/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250207.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, February 7, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 28
Headlines
7702 FOOD: Siab Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
800-FLOWERS INC: Plaintiffs Seek Class Settlement Deal Approval
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Suit Seeks to Certify CLRA Claims
ABLETO INC: Bid to File Docs Under Seal in Sessa Tossed
ACA HELPLINE: Claim for Injunctive Relief Tossed w/o Prejudice
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Court Dismisses Sherman Class Action
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Fails to Protect Info, Silliman-Guyer Says
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Capellan Says
AMERICAN HONDA: Class Cert Hearing in Clark Continued to June 27
ANDREW MCFARLAND: Class Certification Denied in Latimore Suit
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Lazaar Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Seek to File Exhibits Under Seal
ARCONIC CORP: Charter Sues Over Stock's Artificially Inflated Price
AVANGRID INC: Goldschein Balks at Merger Deal With Iberdrola
BANKERS TRUST: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Suit Due August 1
BLACKSTONE CONSULTING: Loses Bid to Dismiss Ulloa Wage Lawsuit
BLOCK.ONE: Class Counsel Awarded $2.97MM in Fees, Expenses
BLOCK.ONE: Class Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
BROOKMAN PROTECTION: Faces Vang Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
CALCASIEU CORRECTIONAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied in Nunez
CAPITAL ONE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kromney Suit Due July 1
CAPITAL ONE: Smith Sues Over Conversion of Content Creators' Pay
CAREBRIDGE MEDICAL: Norton Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practice
CARGILL INC: Must File Supplemental Briefing on Tavares Settlement
CENTENNIAL MEDICAL: Faces Wilson TCPA Class Suit in D. Oregon
CIRCLE K: Summary Judgment Denied in Abboud TCPA Lawsuit
CITIBANK NA: Dismissal of Arbitration Bid in Espin Suit Reversed
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Amaral Alleges
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Scales FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
COMPASS GROUP: Must Produce WebPayroll Data, Court Says
CONNECTONCALL.COM LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Nolet Says
CRAWFORD & COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Archie et al. Allege
CRITERION COLLECTION: Class Cert Pretrial Conference Due Dec. 5
DEALER TIRE: Faces Crew Class Action Lawsuit in Cal. Super.
DENT WIZARD: Faces Sullivan Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
DIDI GLOBAL: Class Action Suit Designated to Magistrate Judge
DOT TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Must File Opposition by Feb. 21
EVERYTHING BREAKS: Court Approves Stipulation on Media Notice
EXECUTIVE WINE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Naryanasamy Says
EZ MULTI SERVICE: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Mechanics' Unpaid OT
FACEAPP INC: Plaintiff's Rule 60 Motion in BIPA Case Denied
FESTIVAL FUN: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Rodriguez Suit
GAS EXPRESS: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Canup Says
GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Court Tosses Securities Class Action
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class Settlement in Papalia Gets Initial Nod
GOODYEAR TIRE: Faces Ibarra Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Hurley Class Suit Over App Distribution Monopoly
GRAND ISLE: Ortiguerra Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs OK'd
GRAND ISLE: Ortiguerra Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
GREENIX HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Allegations Tossed
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Brown Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
HATCHITT TAX: Parties Must Exchange Witness Reports by March 11
HOMETOWN EQUITY: Plaintiff Loses Summary Judgment Bid
HP INC: Feb. 7 Class Cert Bid Deadline in Hutchins Vacated
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Faces Dicosmo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Pa.
INTEGRAL AD: Oklahoma Firefighters Sues Over Drop of Stock Price
IROBOT CORP: Court Tosses Premca Securities Lawsuit
JOBBLE INC: Faces Taylor Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
JOHN FELTS: Winnett Case Dismissed with Prejudice
JOSH TEWALT: Court Tosses Lasater Prison Suit With Prejudice
KANNACT INC: Class Settlement in White Suit Gets Final Nod
LATOYA HUGHES: Court Issues Confidentiality Order in Terrell Suit
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Tosses Doe-1, et al. NJITPA Lawsuit
LINKEDIN CORP: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Riganian Sues Over Identity Surveillance System
LOUIS DEJOY: 10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Mitchell's Claims
LOUNGE RESTAURANT: Escamilla Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
MAD FOR CHICKEN: Riley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Adams Sues Over Unauthorized Transfers
MDL 2873: Faces Dunagan Suit Over AFFF/TOG Products' Toxic Elements
MDL 2873: Maine Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF/TOG Products
MDL 2873: McCloud Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products
MDL 2873: Nelson Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF/TOG Products
MDL 2873: Spaugy Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products
MERIDIAN WASTE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Hodges Suit Says
MICHAEL P. BETLEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss McCarrell Lawsuit
MORGAN & MORGAN: Court Upholds Arbitration Order in Walker Case
MORGAN & MORGAN: Walker Case to Remain in Federal Court
NAJOLIA ENTERPRISES: Dunson Files Labor Suit in Cal. State Court
NATIONAL BOARD: Court Tosses Giri, et al. Discrimination Lawsuit
NESTLE HEALTH: Court Tosses Bowler False Advertising Lawsuit
NEW PUNCH: Ramos Files Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
NEW YORK LIFE: Linhart Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
OASIS DAY: Faces Trippett Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Kayne Sues Over Affiliate Marketing Fraud
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Steals Affiliate Commissions, Smith Suit Says
PEBBLE CORP: Semon Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Division
PERPAY INC: McGonigle Sues Over Unfair Telemarketing Calls
PERRY RUSSELL: Court Won't Stay Discovery in Thomson Lawsuit
PREMIER NUTRITION: Class Counsel Entitled to Attorneys' Fees
PREUSS INC: Ponce Sues Over Alleged Wage and Hour Violations
PRUITTHEALTH INC: Melendres Alleges Illegal Labor Exploitation
Q.V.H. CORP: Faces Pardo Suit Over Disabled's Access to Property
REMARKABLE FOODS: Fails to Pay Asst. Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
ROBERT GRAHAM: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
RUSH STREET: Hermann Files Fraud Suit in E.D. Pa.
RYE FIRE: Richardson et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
SAFEWAY INC: Faces Boren Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Wash.
SAFEWAY INC: Faces Morales Class Action Lawsuit in Cal. Super.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: G.T. Files 7th Circuit Appeal in BIPA Case
SAZERAC COMPANY: Amended Order on Class Cert Entered
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Seeks Leave to File Short Sur-Reply in Davis
SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Filing in Chang Suit Due July 14
SPA CASTLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Trippett Suit Claims
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Garza Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Brownell's Counsel Appeals Sanction Ruling
STARBUCKS CORP: NCL Wins Bid to Remand Case to D.C. Superior Court
STRATEGIC STAFFING: Class Settlement Obtains Preliminary Approval
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Butler Suit
SUPER MICRO: Court Resolves Discovery Disputes in Averza Suit
SYMBOTIC LLC: Faces Olivo Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TECTA AMERICA: Mosey Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
TEXTRON INC: Conveys Users' Searches to Third Party, Moody Says
TRAX RETAIL: Class Cert. Filing in Perez Amended to April 4
UNITED MISSISSIPPI: Stampley Sues Over Overdraft Fee Charges
UNITED STATES: Center for Environmental Health Files Petition
UNITED STATES: Faces APA Class Suit Over Messaging System Test
UNITED STATES: Vadapally Files Immigration Suit in D. New Jersey
USC: Class Cert Hearing in Favell Suit Continued to Feb. 27
VPC ORLAND: Fails to Pay Drivers Proper Wages, Nofal Says
[] Stretto Launches Legal Claims Administration Services
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Numerous Exposure Suits
*********
7702 FOOD: Siab Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
AFRA SIAB, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KHALID TOKHI; HAMEED TOKHI; 7702 FOOD CORP; 1148 FOOD
CORP; and 5219 FOOD CORP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00336
(E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages,
including overtime compensation, from Defendants' violation of the
Fair Labor Standards, and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) Articles 6
and 19, and the supporting New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.
Despite working well in excess of 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees were not paid overtime
compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular
hourly rate for all hours worked over forty in a workweek. Among
other things, the Defendants also failed to provide the wage
notices and wage statements required by the NYLL, and failed to pay
wages in compliance with applicable state and federal law, says the
suit.
The 7702 Food Corp. owns and operates restaurants in Brooklyn, NY.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
800-FLOWERS INC: Plaintiffs Seek Class Settlement Deal Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TESSIBLE "SKYLER" FOSTER;
MARIE SCOTT; and KRISTA BAUMBACH, V. 800-FLOWERS, INC., D/B/A
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, HARRY & DAVID, PERSONALIZATION MALL, SHARI'S
BERRIES, 1-800- BASKETS.COM, SIMPLY CHOCOLATE, FRUIT BOUQUETS.COM,
CHERYL'S COOKIES, THE POPCORN FACTORY, WOLFERMAN'S BAKERY, AND
VITAL CHOICE, Case No. 2:23-cv-07441-AB-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs, on Jan. 31, 2025, will move the Court, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an Order:
1. Approving the proposed class action Settlement Agreement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate to Plaintiffs and the
Settlement Class Members, and directing the Settlement's
consummation according to its terms;
2. Directing that judgment be entered dismissing with prejudice
all individual and class claims asserted in the litigation
and ruling that no costs or fees be assessed on either party
other than as expressly provided in the Settlement;
3. Incorporating the release and related provisions set forth
in the Settlement and barring any Released Claims against
the Released Parties;
4. Approving payment of the benefits to the class members
consistent with the Settlement; and
5. Retaining jurisdiction of all matters relating to the
administration, consummation, enforcement, and
interpretation of the terms of the Settlement, the
Settlement Agreement, the Final Approval Order and Judgment,
and for any other necessary purpose, until all of the terms
of the Settlement Agreement have been fully carried out. As
discussed in the accompanying memorandum, approval of the
Settlement and the related relief requested herein is
appropriate under applicable law and well justified under
the circumstances of this matter.
1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. is a floral and foods gift retailer and
distribution company
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=udQwy9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
535 Mission Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Suit Seeks to Certify CLRA Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND on
behalf of herself, those similarly situated and the general public,
v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on April 24, 2025 for certification
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), of claims for
violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violations of the
Unfair Competition Law, violations of the False Advertising Law,
breach of express and implied warranties created by Defendant's
advertising, and unjust enrichment on behalf of a Class of all
persons who purchased Ensure Original Nutrition Shake, Ensure Plus
Nutrition Shake, or Ensure Complete Nutrition Shake in the State of
California from Oct. 6, 2018, to the time the Class is notified.
The Plaintiff contends Abbott conveys that Ensure provides healthy,
complete, and balanced nutrition to the general population.
Abbott does not seriously contest this advertising message—its
internal documents and witnesses repeatedly concede this. The
Plaintiff contends Abbott conveys that Ensure provides healthy,
complete, and balanced nutrition to Plaintiff contends, however,
that this message is false and deceptive because Ensure contains a
large amount of added sugar, which scientists agree is decidedly
unhealthy because it causes and exacerbates chronic metabolic
disease.
Abbott is a global healthcare company whose operations span several
sectors, including medical devices, pharmaceuticals, diagnostic
tools, and nutritional products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MhMFuq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Melanie R. Monroe, Esq.
Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
Peter Grazul, Esq.
Allison Ferraro, Esq.
FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
mmonroe@fmfpc.com
tflynn@fmfpc.com
pgrazul@fmfpc.com
aferraro@fmfpc.com
- and -
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Paula Brown, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
pbrown@bholaw.com
ABLETO INC: Bid to File Docs Under Seal in Sessa Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sessa v. AbleTo, Inc.,
Case No. 8:23-cv-02219 (M.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 29, 2023), the Hon.
Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion to file under seal certain documents and information
designated as confidential by Defendant and to file a redacted
version of his motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff does not attempt to support his motion with the
required good cause to justify sealing the information, and states
he is filing the motion in an abundance of caution solely because
Defendant designated the information as confidential under the
stipulated protective order entered in this case.
To the extent Defendant contends that any of the information
identified in Plaintiff's motion should be maintained under seal,
Defendant is directed to file a memorandum supporting the motion to
seal on or before Jan. 31, 2025.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
AbleTo provides virtual behavioral health care.[CC]
ACA HELPLINE: Claim for Injunctive Relief Tossed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR LEE JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ACA
HELPLINE, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00663-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon.
Judge Damon Leichty entered an order granting ACA Helpline's
motion, dismissing Mr. Johnson's claim for injunctive relief
without prejudice, and striking from the complaint the language
"23(b)(2) and/or" in paragraph 33.
Mr. Johnson's claim for equitable relief based on only "the
possibility" that he "would suffer any injury as a result of" ACA
Helpline's telemarketing practices is "too speculative." His claim
for injunctive relief must be dismissed.
Mr. Johnson filed this suit on Aug. 8, 2024 on behalf of himself
and the putative class, "pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3)" and asserting jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. section 1331. He proposes a class of
"[a]ll persons within the United States: (1) whose residential
telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry
for at least 31 days; (2) but who received more than one
telephone solicitation call from Defendant or a third party
acting on Defendant's behalf; (3) within a 12-month period;
(4) within the four years prior to the filing of the
Complaint."
Mr. Johnson brings this putative class action against ACA Helpline,
LLC, alleging the company made to him and others telemarketing
calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(TCPA).
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 24, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4IKJpE
at no extra charge.[CC]
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Court Dismisses Sherman Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN, ET
AL., v. ALBERTSON'S LLC ET AL., Case No. 2:23-cv-06377-ODW-RAO
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright II entered an order of
dismissal of class action.
Pursuant to the parties' Joint Stipulation for Dismissal under Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (ECF No.
55), and in consideration of the Court's order denying
Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification,
The Plaintiffs' individual claims are dismissed with prejudice. The
class allegations are dismissed without prejudice. The PAGA claim
is dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiffs only, and without
prejudice as to any and all other allegedly aggrieved employees.
The parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. The
Court does not retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
The Court vacates all dates and deadlines. The Clerk of Court shall
close the case.
Albertsons operates a chain of grocery stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TJDbKO at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Fails to Protect Info, Silliman-Guyer Says
------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA SILLIMAN-GUYER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK,
Defendant, Case No. _____ (Pa. Com. Pl., Allegheny Cty., January
24, 2025) arises from the recent cyberattack and data breach
involving AHN, which collected and stored certain private health
information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members,
all of whom have PHI on Allegheny Health Network servers.
The Plaintiff and Class Member's PHI was provided to AHN in
conjunction with the type of work AHN does within the healthcare
industry. However, AHN failed to secure the PHI of the individuals
that provided it with their sensitive information. AHM specifically
failed to ensure that IntraSystems, LLC -- a vendor that AHM
selected to share its patients' PHI with -- maintained appropriated
safeguards that would have prevented the data breach, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself
and all those similarly situated to address AHN's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' PHI that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was
unsecured and left open to the unauthorized access of any unknown
third party.
Allegheny Health Network is an integrated health care delivery
system serving the greater Western Pennsylvania region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Capellan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANELL CAPELLAN v. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-00024 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 3, 2025) is a class action arising
out of Defendant's failures to properly secure and safeguard
approximately 422,424 Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information and protected health information.
The Defendant admits the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private
information was unlawfully accessed and stolen in the Data Breach.
Even worse, the criminal organization Rhysida has claimed
responsibility for the Data Breach and added the Defendant to its
data leak site. Rhysida claims that it stole around 2.8 TB of data
and "has made most of it available publicly," the suit says.
The Data Breach resulted in the publication of Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information in November 2024. A wide variety
of Private Information was implicated in the breach, including
potentially: names, phone numbers, dates of birth, medical record
number or other identifiers, social security numbers, and health
insurance information, the suit adds.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity
theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into
the future closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to
guard against identity theft. As a result of Defendant's
unreasonable and inadequate data security practices, Plaintiff and
Class Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries
and damages, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief
including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future
annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring
services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief.
Ms. Capellan provided her private information to the Defendant as a
patient at AAC. She received a notice letter from the Defendant in
December of 2024 informing her of the Data Breach and the theft of
her Private Information.
The Defendant is a nationwide addiction treatment center, which
specializes in evidence-based treatment and mental healthcare
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Tanner R. Hilton, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Class Cert Hearing in Clark Continued to June 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINNIE CLARK, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LTD., a
Japanese corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge André Birotte Jr. entered an order granting joint
stipulation to continue litigation deadlines as follows:
Event New Deadline
Close of expert discovery: Feb. 28, 2025
Reply brief re: Motion for Class Apr. 18, 2025
Certification, rebuttal expert reports
and any affirmative Rule 702 Motions:
Defendant's oppositions to any May 16, 2025
affirmative Rule 702 Motions:
Replies re: Plaintiffs' affirmative May 30, 2025
Rule 702 Motions:
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification, June 27, 2025 at
Rule 702 Motions and Motion to Strike: 10:00 a.m.
Final pre-trial conference: TBD at 11:00 a.m.
American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda
Motor Company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R0ko2l at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANDREW MCFARLAND: Class Certification Denied in Latimore Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dudley H. Bowen, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Georgia denied the plaintiff's recent
motion to certify class and set aside judgment in the case
captioned as ROY LATIMORE, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW MCFARLAND, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00077 (S.D. Ga.).
On Jan. 2, 2025, the Court dismissed all named Plaintiffs in this
case except Roy Latimore, who is the only Plaintiff to have signed
the complaint and file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff Latimore was also ordered to file an Amended Complaint on
the standard form provided that contains only the claims of
Plaintiff Latimore. The deadline to do so was Jan. 24, 2025.
Plaintiff Latimore has steadfastly refused to accept the ruling
that prisoner plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis cannot file
class actions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
To that end, Plaintiff Latimore has filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint containing class action allegations and claims,
two motions for class certification, a motion to set aside judgment
targeted at the Court's Order of Jan. 2, 2025, and a Declaration of
Kyree Brantley, a fellow prisoner who attests that he has the same
claims as Plaintiff Latimore. Nothing in these filings warrants
reconsideration of its ruling on the prohibition against class
actions by in forma pauperis prisoner plaintiffs, and the Court
will not restate the legal basis therefor.
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with
the Report and Recommendation of Jan. 10, 2025, to which no
objections have been filed. Accordingly, it adopts the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as its opinion
and denies Plaintiff Latimore's first motion to certify class and
his motion for a retaliatory transfer.
Plaintiff Latimore is advised that he has until Monday, Feb. 10,
2025, to file an Amended Complaint on the standard form provided
with the service copy of this Order, which does not contain class
allegations or the claims of other inmates and which comports with
the directives of the Magistrate Judge in his Order of Nov. 20,
2024. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action
without prejudice.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0f7RiA from PacerMonitor.com.
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Lazaar Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE LAZAAR and DONNA :
TROPEANO-TIRINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as Collective and Class representatives, v. THE ANTHEM
COMPANIES, INC.; EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE HMO, INC., d/b/a EMPIRE BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD HMO and EMPIRE BLUE CROSS; and HEALTHPLUS HP, LLC
d/b/a EMPIRE BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD HEALTHPLUS AND EMPIRE, BLUECROSS
HEALTHPLUS, Case No. 1:22-cv-03075-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Anthem is a health benefits company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oakjj4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
E-mail: srey@nka.com
copperman@nka.com
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Seek to File Exhibits Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lazaar, et al., v. The
Anthem Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03075-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
letter-motion to seal Exhibits in support of Plaintiffs' motion for
Rule 23 Class Certification.
On January 22 and 23, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with
counsel for Defendants regarding exhibits Plaintiffs intended to
file in support of their Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs provided specific bates numbers to Defendants of
company documents produced by Defendants during discovery that
Plaintiffs intended to use in support of their motion for
Defendants' consideration as to whether they should be filed under
seal.
The Defendants identified a subset of those documents that they
requested be filed under seal.
Anthem is a health benefits company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jSXY7R at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S. 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: fisher@nka.com
srey@nka.com
copperman@nka.com
ARCONIC CORP: Charter Sues Over Stock's Artificially Inflated Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY POLICE & FIRE PENSION & RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ARCONIC CORPORATION, TIMOTHY MYERS, ERICK ASMUSSEN,
and FREDERICK HENDERSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00863
(S.D.N.Y., January 29, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Arconic's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Arconic common stock at
artificially inflated prices between April 19, 2022, and May 3,
2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors
concerning Apollo's offer to acquire Arconic, including that Apollo
was offering a large premium for the company's shares and that
Apollo's all-cash offer came from a highly motivated buyer with a
willingness to use certain of its own financing sources to help
secure the necessary debt funding. As a result of the Defendants'
wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered
damages.
Charter Township Of Shelby Police & Fire Pension & Retirement
System a retirement system for the police and fire departments in
Shelby Charter Township, Michigan.
Arconic Corporation is a provider of aluminum sheets, plates, and
extrusions headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq.
Adam T. Savett, Esq.
Justyn Millamena, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
Email: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
jruthizer@wolfpopper.com
asavett@wolfpopper.com
JMillamena@wolfpopper.com
- and -
Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
Aaron L. Castle, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-1200
Email: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
acastle@vmtlaw.com
AVANGRID INC: Goldschein Balks at Merger Deal With Iberdrola
------------------------------------------------------------
MARC GOLDSCHEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AVANGRID, INC., ROBERT DUFFY, JOHN BALDACCI, PEDRO
AZAGRA BLAZQUEZ, and IGNACIO S. GALAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-00772
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2025) is a putative class action against the
Defendants for alleged negligent violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff's claims arise in connection with Defendants'
solicitation of the Company's public stockholders to vote in favor
of the transaction whereby Iberdrola, S.A., Avangrid's 81.6% owner
and controlling stockholder, acquired the shares of Avangrid that
it did not already own pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated May 17, 2024.
The proxy statements Avangrid filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Schedule 14A on August 20, 2024, and
September 6, 2024 in furtherance of its solicitation contained
numerous negligent omissions relating to Baldacci's long-standing
and significant ties to Iberdrola.
In particular, the Plaintiff challenges the following statements as
materially misleading insofar as they:
(a) Related to the Unaffiliated Committee, yet negligently and
falsely characterized the Unaffiliated Committee as
independent from Iberdrola or failed to disclose material
facts sufficient to reasonably apprise stockholders of the
Unaffiliated Committee’s lack of independence from
Iberdrola; or
(b) Related to Baldacci, yet negligently and omissively failed
to disclose the existence of his relationship with Iberdrola
or failed to disclose material facts sufficient to
reasonably apprise stockholders of that relationship.
Marc Goldschein was a holder of Avangrid common stock.
Avangrid is New York corporation with principal executive offices
located at 180 Marsh Hill Road, Orange, Connecticut. Prior to the
consummation of the Buyout, the Company listed its common stock on
the NYSE under the ticker symbol "AGR." Avangrid survived the
Buyout as a wholly owned subsidiary of Iberdrola.
The Individual Defendants are directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com
jlerner@monteverdelaw.com
BANKERS TRUST: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Suit Due August 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE JONES, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated; v. BANKERS TRUST
COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-00477-RGE-WPK (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge
William Kelly entered an amended scheduling and trial setting
order:
1. A Jury Trial shall begin on Nov. 16, 2026 at 9:00 AM before
United States District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger at the
United States Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa.
2. A Final Pretrial Conference shall be held on Oct. 7, 2026 at
9:00 AM at the United States Courthouse, Des Moines, Iowa
before Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger.
3. Plaintiff shall designate expert witnesses and disclose
their written reports by July 18, 2025.
4. Defendant shall designate expert witnesses and disclose
their written reports by Sept. 15, 2025.
5. Plaintiff shall designate rebuttal expert witnesses and
disclose their written reports by Oct. 13, 2025.
6. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by
Aug. 1, 2025. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification shall be filed by Sept. 26, 2025.
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification shall be filed by Oct. 24, 2025.
7. Discovery shall be completed by March 12, 2026. Written
discovery shall be propounded so that the time for response
is not later than this date.
8. Dispositive motions shall be filed by April 30, 2026.
Bankers Trust is a commercial banking institution established in
1903 and based in Des Moines, Iowa.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BhhVbH at no extra
charge.[CC]
BLACKSTONE CONSULTING: Loses Bid to Dismiss Ulloa Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Hernan D. Vera of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California denied the motion filed by
Blackstone Consulting Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospital to
dismiss the case captioned as YEFFRI ULLOA, Plaintiff, v.
BLACKSTONE CONSULTING, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No.:
5:24-cv-01134-HDV-SKx (C.D. Calif.). The plaintiff's motion to
remand is granted.
Plaintiff Yeffri Ulloa began working as a hospital security guard
in June 2023. He filed this putative class action against
Defendants in Riverside Superior Court on April 23, 2024.
Plaintiff's Complaint includes claims for:
(1) failure to pay overtime wages,
(2) failure to pay minimum wages,
(3) failure to provide meal periods,
(4) failure to provide rest periods,
(5) waiting time penalties,
(6) wage statement violations,
(7) failure to pay timely wages,
(8) failure to indemnify,
(9) violation of Labor Code Section 227.3, and
(10) unfair competition.
Specifically, he seeks damages for the class for the four-year
period from 2020-2024.
Defendants removed the case to the District Court on May 29, 2024.
Before the Court are two motions:
(1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and
(2) Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on June 17, 2024, and
Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand on June 28, 2024.
Defendants contend in the main that all of Plaintiff's state law
claims are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act because they are expressly predicated on (and require
interpretation of) rights created by the parties' collective
bargaining agreement. More specifically, Defendants maintain that
pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 514 and 512, Plaintiff's
wage claims cannot be asserted under California law because the
parties' most recent CBA provides for wage payments of 30 percent
more than the state minimum wage.
But while Plaintiff's current CBA does provide for the 30% premium
set forth in Section 514 and 512, the prior CBA -- which applied
for a significant period of his employment and most of the
four-year damages period for the class -- did not meet this premium
threshold either for Plaintiff or for the other putative class
members, the District Court finds. For this reason, California
Labor Code Sections 514 and 512 do not apply. The District Court
further finds that Plaintiffs' wage and hour claims do not
vindicate a right or duty created by the CBA itself nor do they
require a legal interpretation of the CBA(s), and are therefore not
preempted under the LMRA under the test set forth by the Ninth
Circuit in Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp. 491 F.3d 1053, 1059–60
(9th Cir. 2007). Because there is no preemption, the entirety of
the action must be remanded to state court, the District Court
concludes.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sbbc8S from PacerMonitor.com.
BLOCK.ONE: Class Counsel Awarded $2.97MM in Fees, Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the lead plaintiff's amended
motion for award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the case
captioned as CRYPTO ASSETS OPPORTUNITY FUND LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs, -against- BLOCK.ONE, et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-3829 (S.D.N.Y.).
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. is awarded $2,343,842.50 in attorneys' fees
and $81,599.31 in expenses, Koutoulas Law, LLC is awarded $146,440,
Ievgeniia Vatrenko is awarded $316,610, and Bluhm Legal Clinic is
awarded $79,900.
This is a securities class action against cryptocurrency company
Block.one and its leaders for violation of multiple provisions of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934. On Dec.
12, 2024, Lead Plaintiff moved to certify the proposed class and to
grant final approval of an amended settlement agreement. On the
same day, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses seeking attorneys' fees in the amount
equal to its lodestar as of Nov. 30, 2024, and litigation expenses
of $81,599.31.
Attorneys' fees
Counsel have submitted a proposed lodestar of $3,067,884.50 based
on 4,218.75 hours of work said to have been performed by:
(1) Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.,
(2) Koutoulas Law, LLC,
(3) Ievgeniia P. Vatrenko, Esq., and
(4) Bluhm Legal Clinic of the Northwestern Pritzker School of
Law.
Grant & Eisenhofer, lead counsel in this litigation, has submitted
a proposed lodestar of $2,369,274.50 based on 3,187 hours of work.
The Court finds that the number of hours for which Grant &
Eisenhofer requests compensation is reasonable. The Court finds
also that the hourly rates for the attorneys are appropriate, but
that the hourly rates for paralegals are not. Courts in this
district typically cap paralegal hourly rates at $150 to $200 per
hour. Accordingly, the Court will cap the paralegals' hourly rates
at $200 per hour, which reduces the total cost charged for them
from $81,772 to $56,340. With this reduction, the fee award to
Grant & Eisenhofer is $2,343,842.50.
Koutloulas Law has submitted a proposed lodestar of $294,960 based
on 368.7 hours of work. The entire lodestar is attributable to its
sole timekeeper, James Koutoulas. Mr. Koutoulas's log accounts for
367.6 hours of work dedicated to this action. The Court finds that
this number of hours for which Mr. Koutoulas seeks compensation is
reasonable, except that the 1.5 hours spent on motion fees
declaration is not compensable because it includes time advocating
for attorneys' fees.
Mr. Koutoulas has not provided information supporting his
contention that $800 per hour is an appropriate rate for him given
his experience and rates charged by comparable lawyers for
reasonably comparable services. Over the past four years, on
average, less than 10 percent of the compensation that he has
received for legal services has been billed and collected on an
hourly basis.
The Court therefore gives little weight to Mr. Koutoulas's
representation that $800 per hour is his ordinary rate. It finds
that a lower rate of $400 per hour for Mr. Koutoulas is reasonable.
Accordingly, the fee award to Mr. Koutoulas is $146,440.
Ievgeniia P. Vatrenko has submitted a proposed lodestar of $323,750
based on 462.5 hours of work. The Court finds that compensating Ms.
Vatrenko for 452.3 hours of work is appropriate. The Court finds
also that Ms. Vatrenko's proposed rate of $700 per hour is
reasonable based on the work for which she has charged similar or
higher rates and the higher billing rate she charged while
previously employed at a large New York law firm. Accordingly, the
fee award to Ms. Vatrenko is $316,610.
Bluhm Legal Clinic has submitted a proposed lodestar of $79,900
based on 200.55 hours of work. Based on counsel's submissions, the
Court finds that the number of hours for which Bluhm Legal Clinic
requests compensation is reasonable. The Court finds also that Mr.
Tenenbaum's hourly rate of $400 is appropriate. The fee award to
Bluhm Legal Clinic is $79,900.
Expenses
Counsel seek reimbursement for $81,599.31 in expenses. The majority
of expenses are attributable to covering expert costs and
miscellaneous fees. The Court finds nothing objectionable and
grants this request.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DsrmYv from PacerMonitor.com.
BLOCK.ONE: Class Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the
class action settlement in the following cases:
(1) CHASE WILLIAMS AND WILLIAM ZHANG, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLOCK.ONE, BRENDAN
BLUMER, and DANIEL LARIMER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02809-LAK
(S.D.N.Y.)
(2) CRYPTO ASSETS OPPORTUNITY FUND LLC and JOHNNY HONG,
individually and Lennar on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BLOCK.ONE, BRENDAN BLUMER, DANIEL LARIMER, IAN
GRIGG, and BROCK PIERCE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03829-LAK
(S.D.N.Y.).
The Court certifies, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the
Action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Class.
The Settlement Class consists of all persons or entities who, at
any time during the period of June 26, 2017 through May 18, 2020,
inclusive, acquired ERC-20 Tokens or EOS Tokens in a Domestic
Transaction and were damaged thereby, including purchases
(including over-the-counter and peer-to-peer purchases) (1) of
ERC-20 Tokens or EOS Tokens on any of the following exchanges: (i)
Coinbase (including Tagomi, Routefire, and Paradex); (11) Coinbase
Pro (including GDAX); (111) Kraken; (iv) Poloniex; (v) Bittrex;
(v1) Binance US; (vii) Genesis; (vii) Cumberland; (ix) FTX.US; (x)
Gemini; (x1) Radar Relay; or (xit) CoinFlip; or (2) of ERC-20
Tokens or EOS Tokens where both the purchaser and seller were
located in the United States at the time of the purchase; or (3) of
ERC-20 Tokens made directly from Block.one during its token sale
that took place from June 26, 2017 to June 1, 2018; or (4) of EOS
Tokens that were verified by EOS block
producers located within the United States based on publicly
available information at hitps://eosauthority.com/producers_rank or
other comparable websites.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Court certifies
Plaintiff Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund LLC as Class
Representative for the Class and appoints Lead Counsel as Class
Counsel for the Class. Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have fairly
and adequately represented the Class both in terms of litigating
the Action and for purposes of entering into and implementing the
Settlement and have satisfied the requirements of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and 23(g), respectively.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court finds that the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement are
fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the Settling Parties and the
Class, the Settlement Agreement and Settlement are finally approved
in all respects, and the Settling Parties are directed to perform
its terms.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zfl1aX from PacerMonitor.com.
BROOKMAN PROTECTION: Faces Vang Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
VISAY VANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BROOKMAN PROTECTION SERVICES INCORPORATED and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV00150 (Cal.
Super., Butte Cty., January 9, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of California Labor Code and California's
Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal
breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair
competition.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in an armed security position from in or about December
2021 through the present.
Brookman Protection Services Incorporated is a security guard
services provider based in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
Gary S. Brotman, Esq.
Alex Purcell, Esq.
MARQUEE LAW GROUP, A Professional Corporation
9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 445, East Tower
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 275-1844
Facsimile: (310) 275-1801
Email: tuvia@marqueelaw.com
gary@marqueelaw.com
alex@marqueelaw.com
CALCASIEU CORRECTIONAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied in Nunez
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY A. NUNEZ, V.
CALCASIEU CORRECTIONAL, ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-157 (W.D. La.),
the Hon. Judge Thomas Leblanc entered an order denying the motion
to certify class, and denying the motion to appoint Counsel.
Because Plaintiff fails to show that he can properly serve as a
representative party in a class action, his motion to proceed as a
class action is denied.
The Plaintiff's claims are not atypical of those often asserted in
civil rights litigation and are not complex. Further, plaintiff has
not shown himself to be unable to represent his own legal
interests.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is
denied, as the circumstances presented herein are not "exceptional"
so as to warrant the appointment of counsel.
The Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights complaint alleging
constitutional violations at Riverbend Detention Center. Plaintiff
seeks to bring this action on behalf of himself and other inmates
at Riverbend Detention Center.
The Calcasieu Correctional provides detention services to adults
convicted of crimes in Louisiana s Calcasieu Parish.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EP5vaM at no extra
charge.[CC]
CAPITAL ONE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kromney Suit Due July 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAIG KROMNEY, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL
ONE, N.A., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00575-REP-MRC (E.D. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Robert Payne entered an order that:
(1) Discovery on class certification shall proceed and the
motion for class certification shall be filed on July 1,
2025; and the response to the motion for class
certification shall be filed on July 25, 2025; and the
reply shall be filed on Aug. 11, 2025; and
(2) Counsel for the plaintiffs shall forthwith advise whether
they wish the Court to decide DEFENDANT CAPITAL ONE, N.A.'s
motion to dismiss Count Two of Plaintiffs' amended
complaint or whether Count Two of the amended Complaint is
to be withdrawn.
Capital One offers financial products and services such as personal
and business checking, savings accounts, investment, mortgages,
issues credit card, business loans, and commercial banking
solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rZXIQk at no extra
charge.[CC]
CAPITAL ONE: Smith Sues Over Conversion of Content Creators' Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
XAVIER SMITH, 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-00162
(E.D. Va., January 29, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for conversion, restitution based on quasi-contract or
unjust enrichment, intentional interference with contractual
relations, intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage, and violation of Arizona's Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged practice of replacing
the affiliate cookie from a content creator's unique information
and insert a source code with their own information through Capital
One Shopping browser extension. Through this deceptive practice,
the Defendants deprive creators of the revenue they depend on to
sustain their businesses. The Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals seek to recover damages.
Capital One Financial Corporation is a holding company,
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
Wikibuy, LLC is a subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corporation.
Wikibuy Holdings, LLC is a subsidiary of Capital One Financial
Corporation. [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 -
Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
Adele Daniel, Esq.
Kylie Fisher, Esq.
Andrew Lindsay, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
adaniel@kellerrohrback.com
kfisher@kellerrohrback.com
alindsay@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Christopher Springer, Esq.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com
CAREBRIDGE MEDICAL: Norton Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practice
----------------------------------------------------------
LIZA NORTON, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, CAREBRIDGE MEDICAL GROUP PC INC., RSV QOZB
LTSS, INC., AND ELEVANCE HEALTH INC., d/b/a CAREBRIDGE HEALTH,
Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00153 (M.D. Fla., January 20, 2025),
arises from Defendants' common policy and unlawful pay practice and
scheme to avoid overtime pay obligations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants willfully misclassified the clinical assessor
position as exempt from overtime pay. As a result, Plaintiff
Norton, and other similarly situated clinical assessor employees
were unlawfully not compensated for all hours worked over 40 in
each and every work week, and were permitted to suffer to work off
the clock in violation of the FLSA, says the suit.
Elevance Health, Inc. is a health insurance company headquartered
in Nashville, TN. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
12610 Race Track Road #225
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
mail@feldmanlegal.us
CARGILL INC: Must File Supplemental Briefing on Tavares Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kirk E. Sherriff of the United States District Cout for the
Eastern District of California ordered the parties in the case
captioned as MARIBEL TAVARES, individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of
the aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED, et al,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00792-KES-SKO (E.D. Calif.) to provide
additional information relating to the proposed class action
settlement in this class action.
On Dec. 23, 2024, plaintiff Maribel Tavares filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement.
Defendants do not oppose plaintiff's motion. The court has reviewed
plaintiff's motion and requires additional information in
evaluating whether to preliminarily approve the parties' settlement
in this class action.
The parties are directed to file supplemental briefing or
declaration(s) addressing the following:
1. the basis for the estimated class size;
2. the estimated maximum value of the class members' claims and the
basis for calculating those values;
3. the estimated average payments to be made to class members;
4. whether the parties have served the proposed settlement on
appropriate state and/or federal officials;
5. the adequacy of the proposed notice, which does not provide an
estimate or approximate range of potential individual payments to
class members.
Some of the information to be provided in supplemental briefing --
such as the estimated payments to be made to class members -- may
impact a review of the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed
settlement. The parties may provide any additional supplemental
information they believe would assist the court in ruling on the
pending motion. Counsel may also supplement their explanation of
why the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable in light of the
new information provided.
The hearing on the motion for preliminary approval is continued
from Feb. 3, 2025, to March 3, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 6.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uL38Qn from PacerMonitor.com.
CENTENNIAL MEDICAL: Faces Wilson TCPA Class Suit in D. Oregon
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centennial Medical
Group East, LLC. The case is captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CENTENNIAL MEDICAL GROUP EAST, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00043-MC (D.
Ore., January 9, 2025).
The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Centennial Medical Group East, LLC is a primary care provider in
Oregon. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mt. Carmel Ave.
Glenside, PA 19038
Telephone: (215) 225-5529
Facsimile: (888) 329-0305
Email: a@perronglaw.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, PC
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
CIRCLE K: Summary Judgment Denied in Abboud TCPA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dominic W. Lanza of the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona denied Circle K Stores Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned as Monica Abboud, Plaintiff,
v. Circle K Stores Incorporated, Defendant, Case No.
CV-23-01683-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.).
In this putative class action, Monica Abboud alleges that Circle K
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending several
text messages to her without her consent after she registered her
phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry.
Whether The Text Messages Qualify As "Telephone Solicitations"
It is undisputed that Defendant (through Mobivity Holdings Corp.)
sent four text messages to Plaintiff's phone number ending in 3670
between Aug. 2, 2023, and Sept. 12, 2023. Plaintiff's theory of
liability is that the first three text messages constituted
"telephone solicitations" within the meaning of the TCPA and that,
because she had not consented to receive such solicitations and had
registered her phone number on the DNC Registry, Defendant violated
the TCPA by causing the three text messages to be sent.
Defendant now argues it is entitled to summary judgment for three
reasons:
(1) the text messages do not qualify as "telephone
solicitations" within the meaning of the TCPA;
(2) alternatively, the TCPA creates an exception to liability
when an individual provides consent to be contacted, as Plaintiff
did in this case; and
(3) further alternatively, the TCPA creates an exception to
liability when an established business relationship exists between
the sender and recipient, as existed in this case between Defendant
and Plaintiff.
Defendant argues that the text messages at issue do not qualify as
"telephone solicitations" under the TCPA because a solicitation
must encourage the future purchase of property or services and the
messages in this case were merely to confirm Plaintiff's opt-in to
a program through which plaintiff could thereafter receive special
offers. It asserts while those future special offers might
encourage the purchase of property, goods, or services, the initial
messages confirming enrollment in a program did no such thing.
Judge Lanza says, when the full context of the messages is
considered and when all reasonable inferences are drawn in
Plaintiff's favor, a factfinder could conclude that one of
Defendant's purposes in causing the text messages to be sent was to
encourage Plaintiff to make future purchases of Defendant's
products.
Established Business Relationship
According to the Court, Defendant cannot take advantage of the
"established business relationship" exception.
The Court finds Plaintiff did not have an established business
relationship with Defendant at the time she received the text
messages. Plaintiff did not complete any purchases or transactions
with Defendant and did not submit any inquiries or applications to
Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff cannot be said to have entered into an
established business relationship with Defendant.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=At69iw from PacerMonitor.com.
CITIBANK NA: Dismissal of Arbitration Bid in Espin Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as PABLO ESPIN; NICHOLAS PADAO; JEREMY BELL;
KEITH TAYLOR, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant
- Appellant, AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
ASSOCIATION, Amici Supporting Appellant, and ENLISTED ASSOCIATION
OF THE NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES; MILITARY OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; RESERVE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Amici Supporting Appellees, No. 23-2083 (4th
Cir.), Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, Henry F. Floyd and Kenneth D. Bell
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the judgment of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina denying Citibank, N.A.'s motion
to compel arbitration.
In connection with their credit card accounts with Citibank, N.A,
the plaintiffs, who were members of the military, commenced this
class action against Citibank for violations of, among other
things, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 3901
et seq. The terms and conditions of their credit cards included
agreements to arbitrate "any claim, dispute, or controversy," but
only "on an individual (non-class, non-representative) basis." The
question in this case is whether the SCRA prohibits enforcement of
these arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9
U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq.
When the plaintiffs left active-duty military service, they had
accrued large balances on their credit cards. Citibank, as the
issuer of the plaintiffs' credit cards, had generally charged
reduced or no interest on the plaintiffs' accounts while the
plaintiffs were on active duty, as required by the SCRA, 50 U.S.C.
Sec. 3937. But when the plaintiffs left active duty, Citibank began
charging them its standard civilian interest rates and fees on the
outstanding balances, which the plaintiffs claim violated the SCRA.
In their class action complaint, they alleged, among other claims,
that Citibank violated the SCRA and the Military Lending Act, 10
U.S.C. Sec. 987, and that it breached their contracts.
Based on the parties' agreement to arbitrate their claims, Citibank
filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action.
Relying on the SCRA, which provides various special protections for
active-duty military members, the district court denied Citibank's
motion, concluding that Congress intended to preclude enforcement
of agreements to arbitrate claims under the SCRA, which expressly
allows for class actions, notwithstanding any previous agreement to
the contrary. The court explained that while the SCRA is silent as
to arbitration specifically, it was nonetheless amended to codify
the unwaivable right of servicemembers to bring and participate in
class actions. Accordingly, it held that Congress demonstrated a
clear intention to displace the provisions of the FAA, which
provides for the enforcement of arbitration agreements.
On appeal, Citibank contends that there is no clear and explicit
language in the SCRA from which to conclude that Congress intended
to override the applicability of the FAA. Accordingly, it argues
that the district court should have compelled arbitration of the
plaintiffs' SCRA claim under the FAA, as well as all of the other
claims alleged by the plaintiffs. Therefore, it urges us to order
arbitration for the entire case.
The plaintiffs argue that because their arbitration agreements
require their claims to be resolved on an individual,
non-class-representative basis, the agreements conflict with the
SCRA's statutory protection of class actions. According to the
Circuit Judges, this argument misinterprets the scope of the SCRA's
protection. The relevant provision authorizes class actions in
federal court 'in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, notwithstanding any previous agreement to the contrary.'
Yet, the arbitration agreements' terms do not purport to address
class actions in federal court in accordance with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Rather, they address the nature and scope of
the arbitration proceedings and the relief that the arbiter can
provide.
They agree generally with Citibank and therefore reverse the
district court's judgment. Hence, they remand with instructions to
compel arbitration according to the parties' credit card agreements
with respect to all claims except those brought under the MLA,
which require further assessment by the district court.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f0fw28 from PacerMonitor.com.
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Amaral Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY AMARAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
CITIZENS BANK N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00013-MSM-PAS
(D.R.I., January 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant
for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence,
violation of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and
declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated clients stored within its computer systems
following a data breach on October 23, 2024. The Defendant also
failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Citizens Financial Services, Inc., doing business as Citizens Bank,
NA, is a financial services company, with its principal office at
One Citizens Bank Way, Johnston, Rhode Island. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Ave.
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
Facsimile: 401-861-6064
Email: pnwlaw@aol.com
- and -
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Scales FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Scales, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Collection
Professionals, Inc. et al., Case No. 2024CH10166 was removed from
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan.
3, 2024.
The Northern Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-00050 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras.
Collection Professionals is a licensed debt recovery agency
specializing in NSF check collections and comprehensive debt
recovery services, including rural healthcare collections.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth Barrow Mccormick, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100
Lisle, IL 60532
Telephone: (312) 971-6787
E-mail: seth@glclf.com
- and -
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 471-2599
E-mail: bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Justin M Penn, Esq.
Margaret Anne Hayes, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
151 N. Franklin Street, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 704-3157
E-mail: jpenn@hinshawlaw.com
mahayes@hinshawlaw.com
- and -
Scott Edwin Brady, Esq.
QUILLING SELANDER LOWNDS WINSLETT MOSER
10333 North Meridian Street, Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Telephone: (214) 871-2100
Facsimile: (214) 871-2111
E-mail: sbrady@qslwm.com
- and -
Laura K. Rang, Esq.
TRANS UNION, LLC
555 W. Adams Street
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (812) 774-8731
E-mail: laura.rang@transunion.com
COMPASS GROUP: Must Produce WebPayroll Data, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as O'BRIEN v. COMPASS GROUP
USA, INC. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-13327-ES-JSA (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Jessica Allen entered an order that the Compass Defendants
are required to produce WebPayroll data for 30% of the employees at
the seven cost centers from Oct. 31, 2014, through the date that
the location ceased using WebPayroll.
Further, for the 30% of employees at the seven cost centers, the
Compass Defendants shall produce 15 pay periods of timecard data,
where available.
The Compass Defendants shall produce the information consistent
with the rulings herein on or before Feb. 14, 2025.
On or before Feb. 18, 2025, the parties shall submit a joint,
proposed amended scheduling order to govern the completion of
statewide and nationwide class pre-certification fact and expert
discovery, and the filing of motions for class certification and/or
any cross-motions for summary judgment.
The Court will conduct a Telephone Status Conference on Feb. 28,
2025, at 2:00 p.m. The parties are instructed to dial
1-855-244-8681 and enter Access Code 23024029552# at the time of
the Conference.
Accordingly, this Court finds that a timeframe starting on Oct. 31,
2014, properly balances the relevance of the information sought
against the burden imposed and needs of the case.
On Oct. 31, 2015, the Plaintiff allegedly noticed there was a
problem with his payroll and that he was being underpaid.
In 2017, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a putative
class, commenced this action in New Jersey Superior Court, seeking
to recover damages for unpaid wages.
The Plaintiff, Christopher O'Brien, was formerly employed by the
Compass Defendants as a food service associate in the Hackensack
School District.
Compass Group retails prepared foods and drinks for on-premise
consumption.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZuyePS at no extra
charge.[CC]
CONNECTONCALL.COM LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Nolet Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN NOLET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONNECTONCALL.COM, LLC and PHREESIA, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-00067-EK-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2025) is a class action
complaint against the Defendants, seeking recovery on behalf of
himself and 914,138 similarly situated people, based upon the
Defendants failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information and personal health information of
individuals receiving Defendants' services.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to properly protect the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, phone numbers, and
information related to their health conditions, treatments, or
prescriptions. Some Class Members' Social Security numbers were
also accessed, the suit contends.
On May 12, 2024, Defendant Phreesia learned of a service disruption
on ConnectOnCall, a product offered by Defendant ConnectOnCall.com,
LLC, a subsidiary Phreesia acquired in October 2023. An
investigation conducted by Phreesia revealed that between Feb. 16,
2024, and May 12, 2024, an unauthorized actor infiltrated and
accessed the inadequately protected computer systems of the
Defendants.
Despite identifying the Data Breach on May 12, 2024, the Defendants
did not report the Data Breach until Dec. 11, 2024, seven months
after the Data Breach occurred and the sensitive Private
Information those individuals affected had been exposed, the
Plaintiff avers.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered concrete harm including invasion of privacy; unauthorized
disclosure and/or theft of their Private Information; lost or
diminished value of their Private Information; lost time and
opportunity costs associated with attempts to remediate and/or
mitigate the impact of actual consequences of the Data Breach; loss
of benefit of the bargain; actual misuse of the compromised data;
and the substantial and imminent risk of future misuse of the
compromised data, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff Nolet is a resident and citizen of Essex County in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff received a letter from
ConnectOnCall, dated Dec. 12, 2024, explaining that his Private
Information was improperly accessed by an unauthorized third party
in the Data Breach.
CollectOnCall is a New York-based healthcare services provider
which provides a product to healthcare providers to improve their
after-hours call process and enhance communications between the
providers and their patients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
CRAWFORD & COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Archie et al. Allege
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS ARCHIE, VINCENT FORTADO, JEREMY HINES, STACY MCRAE, TRAVIS
MORRIS, LOGAN OWENS, CHARLES THOMPSON, and MARLOWE WESTERFIELD,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs v. CRAWFORD & COMPANY and CRAWFORD CATASTROPHE,
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00057 (E.D. Tex.,
January 20, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants as insurance adjusters,
team leads, trainers, and managers at Defendants' Allen, Texas call
center. Allegedly, the Plaintiffs were paid under an invalid day
rate system that was subject to deductions for partial-day
absences, without any additional compensation for overtime worked,
overtime would be due at a rate of one and one-half the regular
rate of pay for any overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek. In addition, the Defendants willfully violated FLSA's
recordkeeping requirements by unlawfully altering the timesheets of
Plaintiffs, says the suit.
Crawford & Company provides insurance claims adjusting services to,
among others, insurance companies. It is a publicly traded entity
on the New York Stock Exchange. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
8665 New Trails Drive, Suite 160
The Woodlands, TX 77381
Telephone: (281) 364-7261
Facsimile: (281) 715-5764
E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com
CRITERION COLLECTION: Class Cert Pretrial Conference Due Dec. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS LUCCHESE-SOTO,
KEVIN MCGUIRE, MATTHEW WICKHAM, and AMITAI HELLER individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE CRITERION
COLLECTION, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07345-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Valerie Caproni entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order:
All parties do not consent to conducting all further proceedings
before a United States Magistrate Judge, including motions and
trial.
Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be
completed no later than 14 days from the date of this Order.
The next pretrial conference is scheduled for Dec. 5, 2025 at 10:00
a.m. in the Courtroom 20C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007.
Beginning on Thursday, March 6, 2025, the parties must provide a
joint letter on the first Thursday of each month updating the Court
on the status of discovery.
Criterion is an American home-video distribution company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SKl54k at no extra
charge.[CC]
DEALER TIRE: Faces Crew Class Action Lawsuit in Cal. Super.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DEALER TIRE, LLC. The
case is captioned as CREW v. DEALER TIRE, LLC, Case No. 25CV105605
(Cal. Super., Jan. 3, 2025).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Somnath Raj.
The nature of suit states Employment Complaint Case.
Dealer Tire offers online platforms for dealers to sell tires and
schedule appointments, integrating tire-shopping sites into
dealership websites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd Ste 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
DENT WIZARD: Faces Sullivan Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
SHAWN SULLIVAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DENT WIZARD INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Foreign
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00097 (E.D.
Mo., January 24, 2025) is a collective action brought by Plaintiff,
individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons
employed by Defendant arising from Dent Wizard's recurrent and
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that Dent Wizard failed to compensate
Plaintiff and other Non-Retail Technicians at a rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay, and sometimes even at the
minimum legally permissible overtime rate of pay, for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant to work as a non-exempt
interior/wheel technician in March 2021. Subsequently, the
Plaintiff was promoted and worked as a senior technician, and then
a master technician.
Dent Wizard provides automotive repair services throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Hinckley, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
200 N. Broadway, Suite 720
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 955-1030
Facsimile: (314) 655-9717
E-mail: chinckley@forthepeople.com
- and -
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
Corey L. Seldin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Rd., 4th Floor
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com
cseldin@forthepeople.com
DIDI GLOBAL: Class Action Suit Designated to Magistrate Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Court
entered an order designating class action suit to Magistrate
Judge.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=42OBtL at no extra
charge.[CC]
DOT TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Must File Opposition by Feb. 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watson v. DOT
Transportation, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01303 (E.D. Cal.,
Filed July 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an
order granting the parties' request as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their opposition or statement of
non-opposition by Feb. 21, 2025; and
-- The Defendants shall file their Reply by March 21, 2025.
Accordingly, the motion hearing set for March 21, 2025, before
District Judge Dena M. Coggins is vacated, to be reset at a later
date if the Court determines that oral argument is needed.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Dot provides trucking transportation services.[CC]
EVERYTHING BREAKS: Court Approves Stipulation on Media Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHAN CAMPBELL, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EVERYTHING
BREAKS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00861-GMN-EJY (D. Nev.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order approving the stipulation regarding
publication/media notice.
The Parties and the Settlement Administrator are ordered to cause
notice to issue in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and the foregoing Stipulation.
On Dec. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his unopposed motion to
certify class and for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.
On Dec. 12, 2024, the Court granted the motion.
The Settlement Agreement and Release executed by the Parties
provides for a Notice Program comprised of E-Mail Notice, Mail
Notice, Publication/Media Notice, Website Notice and Long-Form
Notice on the Settlement Website.
With respect to E-Mail Notice and Mail Notice, the Settlement
Administrator performed reverse lookup searches based on the class
data provided by Defendant (i.e., class member telephone numbers)
to identify persons in the Settlement Class and to determine their
most recent e-mail addresses and/or direct mailing addresses.
The Settlement Administrator reports that it obtained email
addresses and telephone numbers for approximately 99.5% of the
telephone numbers searched.
Based on the foregoing, the parties stipulate and agree to forego
the Publication/Media Notice contemplated by the Settlement
Agreement and Release.
Everything Breaks is a warranty company based in Dallas, TX,
offering comprehensive coverage plans for a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tLYXwU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER,
PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092-4322
Telephone: (817) 416-5060
Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com
- and -
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, #1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 587-6240
Facsimile: (215) 689-0875
E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
- and -
Craig K. Perry, Esq.
CRAIG K. PERRY & ASSOCIATES
6210 N. Jones Blvd. #753907
Las Vegas, NV 89136-8985
Telephone: (702) 228-4777
Facsimile: (702) 943-7520
E-mail: cperry@craigperry.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sean P. Flynn, Esq.
Tomiko A. Ortiz, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
1 East Liberty Street, Suite 424
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: (775) 467-2610
E-mail: sflynn@grsm.com
tortiz@grsm.com
EXECUTIVE WINE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Naryanasamy Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PARTHIBAN NARYANASAMY, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. EXECUTIVE WINE & SPIRITS INC., KHAIM AVULOV,
Case No. 7:25-cv-00081 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2025) alleges that the
plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that he
worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff is former employee of the Defendants.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a liquor store located at
1086 N. Broadway Yonkers, 10701 under the name "Executive Wine and
Spirits."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pat B. Pitchayan, Esq.
PITCHAYAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
72-30 Broadway, 3RD Floor
Jackson Heights, NY 11372
Telephone: (718) 478-9272
EZ MULTI SERVICE: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Mechanics' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO RUIZ, on his own behalf and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EZ MULTI SERVICE AND PARTS, LLC,
aka, EZ MULTI SERVICE, LLC, DANILO L. CARVALHOESILVA, individually,
and ADOLFO M. DE SA, individually, and all other affiliated
entities and/or joint employers, all whose true names are unknown,
and individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00730 (D.N.J.,
January 25, 2025) seeks recovery against the Defendants for alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State
Wage and Hour Law and associated provisions of the New Jersey
Administrative Code as well as the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs who elect to opt-in as part
of the collective action are all victims of the Defendants' common
policy and/or plan to violate the FLSA, NJWHL, and NJWPL, by
failing to provide overtime wages, at the rate of one- and one-half
times the regular rate of pay, for all time worked in excess of 40
hours in any given week, says the suit.
Plaintiff Ruiz became employed by Defendant, full-time, as a
non-exempt laborer, beginning in approximately July 2023, and
continuing through approximately August 2024, performing duties in
furtherance of Defendants' car mechanic business.
EZ Multi Service and Parts, LLC is a truck repair shop in Newark,
New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A
300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (201) 687-9977
Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
FACEAPP INC: Plaintiff's Rule 60 Motion in BIPA Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois denied the plaintiff's motion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 in the case
captioned as CHELSEA PURCHASE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEAPP INC. and FACEAPP
TECHNOLOGY LTD., Defendants, Case No. 23-CV-02735-SPM (S.D. Ill.)
On Aug. 8, 2023, Plaintiff Chelsea Purchase filed this class action
complaint against defendants FaceApp Inc., and FaceApp Technology
Limited for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy
Act. She seeks to recover statutory damages for the unauthorized
collection, storage, and use of their biometric information in
violation of BIPA.
Within the complaint, Purchase identified the following proposed
class:
All persons who, while residing in Illinois, had their biometric
identifiers collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained by
FaceApp.
On Nov. 13, 2023, FA filed its motion to compel arbitration or,
alternatively, to dismiss, along with a memorandum of law and two
supporting affidavits. Within the motion, FA contends that there
are many deficiencies in Purchase's complaint; however, the main
argument is that Purchase agreed to submit any claims to binding
and final arbitration. FA also argues that Purchase agreed that
she would not pursue any claims as a plaintiff in a class action
and that BIPA is inapplicable.
On Feb. 26, 2024, FTL filed its motion to compel arbitration or,
alternatively, to dismiss the complaint, along with incorporated
memorandum of law and supporting affidavit. Many of the arguments
surrounding arbitration are similar to those raised by FA, but the
arguments on dismissal vary in that FTL contends that this Court
has neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction over it.
Defendants argued that the motions to compel arbitration should be
granted while Purchase argued that the motions should be denied
because genuine issues of fact precluded compelling arbitration.
On Sept. 12, 2024, this Court granted the motions. On Jan. 2, 2025,
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(a) and 60(b)(6).
Rule 60(a)
A motion brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a)
is to correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from
oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order,
or other part of the record.
Plaintiff argues that it is unclear whether the Court implicitly
denied her requests for discovery related to arbitration by
granting leave to conduct only jurisdictional discovery. Defendants
contend that Plaintiff is arguing that the Court's order lacked
clarity, not that it contained a clerical error.
The Court agrees with Defendants. Even assuming Plaintiff is
correct in her assessment, it says Rule 60(a) is not the proper
vehicle by which to challenge it. Moreover, Plaintiff had multiple
opportunities to seek clarification from the Court but failed to do
so. Plaintiff was given sixty (60) days, then an additional ten
(10) days, to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff could
have sought to clarify the scope of discovery with the Court but
failed to do so. Rule 60(a) is not the proper method to seek
clarification of the Court's order.
Plaintiff also argues that that, even without discovery, there are
three genuine issues of material fact whether a valid agreement
existed between the parties. The Court decided these issues in its
Sept. 12 order, and they may not be challenged via Rule 60(a)
Rule 60(b)(6)
Rule 60(b) allows the Court to vacate a judgment for six reasons,
the last of which is for any other reason that justifies relief. To
grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the moving party must show that
extraordinary circumstances justify the reopening of a final
judgment.
The Court finds Plaintiff's motion for relief pursuant to Rule
60(b)(6) contains both procedural and substantive shortcomings.
According to the Court, Plaintiff identifies no mistake or
surprise, presents no new evidence, points to no fraud or
misconduct by Defendants, and reveals no other extraordinary
circumstances bringing her case within the reach of Rule 60(b). She
merely reasserts her arguments that the court previously rejected
in its previous order, which is not within the scope of Rule 60(b).
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=meSYWA from PacerMonitor.com.
FESTIVAL FUN: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Rodriguez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York denied the motion filed by
Festival Fun Parks, LLC d/b/a Palace Entertainment, to compel
arbitration in the case captioned as Adreana Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, -v- Festival Fun Parks, LLC d/b/a Palace Entertainment,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01245-NJC-ARL (E.D.N.Y.) pursuant to
the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 3.
Plaintiff Adreana Rodriguez brings this putative class action
against Festival Fun Parks LLC d/b/a Palace Entertainment under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).
Rodriguez alleges that Festival failed to disclose certain
processing fees attendant to ticket sales for Festival's Splish
Splash amusement park in the manner required under New York Arts
and Cultural Affairs Law Sec. 25.07.
Festival contends that Rodriguez's claim must be arbitrated
pursuant to an arbitration clause contained in the terms and
conditions of her purchase. According to Festival, in order to
purchase a ticket through the Splish Splash website, a customer
must select the particular ticket she wishes to purchase. It
asserts that this selection starts the ticket purchase process,
which spans a total of five webpages before the customer is
prompted to pay for the selected ticket. It contends that
throughout the purchase process, the customer is presented with the
"Splish Splash Terms & Conditions," which are hyperlinked at the
bottom of each page.
Festival served Rodriguez with a demand for arbitration. The
arbitration demand states that when Rodriguez purchased tickets on
the Splish Splash website, she agreed to be bound by the terms,
including the arbitration provision. It further advised that filing
the instant action triggered the arbitration and class action
waiver provisions and required Rodriguez to participate in
arbitration administered by JAMS.
Rodriguez opposes Festival's motion. She argues that she is not
bound by the terms, including the mandatory arbitration provision,
because the hyperlink to the terms on the Splish Splash website did
not give her reasonably conspicuous notice that by purchasing
Splish Splash tickets, she would be bound by those terms.
Considering the Complaint and all of the evidence submitted in
support of Festival's Motion, the Court finds Festival has failed
to establish that a reasonably prudent person seeking to purchase
Splish Splash day tickets online would be on inquiry notice of the
terms of the ticket purchase agreement on the ticket purchase
webpage, including the mandatory arbitration provision. Festival
has also failed to show that Rodriguez unambiguously manifested
assent to the terms when purchasing her ticket.
A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m6FcDS from PacerMonitor.com.
GAS EXPRESS: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Canup Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY CANUP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GAS EXPRESS, LLC d/b/a CIRCLE K, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00396-ELR (N.D. Ga., January 29, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated clients stored within its computer systems
following a data breach on May 20, 2024. The Defendant also failed
to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
Gas Express, LLC, doing business as Circle K. is a company that
operates gas and convenience stores based in Atlanta, Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
31 Atlanta Street
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 227-6375
Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Court Tosses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part an denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case styled as In re Gigacloud
Technology Securities Litigation, Case 23-CV-10645 (JMF)
(S.D.N.Y.).
GigaCloud entered the United States market in 2014 by acquiring
Comptree Inc. -- now its primary U.S. subsidiary. In January 2019,
the Company launched its own ecommerce platform, the GigaCloud
Marketplace. The Marketplace connects manufacturers, primarily
located in Asia, with buyers, primarily resellers based in the
United States, Asia, and Europe. The Company executes delivery and
sale of merchandise bought and sold on GigaCloud Marketplace
through a network of warehouses up to and including last-mile
delivery to the customer. In 2021, the Company renamed itself
GigaCloud Technology Inc.
In connection with its anticipated IPO in the United States,
GigaCloud filed a draft registration statement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2021. GigaCloud filed
its final Registration Statement on Aug. 17, 2022, and its
Prospectus two days later. On Aug. 22, 2022, the Company completed
its IPO and began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market under
the ticker symbol "GCT." As part of the IPO, GigaCloud sold
3,381,000 Class A ordinary shares at a price of $12.25 per share.
In this putative class action, Lead Plaintiffs Sashi Rajan and Meir
Spear bring securities claims against GigaCloud Technology Inc.;
eight GigaCloud officers and directors; and Aegis Capital Corp.,
the underwriter for GigaCloud's initial public offering. The
operative Second Amended Complaint alleges that, between Aug. 18,
2022 and May 22, 2024, Defendants made material misstatements with
respect to GigaCloud's marketplace activities and the use of
artificial intelligence in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 77k, 77o; Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Secs. 78j(b), 78t(a); and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5; 17 C.F.R. Secs. 240.10b-5.
The Individual Defendants are: Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Board of Directors Larry Lei Wu; Chief Financial Officer and
Director Kwok Hei David Lau; Chief Technology Officer and Director
Xin Wan; Director Frank Lin; Director Xing Huang; Director Zhiwu
Chen; Director Binghe Guo; and Director Thomas Liu.
Now pending are two motions to dismiss all claims in the Complaint.
First, all Defendants move, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the Complaint for
failure to state a claim. Second, Individual Defendant Zhiwu Chen
separately moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), to dismiss the claims
against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is granted in
part and denied in part, while Chen's motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(2) is denied. In particular, the District Court concludes
that Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Defendants made materially
misleading statements in the Offering Materials about GigaCloud's
use of AI in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act. It
follows that Plaintiffs' Section 15 claims relating to these
statements also survive.
By contrast, the District Court concludes that Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim based on GigaCloud's marketplace activities. It
follows that Plaintiffs' claims relating to these statements --
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 -- must be and are
dismissed.
The only remaining question is whether Plaintiffs should be
permitted to replead their claims to the extent they have been
dismissed -- as Plaintiffs request in passing. Although leave to
amend should be freely given when justice so requires, it is within
the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave
to amend.
According to the District Court, the problems with Plaintiffs'
dismissed claims are substantive, so amendment would be futile. Nor
do Plaintiffs suggest that they are in possession of facts that
would cure the problems with their dismissed claims. Finally, the
District Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend in response to
Defendants' first motion to dismiss and explicitly warned that they
would not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint
to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's
failure to fix deficiencies in its previous pleadings is alone
sufficient ground to deny leave to amend sua sponte, the District
Court concludes. Accordingly, their request for leave to amend is
denied.
A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d8cT8z from PacerMonitor.com.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class Settlement in Papalia Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacey Papalia, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GlaxoSmithKline
Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-02630-KMK
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order:
-- granting preliminary approval to class action settlement,
-- provisionally certifying settlement class,
-- directing notice to the settlement class, and
-- scheduling final approval hearing.
The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class:
All purchasers of any flavor Robitussin product with
detromethorpan and marketed as non-drowsy, including Robitussin
Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin
Cough+Chest DM Maximum Strength / Nightimre Cough DM Maximum
Strength Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Cough+Chest
Congestion DM Maximum Strength Liquif Filled Capusules;
Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Syrups; Children
Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Syrups; and Children
Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM / Nightime Cough Long-
Acting DM Day & Night value Pack Syrups, for personal or
household use, and not for sale in the United States during the
Class Period."
On Jan. 16,2022, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint against Haleon and Pfizer, Inc., based on the alleged
false and misleading labeling, packaging, and marketing of the
Covered Products.
The Plaintiffs have asserted claims on behalf of nationwide class
of consumers regarding, among other things, the use of the phrase
"Non-Drowsy" on labelling for the Covered Products (which contain
decxtromethorphan (DXM)).
GlaxoSmithKline is a consumer healthcare company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wy64Kk at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOODYEAR TIRE: Faces Ibarra Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
MASON IBARRA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Case No.
5:25-cv-00216 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 27, 2025) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Accordingly, the Telemarketing calls are intrusive. A great many
people object to these calls, which interfere with their lives, tie
up their phone lines, and cause confusion and disruption on phone
records. Faced with growing public criticism of abusive telephone
marketing practices, Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.
The problem with receiving unwanted telemarketing communications is
a problem that most people in this country, like the Plaintiff,
frequently face. For example, in 2024 alone, approximately 52.8
billion robocalls were placed in the United States.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful
conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in
a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class
members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies.
Goodyear is an American multinational tire manufacturer
headquartered in Akron, Ohio. Goodyear manufactures tires for
passenger vehicles, aviation, commercial trucks, military and
police vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, race cars, and
heavy off-road machinery.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Hurley Class Suit Over App Distribution Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
CONNOR HURLEY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE LLC, GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., and ALPHABET INC.,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00883-TSH (N.D. Cal., Jan. 27, 2025) is a class
action suit brought by the Plaintiff Hurley, on behalf of himself
and as a representative of a class of similarly situated direct
purchasers of apps and app-integrated digital content sold through
the Google Play Store throughout Canada, and demanding a trial by
jury.
Mobile devices, including smartphones and tablets, are essential
tools in contemporary life, both in Canada and in the rest of the
world. They are indispensable to consumers for personal
communication, as well as for access to and participation in the
modern economy.
Google acquired the Android mobile operating system ("Android") in
2005. Google promised repeatedly that Android would be the basis
for an "open" ecosystem in which industry participants could freely
compete, and, in Google's words, have "full control of [their]
brand and business." Google has not kept its word, the lawsuit
says.
The case is about doing the right thing in one important area, the
Android mobile ecosystem, where Google unlawfully maintains
monopolies in multiple related markets, denying consumers the
freedom to enjoy their mobile devices -- freedom that Google always
promised Android users would have, the lawsuit adds.
Instead, Google has taken steps to close the ecosystem from
competition and insert itself as the middleman between app
developers and consumers. Unbeknownst to most consumers who own a
mobile device running Android, every time they purchase an app from
the Google Play Store, or purchase digital content or subscriptions
within an app, the developer selling the app or in app content must
pay a commission of up to 30% of the purchase price to Google as a
kind of tax on the sale, says the suit.
To collect and maintain this extravagant and supra-competitive
commission, Google has employed anticompetitive tactics to diminish
and disincentivize competition for Android app distribution. Google
not only has targeted potentially competing app stores but also has
ensured that app developers themselves have no reasonable choice
but to distribute their apps through the Google Play Store. Google
did not stop at excluding potential threats to its app distribution
monopoly and extracting monopoly rents for app distribution. Google
also ensured it could (and would) continue to reap windfall
commissions from apps after the Google Play Store distributed them
to consumers -- often months or even years later.
Namely, Google imposed the same extravagant commission of up to 30%
of any future purchase of digital content a consumer might make
within an app. For all apps that consumers obtain from the Google
Play Store, Google requires that consumers in Canada purchase any
in-app digital content only through Google Play Billing.
By imposing this unduly restrictive and anticompetitive tie, Google
has collected (and continues to collect) supra-competitive
commissions from consumers who purchase in-app digital content. For
more than a decade, Google's Android has been the only viable
operating system available to license by mobile device
manufacturers that market and sell their devices to consumers. This
has afforded Google tremendous leverage over mobile device
manufacturers and Android app developers, the suit further
alleges.
Plaintiff Connor Hurley is a resident of Port Moody, British
Columbia, Canada. Mr. Hurley currently owns a Google Pixel 8 mobile
phone and has acquired a number of apps through the Google Play
Store during the Class Period. He has also made in-app purchases of
digital content, including a subscription from June 2023 to October
2023, and again from April 2024 to May 2024, made in an app
obtained through the Google Play Store.
Google is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Mountain View, California. Google LLC is the
primary operating subsidiary of the publicly traded holding company
Alphabet Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
David E. Kovel, Esq.
Lauren Wands, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 858-834-2044
E-mail: BGralewski@kmllp.com
DKovel@kmllp.com
LWands@kmllp.com
- and -
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
E-mail: Rifkin@whafh.com
Burt@whafh.com
GRAND ISLE: Ortiguerra Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ICTOR 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 Hon. Judge
Carl Barbier entered an order granting the motion and sealing the
documents in regard to Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of class
certification from public access only, with CM/ECF access permitted
to the litigants' counsel, with unredacted copies filed under seal
and also provided to the Court and opposing counsel by Defendants'
counsel.
Further, it is ordered that Plaintiffs' previously filed motion for
certification of class action is dismissed as moot. The Plaintiffs
refiled their motion for certification of class action.
The case involves claims of violations of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act ("TVPA") and the Fair Housing Act ("FHA") and a
claim of retaliation.
The sealed portions of the filings contain discussion, pleadings,
and exhibits which are subject to a prior Order and Reasons by the
Magistrate Judge on the issue of sealing and are also subject to a
current Protective Order of this Court.
Grand Isle Shipyard is a construction company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bfjwNq at no extra
charge.[CC]
GRAND ISLE: Ortiguerra Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 their motion for
certification of a Class Action.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs request an
order that
(1) authorizes Plaintiffs to proceed, on behalf of
themselves and two certified Classes, against the
Defendants for their violation Plaintiffs' rights, and
those of individuals similarly situated, to be free from
forced labor, trafficking for forced labor, attempt, and
conspiracy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
(TVPA) and for their discrimination against Plaintiffs,
and those of individuals similarly situated, because of
race, color, and/or national origin in violation of the
Fair Housing Act (FHA); and
(2) directs Defendants to promptly provide Plaintiffs' counsel
with the names, mobile telephone numbers, email addresses,
and last known addresses for all potential members of the
certified Classes so that additional similarly situated
current and former employees can be promptly notified
of their right to participate in this lawsuit.
Grand Isle provides oilfield and construction services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JENHbN 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: (504) 588-2700
Facsimile: (504) 708-1717
E-mail: kcb@kennethbordes.com
amneh@kennethbordes.com
abigail@kennethbordes.com
GREENIX HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Allegations Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE KIRKPATRICK,
STEPHEN YOUNG, and RENE VILLAFANE, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. GREENIX HOLDINGS, LLC, dba Greenix
Pest Control, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00033-JNP-JCB (D. Utah), the
Hon. Judge Jill Parrish entered an order denying Greenix's motion
to the extent that it seeks dismissal of the class action
allegations.
The court also denies Greenix's request to dismiss the individual
claims asserted by Young and Villafane. The court grants Greenix's
request for an order requiring the plaintiffs to correct the
caption and refile the complaint. The clerk shall add Young and
Villafane to the electronic docket. The court denies Greenix's
request for an order requiring the plaintiffs to include the Rule
23-1(b)(7) information in the corrected complaint.
Because Young and Villafane assert facts stating a claim that is
plausible on its face, the court denies Greenix's request to
dismiss their individual claims.
Clarence Kirkpatrick sued Greenix, alleging that it violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring its pest control technicians
to perform a number of work duties off the clock. Kirkpatrick
amended his complaint to include claims asserted by two additional
plaintiffs.
Greenix provides pest control services to residential customers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YIGrDp at no extra
charge.[CC]
HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Brown Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLA HAMMITT BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD
COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 25-143 (Mass., Middlesex Cty., January
20, 2025), arises from Defendant's uniform policy and practice of
paying certain categories of employees once per month.
Plaintiff Brown was employed as a preceptor at Harvard University
from July 2, 2015 to January 31, 2023. For the entire term of her
employment, the Plaintiff was paid on a monthly basis in violation
of the Massachusetts Wage Act, which requires wages to be paid
weekly or bi-weekly. By paying Plaintiff monthly instead of
bi-weekly, Harvard temporarily deprived her of the first half of
her monthly wages during the second half of each month.
Harvard University is an institution of higher education located in
Cambridge, MA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis J. Bingham, Esq.
Brook Hopkins, Esq.
Bingham Hopkins LLC
20 University Road, Suite 500
Cambridge, MA 02138
Telephone: (617) 798-2302
E-mail: Francis.Bingham@binghamhopkins.com
Brook.Hopkins@binghamhopkins.com
HATCHITT TAX: Parties Must Exchange Witness Reports by March 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gaikowski v. Hatchitt Tax
Club, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-14282 (S.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 30,
2024), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order granting
joint motion for extension of time for certain discovery
deadlines.
On or before Jan. 31, 2025, the Defendant shall respond to
Plaintiff's discovery requests as specified in the Joint Motion.
On or before March 11, 2025, the parties shall exchange expert
witness reports and summaries on the issue of class certification.
On or before March 25, 2025, the parties shall exchange rebuttal
expert witness reports and summaries on the issue of class
certification.
No other deadlines or instructions in the Court's Scheduling Order
are affected by these extensions.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.[CC]
HOMETOWN EQUITY: Plaintiff Loses Summary Judgment Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IDAN U. EDRY, an
individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v.
HOMETOWN EQUITY MORTGAGE, LLC, a Missouri limited-liability
company, d/b/a THELENDER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00804-MMD-MDC (D. Nev.),
the Hon. Judge Miranda Du entered an order:
-- denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment;
-- granting Defendant's countermotion for summary judgment; and
-- denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and
close this case.
The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited
to several cases not discussed above. The Court reviewed these
arguments and cases and determines that they do not warrant
discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motions before
the Court.
In sum, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff did not
provide consideration to establish an enforcement agreement existed
to support his breach of contract claim.
The Plaintiff Edry, on behalf of himself and all persons and
entities similarly situated, sued the Defendant for allegedly
failing to honor Plaintiff's locked interest rate.
The Defendant is a mortgage company offering business purpose
loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G0csms at no extra
charge.[CC]
HP INC: Feb. 7 Class Cert Bid Deadline in Hutchins Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL HUTCHINS, as a
representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the HP Inc. 401(k) Plan, v. HP, INC.; and Does 1 to 10
inclusive, Case No. 5:23-cv-05875-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Beth Labson Freeman entered an order as follows:
1. The Feb. 7, 2025 deadline to file a motion for class
certification is vacated;
2. All fact and expert discovery deadlines previously set by
the Court are vacated; and
3. If the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss any of the
claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint, the Parties
shall meet and confer and submit, within 21 days of the
Court's Order on the motion to dismiss, a stipulation and
proposed order setting new deadlines for completing
discovery and filing a motion for class certification.
On Nov. 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed the original Complaint in this
action asserting six putative class claims for alleged violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").
On Apr. 12, 2024, the Court issued an initial Case Management
Order.
HP is a provider of technology products, software, solutions, and
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Q5Ufx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Unit 2B
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Telephone: (626) 808-4357
E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Deborah S. Davidson, Esq.
Matthew A. Russell, Esq.
Mark A. Feller, Esq.
Oluwaseun O. Familoni, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
110 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-1511
Telephone: (312) 324-1000
E-mail: deborah.davidson@morganlewis.com
matthew.russell@morganlewis.com
mark.feller@morganlewis.com
shay.familoni@morganlewis.com
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Faces Dicosmo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA DICOSMO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-06917-TJS (E.D. Pa., January 2, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, tip retention, and retaliation for protected
activity.
The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's CookieLab from on or about
September 6, 2024, until her termination on December 12, 2024.
Insomnia Cookies, LLC is an operator of bakeries, party venues, and
delivery sites throughout the U.S., headquartered in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
Email: troylaw@troypllc.com
INTEGRAL AD: Oklahoma Firefighters Sues Over Drop of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRAL AD
SCIENCE HOLDING CORP., LISA UTZSCHNEIDER, TANIA SECOR, and VISTA
EQUITY PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00847
(S.D.N.Y., January 29, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Integral Ad Science Holding's
(IAS) business, operations, and prospects in order to trade IAS
common stock at artificially inflated prices between March 2, 2023,
and February 27, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented
and/or failed to disclose (i) that IAS was experiencing a new
material trend of increased competitive pricing pressures and that,
as a result, IAS had been forced to cut prices to compensate for
weakening demand and slowing revenue growth; (ii) that IAS's
pricing function was no longer "favorable" and IAS could not
sustain its pricing and drive price increases; (iii) that pricing
had become a key differentiator between IAS and its competitor
necessary to close major renewals and new deals; (iv) that the
risks that competition "could result in increased pricing pressure"
or "could put pressure on us to change our prices" had in fact
transpired; and (v) as a result, the IAS's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, the company's stock price declined $7.09
(or approximately 41 percent) to $10.01 per share from the previous
day's close of $17.10 per share on February 28, 2024. As a result
of their purchases of IAS shares during the Class Period, the
Plaintiff and other members of the class suffered economic loss.
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System is a public
pension fund established to administer pension benefits for
Oklahoma firefighters.
Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. is a global media measurement and
optimization platform firm, headquartered in New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 542-8300
Email: pegan@bermantabacco.com
IROBOT CORP: Court Tosses Premca Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint in the class action lawsuit captioned
as PREMCA EXTRA INCOME FUND LP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IROBOT CORPORATION, COLIN
M. ANGLE, and JULIE ZEILER, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
24-11158-WGY (D. Mass.). This action is dismissed with prejudice.
iRobot was founded in 1990 by Angle, Helen Greiner and Rodney
Brooks with a focus on developing and manufacturing military and
domestic robots.
On Aug. 5, 2022, iRobot announced its Merger with Amazon through a
press release and filed with the SEC in a
Form 8-K.
The Amazon/iRobot merger agreement was filed with the 8K, dated
Aug. 4, 2022. The Merger Agreement provided that iRobot and Amazon
would notify each other if any government entity made a request or
commenced a proceeding related to the Merger, and would keep each
other informed about the status of any governmental request.
The Merger Agreement also stated, among other things, that iRobot
and Amazon would use "reasonable best efforts" to complete the
Merger and to obtain regulatory clearance and resolve regulatory
objections, supply as promptly as reasonably practicable any
additional information and documentary material requested or
required, and contest any proceedings challenging the Merger.
After the Merger was announced, antitrust experts anticipated stiff
opposition from the United States Federal Trade Commission, and
privacy activists mobilized to oppose the Merger, sending an open
letter to the FTC to express their concerns two days after iRobot
filed a proxy statement with the FTC on Sept. 7, 2022. Lawmakers in
the United States also expressed opposition to the Merger due to
concerns about competition in the home robotics market, Amazon's
history of anti-competitive practices, and threats to consumer
privacy.
According to Premca, because the Merger Agreement included a
provision mandating that iRobot and Amazon would notify each other
if any government entity made a request or commenced a proceeding
related to the Merger, iRobot must have been aware of the European
Commission's questions sent to Amazon. According to Premca, iRobot
refused to inform investors of the EC's actions or the increased
scrutiny that the Merger was facing when it submitted its filings
on iRobot's fourth quarter and full-year 2022 financial results
between Feb. 13 and Feb. 14, 2023.
The Defendants move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
To state a claim under section 10(b), the FAC must allege:
(1) a material misrepresentation or omission;
(2) scienter;
(3) a connection with the purchase or sale of a security;
(4) reliance;
(5) economic loss; and
(6) loss causation.
iRobot successfully challenges elements one (falsity) and two
(scienter).
Premca's claim is that iRobot was aware that Amazon was, from the
outset and through the Class Period, not cooperating with
regulators in the face of increasing regulatory and public pressure
against the Merger, and that therefore its SEC filings and public
statements at issue in this case were false or misleading.
The Court finds, Premca's two confidential witnesses do not provide
sufficient, plausibly pleaded facts in a level of detail and with a
level of coherence to support an inference that Amazon was not
working cooperatively with regulators, or that iRobot was reckless
with respect to such knowledge or had knowledge of purported
non-cooperation when any of the referenced cooperation statements
were made.
Sarbanes-Oxley Certifications
The claims relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley certifications made by
Angle and Zeiler fail for the same reasons. Namely, there are
insufficient allegations that the statements made by Angle and
Zeiler were knowingly false or misleading when signed. Even if any
of the statements were false or misleading, Premca has failed to
establish a strong inference of scienter as required under the
PSLRA, the Court finds.
SECTION 14(A) CLAIM
Premca's Count III attempts to bring a proxy claim under Section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
iRobot argues that the FAC fails to adequately allege a material
misrepresentation. The FAC, as a whole, is grounded in fraud, and
therefore Count III fails for the same reasons as the Rule 10(b)-5
claim, the Court further finds.
SECTON 20(A) CLAIM
Premca argues that its Section 20(a) claim in Count II survives
because the Section 10(b) claim survives, apparently abandoning a
Section 20 claim under Section 14(a). Accordingly, because Premca
did not state any claims under section 10(b), its derivative
section 20(a) claims also fail, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WmN62V from PacerMonitor.com.
JOBBLE INC: Faces Taylor Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARA TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
JOBBLE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10018-RGS (D. Mass., Jan. 3, 2025)
contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise,
in part, by making telemarketing calls to numbers to wireless phone
users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The suit says that the Plaintiff Taylor has never had any business
relationship with the Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff Taylor was
not looking for insurance related products such as the Defendant
offers, and has never given her express written consent to the
Defendant to place telephonic solicitation calls to her cell
phone.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff's cellular telephone number, 706-391-XXXX, has been
registered with the National Do Not Call Registry since Aug. 29,
2024. The Plaintiff Taylor uses her cell phone for personal use
only. It is not used as a business number.
Jobble offers insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
JOHN FELTS: Winnett Case Dismissed with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------
Judge D.P. Marshall J. of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas ruled on the motions filed by Donald
Winnett in the case captioned as DONALD WINNETT ADC# 139544,
PLAINTIFF v. JOHN FELTS, Chair, Arkansas Post Prison Trans£ er
Board; BRENT MORGAN, Member, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board;
LONA MCCASTLAIN, Director, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board;
WILLIE ROBINSON, Member, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; ANDY
SHOCK, Member, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; WENDY LYALS,
Member, Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board; SARAH HUCKABEE
SANDERS, Governor, Arkansas; and DOUG SMITH, Member, Arkansas Post
Prison Transfer Board, Case No. 4:24-cv-1032-DPM (E.D. Ark.).
Winnett and other Arkansas inmates filed a class action complaint
against the members of the Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board as
well as the Governor of Arkansas. None of the inmates are lawyers.
They can only represent themselves pro se. Winnett has since filed
many motions, including a motion for recusal.
The Court must screen Winnett's Sec. 1983 complaint. Winnett has
sued each member of the Arkansas Post Prison Transfer Board and the
Governor of Arkansas in their official and individual capacities.
He says that the members of the Board aren't complying with
Arkansas law in their review of parole applications, violating his
due process rights. Winnett seeks money damages as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Court finds Winnett has failed to state a federal claim upon
which relief can be granted. There isn't "a protected, federal due
process right to parole." And because Winnett doesn't have a
liberty interest in parole, the Court concludes that the Parole
Board's alleged failures to turn square corners don't violate his
procedural due process rights.
Winnett's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his motion for
ruling are granted. His motion for recusal is denied. His other
motions are denied as moot. This case is dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dw1qpz from PacerMonitor.com.
JOSH TEWALT: Court Tosses Lasater Prison Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amanda K. Brailsford of the United States District Court for
the District of Idaho dismissed the amended complaint in the case
captioned as KYLE LASATER, Plaintiff, vs. JOSH TEWALT, CHAD PAGE,
and WARDEN JAY CHRISTENSEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00230-AKB
(D. Idaho.), with prejudice. The entire action is also dismissed
with prejudice.
To screen the Amended Complaint in this case requires a review of
its context. On July 25, 2022 (mailbox rule date), Plaintiff sought
to join a potential class action case challenging conditions of
confinement initiated by inmate Jody Carr and signed by other
inmates, in addition to Carr, Case 1:21-cv-00409-BLW-DKG (Case
409). In Case 409, United States District Judge B. Lynn Winmill
determined that Carr had a documented history of attempting to
encourage others to file lawsuits and/or filing lawsuits on their
behalf that contain speculative and exaggerated claims. In Case
409, Plaintiff filed a motion to join and a complaint, both drafted
by Carr.
Upon initial screening in Case 409, Judge Winmill determined that
he could not distinguish each inmate's claims from Carr's claims.
Significantly, all of the many inmate concern forms and grievances
attached to the original joint Complaint were Carr's; none were
from other inmates. Therefore, Judge Winmill ordered each inmate to
file his own amended complaint stating allegations specifying the
who, what, where, when, why, and how of each of their claims,
whereupon the Court would determine the best procedural vehicle for
the claims to proceed.
Despite Judge Winmill's efforts to have each plaintiff describe his
own claims, Carr drafted nearly all of the separate amended
complaints, many containing identical allegations.
The instant case was severed from Case 409 because Plaintiff's
claims arose from a different prison facility. Plaintiff was
ordered to file an amended complaint by June 5, 2023, but he was
released on parole and did not file an amended complaint. On Nov.
27, 2023, an Order Requiring Plaintiff to Act was issued. On Dec.
11, 2023, having been re-incarcerated, Plaintiff sought an
extension of time to file his amended complaint, which was granted.
Some or all sections of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint again were
drafted by Carr. Plaintiff attested to the truthfulness of the
allegations by signing the Amended Complaint under penalty of
perjury.
Plaintiff describes himself as a close-custody inmate diagnosed
with mental health problems, who was on strong mental health
medications at the time of the alleged incidents. The Amended
Complaint contains some contradictory allegations, which may have
arisen from differences between the interests of the drafter of the
Complaint and the signatory of the Complaint.
For example, Plaintiff's asserted theory is that double-celling of
close-custody and mentally ill inmates caused a serious risk of
violence and sexual assault to him between 2020 and 2022. He
asserts that all such inmates should be single-celled for their
safety and the safety of others. However, Plaintiff's attachments
to the Amended Complaint show that he was not a victim, but the
perpetrator, of many incidents of violence both at ISCC (which he
claims is unreasonably dangerous) and in other facilities.
During the time period at issue, Plaintiff alleges that he:
(1) suffered physical assaults from other close-custody inmates
as a result of double-celling;
(2) witnessed inmate-on-inmate violence and inmate-on-staff
violence;
(3) was locked in his cell 24 hours a day for weeks with little
telephone, visiting, and laundry time and only a 10-minute shower
every three days; and
(4) was provided very little indoor recreation and no outdoor
recreation.
These allegations are similar to those in Case 409, except those
allegations arose from the Idaho Maximum Security Institution, and
those plaintiffs particularly asserted that close-custody inmates
(who tend to attack others) should not be housed with
protective-custody inmates (who tend to be the target of attacks),
and close-custody inmates should not have been permitted open
common area time with protective-custody inmates, because the
common time facilitated assaults.
In the Initial Review Order in this severed case, the Court gave
Plaintiff specific instructions for drafting an amended complaint.
Judge Brailsford concludes that the Plaintiff was provided with
adequate instructions, adequate time, and adequate opportunity for
amendment of his claims. Importantly, Plaintiff was instructed to
provide particular facts in his Amended Complaint. He has not
provided sufficient facts to support any of his claims. Defendants
could not properly defend in this lawsuit, where the allegations
are general and no causal links between a Defendant's act and a
claim or injury is supported by facts. Also important to the
Court's decision to dismiss this action is that these claims arose
from a past time period. Plaintiff can assert allegations of
present harm in proper concern forms, grievances, grievance
appeals, and then seek injunctive relief in a civil rights lawsuit,
if necessary. Therefore, the pleadings, and this entire case, will
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with a prior
court Order (under Rule 41(b) and for failure to allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible claim upon which relief can be
granted for the time period 2020 through 2022.
A copy of the Court's Order dis available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4khuBM from PacerMonitor.com.
KANNACT INC: Class Settlement in White Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as White v. Kannact, Inc. (re
Kannact, Inc. Data Security Incident), Case No. 6:23-cv-01297-AA
(D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann Aiken entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action
settlement:
-- The Court grants final approval of the appointment of Milberg
Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, Siri & Glimstead LLP,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, and Tousley Brain
Stephens PLLC as Settlement Class Counsel.
-- The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Service Awards.
-- The Court awards Settlement Class Counsel $233,333 in
attorneys' fees and $18,292.53 for the reimbursement of
litigation expenses, to be paid according to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. This amount of fees and reimbursement of
expenses is fair and reasonable.
-- The Court grants final approval of the appointment of Terry
Dukes, Ann Fongheiser, and Alan White as Class
Representatives.
-- The Court awards each Class Representative a service award of
$1,500 for their service to the Class.
-- The Court certifies the following Class for settlement
purposes only under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3),
subject to the Settlement Class exclusions set forth in the
Settlement Agreement:
The Settlement Class:
"All persons in the United States whose information may have
been impacted in the Data Incident, including persons to whom
Kannact mailed a notification that their information may have
been impacted in the Data Incident."
The Settlement Class specifically excludes:
1) Kannact, Inc. and its officers and directors;
2) all members of the Settlement Class who submit a timely and
valid request for exclusion from the Settlement Class;
3) the Judge and Magistrate Judge assigned to evaluate the
fairness of this settlement; and
4) any other person found by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing,
aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the
Security Incident, or who pleads nolo contendere to any such
charge.
Kannact is a solutions provider who seek to improve lives of
patients through innovative healthcare collaboration solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rSBiV1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LATOYA HUGHES: Court Issues Confidentiality Order in Terrell Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as VERNON TERRELL, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. LATOYA
HUGHES, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections,
Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-02434-SPM (S.D. Il.), Judge Stephen P.
McGlynn of the United States District Court for Southern District
of Illinois granted the unopposed motion for entry of
confidentiality order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(c) filed by Plaintiff Vernon Terrell.
All materials produced or adduced in the course of discovery,
including initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests,
deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly
therefrom, shall be subject to this Order concerning Confidential
Information.
Named Plaintiff and potential class members are persons currently
or formerly incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
If Plaintiff's counsel believes that reviewing photographs
designated Attorneys' Eyes Only is necessary for the preparation of
Plaintiff's or a potential class member's testimony, counsel may
show that witness a copy of the photograph, but shall ensure that
the witness does not retain the document.
To the extent counsel wishes to have an individual currently in the
custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections review
photographs in connection with counsel's legal telephone call with
the individual, Plaintiff's counsel shall provide defense counsel
with a Bates-stamped collection of photographs it may
wish to show potential class members in custody seven days in
advance of any such call, so that each facility may maintain a
single file of the photographs. Plaintiff's counsel shall inform
defense counsel which photographs it would like IDOC to show to an
individual at least three days before any call with that
individual. IDOC will make best efforts to provide such photographs
to the individual for review during the call and shall collect the
photographs at the conclusion of the call. Should IDOC be unable to
provide photographs to an individual for review during a legal
call, it shall provide the photographs to the individual for review
no more than 48 hours in advance of such call.
Counsel shall under no circumstances show prison blueprints,
schematics, or diagrams to a person currently or formerly in the
custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections without advance
approval of defense counsel. Plaintiff's counsel shall request
defense counsel's approval at least three days prior to any meeting
in which Plaintiff's counsel wishes to show a
document designated "ATTORNEY EYES ONLY" to Plaintiff or a
potential class member. If defense counsel approves, Plaintiff's
counsel may show the document to the witness but shall ensure that
the witness does not retain the document. In the case of documents
Plaintiff's counsel wishes to show a potential class member on a
telephone call, the procedure in Section 5(c)(vi)(2) for showing a
photograph to a potential class member shall be followed.
Notwithstanding the other provisions of this order, the Parties may
redact any portions of documents and other information that
contains personal information including home addresses, telephone
numbers, social security numbers, IDOC numbers, dates of birth and
medical and mental health information of any person, including but
not limited to present inmates, former inmates, alleged offenders
named in police reports, IDOC employees, family members of
employees or inmates, volunteers and victims, unless the
information is relevant to the litigation.
Counsel for the parties shall make reasonable efforts to prevent
unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of Confidential Information.
Counsel shall maintain the originals of the forms signed by persons
acknowledging their obligations under this Order for a period of
three years after the termination of the case.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EkLK7D from PacerMonitor.com.
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Court Tosses Doe-1, et al. NJITPA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harvey Bartle III of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the motion filed by LexisNexis Risk
Solutions, Inc. to dismiss the amended complaint in the case
captioned as JOHN DOE-1, et al. v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC.,
et al., Case No. 24-4566 (D.N.J.) under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs John Doe ("Officer Doe-1") and Jane Doe ("Officer
Doe-2") bring this putative class action against defendant
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc. for improperly imposing a credit
freeze on their accounts in violation of the New Jersey Identity
Theft Protection Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. Secs. 56:11-44, et seq.
(Count I). Plaintiffs also claim intentional interference with
contractual and prospective relations (Count II) and have a
separate count for declaratory relief (Count III). Their prayer for
relief requests actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief as
well as declaratory relief. Subject matter jurisdiction exists
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a) as plaintiffs are citizens of New
Jersey and the named defendant was incorporated in Florida and has
its principal place of business in New York.
Doe-1 is a former police officer with the South Plainfield, New
Jersey police department.
Doe-2 is a retired New Jersey police officer who suffers from
multiple sclerosis.
On Jan. 2, 2024, Officer Doe-1 sent a request to LexisNexis
pursuant to a New Jersey statute known as Daniel's Law. Officer
Doe-2 sent the same request to LexisNexis on Jan. 1, 2024. Daniel's
Law provides that judges, prosecutors and other law enforcement
officials as well as their immediate family members may submit a
written notice to any person, business, or association not to
disclose or otherwise make available their home addresses and
unpublished personal telephone numbers.
LexisNexis imposed a security freeze on plaintiffs' entire files,
not just as to their home addresses and unlisted phone numbers.
According to the amended complaint, Officer Doe-1 attempted to have
LexisNexis remove this freeze on multiple occasions, but it has not
complied. Officer Doe-2, according to the amended complaint, has
not attempted to remove the freeze due to her serious medical
condition
Plaintiffs articulate two violations of the NJITPA:
(1) LexisNexis imposed a security freeze without plaintiffs'
direct request; and
(2) LexisNexis failed to lift the security freeze upon their
request.
LexisNexis argues that plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the
NJITPA for either of these claims.
Count I
LexisNexis argues that Doe-1 has failed to state a claim based on
its failure to lift the security freeze upon his request. Since his
request to remove the freeze did not include his PIN, his claim
that LexisNexis violated Section 56:11-46(j) of the NJITPA in
failing to lift the freeze is fatally deficient, the Court finds.
Doe-2 maintains that she also alleges a claim under Section
56:11-46(j) and that LexisNexis did not lift a security freeze upon
her request. However, Officer Doe-2 fails to state in the amended
complaint that she made any attempt to lift the security freeze on
her credit. On the contrary, she alleges she has chosen not to
attempt to lift the security freeze on her file. To the extent that
Officer Doe-2 pleads a violation of Section 56:11-46(j), her claim
also fails, the Court further finds.
Count II
According to the Court, the amended complaint does not allege that
LexisNexis had actual knowledge of any contractual relationship of
plaintiffs.
The Court finds neither plaintiff has stated a claim for
intentional interference with contractual relations or a claim for
intentional interference with prospective contractual relations.
Preemption
Plaintiffs maintain that their claims are not preempted despite the
express preemption of claims within subsections 1681c-1(i) and (j)
of the FCRA. In support of their contention, they cite an
interpretive rule which clarifies that states are free to enact
laws that are more protective than the FRCA. They also cite several
decisions in other circuits that narrowly construed the FRCA's
express preemption provisions and held that additional state
regulation is permissible.
LexisNexis also argues that even if plaintiffs have alleged valid
claims under state law, their claims are preempted by the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1671, et seq.
The Court finds Plaintiffs' claims under the NJITPA are expressly
preempted by the FCRA. Further, plaintiffs have not stated viable
claims under the New Jersey common law, the Court concludes.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the amended complaint with leave
to file a second amended complaint on or before Feb. 6, 2025 under
the FCRA only.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aDq64K from PacerMonitor.com.
LINKEDIN CORP: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted final
approval of the settlement agreement in the case captioned as IN RE
LINKEDIN ADVERTISING METRICS LITIGATION, Plaintiffs, vs. LINKEDIN
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.: 5:20-cv-08324-SVK (N.D. Calif.).
The Court finds, following a rigorous analysis and for purposes of
settlement only, that the following settlement Class satisfies the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
All U.S. advertisers who purchased LinkedIn Advertising1 during the
Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are LinkedIn; any
entity in which LinkedIn has a controlling interest; LinkedIn's
officers, directors, legal representatives, successors,
subsidiaries, and assigns; any advertiser who timely files a
request for exclusion; and any judge to whom this case is assigned,
his or her spouse, and all persons with the third degree of
relationship to either of them, as well as the spouses of such
persons.
(a) The Class certified herein numbers nearly 300,000
advertisers, and joinder of all such persons would be
impracticable;
(b) There are questions of law and fact that are common to the
Class, and those questions of law and fact common to the Class
predominate over any questions affecting individual Class members,
including whether: the class members had to establish the absence
of an adequate remedy at law, class members could establish the
absence of an adequate remedy at law, LinkedIn breached the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, LinkedIn breached the
implied duty of reasonable care, and LinkedIn made
misrepresentations likely to deceive a reasonable person;
(c) Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the absent Class members'
claims, as they each paid to advertise on LinkedIn during the
relevant time period;
(d) Plaintiffs and Class Counsel are adequate representatives of
the Class: neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any conflicts
of interest with absent class members, and as shown by their
demonstrated commitment to the Class over the last four years,
Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have prosecuted this action vigorously
for the benefit of the Class and will continue to do so; and
(e) Class action litigation is superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy, as the cost of litigating this action on an individual
basis would be far greater than the individual recovery sought.
The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate under Federal Rule 23(e)(2), is in the best interests
of the Class, and should be and hereby is fully and finally
approved. The Settlement Agreement:
(a) Results from efforts by the Class Representatives and Class
Counsel who have adequately represented the Class for over four
years;
(b) Was negotiated at arm's length with the assistance of the
Ninth Circuit Mediator and Randall W. Wulff, of Wulff Quinby
Sochynsky;
(c) Provides relief for the Class that is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and taking into account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay
of trial and appeal; (ii) the effective proposed methods of
distributing relief to the Class; (iii) the terms of the proposed
award of attorneys' fees, including timing and payment; and
(d) The Settlement treats Class members equitably relative to
each other.
The Court finds the attorneys' fee requested by Class Counsel to be
fair and reasonable. Because the Class's claims arise under
California law, California law governs Class Counsel's entitlement
to fees and the method for calculating them. The attorneys' fee
here constitutes 25% of the settlement fund; that percentage is
consistent with the percentage of attorneys' fees typically awarded
under California law and is particularly appropriate in this case
in light of: (1) the potential value of the litigation and the
results obtained on behalf of the Class; (2) the litigation risks
involved; (3) the contingent nature of the representation; and (4)
the novelty and difficulty of the issues presented together with
the skill shown by counsel.
Based on the evidence submitted by Class Counsel, the Court finds
that Class Counsel reasonably spent over 3,339 hours representing
the Class's interests through this litigation, that Class Counsel's
hourly rates are reasonable and in line with the prevailing rates
in the community for complex class action litigation, and that
Class Counsel's lodestar in this matter therefore equals
$2,625,704.50. Accordingly, the Court grants Class Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees of $1,656,750 to be paid from the
Settlement Fund.
The Court further finds that Class Counsel reasonably expended
$154,874.94 in compensable costs to prosecute the litigation on
behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class. Reimbursement of counsel's
out-of-pocket costs is appropriate under California law.
Accordingly, it grants the request to reimburse Class Counsel's
costs in the amount of $154,874.94 to be paid from the Settlement
Fund.
The Court further finds that the requested service awards are fair
and reasonable, given the time and effort expended and risk
undertaken by the Class Representatives on behalf of the Class.
Plaintiffs are given service awards of $25,000 each, to be paid
from the Settlement Fund.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tqt945 from PacerMonitor.com.
LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Riganian Sues Over Identity Surveillance System
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE RIGANIAN and DONNA SPURGEON, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIVERAMP HOLDINGS
INC., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Delaware, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00824 (N.D. Cal., January 24,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged
violations of the California Constitution, California Invasion of
Privacy Act, Federal Wiretap Act, and the California Common Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in, and profits
from, illegal conduct by operating a massive identity surveillance
system that assigns every American a proprietary, permanent
identifier -- the equivalent of an online social security number --
which is tied to personal information such as names, postal
addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and to digital IDs
referring to browsers and user accounts at online services,
smartphones, and other devices associated with that person.
LiveRamp uses its systems to profit from Americans' nearly every
move online and offline, selling that information to third parties
so that they may further surveil and manipulate people, says the
suit.
The complaint asserts that LiveRamp partners with the largest
companies in the world to effect its massive surveillance network.
For example, Google, Amazon, Meta, TikTok, and Microsoft are all
LiveRamp "partners" that use LiveRamp's surveillance systems to
track and manipulate people.
The Plaintiffs are citizens who believe that LiveRamp's identity
surveillance technologies abrogate Americans' privacy and autonomy.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce their fundamental right
to privacy, seek redress and compensation for the financial,
dignitary, and relational harms LiveRamp has caused, and obtain a
ruling that LiveRamp's conduct is unlawful and therefore must stop.
LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. operates as a marketing technology
company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
David T. Rudolph, Esq.
Linnea D. Pittman, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
drudolph@lchb.com
lpittman@lchb.com
- and -
Jason "Jay" O. Barnes, Esq.
An V. Truong, Esq.
Sona R. Shah, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
atruong@simmonsfirm.com
sshah@simmonsfirm.com
LOUIS DEJOY: 10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Mitchell's Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ANDREA MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v.
LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General of the United States Postal
Service, Defendant - Appellee, No. 24-3039 (10th Cir.), Judge
Gregory A. Phillips of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting
the motion filed by USPS to dismiss Andrea Mitchell's disability
discrimination and retaliation claims.
Ms. Mitchell filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission in June 2022 alleging disability discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation. In November 2022, she filed a Chapter
13 bankruptcy petition, in which she stated under penalty of
perjury that she had no claims against third parties, regardless of
whether she had filed suit or demanded payment. She amended her
bankruptcy pleadings in December 2022 to state that she had a
pending wage class action lawsuit of unknown value against an
unspecified party.
The bankruptcy court confirmed Ms. Mitchell's Chapter 13 plan on
June 6, 2023. The confirmation order required her to timely report
to the Trustee any events affecting disposable income including but
not limited to lawsuits during the pendency of the case. On June
20, 2023, Ms. Mitchell moved the bankruptcy court to appoint
counsel with respect to a civil proceeding. Her motion, which the
court granted, did not indicate the nature of the civil suit, the
claims to be asserted, or the parties.
Ms. Mitchell sued USPS on June 29, 2023, alleging disability
discrimination and retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act.
USPS moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), arguing Ms. Mitchell's action should be barred under the
doctrine of judicial estoppel because she did not disclose her
discrimination and retaliation claims in her bankruptcy petition.
Concluding that the relevant factors supported application of
judicial estoppel, the district court granted the motion, dismissed
Ms. Mitchell's amended complaint, and entered final judgment.
Ms. Mitchell argues the district court failed to apply the doctrine
of judicial estoppel narrowly and cautiously, as demonstrated by
the lack of factual and legal support for the court's ruling. She
bases this contention on an asserted absence of citations to the
record or caselaw in the court's analysis.
Judge Phillips says they're not persuaded. The district court
described the nature of her disability discrimination and
retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act and cited her
relevant filings in the bankruptcy court. She does not identify
other facts in the record bearing upon the court's analysis that it
did not consider. The district court also discussed the governing
law related to judicial estoppel before applying it to the
circumstances in Ms. Mitchell's case.
As she appears to acknowledge, Ms. Mitchell's appeal largely turns
on whether the district court abused its discretion in concluding
that she took clearly inconsistent positions in the bankruptcy and
district courts. The district court held she cannot credibly claim
that disclosing a wage class action lawsuit served as disclosure of
her disability discrimination and retaliation claims under the
Rehabilitation Act and that her statement did not place the
bankruptcy court and trustee on notice of the claims at issue in
the district court.
Ms. Mitchell contends the district court failed to view her
allegations in the light most favorable to her and that her
bankruptcy disclosure of a wage class action lawsuit was not
clearly inconsistent with her claims in this action because she
sought damages in the form of wages from USPS.
The Tenth Circuit finds Ms. Mitchell fails to show that the
district court abused its discretion in applying judicial estoppel
to bar her from pursuing her action against USPS alleging
individual claims of disability discrimination and retaliation
under the Rehabilitation Act that she failed to disclose in her
bankruptcy proceedings.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LlJfeO from PacerMonitor.com.
LOUNGE RESTAURANT: Escamilla Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO DELGADO ESCAMILLA, CARLOS CONTRERAS CAYETANO, FERNANDO
PEREZ GARCIA, ELIEZER PEREZ MOLINA AND JAIME GARCIA HERNANDEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 48 WEST
21ST STREET CORP. (D/B/A TAJ LOUNGE RESTAURANT), DAVID CASEY, MARK
PHILIP QUILTER, and MATTHEW KNOTT, Case No. 1:25-cv-00784
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2025) alleges that the Defendants have
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other
employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing
the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs seek a class action under Rule 23 and seek
certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of
themselves, individually, and all other similarly situated
employees and former employees of the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Lounge
Restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate, or control the restaurant lounge,
located at 48 West 21st Street, New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MAD FOR CHICKEN: Riley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Mad for Chicken, Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00718 (S.D.N.Y., January 24, 2025) is a civil rights action
against Mad for Chicken for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://www.madforchicken.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.
On January 14, 2025, the Plaintiff was browsing online in search of
Korean-style fried chicken. During her search, she discovered the
Defendant's website and decided to explore it with the intention of
placing an order. However, as she navigated the site, she
encountered several significant accessibility issues that severely
hindered her ability to enjoy the website and complete her order.
These issues included the missing 'skip to content' link -- this
omission made it more difficult for her to navigate the site
efficiently. Additionally, when attempting to make an order, an
external page appeared unexpectedly, further complicating the
process. The Plaintiff also encountered numerous interactive
elements that were not properly labeled, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Mad
for Chicken'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.
Mad for Chicken, Corp. operates the website which provides
consumers with access to an array of services, including, the
ability to view a variety of Korean inspired dishes and
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Adams Sues Over Unauthorized Transfers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KABIRU A. ADAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03783-BAH (D. Md., December 31, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to investigate and
refusal to carry out its reimbursement obligation after the
Plaintiff reported unauthorized electronic transfers from his bank
account. Moreover, the Defendant did not explain its purported
basis for concluding that the Plaintiff authorized or benefitted
from the disputed transactions. The Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages and attorneys' fees.
Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company is a financial services
company based in Buffalo, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
MDL 2873: Faces Dunagan Suit Over AFFF/TOG Products' Toxic Elements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD V. DUNAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07733-RMG (D.S.C.,
December 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG)
containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed
to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer.
The Dunagan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment
based in California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in
Portland, Oregon.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company in Virginia.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
MDL 2873: Maine Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF/TOG Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL MAINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07734-RMG (D.S.C.,
December 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG)
containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed
to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis.
The Maine case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment
based in California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in
Portland, Oregon.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company in Virginia.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
MDL 2873: McCloud Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTOPHER DALE MCCLOUD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC,
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS
FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-00177-RMG (D.S.C., January 9, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, wantonness, and fraudulent
transfer.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG)
containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed
to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis.
The McCloud case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment
based in California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and
equipment in Georgia.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in
Alabama.
Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and
industrial business company in Wisconsin.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in
Utah.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South
Carolina.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri.
Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in Pennsylvania.
Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of
firefighting equipment in South Carolina.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in
Iowa.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware.
Witmer Public Safety Group is a safety equipment supplier in
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq.
THEMIS LAW, PLLC
7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105
Austin, TX 78731
Telephone: (737) 208-1636
Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com
MDL 2873: Nelson Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF/TOG Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT
INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC,
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS
FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-07739-RMG (D.S.C., December 31, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express and implied warranties, wantonness, and fraudulent
transfer.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG)
containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed
to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease.
The Nelson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment
based in California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
CB Garment, Inc. is a manufacturer of safety equipment in Oregon.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Daikin America, Inc. is a chemicals company in New York.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire Service Plus, Inc. is a provider of fire safety services and
equipment in Georgia.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Innotex Corp. is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment in
Alabama.
Johnson Controls, Inc. is a global diversified technology and
industrial business company in Wisconsin.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
L.N. Curtis & Sons is a manufacturer of fire safety products in
Utah.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Milliken & Company is a chemical industry company in South
Carolina.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Perimeter Solutions, LP is a chemicals company in Missouri.
Ricochet Manufacturing Co., Inc. is manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in Pennsylvania.
Safety Components Fabric Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of
firefighting equipment in South Carolina.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
Veridian Limited is a manufacturer of fire protective equipment in
Iowa.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware.
Witmer Public Safety Group is a safety equipment supplier in
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq.
THEMIS LAW, PLLC
7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105
Austin, TX 78731
Telephone: (737) 208-1636
Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com
MDL 2873: Spaugy Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA K. SPAUGY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07728-RMG (D.S.C.,
December 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of her exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG)
containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed
to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease.
The Spaugy case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment
based in California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in
Portland, Oregon.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company in Virginia.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
MERIDIAN WASTE: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Hodges Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN HODGES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERIDIAN WASTE ACQUISITIONS, LLC., A Foreign
Profit Corporation and MERIDIAN WASTE FLORIDA, LLC., a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-00062-HES-SJH (M.D. Fla., January 20, 2025) seeks unpaid
wages from Defendants for overtime work for which Plaintiff did not
receive overtime premium pay as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Brian Hodges worked for Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid "driver helper" laborer from approximately October 2023
through his termination on or around July 13, 2024, in
Jacksonville, FL. He was required to work in excess of 40 hours per
workweek without proper overtime compensation. However, he was
subjected to the provisions in that he was all automatically
deducted 30 minutes per day for one or more automatic meal
break(s), although Plaintiff did not actually take these breaks. As
a result, Plaintiff was improperly compensated, says the suit.
Headquartered in Charlotte, NC, Meridian Waste Acquisitions, LLC
provides solid waste collection, transportation, recycling and
disposal services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
- and -
Alison Breiter, Esq.
FARAH AND FARAH, P.A.
5100 West Kennedy Blvd
Tampa, FL 33609
Telephone: (813) 666-1179
E-mail: abreiter@farahandfarah.com
MICHAEL P. BETLEY: Loses Bid to Dismiss McCarrell Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julie R. Rubin of the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to
file second amended complaint in the case captioned as MICHAEL
McCARRELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL P. BETLEY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-CV-02781-JRR (D. Md.). The defendant's motion to
dismiss is denied as moot.
This matter arises from an agreement between MBA Mortgage Services,
Inc. and All Star Title, Inc. wherein MBA referred mortgage loans,
refinances, and reverse mortgages to All Star in exchange for
kickback payments. Pursuant to this agreement, when MBA referred a
borrower to All Star, All Star overcharged the borrower and
transmitted a kickback to a third-party marketing company under the
guise of a marketing fee owed by All Star; however, the third-party
marketing company applied All Star's payment towards services that
benefited MBA.
Plaintiff Michael McCarrell, and the putative class members, are
borrowers who have or had a residential loan originated and/or
brokered by MBA. Defendant Michael P. Betley is MBA's president and
sole shareholder. Defendant entered into the kickback agreement
with All Star. As MBA's president, Defendant participated in,
benefited from, and took steps to conceal the All Star scheme. To
conceal the kickback arrangement, All Star and Defendant created
sham invoices that falsely showed All Star receiving and paying for
legitimate marketing services.
Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint joining an
additional plaintiff, Daniel Schultz. Plaintiff submits that
proposed Plaintiff Schultz's RESPA and RICO claims against
Defendant arise from the same alleged arrangement between Defendant
and All Star. Therefore, it contends the Court should allow
amendment as the common pattern of wrongful behavior satisfies the
requirements of Rules 15 and 20.
Defendant characterizes proposed Plaintiff Schultz's allegations as
arising out of an entirely separate transaction and occurrence. He
further contends that leave to amend is an improper avenue to add
proposed Plaintiff Schultz. He asserts Mr. Schultz must file a Rule
24 motion to intervene in the instant action or file his own
lawsuit.
Defendant does not explicitly argue that amendment would be futile,
prejudicial, or is sought in bad faith. He insists, however, that
if the Court rules in his favor on the pending Motion to Dismiss
and finds Plaintiff's claims are time-barred, there will be no
action for Mr. Schultz to join.
The Court finds Defendant cites no authority for their propositions
that Plaintiff's Rule 15 motion is procedurally improper, and that
Mr. Schultz's only route to pursue a claim against Defendant is
through a Rule 24 motion or a separate suit.
Defendant does not assert, nor does the Court find, that the
proposed amendment is clearly frivolous on its face. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's proposed amendment is permitted under Rule 15, the
Court holds.
The Court also finds Mr. Schultz and Plaintiff allege near
identical facts to support claims under the same laws and their
claims arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions
between All Star and MBA. Therefore, Plaintiff has satisfied the
requirements of Rule 20, and may add
Mr. Schultz as a plaintiff in this action, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RyAvs2 from PacerMonitor.com.
MORGAN & MORGAN: Court Upholds Arbitration Order in Walker Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia denied the plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration of an order compelling arbitration of the case
captioned as BRANDON WALKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN & MORGAN,
JACKSONVILLE PLLC a/k/a Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville LLC and BRAD
MILKWICK, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-00088 (S.D. Ga.).
After being injured in a motor vehicle accident, Plaintiff Brandon
Walker entered into a representation agreement with the law firm of
Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville PLLC to represent his interests
regarding the accident. He alleges Morgan & Morgan and one of its
attorneys, Brad Milkwick, mishandled his case.
The Court reaffirms its prior Order and this case remains stayed
and administratively closed pending the completion of the
alternative dispute resolution process. Plaintiff filed this
lawsuit, a putative class action, against Morgan & Morgan and Mr.
Milkwick on June 20, 2024 in the Superior Court of Glynn County,
Georgia. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts that, at the time he
retained Morgan & Morgan to represent him, the firm was not
qualified or registered to do business in Georgia in violation of
O.C.G.A. Sec. 14-11-711, and, therefore, the collection of any fees
and expenses contemplated in the unenforceable fee contract was
wrongful, and he is entitled to the return of such money taken by
Morgan & Morgan. Plaintiff brings claims against Morgan & Morgan
and Mr. Milkwick for professional negligence (Count I), breach of
fiduciary duty (Count II), disgorgement of fees (Count III),
declaratory and injunctive relief (Count III), punitive damages
(Count IV), and attorney's fees and costs of litigation (Count V).
Defendants removed the case to this Court and moved to compel
arbitration. The Court found that the arbitration provision in the
representation agreement was enforceable and granted the motion,
staying these proceedings until the arbitration's completion.
Plaintiff has moved the Court to reconsider that Order.
Plaintiff argues the Court overlooked Morgan & Morgan's advertising
stating that arbitration agreements are for corporate bullies. The
Court found that the agreement to arbitrate was neither against
public policy nor substantively or procedurally unconscionable.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on this ground is denied.
Plaintiff contends the Court overlooked subsection (a) of O.C.G.A.
Sec. 14-11-711 when it found that Morgan & Morgan's failure to
register to do business in Georgia did not impair its ability to
contract with Plaintiff. He did not make this argument in its
response or surresponse to Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on this ground
is denied.
Plaintiff asserts that if the attorney(s) did not obtain informed
consent in compliance with Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct
1.4(b), the contract to arbitrate would indeed be void as against
public policy.
Plaintiff raised the same argument in its response to Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration and the Court addressed it. According
to the Court, a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to
relitigate old matters. Plaintiff's argument is therefore improper,
the Court concludes.
Plaintiff argues that the arbitration agreement is invalid in the
absence of informed consent and that the arbitration provision
would be lawful if Morgan & Morgan had obtained informed consent --
a change in the process of entering into an agreement. The Georgia
Court of Appeals has rejected Plaintiff's informed consent argument
in a similar case involving Morgan & Morgan. Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration on this ground is denied, the Court holds.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gJSO6R from PacerMonitor.com.
MORGAN & MORGAN: Walker Case to Remain in Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia denied the plaintiff's motion
to remand the case captioned as BRANDON WALKER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN &
MORGAN, JACKSONVILLE PLLC a/k/a Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville LLC
and BRAD MILKWICK, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-00088 (S.D. Ga.) to
state court.
After being injured in a motor vehicle accident while working as a
sheriff's deputy in McIntosh County, Georgia, Plaintiff Walker
entered into a representation agreement with the law firm of Morgan
& Morgan, Jacksonville PLLC to represent his interests regarding
the accident. When Plaintiff contacted Morgan & Morgan, he was
told his case would be handled out of the Brunswick, Georgia,
office. However, he was also told that Defendant Brad Milkwick in
the Savannah, Georgia, office would handle his worker's
compensation claim.
Defendant Milkwick did not file a worker's compensation notice,
which led to Plaintiff's group health insurance carrier paying his
medical bills from the accident. The group health insurance carrier
asserted a right for subrogation reimbursement of the claims paid,
and Morgan & Morgan paid the reimbursement of $17,318.78 out of the
$25,000.00 Plaintiff received from the at-fault driver's insurance
company. Plaintiff further claims Morgan & Morgan exposed him to
hundreds of thousands of dollars in future medical bills. He also
asserts that Morgan & Morgan failed to explore other possible
sources of compensation for his injuries.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, a putative class action, against
Morgan & Morgan and Mr. Milkwick on June 20, 2024 in the Superior
Court of Glynn County, Georgia. In the complaint, he asserts that,
at the time Plaintiff retained Morgan & Morgan to represent him,
the firm was not qualified or registered to do business in Georgia
in violation of O.C.G.A. Sec. 14-11-711, and, therefore, the
collection of any fees and expenses contemplated in the
unenforceable fee contract was wrongful, and Plaintiff is entitled
to the return of such money taken by Morgan & Morgan.
Plaintiff brings claims against Morgan & Morgan and Mr. Milkwick
for professional negligence (Count I), breach of fiduciary duty
(Count II), disgorgement of fees (Count III), declaratory and
injunctive relief (Count III),1 punitive damages (Count IV), and
attorney's fees and costs of litigation (Count V).
Defendants removed the case to the District Court, basing subject
matter jurisdiction on the Class Action Fairness Act, and moved to
compel arbitration.
The District Court found that the arbitration provision in the
representation
agreement was enforceable and granted the motion, staying these
proceedings until the arbitration's completion. The same day the
Order was entered, Plaintiff moved to remand this action to the
state court from which it was removed. He argues the District Court
must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this case due to the
local controversy exception contained in CAFA.
The parties agree that Defendant Milkwick is the only defendant who
is a citizen of Georgia, the state in which Plaintiff initiated
this action. They dispute, however, whether Mr. Milkwick is a
significant defendant.
In their opposition brief to Plaintiff's motion to remand,
Defendants argue, among other things, that Plaintiff has failed to
show:
(1) a significant defendant is a resident of Georgia, Sec.
1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(II)(aa)-(bb), and
(2) greater than two-thirds of the proposed class are Georgia
citizens, Sec. 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(I).
Defendants contend a significant defendant is a defendant whose
alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted
by the proposed class. They argue the Complaint alleges no claim by
any putative class member based on Mr. Milkwick's alleged conduct,
much less that his conduct forms a significant basis for the class
claims.
The District Court finds Plaintiff presents no evidence and instead
relies on argument and the complaint to establish that Mr.
Milkwick's conduct forms a significant basis for the putative
plaintiffs' claims.
According to the District Court, Plaintiff has presented no
evidence to support the citizenship of the putative class, and he
has defined the class without regard to the members' citizenship.
Judge Wood concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to show that
Defendant Milkwick, the only defendant who is a citizen of Georgia,
is a significant defendant, and he has failed to show that
two-thirds of the putative class members are citizens of Georgia.
Plaintiff has, therefore, failed to meet his burden of establishing
that this case falls within CAFA's local controversy exception.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zlCiGY from PacerMonitor.com.
NAJOLIA ENTERPRISES: Dunson Files Labor Suit in Cal. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Najolia Enterprises,
Inc., et al. The case is captioned as JULIETT DUNSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NAJOLIA
ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 25CV000845 (Cal. Super.
Sacramento Cty., January 9, 2025).
A case management conference is set for February 27, 2026, before
Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi.
Najolia Enterprises, Inc. is a provider of restoration services in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle Rapoport, Esq.
ARASH LAW
2960 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (310) 277-7529
NATIONAL BOARD: Court Tosses Giri, et al. Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia will grant the motion filed by the
National Board of Medical Examiners to dismiss the case captioned
as LATIKA GIRI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE NATIONAL BOARD OF
MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-410 (CRC) (D.C.).
The United States Medical Licensing Exam is a standardized test
administered by NBME and the Federation of State Medical Boards
every year to aspiring doctors who wish to practice medicine in the
United States.
Dr. Giri is a citizen and current resident of Nepal who graduated
from the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences in 2022.
NBME invalidated her Step One, Two, and Three scores because all
three exams displayed extremely improbable answer similarity with
other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, and
abnormal question response times. In a Jan. 31, 2024 email
notifying Giri that her scores had been invalidated, NMBE indicated
that the likelihood of observing Giri's data results during normal
testing conditions was roughly 1 in 100 million.
NBME offered Giri three alternative forms of recourse: she could
retake each step of the examination, request reconsideration of
NBME's decision to invalidate her score, or take no action, in
which case she would be suspended from retaking the USMLE for three
years.
Giri filed a putative class action on Feb. 12, 2024 on behalf of
the 832 Nepal associated examinees whose USMLE scores were
invalidated, alleging that NBME had discriminated against her and
other putative class members on the basis of their Nepali national
origin and ethnicity, in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1981.
She simultaneously filed an emergency Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction ordering NBME to reinstate class members' test scores in
time for the Feb. 28 rank-order list deadline. NBME extended the
deadline for putative class members to elect which of the three
options they intended to pursue until the Court ruled on the
preliminary injunction motion.
Eleven days later, following expedited briefing and a hearing, the
Court denied Giri's motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding
that she was unlikely to succeed on her claims because the record
demonstrated that NBME took action against the putative class
because of credible reports of cheating, not discriminatory animus
against Nepalis.
The same day, Giri responded to NBME's letter. She selected the
second option provided by NBME, requesting reconsideration of the
USMLE program's decision to invalidate her scores.
After the Court denied Giri's preliminary-injunction motion, she
filed an amended complaint in April 2024. The amended complaint
adds Plaintiff Dr. Swechha Shrestha, a medical resident of Nepali
citizenship and ancestry who lives in Nevada. In January 2024, NMBE
notified Shrestha by email that it had invalidated her Step Three
exam score due to concerns about its validity.
NBME moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Giri and Shrestha signed release forms waiving the claims that are
the subject of this suit. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss their
claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Even if the Court
were to reach the merits of their claims, Plaintiffs fail to state
discrimination claims under Title VII or 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981. The
Court would therefore dismiss their claims under Rule 12(b)(6) in
any case.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ut1im from PacerMonitor.com.
NESTLE HEALTH: Court Tosses Bowler False Advertising Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California granted Nestle Health Science U.S.,
LLC's motion to dismiss the case captioned as YESENIA BOWLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NESTLÉ HEALTH SCIENCE U.S., LLC (D/B/A NATURE'S
BOUNTY), Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06521-MCS-JPR (C.D. Calif.).
Leave to amend is denied.
This is a putative class action concerning alleged false
advertising of a consumer product—a snake oil case about fish
oil. Defendant sells Nature's Bounty–branded fish oil capsules.
Plaintiff identifies four products that purportedly feature one or
more false or misleading statements about the products on their
front label, including "HEART HEALTH," a statement featured on all
the products. Each label's statement or statements at issue are
accompanied by an asterisk denoting qualifying information
elsewhere on the label.
Without reference to the qualifying statements, Plaintiff asserts
that the statements on the front label are false or misleading, as
"there is no proof fish oil supplements improve your heart health,"
and "multiple recent studies have found that fish oil supplements
may be harmful to heart health." According to Plaintiff, when a
bottle prominently states on the label, 'Heart Health,' consumers
expect that to be accurate -- that the product does help support a
healthy heart.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a qualified class of "all persons who,
while in the state of California and within the applicable statute
of limitations period, purchased one or more Nature's Bounty Fish
Oil Capsules." She brings claims of:
(1) violation of California's False Advertising Law,
(2) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
(3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
Preemption
Defendant argues Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which establishes a national and uniform
standard for certain labeling statements.
According to the Court, none of the scientific publications
Plaintiff cites in her pleading stands for the general proposition
that the nutrients contained in Defendant's fish oil supplements do
not promote or are harmful to heart health. Similarly, publications
Plaintiff cites for the proposition that nutrients in fish oil
increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in certain populations do
not stand for that proposition or do not call into question the
broader role such nutrients play with respect to the human
cardiovascular system in the general population. Plaintiff has not
raised a plausible inference that the structure/function claims are
factually false, the Court concludes.
The Court finds Plaintiff's claims are preempted by federal law.
Reasonable Consumer Standard
As an independent ground for dismissal, the Court agrees with
Defendant that Plaintiff does not plausibly plead confusion among
reasonable consumers. According to the Court, the consuming public
would not understand the statements at issue to indicate the
products will "help support a healthy heart" because the labels
elsewhere disclaim any representation that the products would do
so.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4k2Mkb from PacerMonitor.com.
NEW PUNCH: Ramos Files Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Punch Bowl
Sacramento, LLC. The case is captioned as FARAH RAMOS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEW PUNCH BOWL
SACRAMENTO, LLC, Case No. 25CV000847 (Cal. Super. Sacramento Cty.,
January 9, 2025).
A case management conference is set for February 27, 2026, before
Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi.
New Punch Bowl Sacramento, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator
in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
MARQUEE LAW GROUP, APC
9100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 445
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 275-1844
Facsimile: (310) 275-1801
Email: tuvia@marqueelaw.com
NEW YORK LIFE: Linhart Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA LINHART is taking an appeal from a court order denying her
motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Barbara
Linhart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. New York Life Insurance and Annuity
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01640-JWH-DTB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over the Defendants' failure to provide statutorily
mandated forms and annual notices to policyholders as required by
California law, and therefore, improperly lapsed and refused to pay
the benefits of its life insurance policies in breach of contract
and in violation of California insurance codes.
On Jan. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and appointment of class representative and class
counsel.
On Mar. 8, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On Dec. 26, 2024, Judge John W. Holcomb entered an Order denying
the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
According to Judge Holcomb, the thrust of Linhart's breach of
contract claim is that New York Life Insurance and Annuity
Corporation (NYLIAC) failed to comply with the statutes and that
NYLIAC failed to pay the benefit owed to Linhart. In view of the
Court's conclusion that NYLIAC did comply with the statutes, the
Court necessarily concludes that NYLIAC was not in breach of
contract, because the Policy lapsed. Accordingly, NYLIAC's summary
judgment motion is granted with respect to this claim. Because the
Court concludes that Linhart's claims for relief must be dismissed
and that NYLIAC's summary judgment motion must be granted, the
Court necessarily concludes that Linhart's class certification
motion is denied.
The appellate case is Linhart v. New York Life Insurance and
Annuity Corporation, et al., Case No. 25-490, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 24, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due January 29,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due February 6,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on March 10, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 17, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 19, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BARBARA LINHART, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
Abigail Pershing, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
- and -
David S. Klevatt, Esq.
KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
33 North Lasalle Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60602
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
Mitch H. Macknin, Esq.
SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC
321 N. Clark Street, 25th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
- and -
Kevin Kamuf Green, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
533 F. Street, Suite 207
San Diego, CA 92101
Defendants-Appellees NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY
CORPORATION, et al. are represented by:
Michael Mulvaney, Esq.
John A. Little, Jr., Esq.
Caleb C. Wolanek, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN, PC
1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1700
Birmingham, AL 35203
- and -
Cindy M. Rucker, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN, LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90067
OASIS DAY: Faces Trippett Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Oasis Day Spa, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00552 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2025) alleges violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York
City Human Rights Law.
The Defendant's website, https://www.oasisdayspanyc.com, contains
significant access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for the blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access
barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and other blind individuals
have been and are being denied equal access to Oasis Day Spa, as
well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the
public through its website, says the suit.
Oasis Day Spa, Inc. owns and controls the website which offers
information about spa salon locations and hours of operation.
[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
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Kayne Sues Over Affiliate Marketing Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN KAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. and PAYPAL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00668 (N.D. Cal., January 20, 2025)
accuses the Defendants of engaging in a ruthless scheme to exploit
the $10 billion affiliate marketing industry and steal the
hard-earned commissions from Plaintiff Benjamin Kayne and similarly
situated affiliate marketers.
Exploiting the last click attribution model, the Defendants'
browser extension--referred to as the PayPal Honey Extension--pops
up only after a consumer proceeds to the checkout screen. If a
consumer clicks on the PayPal Honey Extension during checkout, the
extension's computer code removes the influencer's affiliate
tracking cookies and replaces them with Defendants' tracking
cookie. The Defendants then receive full commission for the
purchase, even though they did nothing to promote the brand or
drive the consumer to the brand's website. Moreover, the Plaintiff
now asserts that Defendants' actions violate California's Unfair
Competition Law and constitute intentional interference with
contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective
economic relations, unjust enrichment, and conversion.
Headquartered in San Jose, CA, PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a financial
technology company that operates an online payments system. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roland Tellis, Esq.
David Fernandes, Esq.
Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Blvd, Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 839-2333
E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
dfernandes@baronbudd.com
atamburelli@baronbudd.com
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Steals Affiliate Commissions, Smith Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xavier Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
5:25-cv-00847 (N.D. Cal., January 24, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for conversion, unjust enrichment,
intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective
economic advantage, and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, PayPal claims that Honey, its browser
extension, helps its users save money by finding and applying
coupon codes during the online shopping checkout process. However,
Honey may or may not save its users money, but it makes a lot of
money for itself. When a shopper with Honey installed clicks an
affiliate link and purchases a product, the content creator who
posted the link should receive the affiliate commission for the
sale, because they provided the last link or affiliate code that
was clicked before the user made their purchase.
Instead, as revealed in YouTuber MegaLag's video, the Honey browser
extension intervenes at the last second, replacing the affiliate
code with its own. As a result, PayPal receives the affiliate
commission owed to the content creator -- even though Honey played
no role in referring the shopper to the retailer. Moreover, Honey
replaces the affiliate code even when it finds no coupon code for
the shopper, says the suit.
Plaintiff Smith is an entrepreneur and author who shares knowledge
about fitness, nutrition, and life skills. As part of his business,
he recommends products to support his audience's fitness and
nutrition goals. He posts affiliate links to these products and
others on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Threads, Pinterest,
Twitter/X, and other platforms.
PayPal Holdings, Inc. is an American multinational financial
technology company operating an online payments system in the
majority of countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher L. Springer, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
E-mail: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
Adele A. Daniel, Esq.
Andrew N. Lindsay, Esq.
Kylie N. Fisher, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
adaniel@kellerrohrback.com
alindsay@kellerrohrback.com
kfisher@kellerrohrback.com
PEBBLE CORP: Semon Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Division
-----------------------------------------------------------
SEAN SEMON, et al. have filed an appeak in lawsuit entitled Sean
Semon, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pebble Corp. et al., Defendants, Case No.
653380/2024, pending in the lower court of New York.
The case type is stated as Civil Action – General.
The appellate case is captioned Sean Semon et al. vs. Pebble Corp.
et al., Case No. 25-00570, filed in the New York Appellate
Division's First Judicial Department on January 26, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners SEAN SEMON, et al. are represented by:
Marc A. Stadtmauer, Esq.
STADTMAUER & ASSOCIATES
110 E. 42nd St., Suite 1508
New York, NY 10017
PERPAY INC: McGonigle Sues Over Unfair Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW JAMES MCGONIGLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERPAY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00326-JMY (E.D. Pa., January 20, 2025), arises from
Defendant's abusive telephone marketing practices that violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiff McGonigle alleges that the Defendant violated the TCPA by
making telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other putative class
members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without their
written consent. Plaintiff's phone number has been on the National
Do Not Call Registry since January 2014. At no point has Plaintiff
sought out or solicited information regarding Defendant's services
prior to receiving the calls at issue. Despite this, the Plaintiff
has repeatedly received text messages from the Defendant, including
on at least October 20 and November 13, 2024, says the suit.
PerPay, Inc. is a financial technology firm headquartered in
Philadelphia, PA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
403 S. Allen St., Suite 210
State College, PA 16801
Telephone: (814) 234-2626
E-mail: jjackson@bower-law.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
PERRY RUSSELL: Court Won't Stay Discovery in Thomson Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada denied the plaintiff's motion to
stay discovery in the case captioned as DAVID THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
v. PERRY RUSSELL, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00341-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.) as moot.
On Oct. 4, 2024, Plaintiff David Thompson filed a motion to stay
discovery in this action pending the outcome of a motion to certify
a class in another case, Lyons v. Russell, Case No.
3:23-cv-00335-MMD-CSD. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion
to stay discovery.
On Oct. 15, 2024, the court issued a report and recommendation in
Lyons v. Russell that the motion to certify a class action be
denied. On Jan. 24, 2025, District Judge Du adopted the
recommendations in the R&R. Because the court has ruled that
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action in Lyons v. Russell be
denied, Plaintiff Thompson's motion to stay discovery in this
action pending the outcome of the motion in Lyons is moot.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tL2GmK from PacerMonitor.com.
PREMIER NUTRITION: Class Counsel Entitled to Attorneys' Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as MARY BETH MONTERA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, FKA Joint Juice, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 23-16162 (9th Cir.), Judges Sidney R.
Thomas, David Hamilton and Morgan Christen of the United States
Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the order of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California awarding attorneys' fees to class counsel.
This case originated as a class action brought on behalf of a
putative national class. After the district court denied class
certification of the nationwide class and certified a California
class, Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp., No. 13-cv-01271-RS, 2016
WL 3440600, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016), Montera's counsel
filed ten new suits on behalf of putative single-state classes,
including this New York class.
Premier agreed to share discovery generated while Mullins was
pending among the related actions to avoid duplicating efforts and
expenses. After the California plaintiffs amended their complaint
to voluntarily dismiss their prayer for damages, the district court
dismissed the California class action. The Ninth Circuit affirmed
that dismissal. The related single-state classes then proceeded
with coordinated discovery. Montera was the first of the
single-state cases to go to trial. A jury returned a verdict in
Montera's favor.
After trial, the district court ruled that Montera was the
prevailing party and entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to New
York General Business Law Secs. 349 and 350-e.
The Ninth Circuit finds the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it awarded Montera's counsel fees for part of the
work counsel performed while Mullins was pending. The Circuit
Judges say the fees that were incurred during the period when the
putative nationwide class was pending, and included in Montera's
fee petition, comprised only work on issues that were common to
Montera's case. Common issues included discovery for the consumer
deception issue and work that reduced the hours needed to
successfully seek certification of the New York class.
According to the Ninth Circuit, the district court was in the best
position to determine whether the fees included in Montera's fee
motion that were incurred while Mullins was pending contributed to
Montera's success at trial. The Circuit Judges conclude that record
evidence supports the district court's determination that the fees
included in the motion led to Montera's overall success.
The Ninth Circuit also finds the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it declined to apportion among the related state
classes those fees incurred while Mullins was pending and, after
Mullins was dismissed, the fees incurred to conduct joint
discovery. The district court credited Montera's counsels'
representations that they excluded all work that they specifically
performed for other cases, as well as all work that did not benefit
Montera. Premier points to no evidence that undermines this
conclusion or otherwise shows that Montera's counsel failed to
exclude time for work that did not benefit Montera, the Ninth
Circuit notes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NxU7Xd from PacerMonitor.com.
PREUSS INC: Ponce Sues Over Alleged Wage and Hour Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR PONCE, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREUSS, INC., ROGER PREUSS and RYAN PREUSS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00339 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2025)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law Articles 6 and 19, and the supporting
New York State Department of Labor Regulations.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a welder from in or
about 2007 to in or about November 2024. Throughout his employment
with Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours
in a single workweek. However, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff at a rate of at least one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, Preuss, Inc. owns and operates a
commercial garage and specializes in installing and repairing truck
lift gates, body repairs, custom tool box builds, side door
replacements, roll up doors, frame repairs, and welding.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com
PRUITTHEALTH INC: Melendres Alleges Illegal Labor Exploitation
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL JAVIER MELENDRES, ERIKA JUNE OYAMMI LUBIANO, CHINONYEREM
PRINCESS EZE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PRUITTHEALTH, INC., PRUITTHEALTH-BAMBERG,
LLC, PRUITTHEALTH – NEUSE, LLC, PRUITTHEALTH – TOWN CENTER,
LLC, PRUITTHEALTH CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC, INFINITY CARE PARTNERS,
LLC, NEIL PRUITT, JUSTIN PRICE, AMY MONTENEGRO, ANDREW HUCKABY,
Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00070 (M.D. Tenn., January 20, 2025)
arises from Defendants' alleged illegal labor exploitation and
trafficking of foreign health care workers.
The Defendants offer lower wages and subject foreign health care
workers to harsher working conditions without the risk of them
immediately leaving because Defendants threaten serious financial
harm through illegal penalties in their contracts. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs now seek redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and
assert claims for breach of contract and for violations of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act and Racketeer Influence and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
Headquartered in Norcross, GA, PruittHealth, Inc. provides certain
administrative services including employee recruiting, payroll and
benefits administration, legal and human resources counseling,
financial and accounting support, and other related administrative
services for such healthcare providers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
William A. Ladnier, Esq.
Alexandr Rudenco, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: aedwards@milberg.com
wladnier@milberg.com
arudenco@milberg.com
- and -
Ashleigh Beer-Vineyard, Esq.
Robert Dziewulski, TN BPR 037044
DZ LAW, PLLC
4315 Kingston Pike, Ste. 210
Knoxville, TN 37919
Telephone: (865) 259-0020
Facsimile: (865) 635-4744
E-mail: ashleighbeer@dzlaw.law
bobdz@dzlaw.law
Q.V.H. CORP: Faces Pardo Suit Over Disabled's Access to Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE Q.V.H. CORPORATION; CARIBE
RESTAURANT OF MIAMI GARDENS INC. d/b/a DON PAN; and ALOHA & MORE,
INC. d/b/a CAFE AREITO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20446 (S.D.
Fla., January 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of their properties and businesses. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered
architectural barriers in entrance access and path of travel and
public restrooms.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation.
The Q.V.H. Corporation is a commercial property owner and operator
based in Florida.
Caribe Restaurant of Miami Gardens Inc., doing business as Don Pan,
is a commercial property owner and operator based in Florida.
Aloha & More, Inc., doing business as Cafe Areito, is a commercial
property owner and operator based in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Email: amejias@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
REMARKABLE FOODS: Fails to Pay Asst. Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAS ROMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. REMARKABLE FOODS HOSPITALITY LLC, dba WONDER RESTAURANTS, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00087 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2025) sues the Defendant for
failing to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated assistant
managers for all hours worked, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
While employed by Wonder, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated assistant managers consistently work over 40 hours per
week without receiving premium overtime pay for all the hours they
worked. This was done according to Wonder policy to classify
Assistant Managers as overtime-exempt employees, the suit says.
In addition, the Defendant consistently pays the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated assistant managers a salary each week
despite the number of hours they actually worked.
The Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid
"spread of hours" premiums for each day he worked a shift in excess
of ten hours, statutory damages for untimely payment of wages,
unpaid uniform maintenance compensation, liquidated damages and
civil penalties, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff has been continuously employed by the Defendant in
New York County and Westchester County, New York, to work as an
Assistant Manager for the Defendant's restaurants known as Wonder
from March 21, 2024, through present.
Wonder Restaurants is a pioneer in an innovative fast-fine
restaurant concept, bringing food items once only offered at iconic
restaurant brands to a large scale customer base.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Jeziorkowski, Esq.
VALIANT LAW
2 Westchester Park Drive – Suite 205
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 730-2422
Facsimile: (909) 677-2290
E-mail: jjj@valiantlaw.com
- and -
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street – 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
ROBERT GRAHAM: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. Robert Graham Retail, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00830 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Robert Graham Retail for its 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 persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
On January 3, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching for new outfits
with unique designs leading her to the Defendant's website, where
she browsed the available products and found the Dylan jacket,
which she decided to purchase. However, when she clicked the "Add
to Cart" button, an unclear and inappropriate dialog box message
appeared, causing confusion. Although the product was added to the
cart, the confirmation status was not announced. These access
barriers made Robertgraham.us inaccessible to, and not
independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Robert Graham Retail'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.
Robert Graham Retail, LLC operates the website which provides
consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including,
the ability to view a wide range of clothing for men and women,
including dresses, tops, sweaters, blazers, shirts, pants, skirts,
outerwear, jackets, and socks.[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
RUSH STREET: Hermann Files Fraud Suit in E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rush Street Gaming
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as BONNIE HERMANN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUSH STREET
GAMING LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00130-JDW (E.D. Pa., January
9, 2025).
The Plaintiff brings fraud claims against the Defendants.
Rush Street Gaming LLC is a gaming company headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
- and -
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
Email: sholbrook@shublawyers.com
bjohns@shublawyers.com
RYE FIRE: Richardson et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter Richardson, Alec Coscarella, and Jennifer Anderson, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Rye Fire Protection District, a Colorado Special District,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00196 (D. Colo., January 20, 2025)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act in
connection with Defendant's failure to pay overtime to
firefighters.
The Plaintiffs were not paid at one-and-one-half times their
regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a single work week.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs were retaliated against Plaintiffs for
making complaints about FLSA, says the suit.
Rye Fire Protection District operates two fire stations to provide
an "all hazards" response that includes medical emergencies, car
accidents, vehicle fires, structural fire, hazardous materials
releases, and wildland fire within three counties and national
forest lands covering approximately 240 square miles. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian D. Kalmanowitz, Esq.
CORNISH & DELL’OLIO, P.C.
431 N. Cascade Ave. Suite 1
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Telephone: (719) 475-1204
E-mail: ikalmanowitz@cornishanddellolio.com
SAFEWAY INC: Faces Boren Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------
APRIL BOREN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAFEWAY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00182 (W.D. Wash., January 29, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, the Wage Recovery Act
including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay straight
time wages, failure to keep accurate records, failure to provide
rest breaks, and failure to provide meal breaks.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly-paid
department manager from approximately August 2019 to April 2022 at
a store in Oregon and from April 2022 to July 2022 at a store in
Washington.
Safeway, Inc. is an operator of supermarkets, with its principal
place of business in Pleasanton, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristopher Bonham, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
1700 Palm Beach Lakes, Suite 500
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 812-1547
Facsimile: (561) 812-1571
Email: kbonham@forthepeople.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Kim De Arcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2069
Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
KimD@forthepeople.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com
amurthy@forthepeople.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Marilyn Linares, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
622 Banyan Train, Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Michael Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
SAFEWAY INC: Faces Morales Class Action Lawsuit in Cal. Super.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safeway Inc. The case
is captioned as Jesus Jose Gongora Morales, Jr, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Safeway Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2025-0000066 (Cal. Super., Jan. 3, 2025).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert T. Waters.
The suit alleges violation of the Unlimited Civil Other
Employment.
Safeway is an American supermarket chain. The chain provides
grocery items, food and general merchandise and a variety of
specialty departments.[BN]
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: G.T. Files 7th Circuit Appeal in BIPA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
G. T., et al. have filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled G. T.,
by and through next friend LILIANA T. HANLON, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Samsung Electronics America, Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04976, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
The suit is brought over the Defendants' allegation that facial
recognition technology in Samsung's Gallery photo application
violates Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act .
In July 24, 2024, Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins granted Defendants
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class complaint.
The dismissal was without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned G. T., et al. v. Samsung
Electronics America, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 25-1120, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on
January 24, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants' brief due on or before March 12, 2025.
-- Appellees' brief due on or before April 11, 2025.
-- Appellants' reply brief, if any, is due on or before May 2,
2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants G. T., by and through next friend LILIANA T.
HANLON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Theodore H. Kuyper, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
Defendants-Appellees SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INCORPORATED, et
al. are represented by:
Michael Wayne McTigue, Jr., Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3529
SAZERAC COMPANY: Amended Order on Class Cert Entered
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILBERT ANDREWS and STEVEN
KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01060-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an amended order regarding
class certification:
-- The Court withdraws its prior order, and pending issuance of
its amended order, stays further proceedings in this case.
-- The Plaintiffs are invited to file a response to the arguments
in defendants' Rule 23(f) petition by 5:00 pm on Jan. 31,
2025.
Sazerac operates distilleries and produces alcoholic beverages.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YVhm5t at no extra
charge.[CC]
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Seeks Leave to File Short Sur-Reply in Davis
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY P. DAVIS, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. SELECTQUOTE AUTO
& HOME INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00185-RJC-DCK
(W.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting
its motion for leave to file a short sur-reply in response to new
arguments and/or factual claims made by the Plaintiff Bradley P.
Davis in Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's response to plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
The Defendant has satisfied this standard because Plaintiff's Reply
raises novel arguments not previously raised, prejudicing Defendant
who, without leave to file a sur-reply, will not be afforded the
opportunity to respond to those arguments.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sbh9in at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen D. Dellinger, Esq.
Kevin Cleys, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
620 South Tryon Street, Suite 950
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 972-7000
Facsimile: (704) 333-400
E-mail: sdellinger@littler.com
kcleys@littler.com
SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Filing in Chang Suit Due July 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GER CHONG ZE CHANG, et
al., v. COUNTY OF SISKIYOU, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01378-KJM-AC
(E.D. Cal.,), the Court entered a scheduling order as follows:
Event Date
Last Day to Amend Pleadings as of Right: Feb. 28, 2025
Close of Fact Discovery: June 16, 2025
Initial Expert Witness Disclosures: June 30, 2025
Last Day to File Motion for Class July 14, 2025
Certification:
Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures: July 28, 2025
Close of Expert Discovery: Aug. 18, 2025
Last Date to File Dispositive Motions: Sept. 4, 2025
Siskiyou is located in inland northern California, adjacent to the
Oregon border.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SiZVd6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Thomas H. Do, Esq.
Emi Young, Esq.
Grayce Zelphin, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 293-6333
Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
E-mail: jdo@aclunc.org
eyoung@aclunc.org
gzelphin@aclunc.org
- and -
Carl Takei, Esq.
Megan Vees, Esq.
ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
55 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 896-1701
Facsimile: (415) 896-1702
E-mail: carlt@asialawcaucus.org
meganv@asianlawcaucus.org
- and -
Stanley Young, Esq.
Alison Wall, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
E-mail: syoung@cov.com
awall@cov.com
The Defendant is represented by:
J. Scott Donald, Esq.
Elise D. Rice, Esq.
SPINELLI, DONALD & NOTT, P.C.
300 University Avenue, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 448-7888
E-mail: scottd@sdnlaw.com
eliser@sdnlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey V. Dunn, Esq.
Christopher M. Pisano, Esq.
Marco Ornelas-Lopez, Esq.
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 325-4000
E-mail: jeffrey.dunn@bbklaw.com
christopher.pisano@bbklaw.com
marco.ornelaslopez@bbklaw.com
SPA CASTLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Trippett Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Spa Castle, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00554 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure make the website, ny.spacastleusa.com, accessible to blind
persons.
The inaccessibility of Defendant's website has deterred Plaintiff
from making an online booking. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks
redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Based in College Point, NY, Spa Castle, Inc. controls and operates
the website which serves an online platform that allows its users
to explore spa services, and make bookings in connection with its
physical locations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern, Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Garza Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE GARZA is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Christine Garza, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spectrum Brands Pet
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00012-JLT-CDB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought against the Defendant for false and misleading business
practices with respect to the sale of its DreamBone Dream Kabobz
product and asserts claims against the Defendant for, among other
things, breach of implied warranty, common law fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, and for violations of the California Business
and Professions Code and California's False Advertising Law.
On Mar. 11, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which
Judge Jennifer L. Thurston granted on Dec. 23, 2024.
The Court concluded that in reviewing the entirety of the package,
a reasonable consumer could not be misled to believing that the
first ingredient of the dog chews is meat, and thus, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the first, second, third, fifth,
sixth, and seventh claims are granted. Based on the undisputed
nature of the packaging, it appears that amendment could not remedy
the absence of a consumer deception claim. Thus, the motion was
granted with prejudice and without leave to amend.
The appellate case is captioned Garza v. Spectrum Brands Pet LLC,
Case No. 25-487, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on January 24, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 29,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on March 5, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on April 4, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTINE GARZA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Lisa Omoto, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Defendant-Appellee SPECTRUM BRANDS PET LLC is represented by:
Eileen M. Ahern, Esq.
WILLENKEN, LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HOLTSCLAW,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00490-RMR-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting extension to move for class
certification and extending deadline to file motion up to and
included Feb. 26, 2025.
The Plaintiff's deadline is currently Jan. 30, 2025.
Due to the holidays and deadlines in a forthcoming jury trial, the
parties haven't been able to schedule those depositions.
Specifically, Plaintiffs' counsel is scheduled to begin a jury
trial on Jan. 27, 2025 in Burris v. Baxter County Regional
Hospital, Inc., No. 23-cv-03008-TLB pending in the Western District
of Arkansas, which is expected to run through Feb. 3, 2025.
Consistent with the timing in the current schedule, the Defendant
would then have 30 days to respond to the motion, and Plaintiff
would have 14 days to reply to the response.
Stake Center specializes in providing utility locating services and
training.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZB5EFq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Telephone: (970) 214-0562
E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Brownell's Counsel Appeals Sanction Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER SHEEHAN, and Sheehan & Associates, P.C. are taking an
appeal from a court order in lawsuit entitled Kristie Brownell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Starbucks Coffee Company, Defendants, Case No.
5:22-cv-1199, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York.
The suit was brought over the Defendants' false and misleading
labeling practices with regard to Starbucks' French Roast "Ground
100% Arabica Coffee."
On November 30, 2023, Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. ruled that
counsel for Plaintiff, Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates,
P.C., is in civil contempt of court. The Court reserved its
decision on the nature of the final sanctions.
On January 2, 2025, the Court ordered that Mr. Sheehan will pay
$500 as a sanction for violating Rule 11(b)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
The appellate case is captioned Brownell v. Sheehan, Case No.
25-189, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on January 24, 2025. [BN]
Defendants-Appellants SPENCER SHEEHAN, et al. are represented by:
Daniel R. Rose, Esq.
COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON, PLLC
211 West Jefferson Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
Telephone: (315) 422-1152
Facsimile: (315) 422-1139
Defendant-Appellee STARBUCKS CORPORATION is represented by:
Paul W. Garrity, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Telephone: (212) 653-8700
Facsimile: (212) 653-8701
STARBUCKS CORP: NCL Wins Bid to Remand Case to D.C. Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amir H. Ali of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia granted the National Consumers League's motion
to remand the case captioned as NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE,
Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
24-cv-00421-AHA (D.C.) to D.C. Superior Court.
Plaintiff National Consumers League sued Defendant Starbucks
Corporation in D.C. Superior Court, alleging unfair and deceptive
trade practices in violation of the District of Columbia's Consumer
Protection Procedures Act.
NCL alleges that Starbucks tells consumers it ethically sources
coffee and tea, when in reality the company sources products from
farms that engage in human rights and labor abuses.
NCL filed the suit in D.C. Superior Court as a CPPA action on
behalf of itself and the general public.
Starbucks removed the case to the District Court, asserting federal
subject matter jurisdiction via the Class Action Fairness Act and
diversity of citizenship. NCL argues removal was improper. The
District Court agrees.
CAFA
The District Court finds CAFA's $5 million amount in controversy
requirement is not satisfied.
Starbucks' attempt to satisfy the requirement depends on construing
NCL's complaint to seek statutory damages of $1,500 for every bag
of coffee beans sold by Starbucks in D.C. during the limitations
period, an amount that would apparently dwarf $5 million. But the
complaint does not seek such widespread damages. The District Court
emphasizes that while NCL claims damages for itself, there is no
basis to conclude that such damages reach $5 million. Indeed, NCL
has submitted a declaration stating that it has purchased only two
Starbucks coffee or tea products, equivalent in value to about
$34.
Diversity Jurisdiction
A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction when there is
complete diversity among the parties and more than $75,000 in
controversy.
In this case, Starbucks' attempt to do so conflicts with
well-established principles and precedent. It is undisputed that
the damages sought by NCL, apparently arising from two coffee
purchases, do not reach $75,000, even maximizing statutory damages.
Starbucks accordingly argues that attorneys' fees provided for by
the CPPA lift the amount in controversy above that threshold,
citing the hourly rates NCL's counsel might recover if they
prevail.
Contrary to Starbucks' contention, it makes no difference that this
case has one named plaintiff. The non-aggregation of costs in a
CPPA case, such as the expense to comply with an injunction or an
award of attorneys' fees, is based on the fact that those cases are
brought on behalf of D.C. consumers, not on the specific number of
plaintiffs in any given action. Because Starbucks has failed to
prove the requisite amount in controversy, the Court cannot
exercise diversity jurisdiction.
In addition to seeking remand, NCL seeks costs and fees incurred as
a result of Starbucks' removal. However, the District Court does
not find that Starbucks lacked an objectively reasonable basis for
seeking removal.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xAwTFK from PacerMonitor.com.
STRATEGIC STAFFING: Class Settlement Obtains Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted preliminary
approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as
PAULA NORTON, Plaintiff, v. STRATEGIC STAFFING SOLUTIONS, L.C., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-06648-JSC (N.D. Calif.)
In this wage and hour action, Plaintiff alleges Strategic Staffing
Solutions-S3, LLC and Cynthia Pasky, S3's Chief Executive Officer,
systematically misclassified its recruiters as exempt employees.
Plaintiff now moves for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement resolving these claims.
The Settlement Agreement requires Defendants to establish a
non-reversionary Gross Settlement Fund of $5,250,000. Under the
Settlement Agreement, the following amounts may be deducted from
the Gross Settlement Fund to yield the Net Settlement Fund:
1) $1,700,000 in attorneys' fees, subject to Court approval;
2) $50,000 in litigation costs, subject to Court approval;
3) $35,000 as a Class Representative incentive payment, subject
to Court approval;
4) $8,500 in estimated settlement administration costs, subject
to Court approval; and
5) $550,000, for the PAGA released claims, with 75 percent
($412,500) paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency and 25 percent ($137,500) paid to class members, subject to
Court approval.
The remaining Net Settlement Fund of at least $2,856,500 will be
distributed to class member in pro rata shares based on the number
of workweeks worked. Workweeks worked by exempt employees shall be
weighted at 5:1 to the workweeks worked by non-exempt employees to
account for the difference in their legal claims. The minimum
payment to any given class member shall be no less than $25
dollars.
The Court preliminarily finds the settlement agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and grants preliminary approval.
This action is provisionally certified as a class action, for
settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23. The Court preliminarily certifies the following
Settlement Classes:
The Non-Exempt Class: All non-exempt persons who worked at least
one 3.5-hour shift for Defendants, whether as a direct-hire or
agency employee, in the State of California during the Release
Period.
The Exempt Class: All persons who worked at least one 3.5-hour
shift for Defendants in the State of California and were classified
as an exempt employee during the Release Period.
The Court appoints Elliot J. Siegel of King & Siegel LLP and Xavier
Villegas of Law Office of Xavier Villegas, APC as Class Counsel for
settlement purposes. Class Counsel is authorized to act on behalf
of the class members with respect to the Settlement.
The Court appoints Paula Norton as Class Representative for
settlement purposes.
The Court appoints Apex Class Action LLC as the Settlement
Administrator.
Within 21 days of this Order, Plaintiff must file a motion for
attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff must file a motion for final settlement approval on March
27, 2025.
The Court will hear argument on the motion for attorneys' fees and
costs and the motion for final settlement approval at the Final
Approval Hearing, which will take place in person on April 24, 2025
at 10:00 a.m.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xt8XyU from PacerMonitor.com.
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Butler Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACK BUTLER, DESHAUN SIMS,
CLYDE LOFTON, PAUL ALVER, KEVIN KING, and RICKEY LYNCH, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY,
Case No. 2:11-cv-02602-JS-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joanna
Seybert entered an order that the Suffolk County's decertification
bid is denied.
-- The denial is without prejudice to either Party seeking to
decertify the Damages Class or an amendment to or modification
of the Damages Class definition, if warranted, after the
conclusion of the liability phase of the Action.
-- Given the present record, the County's current stance
continues to be unpersuasive. Rather, as it did when it
certified the Classes in this Action, the Court continues to
find the questions whether the conditions-of-confinement at
the Facilities violated the inmates' Constitutional rights and
whether Defendant was deliberately indifferent to said
conditions to be common to the Classes, as well as continues
to find "these issues predominate over the issues subject to
individualized proof."
In light of these consistent findings, as the Plaintiffs aptly put
forth, the County "cannot meet its heavy burden [in] seeking to
decertify [the] class[es] by simply recasting [its] arguments
previously made against class certification.'"
Suffolk County is the easternmost county in the U.S. state of New
York, constituting the eastern two-thirds of Long Island.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DdxpIS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel H.R. LaGuardia, Esq.
John Nathanson, Esq.
Elizabeth J. Stewart, Esq.
Benjamin Klebanoff, Esq.
ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN & STERLING US LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
- and -
Christopher T. Dunn, Esq.
Amy Belsher, Esq.
Gabriella Larios, Esq.
Veronica R. Salama, Esq.
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Christopher Murray, Esq.
Michelle A. Klein, Esq.
Elizabeth S. Sy, Esq.
Caitlyn M. Gibbons, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
926 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556-0926
Telephone: (516) 357-3000
Facsimile: (516) 357-3333
E-mail: e.murray@rivkin.com
SUPER MICRO: Court Resolves Discovery Disputes in Averza Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California issued an order
resolving the discovery disputes in the case captioned as JOSEPH
AVERZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-06147-EJD (SVK) (N.D. Calif.).
Crain Walnut Shelling, LP, and Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft
mbH are vying for the top spot of lead plaintiff in this putative,
securities class action, which arises out of alleged
misrepresentations disseminated by Super Micro Computer, Inc., and
two of its executives. The presiding judge, the Honorable Edward J.
Davila, declared CWS the presumptive lead plaintiff but found that
Universal had raised serious questions about CWS's fitness for that
role.
Judge Davila accordingly ordered the parties to conduct discovery
into three narrow topics:
Topic 1: CWS's ownership structure and decision-making processes.
Topic 2: CWS's financial condition.
Topic 3: The circumstances of CWS's purchase of Super Micro stock.
Universal subsequently propounded several requests for production
and interrogatories on CWS and noticed a deposition of Charles
Crain, Jr., the ultimate owner of CWS.
Before the Court are two discovery disputes:
(1) resolving CWS's objections to some of Universal's RFPs and
interrogatories; and
(2) evaluating CWS's proposed limitations on the deposition of
Mr. Crain.
Universal noticed a deposition of Mr. Crain pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1).
CWS requests that the Court modify the proposed deposition in four
ways:
(1) convert the deposition into a deposition of CWS in which Mr.
Crain appears as its representative pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6);
(2) limit the scope of the deposition to Topics 1-3;
(3) limit the length of the deposition to two hours; and
(4) require Universal to depose Mr. Crain in Los Molinos,
California.
According to the Court, Universal may depose Mr. Crain as a
non-party and not merely as a representative of CWS. Regardless of
whether Universal deposes Mr. Crain as a representative of CWS or
in his individual capacity, equity requires that Mr. Crain appear
for a deposition in the Northern District of California at a
location noticed by Universal, the Court notes.
Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the Court, a deposition
is limited to one day of 7 hours. The Court will not shorten the
deposition length.
The Court says Universal may not ask Mr. Crain any questions
outside the scope of Topics 1-3.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LVefji from PacerMonitor.com.
SYMBOTIC LLC: Faces Olivo Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT OLIVO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYMBOTIC LLC, a Massachusetts corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10173-MJJ (D. Mass., January 24, 2025)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as
appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours a week, and were paid some overtime for those
hours, but at a rate that did not include Defendant's shift
differentials as required by the FLSA, says the suit.
Symbotic LLC is a Massachusetts corporation headquartered in
Wilmington, Massachusetts, and doing business throughout North
America. It has operations in 20 locations in the United States and
Canada that include facilities focusing in robotics, machine
learning, software engineering, and data analytics. The Plaintiff
was employed by the Defendant from approximately September 2019
through September 17, 2024 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq.
STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC
10 Wendell Avenue Ext, Suite 208
Pittsfield, MA 01201
Telephone: (413) 347-4845
E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com
- and -
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Meghan Higday, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park E., Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
mh@melmedlaw.com
TECTA AMERICA: Mosey Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN MOSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TECTA AMERICA CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00654 (M.D. Ill., January 20, 2025), arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
and Class Members' personally identifiable information.
Between September 20, 2024, and October 2, 2024, the hackers
targeted and accessed Defendant's environment and stole Plaintiff's
and Class Members' sensitive, confidential private information
stored therein, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class
Members. However, the Defendant failed to notify affected
individuals that their private information was compromised until
approximately January 2, 2025 -- diminishing Plaintiff's and Class
Members' ability to timely and thoroughly mitigate and address the
increased, imminent risk of identity theft and other harms the data
breach caused, says the suit.
Headquartered in Rosemont, IL, Tecta America Corp. provides
commercial roofing services to its customers across the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
grunfeld@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLCC
227 W Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
TEXTRON INC: Conveys Users' Searches to Third Party, Moody Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DINO MOODY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TEXTRON INC., a Rhode Island corporation; DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV00091 (Cal. Super., Jan. 3,
2025) alleges that the Defendant's Website has a Search Bar that is
also used to record and convey the content of the Website user's
searches to various third-party tracking entities, in violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The Defendant allegedly software into its Website to allow third
parties to view website user's communications on the Website,
including the content of searches made while visiting the Website.
The transmission of this data to the Data Companies occurred
immediately upon Plaintiff's use of the Search Bar. At no point
during their visit to Defendant's website was the Plaintiff
informed that their search query and personal information would be
shared with these third-party advertising companies, the suit
claims.
Users of the Website are never informed that their searches on the
site are being provided to data companies, who link individual
searches with a user to further develop a profile on a user, the
Plaintiff avers.
Plaintiff Moody visited Textron's Website on Aug. 12, 2024. On
Textron's Website, the Plaintiff searched for "Do employee benefits
cover Diabetics like me?" The Plaintiff's search was transmitted to
third-party advertising entities, for the purpose of corporate
surveillance and monetization, without Plaintiff's consent.
Textron operates the website http://www.textron.comin order to
market its multi-industry companies, such as aircraft, defense,
industrial, and finance businesses.[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
E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com
wmiele@taulersmith.com
TRAX RETAIL: Class Cert. Filing in Perez Amended to April 4
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA PEREZ, an individual,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRAX
RETAIL, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, Case No.
3:24-cv-00333-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Leshner
entered an order granting in part the joint motion to continue
deadline to file motion for class certification and complete fact
discovery, and amending the scheduling order as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
Status Conference with Judge Feb. 5, 2025 No Change
Leshner: at 9:30 a.m.
Motion for Class Certification: Mar. 3, 2025 Apr. 4, 2025
Fact Discovery: Mar. 28, 2025 Apr. 28, 2025
All other deadlines and directives set forth in the Scheduling
Order at Dkt. No. 25 remain unchanged.
The Court finds that the wildfires in Los Angeles, and the
resultant interruptions to counsels' abilities to work, constitute
the type of extraordinary circumstances that warrant a short
extension of deadlines.
Trax provides computer vision solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X4LtgP at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED MISSISSIPPI: Stampley Sues Over Overdraft Fee Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
RUTHIE STAMPLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED MISSISSIPPI BANK, Defendant, Case No.
5:25-cv-00010-KS-BWR (S.D. Miss., January 24, 2025) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of Classes of
all similarly situated consumers against Defendant over the
improper assessment and collection of $35 overdraft fees on
transactions that did not actually overdraw the account.
According to the complaint, the moment debit card transactions are
authorized on an account with positive funds to cover the
transaction, the Defendant immediately reduces consumers' checking
accounts for the amount of the purchase, sets aside funds in the
checking account to cover that transaction, and adjusts the
consumer's displayed "available balance" to reflect that subtracted
amount. As a result, customers' accounts will always have
sufficient funds available to cover these transactions because
Defendant has already held the funds for payment. However,
Defendant still assesses crippling $35 OD Fees on many of these
transactions and misrepresents its practices in the account
documents, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and other customers of Defendant have been injured by
Defendant's improper fee maximization practices. The Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of the classes of individuals, brings
claims for Defendant's breach of contract, including the duty of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Electronic Fund Transfers Act.
United Mississippi Bank is engaged in the business of providing
retail banking services to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Winston S. Hudson, Esq.
JENNINGS PLLC
500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (601) 270-0197
E-mail: winston@jefirm.com
UNITED STATES: Center for Environmental Health Files Petition
-------------------------------------------------------------
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH has filed a petition for the Court
to review a decision of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency in the lawsuit entitled Center for Environmental Health,
Petitioner, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Respondent, Case No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0642.
The appellate case is captioned Center for Environmental Health v.
EPA, Case No. 25-1144, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on January 24, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH is represented
by:
Robert M. Sussman, I, Esq.
SUSSMAN & ASSOCIATES
3101 Garfield Street NW
Washington, DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 716-0118
Defendant-Respondent ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY is represented
by:
Laura J. Brown, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 7611
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-3376
UNITED STATES: Faces APA Class Suit Over Messaging System Test
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOES 1-2 v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Case No.
1:25-cv-00234 (D.D.C., Jan. 27, 2025) is a class action suit
brought by the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated
individuals, bring this action against Defendant Office of
Personnel Management pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act,
the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, and the All Writs Act.
On 23 January 2025, OPM published an official statement: OPM is
testing a new capability allowing it to send important
communications to ALL civilian federal employees from a single
email address. Testing of this messaging system functionality is
expected as soon as this week.
Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 is a U.S. citizen and is a resident of the
state of Maryland. She is an employee of an agency in the United
States Executive Branch.
Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 is a U.S. citizen and is a resident of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. She is an employee of an agency in the
United States Executive Branch.
Similarly situated individuals include all employees of agencies in
the United States Executive Branch who have been instructed to
respond to either of two emails sent to their work email addresses
from HR@opm.gov pursuant to an alleged "test" of a new
"distribution and response list," regardless of whether they
responded to the alleged "test," as well as all other employees of
agencies in the United States Executive Branch whose information is
stored in one or more systems affiliated with this "distribution
and response list" but who have not yet received any "test"
emails.
Defendant OPM is an agency of the United States Executive Branch
and is in control of the system(s) which are the subject of the
action.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kelly B. McClanahan, Esq.
National Security Counselors
1451 Rockville Pike, Suite 250
Rockville, MD 20852
Telephone: (501) 301-4672
Facsimile: (240) 681-2189
E-mail: Kel@NationalSecurityLaw.org
UNITED STATES: Vadapally Files Immigration Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PATRICK J.
LECHLEITNER, in his official capacity as Director of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. The case is captioned
as RAJA VADAPALLY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. PATRICK J. LECHLEITNER, in his official
capacity as Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-11536-CCC-SDA (D.N.J., December 31,
2024).
The Plaintiffs bring immigration action against the Defendants.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jerard A. Gonzalez, Esq.
BASTARRIKA, SOTO, GONZALEZ & SOMOHANO LLP
3 Garret Mountain Plaza, Ste. 302
Woodland Park, NJ 07424
Telephone: (201) 489-1351
Facsimile: (201) 489-1353
Email: jgonzalez@bsgslaw.com
USC: Class Cert Hearing in Favell Suit Continued to Feb. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 and 2U, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00846-GW-MAR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered the following hearing
date:
1. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
continued from Jan. 30, 2025 to Feb. 27, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.
University of Southern California is a private research university
in Los Angeles, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s5ZCGf at no extra
charge.[CC]
VPC ORLAND: Fails to Pay Drivers Proper Wages, Nofal Says
---------------------------------------------------------
SAMIR NOFAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VPC ORLAND PARK PIZZA, LLC d/b/a GIORDANO'S
ORLAND PARK, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00834 (N.D. Ill., January
24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged
unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.
The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees worked in excess of 40
hours per week but Defendant did not pay them overtime wages at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The
Defendant also failed to pay final compensation to Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a part-time driver since
September 6, 2017.
VPC Orland Park Pizza, LLC is a limited liability company that
offers food service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peyton M. Paschke, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 581-5450
E-mail: ppaschke@sulaimanlaw.com
[] Stretto Launches Legal Claims Administration Services
--------------------------------------------------------
Stretto, a market-leading legal services and technology firm,
introduces legal claims administration services designed to support
professionals engaged in a range of matters including mass torts,
regulatory remediations, as well as consumer and securities class
actions. Leveraging its deep expertise in bankruptcy claims
management, Stretto's announcement marks the expansion of its
claims administration services to bring greater efficiencies to a
broader segment of the legal and financial industries.
"We're extending Stretto's renowned high-level professional client
service and technical expertise to a wider range of legal
proceedings," states James Le, president at Stretto. "Our team
manages a full spectrum of case administration needs while
simplifying complexity and helping clients achieve their business
objectives."
Stretto's latest service offering is designed to deliver time and
cost efficiencies from start to finish in complex legal
proceedings. In addition to managing all aspects of claims
administration from the intake and reconciliation process to
qualified settlement funds management and disbursement needs,
Stretto provides attorneys and stakeholders with AI-powered tools
created to decrease the associated operational costs.
As industry leaders in providing corporate restructuring services,
Stretto has built its reputation on delivering best-in-class
technology, streamlined workflows, and the highest level of
professional client service. Its expert team of case-management
operators, legal-noticing consultants, and print-production
specialists bring decades of claims administration expertise to
each engagement. Stretto manages clients' legal claims
administration needs with the same high caliber of service and
technology that it deploys in working on the nation's largest
Chapter 11 matters.
"Stretto has earned a strong reputation within the legal community
as a partner that professionals can rely on to get things done
efficiently and on time," states Dan McElhinney, senior managing
director in charge of Stretto's expansion into legal claims
administration. "We're excited to be leveraging this approach
beyond bankruptcy to support the needs of professionals and
stakeholders involved in other critical legal matters."
About Stretto
Stretto -- https://www.stretto.com -- delivers a full spectrum of
case management and claims administration services, depository and
distribution solutions, and technology tools to legal and financial
professionals. With a comprehensive suite of tailored offerings,
Stretto provides an unparalleled portfolio designed to meet our
clients' unique financial and business objectives.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Faces Numerous Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in
which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits
against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and
punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable
injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure
to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a
defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents
evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of
exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an
amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length,
intensity and character of exposure to products containing
asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case,
and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought.
"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.
"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our
insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent."
full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bIpIXp
*********
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 ***