a Edgepark Medical
Supplies or Rise Interactive Media & Analytics notified that a
November 2022 data breach potentially impacted their sensitive
personal information
Potential Award
Up to $300
Proof of Purchase
Receipts, bank statements, credit card statements, invoices or
other documentation of data breach-related losses
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
02/18/2025
Case Name
Roper, et al. v. Rise Interactive Media & Analytics LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01836, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois
Final Hearing
03/11/2025
Settlement Website
RiseSPISettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Rise Interactive Settlement
c/o Analytics Consulting LLC
PO Box 2009
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2009
RiseSPISettlement@NoticeAdministrator.com
(833) 594-4153
Class Counsel
Carl V Malmstrom
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
Defense Counsel
Timothy J Lowe
Jared Brown
MCDONALD HOPKINS PLC [GN]
ROSKAM FOODS: Mancillas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ROSKAM FOODS. The
case is styled as Angel Mancillas, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ROSKAM FOODS, ORGANIC MILLING
INC., Case No. 25STCV01695 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan.
21, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
ROSKAM FOODS -- https://roskamfoods.com/ -- is a food processing
company in Grand Rapids, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seung Lyun Yang, Esq.
THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC
355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 1450
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152
Phone: 213-985-1150
Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com
RUBY'S MIDTOWN: Trippett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ruby's Midtown, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00468 (S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2025) is a civil rights action
against Ruby's Midtown for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://www.rubyscafe.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts,
inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance
warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text
on graphics, and the requirement that the online reservation be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Ruby's Midtown's policies, practices, and procedures so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Ruby's Midtown, LLC operates the website that offers
Australian-inspired cuisine and a range of restaurant
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
RUBYCLAIRE BOUTIQUE: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUBYCLAIRE BOUTIQUE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00600 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2025) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.rubyclaireboutique.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
RubyClaire Boutique, Inc. provides jackets, shorts, pants, shoes,
and accessories. They offer products that include belts, hats,
bags, scarves, and jumpsuits. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SCALE AI: Schuster et al. Sue Over Unsafe Workplace Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA SCHUSTER, ANNA PENDLETON, HOWARD QUATTLEBAUM, XAVIER RETANA,
LATOYA HOWARD, and STEVE MCKINNEY, individually, and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SCALE AI, INC., a
corporation; SMART ECOSYSTEM, INC., a corporation; OUTLIER AI, INC,
a corporation; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-00620 (N.D. Cal., January 17, 2025) seeks to protect
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals from the
severe psychological harm caused by Defendants' negligence and
failure to ensure a safe workplace for thousands of contractors
exposed to violent and disturbing content.
As a result of constant and unmitigated exposure to highly toxic
and extremely disturbing Prompts and images through the Outlier
platform or other third-party platforms Defendants required
Plaintiffs to use, the Plaintiffs developed and suffered from
significant psychological distress and functional problems,
including depression symptoms, anxiety, nightmares, and problems
functioning in their work and relationships. Those who viewed
images of traumatic events such as rapes, assaults on children,
murders, and fatal car accidents developed PTSD.
On behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs bring this action to (1) ensure that Defendants cease
these unlawful and unsafe workplace practices and instead provide
independent contractors or "taskers" with safe tools, systems, and
access to confidential, ongoing, and as-needed mental health
support by trained professionals; and (2) to establish a medical
monitoring fund for assessing and providing mental health treatment
to the thousands of current and former taskers affected by
Defendants' unlawful practices.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Scale AI, Inc. is a data
annotation company that provides labeled data for training AI
applications. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
Christina Le, Esq.
Maxim Gorbunov, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com
cle@clarksonlawfirm.com
mgorbunov@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Ashley M. Boulton, Esq.
Czarina Ozari, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
95 3rd St, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 651-7990
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: aboulton@clarksonlawfirm.com
zozari@clarksonlawfirm.com
SEA WORLD: Bid to Remand Joseph Suit to State Court Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled STEVEN JOSEPH, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. SEA WORLD LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-01937-AJB-SBC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand case to state court.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Steven Joseph's motion to remand the
instant action to state court. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7.1.d.1, the Court finds the matter suitable for determination on
the papers.
On Sept. 16, 2024, the Plaintiff, a former non-exempt employee of
the Defendant, filed a putative wage and hour class action
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego, Case No. 24CU011286C, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees of the
Defendant, who worked in California.
The Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action: (1) Violation of
Unfair Competition Laws; (2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (3)
Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; (4) Failure to Provide
Required Meal Periods; (5) Failure to Provide Required Rest
Periods; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; (7)
Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses; (8) Failure
to Pay Wages When Due; and (9) Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages.
On Oct. 18, 2024, the Defendant removed this action from the San
Diego Superior Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 ("CAFA"). One week later, the Defendant filed its answer,
generally denying the allegations and raising affirmative
defenses.
On Nov. 15, 2024, the Plaintiff brought the instant motion to
remand. The Plaintiff contends the amount in controversy does not
meet or exceed CAFA's $5,000,000 amount in controversy requirement,
making remand required. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that
the declaration the Defendant included with its notice of removal
is "insufficient" and "unreliable."
The Plaintiff contends the Defendant's assumptions regarding
violation rate and wait time penalties are unreasonable. Finally,
the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant fails to meet its burden
as to any of his additional claims because the Defendant does not
analyze or provide support for the other eight claims meeting the
amount in controversy.
To support his arguments, the Plaintiff asserts that there is a
"strong presumption" that the amount in controversy is insufficient
to confer federal jurisdiction, essentially arguing that there is a
presumption against removal. In opposition, the Defendant argues
the Plaintiff's motion lacks merit because (1) there is no
antiremoval presumption in CAFA cases; (2) the Defendant's
calculations are supported by competent evidence sufficient to
prove the amount in controversy; and (3) the Defendant's
assumptions are reasonable based on the language of the Plaintiff's
complaint.
Judge Battaglia opines that the Plaintiff attempts to impose, both
explicitly in his legal standard and implicitly in his arguments, a
presumption against CAFA jurisdiction, relying on the exact case
law the Ninth Circuit has addressed as inapposite to CAFA, citing
Jauregui v. Roadrunner Transportation Servs., Inc., 28 F.4th 989,
993 (9th Cir. 2022).
In attempting to pigeon-hole the instant action into the
circumstances of other unpublished, district court cases, Judge
Battaglia says the Plaintiff makes incorrect factual statements. In
this action, the Defendant's notice of removal was supported by the
declaration of Christopher Hagerman, a Business Analyst working for
the Defendant. Hagerman avers that he reviewed records for each
non-exempt employee employed at SeaWorld San Diego from Sept. 16,
2021, to Sept. 25, 2024, and found that 9,193 non-exempt putative
class members were terminated during that time period, that those
individuals worked an average of 6.63 hours per day, and that they
earned an average hourly wage of $17.50.
The Defendant asserts, based on the unqualified allegations in the
Plaintiff's complaint, that it failed to pay each class member
their outstanding wages for the full 30-day statutory period--a
100% violation rate. Using these calculations, the Defendant
presents an amount in controversy totaling at least
$31,998,534.75.
Although the Plaintiff's complaint does not expressly assert that
all class members were not tendered all wages as required by law at
termination, the complaint asserts once that many were and
otherwise does not qualify or otherwise limit the putative class,
Judge Battaglia notes. The Court agrees with the Defendant that the
Plaintiff's broad language supports a 100% violation rate at this
time.
Judge Battaglia finds that Hagerman's declaration, the broad
language of the Plaintiff's complaint, and the Defendant's
reasonable assumptions derived therefrom provide sufficient
evidence to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy exceeds CAFA's minimum threshold. Hence, the
Defendant has met its burden to demonstrate that federal
jurisdiction is proper.
Judge Battaglia notes that the Plaintiff also asserts without any
legal basis that the case should be remanded because the Defendant
fails to analyze or place an amount in controversy as to any of his
additional claims. Judge Battaglia points out that the
jurisdictional requirement for the amount in controversy is based
on the action not on the individual claims, and that the
Plaintiff's argument fails.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion to
remand. The Court orders the parties to jointly contact Magistrate
Judge Steve B. Chu's chambers within three days of the electronic
docketing of this Order to request the Early Neutral Evaluation and
Case Management Conference be reset.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2ty56t5h from PacerMonitor.com.
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Gao and Gao Sue Over Nonpayment of Property Taxes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FEI GAO and JEAN GAO, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiffs v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00138-JRR (D. Md., January 14, 2025) arises from
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs' property taxes by the
deadline. Defendant's conduct has violated the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act.
The Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiffs' property taxes that
were due in July 2024--even though it has removed funds to pay
those taxes from Plaintiffs' escrow account. Moreover, the
Defendant's withdrawal of the funds from Plaintiffs' escrow account
but refusal to send them to Howard County for outstanding tax
payment also constitutes conversion. Additionally, the Defendant's
conduct has also violated several Maryland statutes, including the
Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act and the Maryland Consumer
Debt Collection Act, says the suit.
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is a mortgage loan servicing
company headquartered in Salt Lake, UT. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
J. Patrick McNichol, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selectquote Insurance
Services Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Friel, individually and
on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated
v. Selectquote Insurance Services Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00153-JFS
(M.D. Pa., Jan. 24, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Selectquote Insurance Services -- https://www.selectquote.com/ --
provides insurance agent and broker services. The Company offers
auto and home, life, and medical insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
403 South Allen Street, Suite 210
State College, PA 16801
Phone: (814) 234-2626
Fax: (814) 237-8700
Email: jjackson@bower-law.com
SELLARS ABSORBENT: Class Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted final approval
of the collective and class action settlement in the case captioned
as GEORGE BOERSCHINGER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SELLARS ABSORBENT MATERIALS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-CV-1365 (E.D. Wis.).
The Settlement Agreement is approved as a fair, reasonable, and
adequate resolution of a bona fide dispute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(e) and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.
The Settlement Agreement is binding on Named Plaintiff, Defendant,
and all members of the Settlement Class.
Named Plaintiff's released claims and those of all Settlement Class
members are dismissed with prejudice.
The FLSA claims of all putative FLSA Collective members who did not
affirmatively consent to join the FLSA collective, including all
participating WWPCL Class members who did not consent to join the
FLSA Collective, are dismissed without prejudice.
Named Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Service Award is granted
and a Service Award to Named Plaintiff in the amount of $5,000 is
approved.
Named Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs
is granted, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs to Class
counsel in the total amount of $42,500 is approved.
This matter is dismissed on the merits, with prejudice, and without
further costs to either party.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WF9fWy from PacerMonitor.com.
SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Baer Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit styled ROBERT BAER and ALFRED O'MEARA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v. SHIFT4 PAYMENTS, INC., and JARED ISAACMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-03206-JFL (E.D. Pa.).
Lead Plaintiff Robert Baer alleges that Shift4 implemented and then
defended a questionable accounting practice to inflate its share
price for the benefit of its CEO. However, after the SEC pressed
Shift4 on this practice, Shift4 retreated and issued a restatement,
which caused the share price to fall. The Plaintiff now brings this
lawsuit alleging securities fraud.
Shift4 is a publicly traded technology company, which provides,
among other things, integrated and mobile point-of-sale ("POS")
solutions. The company was founded in 1999 by its current Chief
Executive Officer Jared Isaacman. As Shift4's founder and CEO,
Isaacman has exercised significant influence over all matters
requiring stockholder approval, including the election and removal
of directors, the size of the board, and any approval of
significant corporate transactions, and continues to have
significant control over the Company's management and policies.
In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), the Plaintiff again paints
an unflattering portrait of Shift4's innerworkings and how Isaacman
uses this control. The Plaintiff alleges that Shift4 is a "boys'
club" where nepotism is rampant. Isaacman's older brother, Michael,
serves as Shift4's CCO, his father serves on the Board of
Directors, his personal pilot was promoted to Executive Vice
President of Payments and COO, and his unqualified friends are
placed in key leadership roles.
For instance, one non-party friend of Isaacman's was placed in Risk
despite knowing "nothing about Risk" and was fired after "he missed
identifying a significant risk that resulted in a loss to the
Company of over a million dollars." This attitude purportedly
trickled down through the ranks. The SAC describes an instance in
which the Chief of Accounting "promoted every manager on her
accounting team to director" so that they could attend a yearly
gathering reserved for high-level employees at the Sands-Wind Creek
Casino.
The Plaintiff also alleges that this lax attitude created an
environment, which was ripe for and tolerated fraud. The SAC
describes two particular instances in which Confidential Witness 2
("CW-2") approached Isaacman with concerns of client fraud, which
the CEO declined to address. In the first, CW-2 flagged an instance
of clear fraud related to a newly acquired point-of-sale brand and
asked that a hold be placed on its account. However, Isaacman
refused out of concern for the negative attention the hold would
bring to Shift4's new acquisition.
In the second, CW-2 flagged and then placed a hold on the suspect
transactions of Smiles II, a New Jersey nightclub. Smiles II was a
long-term client of Shift4, which went from registering
approximately $300,000 a month in Visa payments to $500,000 a
month, registering only pre-paid gift cards. CW-2's concern was
brought to the Vice President of Risk and to the Chief Payments
Officer before all agreed to bring the matter to the attention of
Joe Messina, the sales representative on the account and a member
of the purported "boys' club."
When Messina instructed CW-2 to remove the hold on the Smiles II
account, she refused. When the concern eventually reached Isaacman,
he too directed that CW-2 remove the hold. After the hold was
removed, owners and employees of Smiles II were later criminally
indicted over the matter.
As its founder and CEO, a great deal of Isaacman's considerable
fortune is tied to Shift4's share price. On June 5, 2020, Shift4
conducted its IPO, which Isaacman had personally worked on since
2018. The IPO was a success as Class A shares of Shift4 gained 46%
on their first day of trading. Isaacman personally benefitted as
well. The $100 million of Class C common stock he purchased
concurrent with the IPO was worth over $155 million when the market
closed on June 5th. Further, Isaacman and Shift4 entered into a new
and favorable employment agreement with equity-based compensation.
In September of 2020, Isaacman, through Rook Holdings, Inc., a
corporation wholly owned by him, entered into a first margin loan,
which was secured by shares of the Shift4's Class A and B common
stock. That first margin loan was repaid and replaced in March of
2021 when Shift4's share price was near its peak. However, not long
after, Shift4's share price began to tumble, reaching a low in July
of 2022.
By then, the pledged shares -- once worth almost $806 million on
March 24, 2021 -- would have been worth about $294 million. Because
of this falling share price, Isaacman purportedly faced the threat
of a margin call on the loan. Thus, the Plaintiff alleges, Isaacman
and Shift4 took measures designed to keep the share price afloat
and relieve the pressure of the call.
The vehicle for the fraud alleged in this case is the
misclassification of cash payments associated with customer
acquisition costs which began as early as 2018 in the run-up to the
IPO. Judge Leeson notes that much of the allegations related to the
misclassification are unchanged from the First Amended Complaint.
To reiterate, to grow its business, Shift4 must establish new
merchant relationships. To do so, Shift4 has stated that it relies
on third parties to find new relationships on its behalf. For each
deal sold, the third party was paid, in part, an upfront processing
bonus. That upfront payment was recorded on the balance sheet as a
separate line item, "Capitalized acquisition cost, net" and
subsequently amortized on a straight-line basis over the estimated
life of the merchant relationship within cost of sales on Shift4's
statement of income.
The Plaintiff contends, among other things, that this practice was
incorrect and misrepresented Shift4's statement of cash flows.
On Aug. 18, 2023, the Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit arising
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On Nov. 3,
2023, the Court consolidated the related actions, appointed Robert
Baer Lead Plaintiff, and appointed Pomerantz LLP and The Schall Law
Firm as Co-Lead Counsel. On Jan. 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the
First Amended Complaint. On Feb. 19, 2024, the Defendants moved to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
In its Aug. 14, 2024, Opinion the Court granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint without prejudice. On Sept. 3, 2024, the Plaintiff filed
a Second Amended Complaint. On Oct. 1, 2024, the Defendants filed
the instant Motion to Dismiss.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to plead scienter.
Since the Plaintiff has failed to establish an element of the
claim, the Court dismisses Count I. Finally, because this is the
Plaintiff's third attempt at stating a claim, the Court will
dismiss the claim with prejudice.
Judge Leeson also finds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege any
primary violation; accordingly, he cannot establish control person
liability. This claim too will be dismissed with prejudice.
For reasons set forth in this Opinion, the Court grants the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/a5svewyd from PacerMonitor.com.
SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Parties in Baer Suit Must File Briefs by Feb. 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ROBERT BAER and ALFRED O'MEARA, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v.
SHIFT4 PAYMENTS, INC., and JARED ISAACMAN, Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-03206-JFL (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued
an Order ruling that:
1. the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with
prejudice; and
2. not later than Feb. 13, 2025, the parties will file briefs
regarding compliance with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Any response thereto will be filed not
later than Feb. 27, 2025.
Lead Plaintiff Robert Baer alleges that Shift4 implemented and then
defended a questionable accounting practice to inflate its share
price for the benefit of its CEO. However, after the SEC pressed
Shift4 on this practice, Shift4 retreated and issued a restatement,
which caused the share price to fall. The Plaintiff now brings this
lawsuit alleging securities fraud.
Shift4 is a publicly traded technology company, which provides,
among other things, integrated and mobile point-of-sale ("POS")
solutions. The company was founded in 1999 by its current Chief
Executive Officer Jared Isaacman. As Shift4's founder and CEO,
Isaacman has exercised significant influence over all matters
requiring stockholder approval, including the election and removal
of directors, the size of the board, and any approval of
significant corporate transactions, and continues to have
significant control over the Company's management and policies.
In the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), the Plaintiff again paints
an unflattering portrait of Shift4's innerworkings and how Isaacman
uses this control. The Plaintiff alleges that Shift4 is a "boys'
club" where nepotism is rampant. Isaacman's older brother, Michael,
serves as Shift4's CCO, his father serves on the Board of
Directors, his personal pilot was promoted to Executive Vice
President of Payments and COO, and his unqualified friends are
placed in key leadership roles.
On Aug. 18, 2023, the Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit arising
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On Nov. 3,
2023, the Court consolidated the related actions, appointed Robert
Baer Lead Plaintiff, and appointed Pomerantz LLP and The Schall Law
Firm as Co-Lead Counsel. On Jan. 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the
First Amended Complaint. On Feb. 19, 2024, the Defendants moved to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
In its Aug. 14, 2024, Opinion the Court granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint without prejudice. On Sept. 3, 2024, the Plaintiff filed
a Second Amended Complaint. On Oct. 1, 2024, the Defendants filed
the instant Motion to Dismiss.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to plead scienter.
Since the Plaintiff has failed to establish an element of the
claim, the Court dismisses Count I. Finally, because this is the
Plaintiff's third attempt at stating a claim, the Court dismisses
the claim with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s4eekw7 from PacerMonitor.com.
SONDERMIND INC: TikTok Software Collects Info, Schallert Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE SCHALLERT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONDERMIND INC., a Colorado
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-00383 (C.D. Cal., January 15, 2025) seeks statutory damages
for Defendants' alleged violations of the California Trap and Trace
Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant uses a trap and trace
process by deploying the TikTok Software on its website,
www.sondermind.com, because the TikTok Software is designed to
capture the phone number, email, routing, addressing and other
signaling information of website visitors. As such, the TikTok
Software is designed precisely to identify the source of the
incoming electronic and wire communications to the website in
violation of the state law. The Defendant also did not obtain
consent from Plaintiff or any of the Class Members before using
trap and trace technology to identify visitors of its website, says
the suit.
SonderMind Inc. is a Colorado corporation that owns, operates,
and/or controls the website, an online platform that offers mental
health services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
STANLEY STEEMER: Data Breach Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement in the
consolidated class action entitled In re Stanley Steemer
International Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:23-cv-3932-SDMEDP
(S.D. Ohio).
Plaintiffs Marc Huber, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and Defendant Stanley Steemer International,
Inc. have entered into a Settlement Agreement that settles the
litigation and provides for a complete dismissal with prejudice of
the claims asserted against Defendant in the action on the terms
and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, subject to
the approval of the Court.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and (e), the Court certifies,
solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, a
Settlement Class in this matter defined as follows:
All individuals residing in the United States who were sent
notification by Stanley Steemer that their Personal Information was
potentially compromised in the Data Incident
The Settlement Class includes approximately 67,921 people. The
Settlement Class specifically excludes: (1) the judges presiding
over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) Stanley
Steemer, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which Stanley Steemer or its
parents have a controlling interest and their current or former
officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit
a valid a Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline.
Additionally, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and (e), the
Court certifies, solely for the purposes of effectuating the
proposed settlement, an Employee Subclass in this matter defined as
members of the Settlement Class who are/were employees of Stanley
Steemer, and a Customer Subclass in this matter defined as members
of the Settlement Class who are/were customers of Stanley Steemer.
Marc Huber and Phillip Seabrook are provisionally designated and
appointed as the Class Representatives. The Court provisionally
finds that the Class Representatives are similarly situated to
absent Settlement Class Members and therefore typical of the
Settlement Class and that they will be adequate Class
Representatives.
The Court finds that the following counsel are experienced and
adequate counsel and are provisionally designated as Settlement
Class Counsel: Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile, P.A. and Raina
Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC.
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the
Settlement Agreement, as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the
Settlement Class, the Employee Subclass and the Customer Subclass,
subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing to
be conducted. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Parties have shown that the Court will likely
be able to approve the proposal under Rule 23(e)(2), which requires
the Court to consider the following factors in determining whether
a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate:
(a) have the class representatives and class counsel adequately
represented the class;
(b) was the proposal negotiated at arm's length;
(c) is the relief provided for the class adequate, taking into
account:
(i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal;
(ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing
relief to the class, including the method of processing classmember
claims;
(iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorneys' fees,
including timing of payment; and
(iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule
23(e)(3); and
(d) does the proposal treat class members equitably relative to
each other.
The Court finds:
(a) Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have adequately
represented the Settlement Class, the Employee
Subclass and the Customer Subclass;
(b) the Settlement is the result of arm's length negotiations
conducted under the auspices of Hon. Morton Denlow (Ret.);
(c) the relief provided is adequate when considering:
(i) the substantial costs, risks, and delay of continued
litigation,
(ii) the proposed method for processing Settlement Class Members'
claims and distributing relief to eligible claimants is standard in
data breach class action settlements and has been found to be
effective in these types of settlements, and
(iii) the conditions under which the Parties may terminate the
Settlement is standard and has no negative impact on the fairness
of the Settlement; and
(d) the Settlement treats Settlement Class Members equitably
relative to one another.
A Final Approval Hearing shall be held at 9:30 a.m. on May 27,
2025, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, at the Courthouse located at 85 Marconi
Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio 43215 for the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms
and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class, the Employee
Subclass and the Customer Subclass;
(b) to determine whether a proposed Judgment substantially in
the form annexed to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit 6 should be
entered dismissing the Action with prejudice against Defendant;
(c) to determine whether the motion of Settlement Class Counsel
for a Fee Award and Costs should be approved;
(d) to determine whether the motion of the Class Representatives
for Service Award Payment(s) should be approved; and
(e) to consider any other matters that may be properly brought
before the Court in connection with the Settlement.
The preliminarily approved Settlement shall be administered
according to its terms pending the Final Approval Hearing.
Deadlines arising under the Settlement Agreement and this Order
include but are not limited to:
Notice Deadline: 30 Days after Preliminary Approval Order
Motions for Service Award Payment(s) and Attorneys' Fee Award
and Costs: 30 days after Notice Deadline
Opt-Out Deadline: 60 Days after Notice Date
Objection Deadline: 60 Days after Notice Date
Claims Deadline: 60 Days after Notice is sent to the Settlement
Class
A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c2Egeq from PacerMonitor.com.
STIIIZY INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Hatch Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
DONALD HATCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STIIIZY, INC.; CV WELLNESS, LLC dba
AUTHENTIC 209, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00554 (C.D. Cal., Jan.
22, 2025) is an action arising out of a cyberattack and data breach
where unauthorized third-party criminals stole the highly sensitive
personal information of Plaintiff and approximately 380,000
similarly situated customers of Defendants (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, the Data Breach was a
direct result of the Defendants' failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to
protect PII from the foreseeable threat of a cyberattack.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately
380,000 Class Members have suffered concrete harm and are now
exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity
theft for a period of years, if not decades. Furthermore, the
Plaintiff and the Class Members must now and in the future closely
monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft,
at their own expense.
Stiiizy, Inc. is a US cannabis brand, selling pod system and
portfolio of cannabis products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James F. Clapp, Esq.
Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq.
CLAPP & LAUINGER LLP
701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
Carlsbad, California 92011
Telephone: (760) 209-6565 ext. 101
Facsimile: (760) 209-6565
Email: jclapp@clapplegal.com
mlauinger@clapplegal.com
- and -
Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
WYNNE LAW FIRM
80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3-G
Larkspur, CA 94939
Telephone: (415) 461-6400
Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
TAXACT INC: Final OK of Smith-Washington Suit Settlement Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KIRKHAM, et al., objectors, are taking an appeal from court
orders in the lawsuit entitled Nicolas C. Smith-Washington, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TAXACT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00830-VC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Alameda County Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is
brought against the Defendant for sharing sensitive taxpayer data
with Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google LLC and its affiliates without
consent.
On July 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for approval of
attorneys' fees, expense award, and service awards.
On Oct. 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval
of class action settlement.
On Dec. 30, 2024, Judge Vince Chhabria entered an Order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action
settlement and granting in part motion for attorneys' fees.
The appellate case is captioned Smith-Washington, et al. v. TaxAct,
Inc., Case No. 25-128, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on January 8, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 13,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on January 24,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on February 21, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on March 26, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on April 28, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees NICOLAS C. SMITH-WASHINGTON, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Emily Gerrick, Esq.
GERSTEIN HARROW, LLP
1001 G. Street, NW Suite 400E
Washington, DC 20001
- and -
Jason Seth Harrow, Esq.
GERSTEIN HARROW, LLP
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90025
- and -
Warren David Postman, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN, LLC
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
- and -
Ethan Henry Ames, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN, LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60606
- and -
Polina Brandler, Esq.
Ari N. Cherniak, Esq.
Julian Ari Hammond, Esq.
HAMMOND LAW, PC
1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 600
Tacoma, WA 98402
Objectors-Appellants JAMES KIRKHAM, et al. are represented by:
James Goslee, Esq.
COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-3500
Defendant-Appellee TAXACT, INC. is represented by:
Sheila Anil Armbrust, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
- and -
James Ducayet, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
1 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
TAYLOR & HART: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Taylor & Hart Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00578 (N.D.
Ill., Jan. 21, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Dan Post Boot provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://www.taylorandhart.com (hereinafter
"Taylorandhart.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of
full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Taylorandhart.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Taylor & Hart's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Taylor & Hart provides to the public a website known as
Taylorandhart.com which provides consumers with access to an array
of goods and services, including, the ability to view different
types of fine jewelry, including rings, wedding bands, earrings,
bracelets, necklaces, custom jewelry, and gemstone rings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Phone: +1 (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
TERRY S. JOHNSON: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Beers Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joe L. Webster of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina recommended that
Defendant Terry S. Johnson's Motion for Summary Judgment in the
case captioned as ANDREW S. BEERS and KATHERINE WHITE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
TERRY S. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as SHERIFF OF ALAMANCE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant, Case No. 1:23CV367 (M.D.N.C.) be
denied.
On May 5, 2023, Plaintiffs Andrew S. Beers and Katherine White
initiated this action. On Oct. 16, 2023, they filed an Amended
Complaint.
As set out in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs bring two counts:
(1) a collective action against Defendant for willful violation
of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), and
(2) a class action, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, against Defendant for breach of contract under
North Carolina law.
FLSA
Specifically, since 2019, Beers, a Detention Officer, and White, a
Detention Corporal, have both been employed as 12 Hour Employees
who are paid monthly for their work at the Alamance County
Detention Center, where they perform various job duties related to
the custody, care, and security of inmates.
Detention Officers may work additional time, including time
scheduled for training, but Plaintiffs allege that regardless of
the actual number of hours Detention Officers work under a 14-day
rotating schedule, Defendant only pays them 173.33 hours per month
for these hours. The Rotating Schedule consists of two days on,
followed by two days off, followed by three days on, followed by
two days off, followed by two days on, followed by three days off.
Each shift amounts to 12.25 hours, and Detention Officers are
scheduled to work between 14-17 shifts per month under the Rotating
Schedule, which, depending on the rotations, equates to between
171.5 hours and 208.25 hours per month.
Plaintiffs also allege that Detention Officers are entitled to paid
holidays, earn paid vacation days and paid sick time according to a
formula applicable to Alamance County employees, earn compensatory
time pursuant to Section 7(k) of the FLSA, and earn two hours of
paid Birthday pay per year. Plaintiffs allege that when Detention
Officers utilize Vacation Leave, Holiday pay, Sick Leave and/or
Birthday pay to cover absences for Rotating Schedule work hours
exceeding 173.33 per month, Defendant fails to pay Detention
Officers all earned and accrued benefits. Both Beers and White
experienced inadequate compensation as a result of this failure.
They allege that Defendant both fails to pay Plaintiffs the correct
pay rate for the hours of Comp Time they utilize and fails to pay
them any compensation for the hours of Comp Time and paid leave
they utilize in excess of 173.33 hours per month.
Defendant does not include the shift differential when calculating
rates of pay for the accrued compensatory time off for the Comp
Time Taken Hourly that Defendant pays Detention Officers.
Plaintiffs also allege that Detention Officers earn paid overtime
for additional hours worked outside of the Rotating Schedule, which
Defendant denotes as Detention OT or OT 1.5. They allege that
Defendant does not include Detention OT hours worked in its FLSA
Section 7(k) calculation of hours worked in a 14-day period for
purposes of determining when Detention Officers are eligible for
Comp Time by exceeding the 86-hour threshold.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's violations of the FLSA were
willful and seek an award of liquidated damages for unpaid
compensation, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.
In response to Plaintiffs' allegations, Defendant argues that
Detention Officers are paid utilizing a compensation structure
based on the fluctuating workweek method set forth in 29 C.F.R.
Sec. 778.114 and contends that the pay plan was lawful and in
compliance with the FLSA and all applicable rules and regulations.
Accordingly, Defendant has denied Plaintiffs' claims and any
resulting liability. Defendant now seeks summary judgment in his
favor on Plaintiffs' claims that he violated the FLSA and North
Carolina contract law.
Plaintiffs argue that the FWW is inapplicable to them because they
are employees who receive Comp Time, and that the FWW is irrelevant
to Plaintiffs' lawsuit. Judge Webster disagrees. However, the fact
that the FWW method applies does not necessarily make it
appropriate. Judge Webster finds that a genuine issue of material
fact exists as to said understanding and thus as to whether the FWW
is an appropriate compensation method.
Defendant argues that he has paid Plaintiffs and collective members
properly pursuant to the FWW method and the FLSA. In pertinent
part, Defendant argues that there is a clear mutual understanding
that Defendant will pay Plaintiffs a fixed weekly salary regardless
of hours worked. Plaintiffs disagree. They argue that Defendant
cannot avail itself of the FWW method because it does not satisfy
its requirements, including the requirement of said clear mutual
understanding.
Judge Webster recommends that Defendant's motion for summary
judgment as to Plaintiffs' FLSA claims should be denied.
Breach of Contract
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are at-will employees and that the
terms of Plaintiffs' employment are not subject to a contract.
Defendant argues in the alternative that even if a contract did
exist, Plaintiffs have received all benefits owed to them.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant and Plaintiffs are parties to a
unilateral contract that requires Defendant to pay all wages
promised following the performance of an employee's job duties.
Plaintiffs further argue that when they used accrued paid leave to
cover an absence for a scheduled work shift over 173.33 hours,
Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiffs to provide these
paid accrued and deferred benefits by failing to pay them at their
equivalent hourly rates.
Because Plaintiffs have alleged facts and submitted evidence in
support of their allegation of being so divested of said benefits,
which, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, could lead
a fact finder to return a verdict for them, Defendant's motion for
summary judgment as to Plaintiffs' state law claims regarding the
benefits they allegedly accrued should be denied, Judge Webster
concludes.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UidiLn from PacerMonitor.com.
TESLA INC: Appeals Final Judgment in Tornetta Suit
--------------------------------------------------
TESLA, INC. is taking an appeal from the Order and Final Judgment
dated December 13, 2024, entered by Judge Kathaleen St. Jude
McCormick, in the lawsuit entitled Richard J. Tornetta,
derivatively on behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders
of Tesla, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Elon Musk, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2018-0408-KSJM, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, in and of New Castle County.
The appellate case is captioned Tesla, Inc. v. Richard J. Tornetta,
derivatively on behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders
of Tesla, Inc., Case No. 10,2025, in the Supreme Court of the State
of Delaware, filed on January 8, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Richard J. Tornetta, derivatively on behalf of
all other similarly situated stockholders of Tesla, Inc., is
represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
- and -
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
Craig J. Springer, Esq.
David M. Sborz, Esq.
Andrew J. Peach, Esq.
Jackson E. Warren, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, DE 19807
Nominal Defendant-Appellant Tesla, Inc. is represented by:
Catherine A. Gaul, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 654-1888
- and -
John L. Reed, Esq.
Ronald N. Brown, III, Esq.
Caleb G. Johnson, Esq.
Daniel P. Klusman, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 468-5700
- and -
Rudolf Koch, Esq.
John D. Hendershot, Esq.
Kevin M. Gallagher, Esq.
Andrew L. Milam, Esq.
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
One Rodney Square
920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 651-7700
- and -
William M. Lafferty, Esq.
Susan W. Waesco, Esq.
Ryan D. Stottmann, Esq.
Miranda N. Gilbert, Esq.
Jacob M. Perrone, Esq.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
1201 N. Market Street, 16th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 658-9200
TESLA INC: Musk Appeals Rulings in Tornetta Suit to Del. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELON MUSK, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders entered by
Judge Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick in the lawsuit entitled Richard
J. Tornetta, derivatively on behalf of all other similarly situated
stockholders of Tesla, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Elon Musk, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2018-0408-KSJM, in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, in and of New Castle County.
The court orders include (i) the December 13, 2024 Order and Final
Judgment, (ii) the December 2, 2024 Opinion Awarding Attorney's
Fees and Denying Motion to Revise the Post-Trial Opinion, (iii) the
January 30, 2024 Post-Trial Opinion, (iv) the September 20, 2019
Opinion on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, and (v)
all other rulings and interlocutory orders made appealable through
the Judgment in and for New Castle County, by the Delaware Court of
Chancery.
The appellate case is captioned Elon Musk, et al. v. Richard J.
Tornetta, derivatively on behalf of all other similarly situated
stockholders of Tesla, Inc., and Tesla, Inc., Case No. 11,2025, in
the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on January 8,
2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Richard J. Tornetta, derivatively on behalf of
all other similarly situated stockholders of Tesla, Inc., is
represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
- and -
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
Craig J. Springer, Esq.
David M. Sborz, Esq.
Andrew J. Peach, Esq.
Jackson E. Warren, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, DE 19807
Defendants-Appellants ELON MUSK, et al. are represented by:
Michael A. Barlow, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 302-4000
- and -
David E. Ross, Esq.
Garrett B. Moritz, Esq.
Thomas C. Mandracchia, Esq.
ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
Hercules Building
1313 North Market Street, Suite 1001
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 576-1600
TESLA INC: Steffens Appeals Final Judgment in Tornetta Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY STEFFENS, objector, is taking an appeal from the Order and
Final Judgment dated December 13, 2024; the Post-Trial Opinion
dated January 30, 2024; the Opinion dated December 2, 2024; the
letter opinion dated December 2, 2024; and the letter opinion dated
December 13, 2024, entered by Judge Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick,
in the lawsuit entitled Richard J. Tornetta, derivatively on behalf
of all other similarly situated stockholders of Tesla, Inc.,
Plaintiff, v. Elon Musk, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2018-0408-KSJM, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
in and of New Castle County.
The appellate case is captioned Amy Steffens v. Richard J.
Tornetta, derivatively on behalf of all other similarly situated
stockholders of Tesla, Inc., and Tesla, Inc., Case No. 12,2025, in
the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on January 8,
2025. [BN]
Objector-Appellant AMY STEFFENS is represented by:
Anthony A. Rickey, Esq.
MARGRAVE LAW LLC
3411 Silverside Road
Baynard Building, Suite 104
Wilmington, DE 19810
Telephone: (302) 604-5190
Plaintiff-Appellee Richard J. Tornetta, derivatively on behalf of
all other similarly situated stockholders of Tesla, Inc., is
represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
- and -
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
Craig J. Springer, Esq.
David M. Sborz, Esq.
Andrew J. Peach, Esq.
Jackson E. Warren, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, DE 19807
Nominal Defendant-Appellee Tesla, Inc. is represented by:
Catherine A. Gaul, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
- and -
John L. Reed, Esq.
Ronald N. Brown, III, Esq.
Caleb G. Johnson, Esq.
Daniel P. Klusman, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
Wilmington, DE 19801
- and -
Rudolf Koch, Esq.
John D. Hendershot, Esq.
Kevin M. Gallagher, Esq.
Andrew L. Milam, Esq.
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
One Rodney Square
920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
- and -
William M. Lafferty, Esq.
Susan W. Waesco, Esq.
Ryan D. Stottmann, Esq.
Miranda N. Gilbert, Esq.
Jacob M. Perrone, Esq.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
1201 N. Market Street, 16th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
THOMAS L CARDELLA: Must Produce Docs by Feb. 28 in Munoz Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico grants the Plaintiff's motion to compel
discovery in the lawsuit captioned GABRIELA MUNOZ, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THOMAS L.
CARDELLA & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00558-SMD-KRS (D.N.M.).
Judge Sweazea directs the Defendant to produce all documents
responsive to the agreed categories set out in the Joint Motion to
Modify by Feb. 28, 2025.
On June 16, 2021, Plaintiff Gabriela Munoz filed a collective/class
action complaint against Defendant Thomas L. Cardella & Associates
alleging claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA").
On Aug. 16, 2022, the presiding trial judge granted the Plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification of a collective action
pursuant to the FLSA. The Defendant was directed to post notice of
the collective action and consent forms at its call centers by
Sept. 6, 2022. Between Sept. 21, 2022, and Nov. 22, 2022, the
Plaintiff provided notices of the filing of consents to join these
proceedings by numerous similarly situated employees.
A Scheduling Order was entered on March 8, 2023, setting a
discovery deadline of Jan. 2, 2024, with a settlement conference on
Oct. 16, 2023. The Plaintiff served her first set of written
discovery on the Defendant on July 14, 2023, and the Defendant
served its initial responses on Sept. 23, 2023. Because the parties
had agreed to participate in an early settlement conference, the
Plaintiff agreed to stay the Defendant's obligation to respond
fully to the served discovery, and instead requested specific
documentation and information that would allow the Plaintiff to
create a meaningful damage model on behalf of the class and
collective.
In August 2023, however, the parties requested that the Court
vacate the Oct. 16, 2023 settlement conference to allow them time
to resolve some discovery issues. Then, in October 2023, the
parties jointly requested a sixty-day extension of expert report
deadlines, stating that they were engaged in discussions regarding
a potential resolution of this matter. Thereafter, the Court reset
the settlement conference for April 9, 2024.
On Jan. 5, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation to amend the
Scheduling Order. The parties had conducted only limited discovery
up until that point. As they explained to the Court, their lack of
discovery efforts was due to their mutual hope that the case could
be settled with minimal exchange of information, thereby, avoiding
the significant time and resources of engaging in full discovery
and resolving discovery disputes. The Court accepted the parties'
explanation and agreed to extend deadlines until after the April 9,
2024 settlement conference.
The April 9, 2024 settlement conference proved unsuccessful, and
thereafter, a new Scheduling Order was entered, with a discovery
due date of Jan. 24, 2025. That deadline was extended to April 28,
2025, pursuant to the Joint Motion to Modify Discovery Deadlines
("Joint Motion To Modify") filed on Oct. 22, 2024.
Significant to the present Motion, the Joint Motion to Modify
stated that the Defendant was "working to produce" information for
the collective members, including their complete time and pay data,
including data showing their "rounded" time, and documents
contained in the Defendant's emails/systems for communications
containing the key words requested in the Plaintiff's discovery, as
well as a list of custodians searched.
The Joint Motion to Modify further represented that the Defendant
would complete its production of the data by Nov. 5, 2024.
Apparently that did not happen, however, leading to the present
Motion. The Plaintiff filed the present Motion on Nov. 26, 2024,
three weeks after the Nov. 5, 2024 date on which the Defendant
promised it would provide full production.
The Motion seeks a court order to compel the Defendant "to produce
the outstanding discovery it has already represented to the Court
it will produce," and set a new full production deadline of Dec.
12, 2024. The Motion also asks the Court to order the Defendant to
amend its discovery responses to identify, by bates number, which
requests the Defendant's document production is responsive to and
whether and documents are being withheld.
Judge Sweazea finds that the Plaintiff has shown that an order
compelling the Defendant to produce documents is necessary and
appropriate. The Defendant must identify the documents produced in
response to each category so that the Plaintiff may evaluate
whether full production has been made.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as
follows. The Defendant is ordered to produce all documents
responsive to the agreed categories set out in the Joint Motion to
Modify by Feb. 28, 2025. If the Defendant encounters any unforeseen
circumstances that would prevent it from meeting this deadline, the
Defendant will--prior to expiration of the deadline--either reach
an agreement with the Plaintiff to extend the deadline, or file a
motion setting forth good cause for the Court to grant an extension
notwithstanding the Plaintiff's lack of consent.
On or before Jan. 29, 2025, the Defendant must provide the
Plaintiff with a written statement identifying the documents it has
already produced that are responsive to each of the six categories
of documents set forth in the Joint Motion to Modify. The Defendant
will provide the Plaintiff with a similar written statement
simultaneous with any future productions the Defendant makes.
The Plaintiff will promptly respond in writing to the Defendant's
written statement(s) by identifying in writing for the Defendant
any categories for which the Plaintiff believes production has been
inadequate or deficient.
Following this exchange, the parties are directed to meet and
confer in an attempt to reach an agreed resolution of any
disagreements, prior to filing any motions to compel and/or for
protective order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/35dxtvx3 from PacerMonitor.com.
THOMAS L CARDELLA: Settlement Conference in Munoz Suit on April 24
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico issued an order setting settlement
conference and status conference in the lawsuit titled GABRIELA
MUNOZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THOMAS L. CARDELLA & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00558-SMD-KRS (D.N.M.).
To facilitate a final disposition of this case, the Court will
conduct a settlement conference in accordance with D.N.M.LR-Civ.
16.2. The Court directs all parties and their lead trial counsel to
appear for a settlement conference on April 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
(Mountain Time) via Zoom. The Court will send out invitations for
the Zoom proceedings approximately one week before the settlement
conference.
The parties also appear for a telephonic status conference on March
11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. (Mountain Time) to confirm their readiness
to participate in the settlement conference.
Judge Sweazea notes that the term "all parties" in reference to
plaintiffs in a collective action brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") refers to the named plaintiff(s) on whose
behalf the action was originally filed. Additional plaintiffs in
such proceedings who are joined through the later filing of opt-in
notices following an order conditionally certifying a collective
action may also choose to attend the settlement conference in
person.
On or before March 31, 2025, Judge Sweazea orders that the
Plaintiffs' counsel will serve on defense counsel a letter that
sets forth at least the following information: (a) a brief summary
of the evidence and legal principles that the Plaintiffs assert
will establish liability; and (b) a brief explanation of why
damages or other relief appropriately would be granted at trial.
On or before April 7, 2025, defense counsel will serve on the
Plaintiffs' counsel a letter that sets forth at least the following
information: (a) any points in the Plaintiffs' letter with which
the defense agrees; (b) any points in the Plaintiffs' letter with
which the defense disagrees, with references to supporting evidence
and legal principles; and (c) a settlement offer. The Defendant
will also include any proposed form of release or settlement
agreement with the Defendant's letter to opposing counsel.
On or before April 14, 2025, each party must provide the Court a
concise, confidential letter, and the Plaintiffs' counsel will
provide the Court copies of the letters exchanged between the
parties.
At the settlement conference, Judge Sweazea says all of the
settlement conference participants will first meet together to
discuss procedures for the settlement conference. Counsel will not
be required or permitted to give opening statements during the
initial meeting with the Court and the other settlement conference
participants. Upon the conclusion of the initial meeting, separate,
confidential caucuses will be held by the Court with each party and
the party's representative. Counsel and parties should be prepared
to discuss the factual and legal details of their cases.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/jr7ps6bt from PacerMonitor.com.
TOKIO MARINE: Acosta Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jacqueline Acosta, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. TOKIO MARINE HCC
SURETY GROUP, a California Corporation, TOKIO MARINE AMERICA
INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York Corporation, and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV19665 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 24,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00656.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted six causes of action against
TMHCC for: violation of California Government Code –
Associational Disability Discrimination in violation of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); violation of California
Government Code – Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in
violation of FEHA; violation of California Government Code –
Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in violation of FEHA;
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; violation of
California Labor Code - Whistleblower Retaliation; and violation of
California Government Code – Retaliation in violation of
FEHA.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
Andrea F. Oxman, Esq.
Trevor R. Witt, Esq.
Brittney E. Willis, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
Andrea.Oxman@jacksonlewis.com
Trevor.Witt@jacksonlewis.com
Brittney.Willis@jacksonlewis.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Approves Class Action Settlement in Salas
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFRED SALAS and GLORIA
ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California
Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-08629-HDV-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Hernan Vera entered an order approving class action
settlement as follows:
The Court confirms the certification of the following Class for
settlement purposes only:
"All individuals in California who, at any time prior to the
occurrence of the Initial Notice Date own(ed), purchase(d),
and/or lease(d) a model year 2012 to 2015 Toyota Camry XV50
("Subject Vehicle")."
Excluded from the Class are: (a) Toyota, its officers,
directors and employees; its affiliates and affiliates'
officers, directors and employees; its distributors and
distributors' officers, directors and employees; and Toyota
Dealers and Toyota Dealers' officers and directors; (b)
Plaintiffs' Counsel and Class Counsel; and (c) judicial
officers and their immediate family members and associated
court staff assigned to this case.
In addition, persons are not Class Members once they timely and
properly exclude themselves from the Class as provided for in this
Settlement Agreement, once the exclusion request has been finally
approved by the Court.
The Court finds that only those individuals listed on Exhibit A to
this Final Order have timely and properly excluded themselves from
the Class and, therefore, are not bound by this Final Order or the
accompanying Final Judgment.
The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement resulted from
extensive arm's length good faith negotiations between Plaintiffs
and Toyota, through experienced counsel, with the assistance and
oversight of Settlement Special Master Patrick A. Juneau.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Court finally approves in
all respects the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement and finds that the Settlement, the Settlement Agreement,
and all other parts of the Settlement are, in all respects, fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interest of the Class
Toyota Motor is America's fourth-largest carmaker and manufactures
more than 1 million cars per year in North America.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MAhwyx at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRL SYSTEMS INC: Quiroz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TRL Systems, Inc. The
case is styled as Luis Quiroz, individually, and on behalf of other
similarly situated employees v. TRL Systems, Inc., Case No.
25STCV01705 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 22, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
TRL Systems -- https://www.trlsystems.com/ -- is a life safety and
security integrator serving various industry segments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
Phone: 855-786-6355
Fax: 855-786-6356
Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
TYCON MEDICAL: Thomas Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TYCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00037
(E.D. Va., Jan. 21, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's
failure to safeguard the names and dates of birth ("Personally
Identifiable Information" or "PII") and health insurance
information, and medical information ("Protected Health
Information" or "PHI") (together, "Private Information") of its
Customers, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information
systems on or about October 17, 2024, and the compromised and
unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing
widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class
members.
On October 15, 2024, Tycon detected unusual activity in its
computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized
third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from
its systems on or about October 17, 2024 ("Data Breach"). As a
result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the
Private Information of Defendant's Customers, including Plaintiff
and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including their name,
date of birth, health insurance information, and medical
information.
The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private
Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and
other individuals' information (together, "Customers"). Defendant's
failure to safeguard Customers' highly sensitive Private
Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data
Breach violates its common law duty, Virginia law, and Defendant's
implied contract with its Customers to safeguard their Private
Information.
The Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of
identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which
they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again. The
Defendant's failure to protect Customers' Private Information has
harmed and will continue to harm Defendant's Customers, causing
Plaintiff to seek relief on a class wide basis, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff received purchased medical equipment from Defendant.
Tycon Medical Systems, Inc. is a medical equipment provider and
distributor with its principle place of business in Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
Justin M. Sheldon, 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
Justin@bbtrial.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
lloginov@shamisgentile.com
UNION PACIFIC: Barnhart Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Barnhart, and others similarly situated v. UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00128-HL (D. Ore., Jan. 24,
2025), is brought for damages resulting from its violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Oregon Law.
Beginning in 2014, Union Pacific implemented company-wide changes
to its fitness-for-duty program ("Fitness-for-Duty"). As a result
of these changes, Union Pacific imposed a blanket requirement that
employees in certain positions disclose specified health
conditions-- even where the condition had no impact on the
employee's ability to safely perform his or her job.
This requirement was needlessly invasive and violated the ADA by
itself, but Union Pacific made matters worse by imposing a policy
that automatically removed the employees disclosing these
conditions from service. Union Pacific then subjected the employees
to a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation, again regardless of whether the
employee had been safely performing the essential functions of his
or her job. These evaluations do not assess whether an employee is
fit for duty and Union Pacific does not conduct physical
evaluations.
Furthermore, it routinely disregards the opinions of outside
doctors who provide physical evaluations of the employees. Instead,
Union Pacific demands medical information from the employee and
conducts a "file review," falsely determining that the employee is
unfit for duty, or issuing unnecessary work restrictions which it
then refuses to accommodate.
Despite being qualified and safely performing her job without
incident, the Plaintiff was removed from service for a
Fitness-for-Duty evaluation under the new program and excluded from
work at Union Pacific on the basis of her disability, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the same discriminatory
Fitness-for-Duty policies
Union Pacific is a railroad carrier engaged in interstate commerce
and has operations in Oregon, and is headquartered in Omaha,
Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony S. Petru, Esq.
Gavin Barney, Esq.
HILDEBRAND MCLEOD & NELSON
5335 College Avenue, Suite 5A
Oakland, CA 94618
Phone: (510) 451-6732
Email: petru@hmnlaw.com
barney@hmnlaw.com
UNION PACIFIC: Malone Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Malone, and others similarly situated v. UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00827 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 24,
2025), is brought for damages resulting from its violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), California Government Code.
Beginning in 2014, Union Pacific implemented company-wide changes
to its fitness-for-duty program ("Fitness-for-Duty"). As a result
of these changes, Union Pacific imposed a blanket requirement that
employees in certain positions disclose specified health
conditions-- even where the condition had no impact on the
employee's ability to safely perform his or her job.
This requirement was needlessly invasive and violated the ADA by
itself, but Union Pacific made matters worse by imposing a policy
that automatically removed the employees disclosing these
conditions from service. Union Pacific then subjected the employees
to a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation, again regardless of whether the
employee had been safely performing the essential functions of his
or her job. These evaluations do not assess whether an employee is
fit for duty and Union Pacific does not conduct physical
evaluations of employees.
Furthermore, it routinely disregards the opinions of outside
doctors who provide physical evaluations of the employees. Instead,
Union Pacific demands medical information from the employee and
conducts a "file review," falsely determining that the employee is
unfit for duty, or issuing unnecessary work restrictions which it
then refuses to accommodate.
Despite being qualified and safely performing her job without
incident, the Plaintiff was removed from service for a
Fitness-for-Duty evaluation under the new program and excluded from
work at Union Pacific on the basis of her disability, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the same discriminatory
Fitness-for-Duty policies
Union Pacific is a railroad carrier engaged in interstate commerce
and has operations in Oregon, and is headquartered in Omaha,
Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony S. Petru, Esq.
Gavin Barney, Esq.
HILDEBRAND MCLEOD & NELSON
5335 College Avenue, Suite 5A
Oakland, CA 94618
Phone: (510) 451-6732
Email: petru@hmnlaw.com
barney@hmnlaw.com
UNION PACIFIC: Rieux Sues Over Disabilities Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Randy Rieux, and others similarly situated v. UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-at-00137 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 24,
2025), is brought for damages resulting from its violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), California Government Code.
Beginning in 2014, Union Pacific implemented company-wide changes
to its fitness-for-duty program ("Fitness-for-Duty"). As a result
of these changes, Union Pacific imposed a blanket requirement that
employees in certain positions disclose specified health
conditions-- even where the condition had no impact on the
employee's ability to safely perform his or her job.
This requirement was needlessly invasive and violated the ADA by
itself, but Union Pacific made matters worse by imposing a policy
that automatically removed the employees disclosing these
conditions from service. Union Pacific then subjected the employees
to a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation, again regardless of whether the
employee had been safely performing the essential functions of his
or her job. These evaluations do not assess whether an employee is
fit for duty and Union Pacific does not conduct physical
evaluations of employees.
Furthermore, it routinely disregards the opinions of outside
doctors who provide physical evaluations of the employees. Instead,
Union Pacific demands medical information from the employee and
conducts a "file review," falsely determining that the employee is
unfit for duty, or issuing unnecessary work restrictions which it
then refuses to accommodate.
Despite being qualified and safely performing her job without
incident, the Plaintiff was removed from service for a
Fitness-for-Duty evaluation under the new program and excluded from
work at Union Pacific on the basis of her disability, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the same discriminatory
Fitness-for-Duty policies
Union Pacific is a railroad carrier engaged in interstate commerce
and has operations in Oregon, and is headquartered in Omaha,
Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony S. Petru, Esq.
Gavin Barney, Esq.
HILDEBRAND MCLEOD & NELSON
5335 College Avenue, Suite 5A
Oakland, CA 94618
Phone: (510) 451-6732
Email: petru@hmnlaw.com
barney@hmnlaw.com
UNITED PARCEL: Malone Must File Renewed Class Cert Bid by May 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua
Wolson entered an order amending certain deadlines set forth in his
prior Orders as follows:
1. On or before Feb. 14, 2025, the Parties shall meet and
confer to set aside dates to hold open for depositions
before the close of discovery, and they shall then submit a
letter to my Chambers via email that identifies the dates
that will be set aside for these depositions.
2. UPS's document production shall be substantially complete by
Feb. 28, 2025, but I will not grant any further extensions
of this deadline.
3. By the close of business on Mar. 4, 2025, the Parties shall
submit a joint letter to my Chambers via email, setting
forth: (a) any unresolved discovery disputes, and (b) the
Parties' respective positions as to those disputes.
4. On March 7, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., I will hold a telephone
status conference with Counsel for the Parties to discuss
any unresolved discovery disputes, and my staff will
circulate dial-in information in advance of the call.
5. Any motions to amend the pleadings are due by March 14,
2025.
6. The additional fact discovery period shall close on May 2,
2025.
7. Mr. Malone's renewed class certification motion, if any, is
due by May 23, 2025.
8. Mr. Malone's fee petition, as contemplated in my prior
Order, is due by June 27, 2025.
United Parcel is an American package and document delivery company
operating worldwide.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a3kM1R at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Total Care Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Care Dental and Orthodontics, Ridge Eye Care, Inc., Bay Area
Therapy Group A Marriage and Family Counseling Corp., H. Lee
Moffitt Institute Hospital, Inc., Magnolia Medical Clinic, P.A., K.
Wade Foster MD, PA, d/b/a Florida Dermatology and Cancer Centers,
Pediatric Clinic, Ltd., Revival Therapy, P.C., Compounding
Pharmacies of Louisiana, Inc. dba Professional Arts Pharmacy, York
Hospital, Laura Cotton LICSW, H & R Medical Practice, P.C., Irwin
Counseling Service, PLLC, Beginnings and Beyond Counseling d/b/a
Play Therapy Minnesota, Dillman Clinic and Lab, Inc., Hackensack
Meridian Health, Inc., Advanced Cardiology of South Jersey, P.C.,
AMB Medical Services d/b/a DocCare, Western New York Retina, Knox
Community Hospital, Cultivating Mind LLC, Wiemer Family Podiatry,
LLC, Kaitlin Heckman LLC, MedCare Pediatric Group, LP, MedCare
Pediatric Therapy, LP, MedCare Pediatric Rehab Center, LP, and
MedCare Pediatric Nursing, LP, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and the National Community Pharmacists
Association, Plaintiffs v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated,
UnitedHealthCare Services, Inc., Optum Insight, Change Healthcare
Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare
Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Change Healthcare
Technologies, LLC, and Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc.,
Optum, Inc., Optum Financial, Inc., Optum Bank, and Optum Pay,
Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-00179 (D. Minn., January 15, 2025)
arises from the Defendants' failure to employ even rudimentary
cybersecurity precautions to authenticate the identities of people
logging in to their networks, compromising millions of patients'
private information following a ransomware attack.
In the aftermath of the February 2024 ransomware Attack, Change
Health Defendants' systems were left in gross disrepair. Change
Health Defendants had no viable backup plans or systems. And in a
largely futile effort to prevent further collapse of its systems,
Change Health Defendants elected to take the remaining systems --
including the Change Platform -- offline completely, rendering it
useless to Plaintiffs and other healthcare providers and
pharmacies, referred here as "providers." While the Change Platform
was shut down, providers were unable to verify insurance, determine
copays, submit claims, or receive payment. As a result, providers
did not timely receive billions of dollars in earned
reimbursements, says the suit.
Exacerbating this crisis, Change Health Defendants did not provide
adequate transparency and guidance to providers during the
shutdown, asserts the suit. Specifically, Change Health Defendants
published misleading statements with significant omissions during
the shutdown to lead providers and the public to believe that the
Change Platform would be offline only briefly.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, the providers have suffered and
will continue to suffer substantial harm. The event pushed many
providers to the brink of closure (and forced some providers to
close altogether). To survive, providers necessarily incurred extra
costs to make up for unpaid claims and in an attempt to submit
claims without the Change Platform. Moreover, providers will never
see any compensation for claims that they were unable to submit
during the shutdown, the suit asserts.
The Change Health Defendants control the largest healthcare payment
platform in United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Warren Burns, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 458-9890
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
- and -
Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
LARSON-KING LLP
30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 312-6500
E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES: Settlement in Samson Suit Has Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit
captioned FRANTZ SAMSON, a Washington resident, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00175-MJP (W.D. Wash.).
The Settlement Agreement has been filed with the Court and the
definitions and terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement are
incorporated herein by reference. The Court reviewed the Settlement
Agreement entered into by Plaintiff Frantz Samson ("Plaintiff" or
"Class Representative") and Defendant United HealthCare Services,
Inc.
The Court has considered the proposed settlement of the claims
asserted under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by a
proposed Settlement Class of consumers defined as follows:
All persons residing within the United States who, between
Jan. 9, 2015, and Jan. 9, 2019, received a non-emergency
telephone call(s) placed using either the Avaya Pro Contact
or LiveVox IVR dialing systems from the Medicare and
Retirement Non-Licensed Retention Team, the Community and
State National Retention Team or the Medicare and Retirement
Collections Team, to a cellular phone through the use of an
artificial or prerecorded voice, and who was not a
UnitedHealthcare member or a third party authorized to
receive calls on a member's behalf at the time of the call.
The Settlement Class does not include the Defendant, any
entity that has a controlling interest in the Defendant, and
Defendant's current or former directors, officers, counsel,
and their immediate families. The Settlement Class also does
not include any person who validly requests exclusion from
the Settlement Class.
For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily approves the
proposed settlement, pending a Final Approval Hearing. The Court
finds the prerequisites to a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) have been preliminarily satisfied, for settlement purposes
only. The Settlement Class is estimated to contain approximately
12,014 Settlement Class Members.
For settlement purposes only, the Court finds that this action is
preliminarily maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3).
The Court appoints Frantz Samson as the Class Representative for
the Settlement Class. The Court also appoints Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC, Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., and Shub & Johns LLC,
as counsel for the Settlement Class (Class Counsel). The Court
appoints Continental DataLogix LLC as the Settlement
Administrator.
The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e) on June 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.
As is provided in Section 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement, the
Settlement Administrator will compile the Class List and send the
agreed upon Notices to the Settlement Class Members in accordance
with the notice plan set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The
Court also approves the Parties' Notices, which are attached to the
Settlement Agreement. The Court finds this manner of giving notice
fully satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due
process, constitutes the best notice practicable under the
circumstances.
The Court also approves, among other things, the claims procedures
set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4n4bm7uc from PacerMonitor.com.
Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Jennifer Rust
Murray -- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- Adrienne D. McEntee --
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Blythe H. Chandler --
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
in Seattle, Washington 98103-8869; James A. Francis --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- John Soumilas --
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Jordan M. Sartell --
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C., in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; Jonathan Shub --
jshub@shublawyers.com -- Samantha E. Holbrook --
sholbrook@shublawyers.com -- SHUB & JOHNS LLC, in Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania 19428, Class Counsel.
UNIVERSAL BRANDS: Riley Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Brands,
LLC. The case is styled as Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Universal Brands, LLC, Case No.
7:25-cv-00720-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Universal Brands -- http://www.universalbrandsusa.com/-- is a
company based in Miami, Florida that specializes in the
distribution of various consumer products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
2377 56th Dr
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Phone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
0:25-cv-00194 (D. Minn., January 16, 2025) arises because
Defendant's website, www.urbanoutfitters.com, is not fully and
equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or
who have low vision in violation of both the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act as well as cause of action under the Minnesota
Human Rights Act.
As a consequence of Plaintiff's experience visiting Defendant's
website, including in the past year, and from an investigation
performed on her behalf, she found Defendant's website has a number
of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff
full and equal access to important website content -- content
Defendant makes available to its sighted website users.
The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence
of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and
discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online
website content and services in a manner that is compatible with
screen reader technology, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become,
and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities.
Urban Outfitters, Inc. operates the website that offers clothing
and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, dresses,
pants, sweaters, outerwear, intimates, activewear, socks, bags, and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
US MORTGAGE LENDERS: Biscaha Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Mortgage Lenders,
LLC. The case is styled as Joe Biscaha, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. US Mortgage Lenders, LLC e,
Case No. 1:25-cv-20310-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 21, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
US Mortgage Lenders LLC -- https://www.usmortgagelenders.com/ -- is
a Florida mortgage loan originator provides special loan programs
for various situations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
USA DEBUSK: Alexander Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jimmy Alexander, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. USA
DEBUSK LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. C24-03458 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan.
24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00839.
The Complaint purports to allege eight causes of action for: Unfair
Competition in Violation of California Business & Professional
Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of California Labor
Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of California
Labor Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation
of California Labor Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure
to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor
Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Statements in Violation of California Labor Code; Failure
to Reimburse Employees For Required Expenses in Violation of
California Labor Code; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in
Violation of California Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John T. Egley, Esq.
Chris C. Scheithauer, Esq.
Alexander M. Harrison, Esq.
CALL & JENSEN
A Professional Corporation
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 717-3000
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: jegley@calljensen.com
cscheithauer@calljensen.com
aharrison@calljensen.com
USA FRUGAL CLUB: Berman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA Frugal Club, LLC.
The case is styled as Matthew Berman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. USA Frugal Club, LLC, Case No.
9:25-cv-80103-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 23, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
USA FRUGAL CLUB LLC is a Georgia Domestic Limited-Liability
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
USC: Favell Seeks to File Confidential Exhibit Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE
ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-00846-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
application for leave to file under seal a confidential document,
an exhibit accompanying Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for
class certification.
Pursuant to the Court's guidance at the Nov. 7, 2024, hearing on
Defendant's motions to exclude, the Plaintiffs understand that the
Court anticipates ordering provisional sealing prior to the
deadline for Defendant or 2U to file a declaration demonstrating
compelling reasons justifying sealing.
In the event that the Court orders provisional sealing pursuant to
that timeline, the Plaintiffs intend to file a motion to unseal at
an appropriate future time.
The Plaintiffs submit this Application pursuant to the Stipulated
Protective Order in this case and Local Rule 79-5.2.2.
Because the underlying motion for class certification is "more than
tangentially related to the merits" of this case, only compelling
reasons can justify sealing the document.
University of Southern California is a private institution that was
founded in 1880.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B2OMxb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anna C. Haac, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
David McGee, Esq.
Emily Feder Cooper, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com
apersinger@tzlegal.com
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
dmcgee@tzlegal.com
ecooper@tzlegal.com
- and -
Eric Rothschild, Esq.
Tyler Ritchie, Esq.
Chris Bryant, Esq.
Madeline Wiseman, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL
DEFENSE NETWORK
1701 Rhode Island Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 734-7495
E-mail: eric@defendstudents.org
tyler@defendstudents.org
chris@defendstudents.org
madeline@defendstudents.org
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
Nalani Lin Crisologo, Esq.
Holly Pauling Smith, Esq.
Taylor B. Markway, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP
2049 Century Park, East Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 324-3412
Facsimile: (424) 204-9093
E-mail: mdcampbell@shb.com
mmallow@shb.com
ncrisologo@shb.com
hpsmith@shb.com
tmarkway@shb.com
UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Szymakowski Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY SZYMAKOWSKI, an
individual, and JOHANNA A. URIBE, on behalf of FELIPE A. URIBE, a
minor, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly
situated F-1 students, v. UTAH HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION,
INC.; ROBERT CUFF, an individual; MARILYN RICHARDS, an individual;
AMBER SHILL, an individual; BURKE STAHELI, an individual; DAVID
WARREN, an individual; DAVID LUND, an individual; ZACK MCKEE, an
individual; PAUL SWEAT, an individual; LUKE RASMUSSEN, an
individual; JERRE HOLMES, an individual; JASON SMITH, an
individual; MIKE MEES, an individual; DEVIN SMITH, an individual;
BRYAN DURST, an individual; and BRENT STRATE, an individual, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00751-RJS-CMR (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:
-- certifying class defined as:
"all international students attending UHSAA governed high
schools in the State of Utah and seeking to play varsity
sports for the high school he/she is attending and whose
attendance at the high school is authorized pursuant to an F-1
visa."
-- appointing class representatives, and
-- appointing class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Student Visa Eligibility Rule targets members of the Proposed
Class and subjects them to the same form of discrimination that Zac
and Felipe face based on their alienage and national origin.
Thus, the Court should grant this motion, certify this case as a
class action, appoint the Students as class representatives, and
appoint the Students' attorneys as class counsel.
Because this action meets all the threshold requirements of Rule
23(a) and is maintainable under at least Rule 23(b)(3), class
certification is necessary and appropriate. T
The UHSAA Student Visa Eligibility Rule discriminates against F-1
students on its face. The rule affects and applies to all F-1
students in Utah equally, guaranteeing that none of them will have
the opportunity to compete in a playoff game, stand on a
championship podium, or receive a championship ring, trophy, or
medal.
UHSAA is the leadership organization for fine arts and athletics in
Utah.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qd7Izh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David J. Jordan, Esq.
Wesley F. Harward, Esq.
Tanner B. Camp, Esq.
Tyler A. Dever, Esq.
Charles D. Morris, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
95 South State Street, Suite 2500
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 401-8900
Facsimile: (385) 799-7576
E-mail: djordan@foley.com
wharward@foley.com
tcamp@foley.com
tdever@foley.com
charlie.morris@foley.com
VANNGUARD UTILITY: Harris Sues Over Inadequate Security Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMAR M. HARRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VANNGUARD UTILITY PARTNERS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00024-wmc (W.D. Wis., January 14, 2025) arises
from Defendant's inadequate security practices that caused a data
breach.
The Defendant admitted that an unauthorized actor accessed its
systems on May 14, 2024, and may have viewed or copied certain
files within its systems. However, the Plaintiff only received
Defendant’s breach notice on or around July 2024. Thus, the
Defendant failed to promptly and properly notify Plaintiff and
Class members of the data breach, exacerbating Plaintiff and Class
members' injury by depriving them of the earliest ability to take
appropriate measures to protect their personally identifiable
information and take other necessary steps to mitigate the harm
caused by the data breach.
Headquartered in DeForest, WI, Vannguard Utility Partners, Inc is
an Iowa corporation that locates buried utilities prior to
excavation such as gas, electric, telephone, cable TV, water,
sewer, and fiber optics facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
VESTAS-AMERICAN: Schmitt Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Jacob Schmitt, individually and for others similarly situated v.
VESTAS-AMERICAN WIND TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00120-IM
(S. Ore., Jan. 23, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and
other damages from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA").
But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and its other Hourly
Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours.
Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly
Employees to mark that they took a "meal break" each workday,
regardless of whether they actually received a bona fide meal break
(the Defendant's "meal deduction policy"). Thus, the Defendant does
not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for that time.
But the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees do not actually
receive bona fide meal breaks.
Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and its other Hourly
Employees to remain on-duty and perform compensable work throughout
their shifts and the Defendant continuously subjects them to work
interruptions during their unpaid "meal breaks." The Defendant's
meal deduction policy violates the FLSA and IMWL by depriving the
Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of overtime wages for all
overtime hours worked. Likewise, the Defendant's meal deduction
policy violates the IWPCA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other
Hourly Employees of all their earned wages (at their agreed hourly
rates) for all hours worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Technician 2 and Lead
Technician from September 2016 until June 2024 primarily in and
around Tiskilwa, Illinois, but also in Oregon and Indiana.
Vestas is a wind energy company that touts itself as "the global
leader in sustainable energy solutions and the world's leading wind
service provider, offering lifetime management of wind energy
assets to maximise the return on our customers' investments."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Sullivan, Esq.
BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP
921 SW Washington Street, Suite 516
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: 503.974.5015
Facsimile: 971.230.0337
Email: dana@baaslaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713.352.1100
Facsimile: 713.352.3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713.877.8788
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
VISTA OUTDOOR: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Leshawn Young, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. VISTA OUTDOOR INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00711
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.stoneglacier.com, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
VISTA OUTDOOR INC., operates the Stone Glacier online retail store,
as well as the Stone Glacier interactive Website and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
WALT DISNEY: Faces Unger Suit Over Anticompetitive Tactics
----------------------------------------------------------
COLE UNGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00375 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2025) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for
violations of the state and federal antitrust laws, seeking actual
damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive
relief, a declaratory judgment, reasonable costs and attorneys'
fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
This action arises from Defendant Disney's multifaceted campaign to
suppress competition in the market for live television streamed
over the internet to paying subscribers ("streaming live pay
television" or "SLPTV"). Disney's ownership of ESPN, which
dominates the market for broadcasts licenses from the major
professional sports associations, enables it to extract monopoly
rents in the SLPTV market via anticompetitive tactics including:
(i) forcing streaming services to carry Disney's non-ESPN content
in order to access ESPN; (ii) forcing streaming services to include
ESPN, country's most expensive content channel, as part of their
"base" -- or cheapest -- package for consumers; (iii) inflating
prices by means of Most Favored Nation's clauses (MFNs), and (iv)
providing anticompetitive rebates to affiliated streaming services
including Disney owned-Hulu.
These anticompetitive tactics restrain competition from rivals to
Disney's Hulu in the SLPTV market and force independent streaming
services such as Fubo to charge higher prices to their customers
than they would in a free market. Disney's anticompetitive conduct
includes using its dominant share of broadcast licenses for
commercially critical sports content to force Fubo to license and
broadcast unwanted, expensive, non-sports content. This prevents
Fubo from offering the sports-centric package of channels that its
customers want, alleges the suit.
The Walt Disney Company, commonly referred to as simply Disney, is
an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate
headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
John M. Shaw, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
abarnett@dicellolevitt.com
jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com
jshaw@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
- and -
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 314-7980
E-mail: mreuben@litedepalma.com
sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
WASHLAND LLC: Plaintiff Awarded $60,489.75 Damages in FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as MAURILIA GERVACIO DE LOS ANGELES,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
-against- WASHLAND LLC. (D/B/A WASHLAND), JOSEPH WALTER GIAIMO, and
PATRICIA MILLER, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-05749-VEC (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York entered a default judgment in favor
of plaintiff against all defendants jointly and severally, under
the FLSA and NYLL for unpaid overtime. Plaintiff is awarded damages
in the amount of $60,489.75.
Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
connection with the filing of this lawsuit and the default judgment
motion in the amount of $2,727.50 in fees and $690.00 in costs to
CSM Legal P.C. for a total of $3,417.50.
The claims of all Collective and Class Action Members who did not
receive awards pursuant to this Order and Judgment are dismissed
without prejudice.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f4RpNo from PacerMonitor.com.
WELLNESS GROUP: Sued Over Mislabeled Cannabis-Infused Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Sabaghi, writing for Forbes, reports that Cannabis companies
in Illinois are facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly
labeling cannabis-infused products as concentrates in order to
exceed the state's THC limits.
Illinois cannabis consumer Chad Alsip filed two class action
lawsuits this week against multiple defendants, including Wellness
Group Pharms and its affiliates operating collectively as Aeriz, as
well as several entities under Acreage Holdings, In Grown Farms,
and NCC.
The two complaints represent over 100 members each, with the amount
in controversy exceeding $5 million, excluding interest and costs.
The law firm Luisi Holz Law represents the plaintiff.
Defendants Accused Of Mislabeling To Evade Rules
The complaints allege that the companies unlawfully manufactured,
marketed, and sold cannabis-infused products (CIPs) with THC levels
exceeding the legal limits set by Illinois law.
The defendants are allegedly mislabeling their vape oils as
cannabis concentrates, which are not subject to the same stringent
THC limits as CIPs.
This misrepresentation allowed consumers to purchase significantly
more THC than legally permitted, the plaintiffs claim.
For example, instead of being limited to 500 milligrams of THC in
CIPs, a customer may buy a total of 5 grams of vape oils—11 times
the legal limit—and then, on top of that, another 500 milligrams
of CIPs.
"In doing so, Defendants unlawfully promoted the unregulated
overconsumption of cannabis by marketing, promoting, and selling
improperly labeled and packaged cannabis products that fail to
feature or conform to the safeguards against overconsumption
imposed by the Illinois Cannabis Acts. Specifically, safety labels,
serving size limits, serving size identification, and legal
quantity limits," the lawsuits read.
Consumers were allegedly deceived into believing they were
purchasing legal products while, in reality, acquiring illegal
amounts of THC that cannot be sold or possessed under Illinois
law.
"Defendants' improper conduct is misleading in a material way in
that it induced Plaintiffs and the Class Members to purchase
Defendants' Vapable Oils when they otherwise would not have.
Defendants made their untrue and/or misleading statements and
representations willfully, wantonly, and with a reckless disregard
for the truth," the lawsuits read.
These vape oils are marketed as legal despite containing more than
the 100-milligram THC limit per package for CIPs, posing risks to
consumer health and exposing them to potential legal consequences,
according to the plaintiffs.
"Plaintiff and other consumers who purchased Defendants' Vapable
Oils were misled to believe that they were purchasing a legal
cannabis product that complied with statutorily imposed limits,
required labels, and packaging. This deception continues to this
day, affecting and harming consumers throughout Illinois daily,"
the lawsuits explain.
The lawsuits outline various statutory violations, including
deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud, asserting that the
defendants intentionally misled consumers and regulators to
circumvent regulations.
"By exploiting higher possession limits for concentrates, the
defendants allegedly generated substantial profits while violating
state laws and compromising consumer safety," the lawsuits claim.
Alsip seeks compensation for statutory violations, fraud, unjust
enrichment, and other common law claims.
"Defendants' pursuit of profit in disregard of the Illinois
Cannabis Acts and their safety requirements is not only unethical
and unscrupulous, it is immoral and oppressive," the lawsuits
claim.
The companies named as defendants in the lawsuits have been reached
out to for comment. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Fact Discovery in Morris Class Suit Due Feb. 14
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY MORRIS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No.
4:23-cv-03277-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order on class certification briefing:
Event Proposed Deadline
Commencement of fact discovery Feb. 14, 2025
Rule 26(a) initial disclosures Feb. 14, 2025
Last day to amend pleadings or add parties: April 1, 2025
Deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class June 15, 2026
certification, and for disclosures and
reports of any experts Plaintiff intends to
rely on at class certification:
Deadline for Defendants’ opposition to a Aug. 14, 2026
motion for class certification; for
Defendants' disclosures and reports of any
experts Defendants intend to rely on at
class certification; and for any motion by
Defendants to limit or exclude Plaintiff's
class certification expert testimony based
on Daubert or any other basis:
Deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support Sept. 28, 2026
of a motion for class certification;
deadline for Plaintiff to challenge
Defendants' class certification expert
testimony based on Daubert or any other
basis:
On Jan. 7, 2025, the Parties filed their Joint Case Management
Statement that contained the Parties’ proposed case schedule.
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services
company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t8W3fa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean P. Baldwin, Esq.
Zachary Smith, Esq.
Drake Reed, Esq.
Jacob Maiman-Stadtmauer, Esq.
SELENDY GAY PLLC
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
Telephone: (212) 390-9000
Facsimile: (212) 390-9399
E-mail: sbaldwin@selendygay.com
zsmith@selendygay.com
dreed@selendygay.com
jmaimanstadtmauer@selendygay.com
- and -
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
Facundo M. Scialpi, Esq.
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Chad Johnson, Esq.
Noam Mandel, Esq.
Desiree Cummings, Esq.
Jonathan Zweig, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
225 N.E. Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
ltaylor@rgrdlaw.com
fscialpi@rgrdlaw.com
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
ChadJ@rgrdlaw.com
Noam@rgrdlaw.com
DCummings@rgrdlaw.com
JZweig@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Christopher Ayers, Esq.
Steven J. Daroci, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-9100
Facsimile: (973) 679-8656
E-mail: cayers@seegerweiss.com
sdaroci@seegerweiss.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amanda L. Groves, Esq.
Kobi K. Brinson, Esq.
Stacie C. Knight, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 615-1700
Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
E-mail: agroves@winston.com
kbrinson@winston.com
sknight@winston.com
WHOLE FOODS: Wilson et al. Allege ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
PAUL WILSON, TYLER HOUSTON, and JAMES BESTERFIELD on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WHOLE
FOODS MARKET, INC. and THE WHOLE FOODS MARKET INC., BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00085 (W.D.
Tex., January 17, 2025) challenges the Defendants' practice of
imposing discriminatory and punitive health insurance surcharges on
employees who use nicotine products and who are participants in the
Whole Foods Market Group Benefit Plan.
Because Defendants' wellness program fails to comply with the
strict regulatory requirements that wellness programs must meet to
qualify for the safe-harbor exception under federal law, the
Defendants have subjected Plan participants to unlawful tobacco
surcharges in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA). By circumventing the critical regulatory
safeguards, the Defendants have deprived participants of their
rights under ERISA and undermined the protections intended to
ensure fairness, nondiscrimination, and compliance in
employer-sponsored wellness programs, says the suit.
Headquartered in Austin, TX, Whole Foods is a global organic and
natural foods supermarket chain. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Amazon.com, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Walker D. Moller, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
Scott Haskins, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: wmoller@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
shaskins@sirillp.com
WILDFANG CO: Henry Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wildfang Co., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00574 (N.D. Ill., January 17, 2025) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains
significant access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website, says the suit.
Based in Portland, OR, Wildfang Co. owns the website,
https://www.wildfang.com, which provides consumers the ability to
view a wide range of gender-neutral apparel, including coveralls,
suiting, button-ups, tops, bottoms, blazers, vests, dresses,
skirts, workwear, sets, and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
2337 56th Dr.,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com
XTO ENERGY: Kriley Seeks OK of Amended Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY, et al., v.
XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order granting their amended
motion for class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a),
23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2).
According to the complaint, each representative plaintiff has an
oil and gas lease that is being and/or has been operated and
administered by defendant XTO Energy Inc.
The Plaintiffs' Amended Brief in Support of Amended Motion for
Class Certification, the prerequisites for class certification
contained in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) have been satisfied
for the following class for Count I of the Amended Complaint:
"Every individual and entity who possessed a royalty ownership
interest in an oil and gas lease with XTO covering oil and gas
interests at any time during the period of limitations (a) who
received one or more royalty payments from XTO; (b) whose oil
and gas lease covered gas that was or is gathered on the
Jefferson, Forward or AK Steel gathering segments of the
Mountain Gathering system in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and
(c) whose oil and gas lease states that XTO is to pay Lessor as
a royalty, for the native gas and casinghead gas or other
gaseous substances (including shale gas), produced from said
land and sold or used beyond the well or for the extraction of
gasoline or other product, an amount equal to [X] percent (X%)
of the sales proceeds actually received by Lessee from the sale
of such production, less [X] percent (X%) of all "Post
Production Costs," and less [X] percent (X%) of any and all
taxes, including without limitation, production, severance, and
ad valorem taxes."
The class for Count I excludes: the United States of America and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
XTO Energy is an American energy company and subsidiary of
ExxonMobil principally operating in North America.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tONHW6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David A. Borkovic, Esq.
JONES, GREGG, CREEHAN & GERACE, LLP
411 Seventh Ave, Suite 1200
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 261-6400
*********
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 2025. 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 ***