/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250218.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, February 18, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 35
Headlines
1679 THIRD AVENUE: Galvez Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
3M COMPANY: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Sept. 25
ABLETO INC: Class Certification Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
ABM INDUSTRY: Class Settlement in Zubieta Suit Gets Initial Nod
ABM INDUSTRY: Must Oppose Linares Class Cert Bid by Feb. 27
AGREM BTY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Delacruz Suit Claims
ALACRITY ADJUSTING: Lee Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Mowry Suit Transferred to D. Idaho
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Reverses Ruling in Insurance Dispute
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Anderson Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
ALORICA INC: Hearing on Munoz Class Cert Bid Reset to May 13
AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Horm Suit Due Sept. 2
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response
AMAZON.COM INC: Response on Bid to Seal Docs Extended to Feb. 25
AMAZON.COM: Court Recommends Approval of Won Class Cert Bid
AMAZON.COM: Garner Bid to File Exhibits Under Seal Tossed
AMERICAN BANKERS: Deadline for Parties to Meet & Confer Extended
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Cake Love Class Suit
ANTHEM CO: Class Cert & Summary Judgment Deadlines Reset
ARDIAN CORP: Scheduling Order Entered in Avila Class Action
ARES CORPORATE: Court Tosses Krevlin Stockholder Class Action
ATLANTA POSTAL: Rulings in Two Overdraft Cases Affirmed
BALL METAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Marrero Suit Says
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Mogollon Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
BARK INC: Continues to Defend Kenville Class Suit in Delaware
BASANI FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid in Starling Due Mar. 16, 2026
BIG FISH: Must File Class Cert Opposition by March 14
BIOGEN INC: Court Grants Class Certification in Firefighters' Suit
BIOGEN INC: OFPRS Wins Bid for Class Certification
BP EXPLORATION: Court Denies Five Motions in Bryant BELO Suit
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Hale Bid for Class Certification Tossed
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Class Cert-Related Deadline Vacated
BYTEDANCE INC: Illegally Collects Personal Info, J.O. Suit Says
BYTEDANCE INC: R.W. Sues Over Illegal Collection of Personal Info
CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Class Action Status to Ramirez Suit
CHEXSYSTEMS INC: Limited Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Continued to Feb. 28
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Fenn Files Suit in D. Connecticut
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Janssens Says
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Says
COMPASS GROUP: Mercedez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
COMPASS MINERALS: Seeks Class Cert Oral Argument in Local 295 Suit
CONCORD PET: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Claude Alleges
COOLSTUFFINC.COM LLC: Henry Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Status Conference Set for March 19
CRAIG KOENIG: Court Severs, Dismisses Brown's Claims
CRST EXPEDITED: Dean Suit Removed to C.D. California
DA VINCI SURGICAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Documents
DAVE JEPPESEN: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Rossow Suit
DAVITA INC: Lightner Seeks Conditional Class Status of Collective
DCI DONOR: Court Amends Oct. 7, 2024 Order
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Plaintiffs Seek Temporary Restraining Order
DILLON DAVIS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Alleges
DOLLAR TREE: Settlement in Dalton Gets Final Nod
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Va.
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing
E.R. CARPENTER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Marrow COBRA Lawsuit
EMPOCC LLC: Fails to Pay Wages Under FLSA, NMMWA, Lee Alleges
ENVOY AIR: Adair Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
ESALON.COM LLC: Henry Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: March 20 Class Cert Hearing Sought
FLEET FINANCIAL: Wilson Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert. in Barnes Due June 26, 2025
FOX CORPORATION: Faraji Suit Removed to C.D. California
FRED MEYER: Settlement in Woody, et al. Suit Gets Initial Approval
FURNITURE MART: Logan Files Suit in D. South Dakota
GAO ENTERPRISES: Hernandez Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages
GATEWAY CHURCH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Leach Due April 18
GEISINGER HEALTH: Interim Class Counsel Named in Data Security Suit
GENEVA COLLEGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Alleges
GOOGLE LLC: Filing of Omnibus Sealing Stipulation Extended
GORDON LANE: Schedule & Trial Order Entered in Parrish Suit
GRAVY ANALYTICS: Little Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
H&K FURNITURE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernadez Says
HARTFORD LIFE: Court Tosses Duplicative ERISA Claim in Flores Suit
HOME DEPOT: Oleski Seeks to Postpone Class Cert Filing Deadline
HOMETOWN EQUITY: Edry Seeks Denial of Counter Summary Judgment Bid
HUMANA INC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Surreply
HWS LLC: Class Settlement in Shall Suit Gets Initial Nod
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Filing for Conditional Status Bid Due March 10
INGERSOLL-RAND: Phase I Discovery in Bowman Suit Due May 5
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK
ISCO INDUSTRIES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Best, et al. ERISA Lawsuit
JACOB FREY: Sagataw Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class
JOHN CHRISTNER: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 22
KELLER WILLIAMS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to May 19
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Itzhak Class Suit Over Express Warranties
LAKE FOREST: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Alleges
LAUNDRESS LLC: Fact Discovery in McGowan Suit Due July 11
LAUNDRESS LLC: Fact Discovery in Ostenfeld Suit Due July 11
LAUNDRESS LLC: Fact Discovery in Safran Due July 11
LEAD DOG: Filing for Class Cert in Slendak Extended to March 6
LEUMAS RESIDENTIAL: Waterloo, et al. Case Remand to State Court
LISA WOLFE: Weinberg Seeks OK of Amended Bid to Certify Class
LOVE MANAGEMENT: Preliminary Case Management Order Entered
MAYBACH INTERNATIONAL: Drivers Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, IWPCA
MCKESSON CORP: March 4 Deadline Set for Doe Amended Complaint
MEDICAL CLINIC: Summary Judgment Bid Filing Due Nov. 26
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Maadanian Due May 30
METROPOLIS TECH: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Response Stayed
MICROSOFT CORP: Just Josh Sues Over Browser Extension Fraud
MISS TOYAS: Class in Johnson Suit Gets Conditional Certification
MUSKOGEE COUNTY EMS: Final Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Stay Order Applies to Entire Wang Case
NATIONAL INSPECTION: Thurlow Bid for Conditional Class Cert OK'd
NCAA: Parties Must File Bid for Prelim OK of Settlement by March 24
NEW YORK: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Dean Suit Says
NEWMONT CORP: Karas Suit Alleges Breach of Securities' Law
NEWSBANK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, James Suit Says
NORTHSTAR CAFE: Court Denies Approval of Settlement in Highman Suit
NORTHSTAR CAFE: Settlement Approval Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
NOW OPTICS: Seeks More Time to File Class Opposition Sur-Reply
OAK STREET: McCrae Case Remains Stayed Pending Arbitration
OCWEN LOAN: 11th Cir. Affirms FDCPA Damages in Two Lawsuits
OFFICE DEPOT: Court Tosses Benge's Wage Claims for Third Time
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ramirez Due Nov. 7
OSEA INTERNATIONAL: Walker Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
OXY USA: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due May 9
PACCAR INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in 10th Gear Due Jan. 12, 2026
PAULA'S CHOICE: Bid for Arbitration in Vargison Suit OK'd in Part
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Smith, et al. Towing Lawsuit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Hogan Bid to Certify Class Moot
PLUG POWER: Court Tosses Sec. 10(b) Claim Without Prejudice
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Joseph Says
RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Narrows Claims in West Drain Valve Suit
ROMAN CATHOLIC: Child Abuse Statute of Limitations Constitutional
SEED LEAF: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Girtley Alleges
SHANDA GAMES: Dismissal of Monk Securities Suit Affirmed in Part
SITEONE LANDSCAPE: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Decker Securities Class Suit
SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Fox Securities Class Suit
SYMETRA LIFE: Court Refuses to Approve Class Deal in Davis Suit
TACOS VICTORIA: Munoz and Armenta Seek Proper OT Pay
THORSON GMC: Jacquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TREK BICYCLE: Crow Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Tactics
UMEKEN USA: Dismissal of Shin False Advertising Suit Affirmed
UNITED AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hughes Due July 7
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in COLA Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs in Case v. DOJ Can Use Pseudonyms
UNITED STATES: Wang Seeks Class Certification
UNIVERSAL LENDERS: Krulicki Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Info
VAUGHAN MCLEAN: DeMetro Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23
VESTIS CORP: Continues to Defend Pension Fund Class Suit in GA
VESTIS CORP: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss O'Neill Suit Set for May 8
VINTAGE STOCK: Court Narrows Claims in Thompson, et al. TCPA Suit
VINTAGE STOCK: Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Thompson
VONS COMPANIES: Carrillo Sues Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure
WALT DISNEY Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
WALT DISNEY: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit in Calif.
WALT DISNEY: Faces Sherman Act-Related Suit in NY
WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Class Settlement in Terry, et al. Case Approved
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Klare Must File Class Cert Bid by April 4
ZIP CAPITAL: Simon Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
*********
1679 THIRD AVENUE: Galvez Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
ESTHER DE LOS SANTOS GALVEZ (A.K.A. ITZAYANA DE LOS SANTOS),
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. 1679 THIRD AVENUE REST CORP. (D/B/A THE DISTRICT), And JOHN
MACKEY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01056 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2025) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours"
and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff De Los Santos worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime and
spread of hour's compensation for the hours that she worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff De Los Santos
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff De Los Santos the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10 hours a
day.
The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff De Los Santos to
all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants allegedly
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff De Los
Santos and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and
state law and regulations.
The Plaintiff is a former employee as a food preparer at the
restaurant of the Defendants.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Contemporary American
Restaurant, located at 1679 Third Avenue, New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace. Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
3M COMPANY: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARL PARRIS, JR.,
Individually, and on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly
Situated, City of SUMMERVILLE, GEORGIA, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case
No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting their request for an extension of time for
MVM and Trion to respond to the class certification motion, if
needed, within 21 days after the Court's ruling on the fairness of
the proposed settlement.
The Defendants Mount Vernon Mills, Inc., and the Town of Trion,
Georgia (MVM and Trion), and Class Representative Earl Parris, Jr.,
on behalf of himself and the putative Class Members, acting by and
through Class Counsel have reached a tentative settlement with
regard to the state law claims asserted by Named Plaintiff and the
putative Class Members against MVM and Trion.
MVM, Trion, and Plaintiffs are currently drafting a settlement
agreement with the intention of submitting a motion for preliminary
approval of the class settlement to the Court. The settlement would
resolve all class claims Plaintiffs assert against MVM and Trion.
Pursuant to the Court's Dec. 30, 2024, Amended Scheduling Order,
MVM and Trion are due to respond to the Plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification on Feb. 14, 2025.
In light of the pending settlement, Plaintiffs, MVM, and Trion
jointly seek leave of Court for an extension of time within which
MVM and Trion must respond to the class certification motion until
after the Court conducts a fairness hearing on the settlement. If
the settlement is approved, a response will become moot.
3M Company operates in the fields of industry, worker safety,
healthcare, and consumer goods.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mnauTj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary A. Davis, Esq.
Keith A. Johnston, Esq.
DAVIS, JOHNSTON, & RINGGER, PC
21 Battery Park Avenue, Suite 206
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 622-0044
Facsimile: (828) 398-0435
E-mail: gadavis@enviroattorney.com
kjohnston@enviroattorney.com
- and –
Thomas Causby, Esq.
CAUSBY LAW FIRM LLC
101 E. Crawford St.
Dalton, GA 30720
Telephone: (706) 226-0300
Facsimile: (706) 229-4363
E-mail: tom@causbyfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas Hiley, Esq.
Kassandra Garrison, Esq.
Erich Nathe, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY
MANSUKHANI, LLP
55 Ivan Allen Junior Blvd., NW, Suite 750
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 978-7324
Facsimile: (678) 389-8475
E-mail: thiley@grsm.com
kgarrison@grsm.com
enathe@grsm.com
- and –
William M. Droze, Esq.
T. Matthew Bailey, Esq.
Kadeisha A. West, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP
600 Peachtree Street, NE, Ste. 3000
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 885-3000
E-mail: william.droze@troutman.com
matt.bailey@troutman.com
kadeisha.west@troutman.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for Sept. 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR MASRY, v. ABBOTT
LABORATORIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-04348-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order vacating all deadlines for
responding to Abbott's motion to deny class certification in favor
of the following schedule:
-- Masry shall include its response to Abbott's motion in its
brief in support of its own motion for class certification.
-- Masry shall file its motion and brief, including its response,
as a single document not to exceed 30 pages, by no later than
April 10, 2025.
-- Abbott shall include its reply in support of its motion in its
response to Masry's motion for class certification. Abbott
shall file its response and reply as a single document, not to
exceed 30 pages, by no later than July 11, 2025.
-- The deadline for Masry's reply in support of its motion for
class certification is unchanged. All deadlines not mentioned in
this order remain in place. The Court will hear argument on
Abbott's motion to deny class certification and Masry's forthcoming
motion for class certification on September 25, 2025.
Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices
and health care company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZkP86x at no extra
charge.[CC]
ABLETO INC: Class Certification Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 endorsed order referring motion
for report and recommendation:
The "Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(B)(2) and (B)(3)" is referred to the Hon. Christopher P.
Tuite, United States Magistrate Judge, for the issuance of a report
and recommendation, including any hearings, motions, and deadlines
related thereto.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
AbleTo provides virtual behavioral health care.[CC]
ABM INDUSTRY: Class Settlement in Zubieta Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ODILIA JULIETH LEGUIZAMON
ZUBIETA, Individually on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated, V. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS LLC, ET AL., Case No.
3:24-cv-00057-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Payne entered
an order granting preliminary approval of proposed class action
settlement, provisional certification of class, and approval of
notice:
For purposes of resolution of claims for monetary relief, pursuant
to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the following class is provisionally certified for
purposes of Settlement only:
"All individuals who a) were engaged by Hernandez
Contractors, RVA Hernandez Contractors, Inc.; b) to perform
janitorial services Inc.'s agreement with pursuant to
Hernandez Contractors, Defendant; c) at a location in
Chesterfield County; d) at any time since Jan. 1, 2021."
The Plaintiff's Counsel and Plaintiff Odilia Julieth Leguizamon
Zubieta are appointed to represent Settlement Class. Butler Curwood
PLC is appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
Simpluris is approved as Administrator for the proposed Settlement.
The Class Administrator shall be paid an amount not greater than
$15,989.00 Settlement Class Fund to pay all Settlement
Administrator Fees and Costs.
The Settlement Administrator has agreed that the Settlement
Administration Fees and Costs will not exceed $15,989.00 total.
If, and to the extent that, the fees charged by the Settlement
Administrator are less than $15,989.00, the balance will be added
to the Net Settlement Fund and shall not revert to the Defendants.
ABM Industry provides facility services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UBXnpL at no extra
charge.[CC]
ABM INDUSTRY: Must Oppose Linares Class Cert Bid by Feb. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFREN LINARES,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, v. ABM INDUSTRY
GROUPS, LLC., FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF MODESTO, LLC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive; Case No. 1:22-cv-00816-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an order adjusting Class Action
Scheduling Order as follows:
1. Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is due by Feb. 27, 2025 (previously Feb. 13,
2025);
2. Plaintiff's reply is due by April 14, 2025 (previously March
31, 2025); and
3. The hearing for Class Certification is scheduled for May 15,
2025 at 2:00 p.m.
On Jan. 23, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting the Parties'
stipulation to adjust the Class Action Scheduling Order to require
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to be filed by Dec. 16,
2024, for the Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification to be filed by Jan. 30, 2025, for the
Plaintiff's Reply Brief to be filed by March 17, 2025, and for the
hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to be heard
on April 17, 2025.
ABM provides facility services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jQPjbp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Daniel C. Keller, Esq.
Caroline L. Hill, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
Dkeller@TheMMLawFirm.com
CHill@TheMMLawFirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
Paul M. Smith, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINES, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239- 9045
E-mail: Alexander.chemers@ogletree.com
Paul.smith@ogletree.com
AGREM BTY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Delacruz Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGREM BTY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00945 (S.D.N.Y., January 31, 2025) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disability Act, the New
York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law,
and the New York State General Business Law.
The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons. By failing to make its website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services--all benefits it affords non-disabled individuals --
thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those
persons that Title III was meant to redress.
Agrem Bty, LLC owns and operates the website,
https://rembeauty.com/, which provide customers the ability to view
information about its skin care products and to purchase them
online. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
ALACRITY ADJUSTING: Lee Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
JAMIE LEE, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALACRITY ADJUSTING SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00228 (E.D. La., January 31, 2025) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were regularly scheduled to work six days a week,
ten hours a day. However, the Defendant did not pay any Plaintiff
an overtime premium for hours worked past 40 in a workweek, says
the suit.
Headquartered in Hammond, LA, Alacrity Adjusting Solutions, LLC
operates insurance adjusting services for claims and policies
arising in states throughout the Gulf Coast including Louisiana,
Mississippi, Texas, and other states. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
318 Harrison Ave., Suite #104
New Orleans, LA 70124
Telephone: (504) 267-0777
Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Mowry Suit Transferred to D. Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stephen Mowry, individually and as a
representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Albertsons Companies 401(k) Plan v. ALBERTSONS
COMPANIES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-07314
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho on Feb. 4, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00062-REP to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Breach of Fiduciary Duties.
Albertsons Companies, Inc. --- https://www.albertsons.com/ -- is an
American grocery company founded and headquartered in Boise,
Idaho.[BN]
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
Phone: (626) 808-4357
Email: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles Christian Correll, Jr., Esq.
KING AND SPALDING LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 318-1200
Fax: (415) 318-1300
- and -
Robert Irving Lockwood, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
101 Second Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 433-1940
- and -
Wesley E Stockard, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
3424 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1200
Atlanta, GA 30326
Phone: (404) 233-0330
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Reverses Ruling in Insurance Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed cases captioned as IN RE ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC. INSURANCE APPEALS, No. 154, 2024 No. 157, 2024 (D. Del.),
Judges Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Karen L. Valihura, Gary F. Traynor,
Abigail M. LeGrow and N. Christopher Griffiths of the Delaware
Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court of the
State of Delaware that placed the securities class action coverage
in the second insurance tower.
In this insurance coverage dispute, the issue on appeal is whether
a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, disclosed to
its insurers by Alexion, is related to a later securities class
action brought against the company and others. If related, the
securities class action is covered by Alexion's first insurance
tower. If not, it is covered by the second tower. Applying the
"meaningful linkage" standard, the Superior Court found that the
two were unrelated and placed the securities class action coverage
in the second insurance tower.
Alexion develops therapies for people living with rare disorders.
It was insured under two claims-made director and officer liability
insurance programs covering different periods. The first program
provided $85 million of coverage for claims made between June 27,
2014 and June 27, 2015 ("Tower 1"). The second program provided
$105 million of coverage for claims made between June 27, 2015 and
June 27, 2017 ("Tower 2"). The two towers consist largely of the
same insurers located in the same coverage layers. Both towers
are structured as ABC directors and officers policies covering
securities claims against the company. Each tower is composed of a
primary policy and follow-form excess policies.
Among Alexion's drug therapies is Soliris, an "orphan drug" that
treats rare genetic diseases. In 2017, Soliris had about 11,000
customers worldwide. Soliris had a retail price of $500,000 to
$700,000 for each patient. To find and retain these uncommon but
highly lucrative patients, Alexion allegedly engaged in extreme
business practices. These practices eventually attracted the
attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission. On March 9,
2015, the SEC issued a formal investigation order against Alexion.
The SEC Investigation Order raised possible violations of the
federal securities laws involving inaccurate annual 8-K, 10-K, and
10-Q reports; failure to maintain adequate books and records;
failure to maintain an adequate system of internal accounting
controls; and bribing foreign officials and political parties.
Two months later, the SEC served Alexion with a subpoena and a
document preservation demand. The SEC Subpoena sought all documents
relating to Alexion's grant-making worldwide;21 statements
regarding the recall of certain lots of Soliris; compliance with
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including gifts and payments to
public health institutions and government agents; and lobbying
efforts worldwide, especially in Japan, Brazil, Russia, and
Turkey.
On June 18, 2015, Alexion sent its Tower 1 insurers a notice
disclosing Alexion's receipt of the SEC Subpoena. Alexion explained
that while the subpoena seeks information related to Alexion's
activities and policies and procedures worldwide, it notes in
particular Japan, Brazil, Turkey, and Russia. Alexion also stated
that the SEC Subpoena "seeks information related to Alexion's
recalls of specific lots of Soliris and related securities
disclosures."
In the 2015 Notice, Alexion also warned the Insurers that any
determination that Alexion's operations or activities are not, or
were not, in compliance with existing United States or foreign laws
or regulations, including by the SEC pursuant to its investigation
of Alexion's compliance with the FCPA and other matters, could
result in consequences to one more of the insureds.
On Dec. 29, 2016 -- during the Tower 2 coverage period -- Alexion
stockholders filed a federal securities class action in the
District of Connecticut. The stockholders alleged that Alexion and
its directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. They cited a series of
unethical and illegal sales and lobbying practices, including
obtaining data from partner labs to identify potential customers,
deploying extreme fear tactics to garner patients, and funding
foreign organizations. They also alleged that, despite Alexion's
efforts to cover up the Company's misconduct, the truth continued
to slowly reveal itself through partial
disclosures.
On Jan. 5, 2017, Alexion sent its Tower 2 insurers notice of the
Securities Class Action. Chubb, the primary insurer for both
towers, initially accepted coverage for the Securities Class Action
under Tower 2, but it later reassigned coverage to Tower 1. Chubb
justified the reassignment on the grounds that the Securities Class
Action arose from the circumstances and anticipated Wrongful Acts
reported during the 2014–2015 Policy Period, as well as many of
the same Wrongful Acts and Interrelated Wrongful Acts." Chubb
stated that the overlap included Alexion's grant-making activities,
its compliance with the FCPA, and its activities in Japan, Brazil,
Turkey, and Russia.
On July 2, 2020, Alexion settled with the SEC for about $21.5
million. On Sep. 12, 2023, Alexion settled the Securities Class
Action for $125 million. Although the Securities Class Action
Settlement exceeded the coverage limits of each tower, Tower 2
provided $20 million more coverage than Tower 1. Thus, Alexion had
an economic incentive to pursue coverage for the Securities Class
Action under Tower 2. It demanded that the settlement be covered
under Tower 2.
Alexion filed a coverage action in the Superior Court against
Endurance, Hudson, Navigators, Old Republic, and Swiss Re. Alexion
alleged that Endurance, Navigators, and Swiss Re (collectively,
"Tower 2 Insurer Defendants") breached their coverage contracts
under the Tower 2 policies. Alexion also sought a declaratory
judgment against these defendants that the Securities Class Action
is a claim first made during the Tower 2 period. In the
alternative, Alexion sought a declaratory judgment against Hudson
and Old Republic that the Securities Class Action is a claim first
made during the Tower 1 period.3
In dispositive motion briefing, Alexion argued that the Securities
Class Action was unrelated to the SEC Subpoena. Endurance opposed
Alexion's motion and argued the opposite. Navigators and Swiss Re
also opposed Alexion's motion and
sought additional discovery on the SEC investigation. Hudson
opposed Alexion's motion to the extent that Alexion sought a
determination that the claims belonged in Tower 1. Old Republic was
eventually dismissed from the case with prejudice.
The Superior Court granted Alexion's motion for partial summary
judgment, thereby placing the Securities Class Action coverage in
Tower 2. Applying the "meaningful linkage" standard to the SEC
Subpoena and the Securities Class Action, the court determined that
they were only loosely connected by Alexion's activities in Brazil.
The court ultimately concluded that the factual connection between
the SEC Subpoena and the Securities Action is insufficient to make
them related and placed the Securities Class Action in Tower 2.
On appeal, the Tower 2 Insurer Defendants argue that the Superior
Court erred by treating the 2015 Notice as a claim instead of a
disclosure of facts or circumstances that may give rise to a future
claim. By comparing what it saw as two claims, they argue, the
court incorrectly framed the inquiry as whether the SEC Subpoena
was meaningfully linked to the Securities Class Action. In the
alternative, they argue that more discovery was required to assess
whether the Securities Class Action was sufficiently related to the
facts or circumstances disclosed.
The Judges say that although they agree with the Superior Court
that meaningful linkage is the appropriate standard of comparison,
they disagree with its conclusion that the link between the
securities action and the prior incident is tangential, not
meaningful. As an initial matter, the court erred in identifying
the objects of comparison for the "meaningful linkage" analysis.
Alexion's 2015 Notice was not a claim, according to the Supreme
Court.
Chubb accepted Alexion's 2015 Notice as a notice of circumstance
that may give rise to a claim. Indeed, Chubb explicitly noted that,
at the time of this acceptance, there has been no Claim against
either the Company as a Defendant or the Company's
directors and officers.
Nevertheless, the Superior Court treated the 2015 Notice as a
claim. After it established that a meaningful linkage is required
to bar coverage, the Superior Court concluded that the remaining
question is whether such a link exists between the SEC Subpoena and
the Securities Action. Focusing its inquiry on the link between the
SEC Subpoena and the Securities Class Action, the court held that
the latter is not related to a previous claim. By treating the 2015
Notice as a claim, however, the Superior Court narrowed the scope
of the inquiry to the wrongful acts alleged in the SEC Subpoena.
Instead, the court should have focused on Alexion's disclosure of
the SEC investigation in the 2015 Notice. It should have asked
whether the Securities Class Action is meaningfully linked to any
of the alleged wrongful acts disclosed in the 2015 Notice.
Both investigations involved the same Wrongful Act -- Alexion's
grantmaking activities. A meaningful linkage exists between the
Securities Class Action and the SEC investigation as disclosed by
Alexion in its 2015 Notice. Under the policies of both towers, the
Securities Class Action claim is deemed to have been first made at
the time the 2015 Notice was received by Chubb -- during the Tower
1 coverage period. Therefore, coverage is under
Tower 1. Applying the Prior Notice Exclusion provision of Tower 2,
no coverage is available under Tower 2. The judgment of the
Superior Court is reversed, the Supreme Court holds.
The Judges conclude, "We find, however, that the securities class
action -- in the words of the policy -- arose out of the
circumstances disclosed by Alexion to its first tower insurers.
Coverage should have been placed in the first tower."
A copy of the Court's decision dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8AndPo
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Anderson Sues Over Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Rae Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ARITY,
LLC, ARITY 875, LLC, and ARITY SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-00596 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 4, 2025), is brought the Defendants
for surveillance of insureds and invasion of their clients'
privacy.
Specifically, Defendants collected data on their clients' location
and driving habits without their clients' consent. The Defendants,
each a company owned by The Allstate Corporation, an insurance
company, conspired to secretly collect and sell "trillions of
miles" of consumers' "driving behavior" data from mobile devices,
in-car devices, and vehicles. Defendants used the illicitly
obtained data to build the "world's largest driving behavior
database," housing the driving behavior of over 45 million
Americans. Defendants created the database for two main purposes:
to support Allstate Defendants' car insurance business, including
relative to under-writing and coverage decisions, and (2) profit
from selling the driving behavior data to third parties, including
Other car insurance carriers ("Insurers").
Through the software integrated into the third-party apps,
Defendants directly pulled a litany of valuable data directly from
consumers' mobile phones. The data included a phone's geolocation
data, accelerometer data, magnetometer data, and gyroscopic data,
which monitors details such as the phone's altitude, longitude,
latitude, bearing, GPS time, speed, and accuracy ("Driving Data").
Consumers did not consent to, nor were aware of Defendants'
collection and sale of Driving Data, Defendants never informed
consumers about their extensive data collection, nor did Defendants
obtain consumers' consent to engage in such data collection,
Defendants never informed consumers as to how they would analyze,
use, and monetize their sensitive data, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a client of Defendant The Allstate Corporation
from whom she has purchased auto insurance.
The Defendant Allstate Insurance Company provides insurance
products, including car insurance, throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart A. Carpey, Esq.
CARPEY LAW, P.C.
600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Phone: (610)834-6030
Email: scarpey@carpeylaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Fax: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
ALORICA INC: Hearing on Munoz Class Cert Bid Reset to May 13
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON MUNOZ, CYNDY
PANIAGUA, and MELISSA OLSEN, individually and as a representative
of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of
the ALORICA 401 (K) RETIREMENT PLAN, v. ALORICA, INC.; ALORICA
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE; LISA ADAMSHICK; JOYCE
TODD-GUERRA; CHRIS HYUN; ELIZABETH LAN PAN; EMILY KILGORE; RICK
HAYES; DEON STENNER; MATTHEW VONDETTE; DAN FINNEGAN; JAE CHANEY;
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No.
8:22-cv-01856-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb
entered an order granting stipulation regarding resetting motion
for class certification hearing date:
-- The hearing date for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
continued to May 13, 2025.
Alorica is a global leader in customer experience solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gEOcyf at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Horm Suit Due Sept. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HORN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01727-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Robert Lasnik entered an Amended Order Setting Trial Date & Related
Dates
trial date: Oct. 5, 2026
Motion for Class Certification filed by Sept. 2, 2025
and noted on the Court's calendar for no
earlier than 28 days after filing:
Deadline for amending pleadings: April 8, 2026
Expert Disclosures Reports under April 8, 2026
FRCP 26(a)(2) due:
Discovery completed by: June 7, 2026
Settlement conference held no later than: June 21, 2026
All dispositive motions must be filed by July 7, 2026
and noted on the motion calendar for no
earlier than 28 days after filing:
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vkzxKi at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MILLER,
CHRISTOPHER CAIN, JOSE GRINAN, KIMBERLY HALO, KELLY KIMMEY, JUMA
LAWSON, SHARON PASCHAL, and PHILIP SULLIVAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D.
Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
Defendants' deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to seal
confidential documents in support of their motion for class
certification from the current deadline of Feb. 11, 2025 to Feb.
25, 2025.
On January 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Seal regarding
documents Plaintiffs have provisionally lodged under seal in
support of their pending Motion to Certify a Class.
The documents filed provisionally under seal are all documents
which Defendants have designated confidential pursuant to the
Protective Order in this case. While Defendants had previously
agreed to de-designate certain documents as confidential in a meet
and confer with Plaintiffs, the document subject to the Motion to
Seal are documents Defendants believe warrant protection from
public filing.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B), Amazon intends to file a
"specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the
reasons for keeping [the Confidential Exhibits] under seal,"
including the specific explanations, in its responsive brief to the
Motion to Seal. Under this Court's standing orders, that responsive
brief is currently due by Feb. 11, 2025.
Amazon requires additional time to gather the material to support
its forthcoming request to retain the exhibits under seal, and
accordingly has requested—and Plaintiffs have agreed—to extend
the deadline for Amazon to file its responding brief by two weeks,
to February 25, 2025.
The Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a
Class is not due until April 14, 2025, and that motion will not be
fully briefed until April 28, 2025.
Accordingly, the brief two-week extension to file a response in
support of the Motion to Seal will not delay adjudication of the
underlying motion, affect future briefing on class certification,
or otherwise delay litigation of the case.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jDI4OI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Brant Casavant, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
brant@fairworklaw.com
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
jmurrary@terrellmarshall.com
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Paul M. Botros, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
pbotros@forthepeople.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew DeCarlow, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 274-6400
E-mail: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com
- and -
Walter F. Brown, Esq.
Shawn M. Estrada, Esq.
Marco A. Torres, Esq.
Amy L. Barton, Esq.
Matthew P. Merlo, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON
& GARRISON LLP
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (628) 432-5100
Facsimile: (628) 232-3101
E-mail: wbrown@paulweiss.com
sestrada@paulweiss.com
mtorres@paulweiss.com
abarton@paulweiss.com
mmerlo@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Response on Bid to Seal Docs Extended to Feb. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MILLER,
CHRISTOPHER CAIN, JOSE GRINAN, KIMBERLY HALO, KELLY KIMMEY, JUMA
LAWSON, SHARON PASCHAL, and PHILIP SULLIVAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Rothstein entered an order granting
the stipulated motion to extend Defendants' deadline to respond to
the pending motion to seal.
The Defendants shall respond to the unopposed motion to seal
confidential documents in support of their motion for class
certification on or before Feb. 25, 2025.
On Jan. 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Seal regarding
documents Plaintiffs have provisionally lodged under seal in
support of their pending Motion to Certify a Class. The documents
filed provisionally under seal are all documents which Defendants
have designated confidential pursuant to the Protective Order in
this case.
While Defendants had previously agreed to de-designate certain
documents as confidential in a meet and confer with Plaintiffs, the
document subject to the Motion to Seal are documents Defendants
believe warrant protection from public filing.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B), Amazon intends to file a
"specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the
reasons for keeping under seal," including the specific
explanations, in its responsive brief to the Motion to Seal.
Amazon requires additional time to gather the material to support
its forthcoming request to retain the exhibits under seal, and
accordingly has requested—and Plaintiffs have agreed—to extend
the deadline for Amazon to file its responding brief by twoweeks,
to February 25, 2025.
The Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class
is not due until April 14, 2025, and that motion will not be fully
briefed until April 28, 2025.
Accordingly, the brief two-week extension to file a response in
support of the Motion to Seal will not delay adjudication of the
underlying motion, affect future briefing on class certification,
or otherwise delay litigation of the case.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JbWIre at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Brant Casavant, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
brant@fairworklaw.com
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
jmurrary@terrellmarshall.com
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Paul M. Botros, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
pbotros@forthepeople.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew DeCarlow, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 274-6400
E-mail: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com
- and -
Walter F. Brown, Esq.
Shawn M. Estrada, Esq.
Marco A. Torres, Esq.
Amy L. Barton, Esq.
Matthew P. Merlo, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON
& GARRISON LLP
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (628) 432-5100
Facsimile: (628) 232-3101
E-mail: wbrown@paulweiss.com
sestrada@paulweiss.com
mtorres@paulweiss.com
abarton@paulweiss.com
mmerlo@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM: Court Recommends Approval of Won Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAONAISSA WON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02867-NGG-LKE
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lara Eshkenazi recommends that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification be granted as to the
damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), but denied as to the declaratory
relief class under Rule 23(b)(2).
The Court further recommends that the Plaintiff be appointed as
Class Representative, and her counsel be appointed as Class Counsel
under Rule 23(g).
Any requests for an extension of time to file objections shall be
directed to Judge Garaufis. If a party fails to object timely to
this Report and Recommendation, it waives any right to further
judicial review of this decision.
The Court finds that a class action is a superior method of
resolving these claims on behalf of the proposed class.
The Plaintiff's motion proposes the following class definition:
"All current and former employees of Amazon in work groups
F, H, or R who took one or more short-term military leaves of
absence of no more than 30 days at any time between April 1,
2012 and the date of judgment in this action."
The Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, against the Defendant for alleged
violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA").
The Plaintiff Caonaissa Won was a warehouse worker for Amazon in
Staten Island, New York from July 1, 2019, until Sept. 6, 2019, and
earned $17.50 per hour.
Amazon.com Services retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics,
appliances, apparels, and accessories.
A copy of the Court's report & recommendation dated Feb. 3, 2025,
is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t5biIg at no extra charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM: Garner Bid to File Exhibits Under Seal Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAELI GARNER, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00750-RSL (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Robert Lasnik entered an order denying Plaintiffs'
administrative motion to file motion for class certification with
redactions and exhibits under seal.
The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal Dkt. No. 261-1 through No.
261-10. The unredacted motion will remain under seal.
The Court, having considered the motion, defendants' response, and
the sealed documents, finds that plaintiffs have not met their
acknowledged burden of establishing compelling reasons for sealing
or redacting the information at issue here. None of the
interrogatory responses divulge any confidential or reputationally
damaging matters. The annotated charts of Alexa recordings
generally contain verbatim transcriptions of commands intended for
Alexa and other mundane phrases (such as "chicken or turkey,
chicken").
The Plaintiffs seek to protect from public view their responses to
the Defendants' first and second sets of interrogatories, annotated
charts containing transcriptions or summaries of conversations
recorded by Alexa (some of which were not preceded by a wake word
or otherwise intended for Alexa), and snippets or summaries of
those conversations included in the motion for class
certification.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=95UEXM at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN BANKERS: Deadline for Parties to Meet & Confer Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dahl v. American Bankers
Insurance Company of Florida, Case No. 3:23-cv-08584 (D. Ariz.,
Filed Oct. 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an
order extending to within 10 days the deadline for the parties to
meet and confer and submit updated version of the Joint Discovery
Plan that shall address the completion of class certification
discovery and the presentation of briefing on class certification.
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida.[CC]
AMERIPRIDE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Cake Love Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vestis Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 27, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the AmeriPride
Services, LLC ("AmeriPride"), a subsidiary of Vestis, continues to
defend itself from the Cake Love class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
On May 13, 2022, Cake Love Co. ("Cake Love") commenced a putative
class action lawsuit against AmeriPride Services, LLC
("AmeriPride"), a subsidiary of Vestis, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit was
subsequently updated to add an additional named plaintiff, Q-Mark
Manufacturing, Inc. ("Q-Mark" and, together with Cake Love, the
"Plaintiffs").
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants increased certain pricing
charged to members of the purported class without the proper notice
required by service agreements between AmeriPride and members of
the purported class and that AmeriPride breached the duty of good
faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiffs sought damages on behalf of the purported class
representing the amount of the allegedly improperly noticed price
increases along with attorneys' fees, interest and costs. During
fiscal 2024, the parties reached a settlement in principle, subject
to court approval.
The settlement included, among other terms, a monetary component of
$3.1 million. The full amount of the proposed settlement was
provided for within "Accrued expenses and other current
liabilities" in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 27,
2024 and September 27, 2024.
With respect to the below matters, the Company cannot predict the
outcome of these legal matters, nor can it predict whether any
outcome may be materially adverse to its business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company intends
to vigorously defend these matters.
Vestis Corporation is a provider of uniform rentals and workplace
supplies across the United States and Canada, providing uniforms,
mats, towels, linens, restroom supplies, first-aid supplies, safety
products and other workplace supplies.
AmeriPride Services -- https://www.ameripride.com/ -- is a uniform
rental and linen supply company in North America.[BN]
ANTHEM CO: Class Cert & Summary Judgment Deadlines Reset
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leslie Lazaar, et al. v.
The Anthem Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03075-JGLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an order
granting the parties request that the Court reset the certification
motion and summary judgment deadlines and briefing schedule as
follows:
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a New York Rule 23 Class and any
Motion for Final Certification or Decertification of the FLSA
Collective
Parties' opposition memoranda: Feb. 14, 2025
Parties' reply memoranda: Feb. 21, 2025
Parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
Parties' motions and principal Feb. 28, 2025
memoranda:
Parties' opposition memoranda: March 14, 2025
Parties' reply memoranda: March 28, 2025
Anthem is a health benefits company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t8yzEm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq.
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
IDS Center, 80 S 8th St Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (877) 344-4628
E-mail: srey@nka.com
copperman@nka.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brett Christopher Bartlett, Esq.
Kevin Michael Young, Esq.
Lennon Haas, Esq.
Shannon R. Cherney, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LPP
2323 Ross Ave. Suite 1660
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 608-6700
Facsimile: (713) 225-2340
E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.co
kyoung@seyfarth.com
lhaas@seyfarth.com
scherney@seyfarth.com
ARDIAN CORP: Scheduling Order Entered in Avila Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Avila v. Ardian Corp. et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04795 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 23, 2018), the
Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered a scheduling order as follows:
Should mediation not prove successful, the Plaintiff can re-file
their letter requesting a pre-motion conference as to their renewed
motion for class certification.
Upon receipt of this email counsel shall confirm with each other
that this in person pre-motion conference is cancelled.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
ARES CORPORATE: Court Tosses Krevlin Stockholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery
granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the the case captioned
as GLENN J. KREVLIN, Plaintiff, v. ARES CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES
FUND III, L.P., ARES CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV, L.P., DAVID
G. HIRZ, LELAND P. SMITH, RICHARD N. PHEGLEY, CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS, INC., and JEFFERIES, LLC, Defendants, C.A. No.
2022-0336-KSJM (Del. Ch.).
In April 2019, Smart & Final Stores, Inc. (the "Company") announced
that its Board of Directors had approved a merger agreement under
which affiliates of Apollo Management IX, L.P. would acquire the
Company's outstanding shares.
The plaintiff owned Company stock. He brought this lawsuit
challenging the Merger. He alleges that the Merger was a
conflicted-controller transaction because the Company's controller,
a private equity firm, was in "harvest mode" and harbored
undisclosed, liquidity-driven conflicts that tainted the sale
process. He also contends that Company management, who stood to
gain change-of-control payments, pushed the Company toward the
Merger. According to the plaintiff, these facts and other material
information were not disclosed to stockholders. He sued the Board,
the controller for breach of fiduciary duty, and two of the
Company's financial advisors for aiding and abetting.
Plaintiff filed this action on April 14, 2022, nearly three years
after the Company announced the transaction. He named Ares
Corporate Opportunities Fund III, L.P., Ares Corporate
Opportunities Fund IV, L.P., CEO David Hirz, General Counsel Leland
Smith, CFO Richard Phegley, Citigroup Global Market, Inc., and
Jefferies, LLC as defendants. He amended his complaint on July 15,
2022, and again on March 31, 2023.
The Second Amended Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint
(contains four Counts. In Count I, Plaintiff claims that Ares
breached its fiduciary duties as a controller. In Count II,
Plaintiff claims that Hirz, Phegley, and Smith (the "Individual
Defendants") breached their fiduciary duties as directors and
officers. In Count III, Plaintiff claims that Citigroup and
Jefferies (the "Financial Advisors") aided and abetted the other
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties. In Count IV, Plaintiff
claims that the Individual Defendants committed waste, but
Plaintiff later dropped the waste claim.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under
Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6).
Defendants argue that the Merger is not subject to the entire
fairness standard and a majority of fully informed, uncoerced and
disinterested stockholders tendered their shares. Under Corwin,
"when a transaction not subject to the entire fairness standard is
approved by a fully informed, uncoerced vote of the disinterested
stockholders, the business judgment rule applies." Defendants
further contend that Plaintiff has not stated a claim under the
business judgment rule.
Plaintiff argues that the Merger is subject to the entire fairness
standard because Ares's need for liquidity caused it to favor a
deal, even at a suboptimal price, over no deal at all.
Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that Corwin does not restore the
business judgment standard because the stockholder vote was not
fully informed.
Chancellor McCormick concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to
identify any disclosure deficiency sufficient to render the
stockholder vote uninformed. Because this was the only attack on
the Corwin defense, Defendants are entitled to review under the
business judgment standard. Plaintiff fails to state a claim under
that standard.
She holds that because Defendants' Corwin argument is successful,
the court need not reach Defendants' other arguments for dismissal.
Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XuSNzC
ATLANTA POSTAL: Rulings in Two Overdraft Cases Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
Judges Todd Markle, Benjamin Land and Jeff Davis of the Court of
Appeals of Georgia affirmed the trial court's orders in the
following cases:
(1) ATLANTA POSTAL CREDIT UNION v. COSBY et al., Case No.
A24A1694, and
(2) ATLANTA POSTAL CREDIT UNION v. DAVIS et al., Case No.
A24A1854
In these companion cases arising from the assessment of overdraft
fees, Lyric Cosby and Ronnie Davis sued the Atlanta Postal Credit
Union and sought class certification.
In July 2021, Cosby, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, sued APCU for breach of contract and unjust enrichment
and sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in
connection with the application of overdraft fees to transactions
that did not actually overdraw the account. According to the
class-action complaint, Cosby was an account holder at APCU.
In October 2021, Davis, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, sued APCU for breach of contract and unjust enrichment
arising from APCU's practices of:
(1) charging overdraft fees on transactions for which there were
sufficient funds at the time the transaction was authorized, but
insufficient funds at the time the charge was actually submitted
for payment (called "authorized positive, settle negative" or
"APSN" transactions), and
(2) charging multiple overdraft fees for the same purchase when
a charge is initially declined and then resubmitted. He also moved
to certify two classes challenging the APSN transaction fees and
the multiple fees.
The trial court granted class certification and denied motions to
dismiss in both cases, and it denied APCU's motion to compel
arbitration in the Davis case.
Cosby Case
In the Cosby case, APCU appeals, arguing that the trial court erred
by granting class certification.
APCU argues that the trial court erred by granting class
certification because it failed to consider that the Account
Agreement contained an arbitration clause incorporating a class
action waiver. It further contends that the trial court failed to
consider that Cosby did not comply with the notice provisions that
were added to the Account Agreement. APCU argues that the trial
court erred by modifying the proposed class without notice.
The Appellate Judges conclude, "Here, the trial court properly
determined that it could consider whether the arbitration provision
barred the class action suit on a class-wide basis. Indeed, as the
trial court noted, other courts to address the question have found
that the presence of an arbitration clause did not preclude a
determination of whether class certification
is warranted."
They add, "Moreover, the arbitration and class action waiver
clauses were not added to the contract until August 2021; thus many
of Cosby's claims arise under the old contract, which did not
contain those provisions. In any event, the application of an
arbitration defense would involve answers and proof common to the
class. And it would not apply to all the claims Cosby raised prior
to the effective date of the amended Account Agreement. We
therefore find no merit to APCU's claims related to the arbitration
clause."
To the extent that APCU complains of the trial court's decision to
modify the proposed class, that argument is without merit, the
Appellate Court says. The trial court retains the authority to
modify the class as the proceedings continue.
Davis Case
In the Davis case, APCU contends that the trial court erred by
granting class certification and by denying its motions to dismiss
and to compel arbitration.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and the motion to
compel arbitration, noting that APCU's claims related to potential
defenses that did not justify dismissing the action, and that the
original Account Agreement did not contain any notice or
arbitration provisions. The trial court also certified two
classes:
(1) The APSN class: "All citizens of Georgia who, during the
applicable statute of limitations, were APCU checking account
holders and were assessed an overdraft fee on a debit card
transaction that was authorized on sufficient funds."
(2) The Multiple Fee class: "All citizens of Georgia who, during
the applicable statute of limitations, were APCU checking account
holders and were assessed multiple fees on an item.
On appeal, APCU argues that the trial court erred by denying its
motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration based on the language in
the amended Account Agreement that clearly disclosed its overdraft
fee provisions, required notice of any errors, and included a
binding arbitration clause. It contends that the trial court failed
to consider the terms of the contract. APCU further contends that
the trial court should have granted the motion to compel
arbitration as to the claims pertaining to fees assessed after the
effective date of its amended Account Agreement.
APCU also argues that the trial court erred by certifying classes
with vague time periods without a specific end date and that any
class action claims must terminate as of the date of the amended
Account Agreement with the notice and arbitration
provisions.
APCU argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion to
dismiss because it had disclosed its fee practice, and the trial
court failed to consider the contract it submitted showing the fee
language for both the multiple fee charges and the APSN
transactions.
According to the Appellate Court, the flaw in APCU's argument is
that it relies on the language in the amended Account Agreement,
which Davis has repeatedly said was not the contract he alleged had
been breached. Construing the allegations in the complaint as true,
and given the terms in the Agreement Davis alleges was in effect
during the relevant time period, the trial court properly denied
the motion to dismiss. APCU failed to show that Davis would be
unable to present any evidence to support his claims.
Because the parties do not even agree on which contract controls,
dismissal is improper, the Appellate Court says.
APCU is also incorrect that the complaint should be dismissed due
to the notice provision. The allegations in the complaint involve
charges that occurred before the notice provision was added to the
Agreement. Thus, it cannot serve as a basis to dismiss the
complaint, the Appellate Court concludes.
APCU does not argue that the trial court should have compelled
arbitration with regard to the transactions that occurred prior to
the date the amendments went into effect. Rather, APCU contends
that it has not waived its right to arbitration for claims that
occurred after the effective date of the amendment. In this case,
APCU contends that Davis should have been compelled to arbitrate
his claims arising after the arbitration provision went into
effect. But Davis has repeatedly confirmed that he is limiting his
claims to those that occurred prior to the Account Agreement
amendments containing the arbitration clause. Thus, there is
nothing to compel Davis to arbitrate, the Appellate Court states.
Finally, APCU argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
certifying a vague and imprecise class with respect to when the
class ends The trial court retains authority to amend or modify the
class as the case progresses. Because Davis now concedes that his
claims are limited to those arising prior to Sept. 1, 2021, the
Appellate Court vacates the trial court's order with instructions
to clarify that the class extends only through that date.
The Appellate Judges affirm the trial court's order in the Cosby
case. They also affirm the trial court's orders denying the motion
to dismiss and to compel arbitration in the Davis case, but remand
with instructions to clarify the time period in which the claims
arose.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=POlYNQ
BALL METAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Marrero Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL MARRERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00147-AMN-PJE (N.D.N.Y., January 31,
2025) arises from Defendant's practice of excluding Economic Value
Added bonuses into employees' overtime rate calculation.
Plaintiff Marrero was employed by Defendant as a factory worker
from about May 2018 to October 2022. Allegedly, the Defendant did
not lawfully provide Plaintiff and its other employees with the
full value of their overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. In addition, the
Defendant had a history of automatically deducting 30 minutes per
day from each Plaintiff's and employee's pay for meal breaks, even
though employees routinely worked through their meal breaks or
otherwise ate quickly while continuing to operate machines.
Headquartered in Westminster, CO, Ball Metal Beverage Container
Corp. provides aluminum packaging solutions for beverage, personal
care and household products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Jocelyn Small, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
jsmall@kesslermatura.com
- and -
Raphael Katri, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI
8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 940-2034
E-mail: rkatri@gmail.com
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Mogollon Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO MOGOLLON, et al.,
v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Case No. 3:19-cv-03070-N-BV (N.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and for designation of
class representatives and class counsel:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Plaintiffs move
to certify:
(i) A class of all persons or entities who purchased or
renewed certificates of deposit from Stanford
International Bank Limited between December 27, 2005, and
Feb. 16, 2009, and still held those certificates of
deposit as of February 16, 2009; and
(ii) Such other classes or sub-classes as the Court may
determine.
Excluded from the class definition are: (i) The Defendant, its
affiliates, subsidiaries, and any officers, employees,
attorneys, agents, legal representatives, heirs, successors,
and assigns; (ii) Any officer, director, employee, or agent of
Stanford Financial Group, including SIBL, SGC, SFIS, or STC;
(iii) Any investor that has resolved all claims arising out of
the Stanford scheme against Pershing LLC’s affiliates,
parents, and subsidiaries, through an arbitration proceeding
and/or lawsuit; and (iv) Residents of the following 25 foreign
jurisdictions: Israel, Kuwait, South Korea, North Korea,
Pitcairn, Tokelau, Mongolia, China, Liechtenstein, Japan,
Oman, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Andorra, San Marino, Namibia, Monaco,
Germany, South Africa, Switzerland, France, and Luxembourg.
The Plaintiffs also move that the following four individuals be
designated as Class representatives: Sergio Mogollon, Colleen Lowe,
Ramon Malca, and Robert Powell.
The Plaintiffs also move that each of the four law firms in the
signature block below be designated as Class Counsel. Plaintiffs
also hereby move that Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff &
Sitterson, P.A. and Criden & Love, P.A. be designated as Co-Lead
Counsel for the Class.
Bank of New York Mellon is an American international financial
services company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XpMmDW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eugene E. Stearns, Esq.
Jay B. Shapiro, Esq.
Joshua Munn, Esq.
Abigail G. Corbett, Esq.
Veronica L. de Zayas, Esq.
Ezra S. Greenberg, Esq.
STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER
ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 789-3200
Facsimile: (305) 789-3395
E-mail: estearns@stearnsweaver.com
jshapiro@stearnsweaver.com
jmunn@stearnsweaver.com
acorbett@stearnsweaver.com
vdezayas@stearnsweaver.com
egreenberg@stearnsweaver.com
- and -
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite515
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-3900
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Zachary S. Bower, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
zbower@carellabyrne.com
- and –
Michael A. Hanzman, Esq.
BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE &
AXELROD LLP
1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 374-7580
E-mail: mhanzman@bilzin.com
BARK INC: Continues to Defend Kenville Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bark Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Kenville class suit in the Delaware Court
of Chancery.
On March 20, 2024, three alleged shareholders filed a putative
class action complaint in the lawsuit styled Kenville v. Northern
Star Sponsor LLC, et al., Case No. 2024-276, which is pending in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.
On September 30, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint is brought against (a) certain officers and
directors of Northern Star Acquisition Corp. at the time of its
proposed acquisition of Legacy BARK, (b) Northern Star Sponsor,
LLC, (c) two of the founders of Legacy BARK, and (d) the Company.
The alleged class consists of Company stockholders who held stock
as of the redemption deadline and who elected not to redeem all or
some of their stock, and the claims alleged are for breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and
unjust enrichment.
At this time, the Company is not able to quantify any potential
liability in connection with this litigation because the case is in
its early stages.
Bark Inc. is a dog-specific pet supply company based in New York
NY.
BASANI FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid in Starling Due Mar. 16, 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimberly Starling, v.
Basani Financial Services LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01670-PAG
(N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Patricia Gaughan entered a Case
Management Conference an order as follows:
1. The case is assigned to the
expedited/standard/complex/administrative/mass tort case
management track.
2. Non-Expert Discovery shall be completed on or before Sept.
19, 2025.
3. Expert reports shall be exchanged on or before Oct. 17, 2025
(Party with the Burden of Proof), Nov. 21, 2025 (Rebuttal)
and Expert Discovery shall be completed on or before Jan.
12, 2026 .
4. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before Mar. 16,
2026.
5. Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or before
Mar. 16, 2026.
Basani is a financial services marketing organization that provides
insurance benefits within the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WGgyXr at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIG FISH: Must File Class Cert Opposition by March 14
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN CAMPOS and JANET
GARVEY, v. BIG FISH GAMES INC., a Washington corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01806-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo
Martinez entered an order granting the Parties' stipulated motion
to modify case schedule.
1. The deadline for Defendants to take any deposition of Mr.
Khan, currently set for Feb. 7, 2025, is now Feb. 18, 2025.
Mr. Khan shall make himself available for deposition during
normal working hours Pacific Time.
2. The deadline for Defendants to file their opposition to the
motion for class certification, currently set for March 3,
2025, is now March 14, 2025.
3. The deadline for Plaintiffs to take any deposition of any
experts that Defendants disclose in connection with their
opposition, which is currently set for March 14, 2025, is
now March 25, 2025.
4. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of
their motion for class certification, currently set for March
24, 2025, is now April 4, 2025.
Big Fish is a casual game company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GlPvgC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq.
Alissa N. Harris, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101-4109
Telephone: (206) 386-7553
Facsimile: (206) 386-7500
E-mail: vanessa.power@stoel.com
ali.harris@stoel.com
- and -
Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
Lindsey Barnhart, Esq.
Hannah Nelson, Esq.
Kevin Hoogstraten, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
E-mail: ehenn@cov.com
lbarnhart@cov.com
hnelson@cov.com
khoogstraten@cov.com
BIOGEN INC: Court Grants Class Certification in Firefighters' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System's motion to certify the class in the case
captioned as OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Plaintiff, v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS, and ALISHA ALAIMO,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-10200-WGY (D. Mass.).
This is a securities class action lawsuit brought by shareholders
who allege that they were harmed by a series of misrepresentations
made by Biogen, Inc. and its executives during the rollout of
Biogen's Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm.
On May 10, 2024, the plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System ("the Firefighters") moved to certify a class
consisting of "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock of Biogen, Inc. between June 8, 2021, and
Jan. 11, 2022," with certain exclusions.
After briefing and oral argument, on Sept. 5, 2024 this Court
allowed the Firefighters' motion to certify the class, provided
that the class period shall end on July 12, 2021. On Dec. 9, 2024,
after cross-petitions for leave to appeal were brought pursuant to
Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a panel of the
First Circuit Court of Appeals ordered this Court to enter a
memorandum reflecting its "rigorous analysis" of the relevant Rule
23 class certification factors within sixty days. This memorandum
sets out the Court's reasoning for its certification decision.
Numerosity
The Firefighters have shown that hundreds of millions of shares of
Biogen stock were traded during the initial proposed class period,
averaging 1.54 million shares traded per day, and that at least
1,858 institutional investors owned stock during that period.
Although this Court shortened the class period from the one
proposed, numerosity can be assumed where the number of shares
traded is so great that common sense dictates the class is very
large. Given the high trading volume and the 148.52 million shares
outstanding on average during the proposed class period, this is
such a case. The Firefighters have carried their burden to show
that the class is so numerous that joinder would be impracticable,
and therefore the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is
satisfied, the Court finds.
Commonality
The class members' claims all arise out of the same alleged
misrepresentations, which the Firefighters claim artificially
inflated Biogen's stock price during the class period. The
Firefighters have carried their burden to show that class members'
claims share legal issues and a common core of salient facts, and
therefore the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is
satisfied, the Court finds.
Typicality
The Firefighters' claims are based on the same factual and legal
premises as those of the proposed class members: alleged
misrepresentations that inflated Biogen's stock price during the
class period, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act. The Firefighters thus have "the incentive
to prove all the elements of the cause of action which would be
presented by the individual members of the class were they
initiating individualized actions." According to the Court, the
Firefighters have carried their burden to show that there is
congruence between the class representative's claims and those of
the class, and therefore the typicality requirement of Rule
23(a)(3) is satisfied.
Adequacy
The Firefighters' interests are aligned with those of the class
members because their claims are based on the same
misrepresentations as those of the class. Likewise, based on its
representation of the Firefighters to date and its prior experience
with securities class action litigation, the proposed class counsel
is adequate. The Firefighters have carried their burden to show
that the class representative and its proposed counsel adequately
represent the interests of the class, and therefore the adequacy
requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) is satisfied, the Court finds.
The Court rules that the Firefighters successfully establish the
four requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a).
Rule 23(b)(3) -- Predominance
Under Rule 23(b)(3), the Firefighters must demonstrate that the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
Superiority is not contested in this case, and this Court agrees
with the Firefighters that the number of parties allegedly harmed
makes joinder impracticable and individual litigation burdensome
and expensive, satisfying the superiority requirement.
Reliance
In Basic Inc. v. Levinson, the Supreme Court established that
securities fraud class action plaintiffs may invoke a rebuttable
presumption of reliance by showing (1) that the alleged
misrepresentations were publicly known, (2) that they were
material, (3) that the stock traded in an efficient market, and (4)
that the plaintiff traded the stock between the time the
misrepresentations were made and when the truth was revealed.
Biogen does not dispute that the Firefighters have established the
requisite Basic factors -- that is, publicity, market efficiency,
and market timing. Rather, Biogen invokes its right to undercut the
Basic presumption by showing a total lack of price impact.
This Court agrees that the Firefighters have carried their burden
to show that the Basic factors apply, and thus proceeds to the
question whether Biogen has successfully rebutted the premise of
price impact that underlies the Basic presumption. It concludes
that Biogen has not done so. Independent of the predominance issue,
however, this Court is compelled to extend the class period no
further than the impact of the July 12 corrective disclosure
identified by the Firefighters, because that is the date on which
the alleged misrepresentations were unambiguously cured. Thus, this
Court allowed the motion to certify the class, provided that the
class period shall extend no further than July 12, 2021.
Damages
Biogen also contends that the Firefighters have offered no
plausible way of calculating class-wide damages, as is their duty
under Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 35 (2013). For their
part, the Firefighters contend that they have easily met their
burden "simply to propose a methodology for calculating damages
that corresponds to their theory of liability," as their expert has
identified the common "out-of-pocket" methodology for securities
fraud, and proposed to determine the difference between stock price
inflation when purchased and stock price inflation when sold or
when held at the end of the class period.
This Court rules that the Firefighters' proposed methodology is
adequate. It concludes the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) are satisfied. And because the Firefighters have
shown that the Basic factors supporting a presumption of reliance
apply in this case, it allowed the Firefighters' motion to certify
the class. The alleged misrepresentations were corrected by the
disclosure that CMS would engage in an NDC process on July 12,
2021. Thus, this Court certified a class only of those who
purchased Biogen stock between June 8, 2021 and July 12, 2021.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qa9N90 from PacerMonitor.com.
BIOGEN INC: OFPRS Wins Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS
PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS,
and ALISHA ALAIMO, Case No. 1:22-cv-10200-WGY (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge William Young entered an order allowing the Firefighters'
motion to certify the class.
The alleged misrepresentations were corrected by the disclosure
that CMS would engage in an NDC process on July 12, 2021. Thus,
this Court certified a class only of those who purchased Biogen
stock between June 8, 2021 and July 12, 2021.
The alleged fraudulent misstatements at the heart of this case took
place in 2021, nearly four years ago. The Firefighters commenced
this action on Feb. 7, 2022. It took a few months to settle on lead
counsel, who filed an amended complaint on June 27 2022.
The inevitable motion to dismiss, Mot. Dismiss, followed in due
course, was heard on October 13 2022, and decided within six months
by a thorough memorandum and order, dismissing this entire case. A
year passes during which the Firefighters, pointing to allegedly
"new" evidence, try -- and ultimately succeed -- in getting the
Court to amend its judgment and reopen the case on March 19, 2024.
The Court ordered the case trial-ready by April 1, 2025.
On May 10 2024, the Firefighters moved to certify the class, which
motion was duly heard in July, and resulted on Sept. 5, 2024 in the
order certifying the class, but modifying the class period. As is
their right, all parties sought interlocutory appeal of this
Court's class certification order, which resulted in the Court of
Appeals's entering its "show your work" order, to which order the
Response above is made this day.
The case is a securities class action lawsuit brought by
shareholders who allege that they were harmed by a series of
misrepresentations made by Biogen, Inc. and its executives during
the rollout of Biogen's Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm.
On May 10, 2024, the plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System moved to certify a class consisting of:
"all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of Biogen, Inc. between June 8, 2021, and Jan. 11,
2022," with certain exclusions.
Biogen is a biopharmaceutical company, which engages in
discovering, developing, and delivering therapies for neurological
and neurodegenerative diseases.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AGh39j at no extra
charge.[CC]
BP EXPLORATION: Court Denies Five Motions in Bryant BELO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna Phillips Currault of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana denies five motions filed in
the lawsuit entitled PERCY A. BRYANT, JR. v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-02156-CJB-DPC (E.D. La.).
SECTION "J" (2). Related to: 12-968 BELO in MDL 2179.
Defendant Garretson Resolution Group, Inc. ("GRG") filed a Rule
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Percy A. Bryant, Jr.'s Amended
Complaint and a Motion to Alter/Amend the Court's January 3, 2025
Transfer Order. The Plaintiff and Defendants BP Exploration &
Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company (collectively,
"BP") filed a Consent Motion to Alter/Amend the January 3, 2025
Transfer Order, and the Plaintiff then filed an Unopposed Motion to
Withdraw that motion.
The parties then filed a Consent Motion to Alter/Amend the January
3, 2025 Transfer Order. The Plaintiff filed a timely Opposition
Memorandum in response to GRG's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion, and GRG filed
a timely Reply. No party requested oral argument in accordance with
Local Rule 78.1, and the Court agrees that oral argument is
unnecessary.
The Plaintiff filed this Back-End Litigation Option lawsuit
("BELO") for Later Manifested Physical Conditions ("LMPC") against
BP and Defendant Epiq Class Action & Claims, Solutions, Inc.
("Epiq") on Aug. 30, 2024, alleging injuries as a result of
exposure to oil, dispersants and other harmful chemicals while
employed doing Deepwater Horizon cleanup operations from May 2010
through April 2012.
On Dec. 9th, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation as to
Epiq's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, recommending that it be granted
because Epiq was not the proper Defendant for the Plaintiff's
claims against the Medical Settlement Agreement Claims
Administrator ("Claims Administrator") and that the Plaintiff be
granted leave to file a second amended complaint so that he can
name GRG as the Claim Administrator.
On Dec. 23rd, the Plaintiff filed his Second Amended BELO
Complaint, naming GRG as a Defendant and the Claims Administrator.
Summons was issued to GRG on Dec. 26th, and on Dec. 30th, GRG was
served. The Honorable Carl J. Barbier adopted Judge Currault's
Report and Recommendation, making the Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint operative.
The Plaintiff and BP timely filed the required venue statement for
BELO cases on Dec. 30th, stipulating that this case should be
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama for further proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a). On Jan. 3, 2025, Judge Currault found the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and the interests of justices warranted
transfer of this case pursuant to Section 1404(a), and, thus,
ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of Alabama.
On Jan. 8th, the Court received notice from the Southern District
of Alabama that it docketed this case at 4:14 p.m. At 4:43 p.m. and
4:45 p.m., GRG filed its Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and Motion
to Alter/Amend the Court's January 3, 2025 Transfer Order,
respectively.
In its Motion to Alter/Amend the January 3, 2025 Transfer Order,
GRG requests the Court alter/amend the order to retain jurisdiction
of the Plaintiff's claims asserted against GRG because it did not
consent to the transfer of this case; the Court has exclusive
jurisdiction over it; and the claims involves the interpretation
and declaration of certain rights under the Deepwater Horizon
Medical Benefits Class Actions Settlement Agreement that should be
decided by the Court.
Further, in the parties' Consent Motion, they request the January
3, 2025 Transfer Order be altered/amended to have the Court retain
jurisdiction of this case while GRG's Rule 12(b)(6) motion is
pending pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Judge Currault notes that a district court loses jurisdiction over
a case transferred to another district when it is "docketed" in the
transferee court. To enable this Court to address the present
motions, the parties would have had to obtain a stay of the
transfer order before the case was transferred. No party moved to
stay the January 3, 2025 Transfer Order.
Thus, Judge Currault points out, the docketing of the matter in the
Southern District of Alabama on Jan. 8th at 4:14 p.m. effected the
transfer and extinguished this Court's jurisdiction over the case
and the ability to consider the five motions before it.
Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court rules as follows: GRG's
Motion to Dismiss, GRG's Motion to Alter/Amend the January 3, 2025
Transfer Order, the Plaintiff's and BP's Consent Motion to
Alter/Amend the January 3, 2025 Transfer Order, the Plaintiff's
Motion to Withdraw, and the parties' Consent Motion to Alter/Amend
the January 3, 2025 Transfer Order are denied for lack of
jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3h66dw6s from PacerMonitor.com.
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Hale Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA HALE, et al., v.
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-09978-VC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying
the motion for class certification.
Denial is without leave to file a renewed motion, because the
evidence is so strong that common issues will not predominate, tne
Court says.
The primary issue in this case is whether the plaintiffs, who used
to work at the defendant’s restaurants in California, can
represent a class of all such workers in their claim that the
defendant unlawfully prevented them from taking unpaid 30-minute
meal breaks. The answer is no.
The plaintiffs, Amanda Hale and Jesus Gomez, are former Chili's Bar
and Grill employees. They have sued Brinker, which owns the
restaurants where they worked. They allege that Brinker violates
California labor law by (1) failing to give employees a reasonable
opportunity to take unpaid meal breaks, (2) failing to provide rest
periods, and (3) refusing to pay for employees' cell phone
operating expenses related to their work for Brinker. Hale and
Gomez bring their suit as a proposed class action, on behalf of
employees at Brinker's 108 Chili's restaurants throughout
California.
Brinker is an American multinational hospitality industry company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bproEt at no extra
charge.[CC]
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Class Cert-Related Deadline Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Phillips v. Brooklyn
Bedding LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03781 (N.D. Cal., Filed July 28,
2023), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order as follows:
-- The Parties shall submit their joint proposal for a
revised case schedule by Feb. 13, 2025
-- The currently scheduled deadlines for the close of fact
discovery on issues related to class certification and for
the Parties' briefing on any motion for class certification
are vacated, and will be reset after the Parties submit
their joint proposal.
The nature of suit states Contract Diversity-(Citizenship).
Brooklyn operates as a home furnishing store.[CC]
BYTEDANCE INC: Illegally Collects Personal Info, J.O. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.O., a minor child, by and through Danaa Carrillo, her mother,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BYTEDANCE, INC.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK INC.; TIKTOK
PTE. LTD.; and TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-01320 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2025) seeks to address the
Defendants' unlawful practice of permitting and encouraging the
Plaintiff and children under the age of 13 to create user accounts
on the TikTok app for the purpose of collecting Personally
Identifiable Information.
The Defendants have knowingly collected this PII and other
intrusive data points without the children's parents' knowledge or
consent. The Defendants utilize this unlawfully collected PII to
provide personally curated content to keep children engaged with
TikTok for their own profit. Defendants share Plaintiff and other
children's PII with third parties and further curate their For You
Pages with copious amounts of curated advertisements. The
Defendants have been on notice that their actions are unlawful
since March 27, 2019, when the United States Government issued a
permanent injunction and a Civil Penalty against them, which
prohibits Defendants from their collection and use of the personal
information of children without verifiable parental consent.
The Defendants own and control htps://www.tiktok.com and the
associated TikTok App, which utilizes a For You Page that operates
by collecting PII and other sensitive data points about users to
appeal to each specific user and include videos and advertisements
curated towards that individual. Defendants' business model and
social media platform is particularly attractive to minor children,
and they routinely encourage and allow children under the age of 13
to create and use TikTok accounts without their parents' knowledge
or consent and continuously fail to comply with parents' requests
to delete their children's accounts and personal information.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the minor children, and their parents,
Defendants were collecting and tracking PII and other sensitive
information without providing direct notice or gaining their
parents' verifiable consent in violation of the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and Children's Online Privacy
Protection Rule, a federal statute and regulation that protect
children's privacy and safety online.
As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of
privacy (ii) diminution of value of Privacy Information, (iii)
statutory damages, and (iv) the continued and ongoing risk to their
PII.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and brings causes of
action for (1) Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act,
Cal. Penal Code section 630, et seq.; (2) Violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, et seq.; (3)
Invasion of Privacy under California's Constitution; (4) Common Law
Invasion of Privacy-Intrusion upon Seclusion; and (5) Unjust
Enrichment.
The Defendants are a series of interconnected companies that
operate the TikTok social media platform. Defendant ByteDance Ltd.
is the parent and owner of Defendants ByteDance, Inc. and TikTok
Ltd. TikTok Ltd. owns Defendants TikTok LLC and TikTok Pte. Ltd.
TikTok LLC in turn owns Defendant TikTok Inc., which, owns
Defendant TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33322
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com
BYTEDANCE INC: R.W. Sues Over Illegal Collection of Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R.W., a minor by and through their guardian ad litem, Pamela
Hancock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BYTEDANCE, INC.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK
INC.;TIKTOK PTE. LTD.; and TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Case
No. 3:25-cv-01304-LJC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2025) seeks to address
the Defendants' unlawful practice of permitting and encouraging the
Plaintiff and children under the age of 13 to create user accounts
on the TikTok app for the purpose of collecting Personally
Identifiable Information.
The Defendants have knowingly collected this PII and other
intrusive data points without the children's parents' knowledge or
consent. The Defendants utilize this unlawfully collected PII to
provide personally curated content to keep children engaged with
TikTok for their own profit. Defendants share Plaintiff and other
children's PII with third parties and further curate their For You
Pages with copious amounts of curated advertisements. The
Defendants have been on notice that their actions are unlawful
since March 27, 2019, when the United States Government issued a
permanent injunction and a Civil Penalty against them, which
prohibits Defendants from their collection and use of the personal
information of children without verifiable parental consent.
The Defendants own and control htps://www.tiktok.com and the
associated TikTok App, which utilizes a For You Page that operates
by collecting PII and other sensitive data points about users to
appeal to each specific user and include videos and advertisements
curated towards that individual. Defendants' business model and
social media platform is particularly attractive to minor children,
and they routinely encourage and allow children under the age of 13
to create and use TikTok accounts without their parents' knowledge
or consent and continuously fail to comply with parents' requests
to delete their children's accounts and personal information.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the minor children, and their parents,
Defendants were collecting and tracking PII and other sensitive
information without providing direct notice or gaining their
parents' verifiable consent in violation of the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and Children's Online Privacy
Protection Rule, a federal statute and regulation that protect
children's privacy and safety online.
As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of
privacy (ii) diminution of value of Privacy Information, (iii)
statutory damages, and (iv) the continued and ongoing risk to their
PII.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and brings causes of
action for (1) Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act,
Cal. Penal Code section 630, et seq.; (2) Violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, et seq.; (3)
Invasion of Privacy under California's Constitution; (4) Common Law
Invasion of Privacy-Intrusion upon Seclusion; and (5) Unjust
Enrichment.
The Defendants are a series of interconnected companies that
operate the TikTok social media platform. Defendant ByteDance Ltd.
is the parent and owner of Defendants ByteDance, Inc. and TikTok
Ltd. TikTok Ltd. owns Defendants TikTok LLC and TikTok Pte. Ltd.
TikTok LLC in turn owns Defendant TikTok Inc., which, owns
Defendant TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 W Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (868) 252-0878
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Class Action Status to Ramirez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California refuses to grant class action
status to the lawsuit styled NARCISO RAMIREZ, Plaintiff v. C.
PFEIFFER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01714-BLF (N.D.
Cal.).
The Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against officers
at Salinas Valley State Prison for excessive force. The third
amended complaint ("TAC") is the operative complaint. The Court
found the TAC stated a cognizable claim and ordered service on
Defendants Hernandez, Saeturn, Alvarez, and Sivongsa.
On Jan. 21, 2025, Defendants Sivongsa and Alvarez appeared. Their
response to the Court's Order of Service was due on Feb. 11, 2025.
As for the other two Defendants, the CDCR filed notice that
Defendants Hernandez and Saeturn had left their employment; service
was reissued to these Defendants at their last know addresses
provided by the CDCR.
The Plaintiff filed a motion inquiring the status of this matter,
seeking appointment of counsel, and "requesting to review case as
potential class action for several plaintiffs with similar and
familiar circumstances."
As for the first request, Judge Freeman says the Plaintiff will be
provided with a copy of the docket in this matter. As for his
request for appointment of counsel, Judge Freeman points out that
there is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless
an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the
litigation.
The decision to request counsel to represent an indigent litigant
under Section 1915 is within the sound discretion of the trial
court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances, Judge
Freeman notes. Here, the Plaintiff has presented no grounds to
support his request. Accordingly, the Court denies the request for
lack of exceptional circumstances.
As for whether this case is suitable for class action, Judge
Freeman looks to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The
prerequisites to maintenance of a class action are that (1) the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,
(2) there are common questions of law and fact, (3) the
representative party's claims or defenses are typical of the class
claims or defenses, and (4) the representative party will fairly
and adequately protect the class interests.
Judge Freeman finds this action involves a single incident of
excessive force against the Plaintiff. Other than his general
assertion that there are "several plaintiffs with similar and
familiar circumstances," the Plaintiff provides no other
information to indicate that a class action is appropriate.
Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for this matter to be a class
action. The Clerk will include a copy of the docket with a copy of
this order to the Plaintiff.
This order terminates Docket No. 55.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/49fuahhu from PacerMonitor.com.
CHEXSYSTEMS INC: Limited Extension of Class Cert Deadlines Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANIQUE BEST, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CHEXSYSTEMS, INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03228-ENV-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order granting joint motion for limited extension
of class certification related deadlines.
The Plaintiff brought the case as a proposed class action. In the
Complaint, the Plaintiff describes four proposed classes she may
seek to certify against ChexSystems.
These claims arise under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and
the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The parties have been engaged in discovery efforts for several
months, including exchange of written discovery, document
productions, and service of third-party subpoenas.
Most recently, the Parties were working to set deposition dates for
multiple deponents, including depositions of various ChexSystems
employees and of Plaintiff and her husband, Daniel Hylton, to occur
in February 2025.
The Parties have encountered difficulties scheduling the
depositions of Plaintiff and Mr. Hylton due to unexpected medical
issues on the part of Plaintiff.
The proposed extensions will not impact the currently scheduled
deadline for the close of discovery or deadlines thereafter.
Event Deadline New
Deadline
Affirmative Expert Report Mar. 6, 2025 Apr. 25, 2025
(Expert report on issues for
which the designating party
bears the burden of proof on
Class Certification):
Rebuttal Expert Report Apr. 24, 2025 May 30, 2025
(Rebuttal to affirmative expert
report and/or expert report on
issues for which the party does
not bear the burden of proof on
Class Certification):
Expert Depositions on Class May 15, 2025 June 27, 2025
Certification Issues:
Plaintiff's Motion for Class May 29, 2025 July 24, 2025
Certification:
Fact Discovery Close: July 24, 2025 July 24, 2025
Chex is a nationwide specialty consumer reporting agency under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vwBCOf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David M. Gettings, Esq.
Kathleen M. Hutchenreuther, Esq.
Stephen J. Steinlight, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP
222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Telephone: (757) 687-7500
Facsimile: (757) 687-7510
E-mail: dave.gettings@troutman.com
kathleen.hutchenreuther@troutman.com
stephen.steinlight@troutman.com
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Continued to Feb. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AJA BECKFORD, ZACHARY
CUBAS, CHRISTINA LABAJO, and ALEXUS WALLACE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE CHILDREN'S
PLACE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-06468-CRB
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered an order
granting the Parties' stipulation to continue the hearing on the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended class action
complaint.
The Court continues the hearing on the Defendant's motion to
Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint to Feb. 28, 2025,
at 10:00 a.m.
On Aug. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint
against the Defendant in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda.
On Aug.16, 2024, the Plaintiffs served the Summons and Complaint on
Defendant.
On Nov. 4, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
Children's Place is a retailer of clothing for children.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qak5oN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
James B. Drimmer, Esq.
Matthew J. Zevin, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER
Pittsburgh, PA
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
1133 Penn Avenue, Floor 5
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
The Defendant is represented by:
P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
Alyssa Sones, Esq.
Patrick Rubalcava, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
Telephone: (310) 228-3700
Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
jramsey@sheppardmullin.com
asones@sheppardmullin.com
prubalcava@sheppardmullin.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Fenn Files Suit in D. Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Health
Center, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Fenn, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Health
Center, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00177-SRU (D. Conn., Feb. 5, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Community health centers (CHC) -- https://www.chc1.com/ -- offer
vital care services and resources to communities in need.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Phone: (203) 992-4523
Email: shopkins@zlk.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Janssens Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE JANSSENS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-00191-RNC (D. Conn., Feb. 7, 2025) arises from CHC's
failure to protect highly sensitive data.
CHC is a provider of "primary medical, dental and mental health
services to the uninsured and underinsured" and is based in
Connecticut. As such, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health
information about its current and former patients. But Defendant
lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its
insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the
"Data Breach").
The Data Breach impacted at least 1,060,936 individuals. And, upon
information and belief, the victims of the Data Breach included
Defendant's current and former patients.
According to the Defendant's Breach Notice, on or about January 2,
2025, the Defendant discovered that it was the target of a
cyberattack. In other words, CHC had no effective means to prevent,
detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby
allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and
former patients' PII/PHI.
On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train
its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In
short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a
vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for
cybercriminals.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach
notice—a copy of Defendant's Breach Notice is attached as Exhibit
A. She brings this class action on behalf of herself, and all
others harmed by CHC's misconduct.
The exposure of one's PII/PHI to cybercriminals is a bell that
cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former
patients' private information was exactly that -- private. Not
anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and
unsecure.
The Plaintiff brings this class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a),
23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), individually and on behalf of all members
of the following class:
"All individuals residing in the United States whose PII/PHI
was compromised in the Data Breach including all those
individuals who received notice of the breach. 90. Excluded
from the Class are Defendant, its agents, affiliates, parents,
subsidiaries, any entity in which CHC has a controlling
interest, any CHC officer or director, any successor or assign,
and any Judge who adjudicates this case, including their staff
and immediate family."
CHC touts itself as one of the "leading health-care providers in
the state of Connecticut, providing comprehensive primary care
services in medicine, dentistry, and behavioral health" and boasts
"innovative service delivery models and state of the art
technology."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: (203) 992-4523
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
- and -
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-00196-SVN (D. Conn., Feb. 7, 2025) arises out of the recent
data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against
Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally
identifiable information and protected health information of the
Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant, the
putative class members.
The Data Breach occurred on or about Jan. 2, 2025. The Private
Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain
personal or protected health information of Defendant's patients,
including Plaintiff. This Private Information included but is not
limited to "name, date of birth, address, phone number, email,
diagnoses, treatment details, test results, Social Security number
and health insurance information.
The Private Information was removed from Defendant's network by
cybercriminals who perpetrated the attack and remains in the hands
of those cybercriminals. According to Defendant's report to the
Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights, 1,060,936
individuals were affected.
The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which
they were entrusted for either treatment or employment or both.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was
subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and
precisely what type of information was accessed.
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and
injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff proposes the following Class definition, subject to
amendment as appropriate:
-- Nationwide Class
"All individuals in the United States whose PII was impacted
as a result of the Data Breach."
Excluded from the Class are Defendant's officers and
directors, and any entity in which Defendant has a
controlling interest; and the affiliates, legal
representatives, attorneys, successors, heirs, and assigns of
Defendant. Excluded also from the Class are Members of the
judiciary to whom this case is assigned, their families and
Members of their staff."
The Defendant provides comprehensive healthcare services in many
locations across the state of Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Reilly, Esq.
CICCHIELLO & CICCHIELLO, LLP
364 Franklin Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114
Telephone: (860) 296-3457
Facsimile: (860) 296-0676
E-mail: mreilly@cicchielloesq.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
COMPASS GROUP: Mercedez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------
CARLA MERCEDEZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00942 (S.D.N.Y., January 31, 2025) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the New York City's Fair Workweek Law.
The Defendant time-shaved Plaintiff and those similarly situated
every week by requiring off-the-clock post shift work and improper
meal breaks deductions. As a result, the Defendant routinely
time-shaved Plaintiff and those similarly situated on a weekly
basis in violation of both the FLSA and NYLL. Among other things,
Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and others similarly
situated overtime wages for all relevant weeks where Plaintiff
worked over 40 hours, says the suit.
Headquartered in Charlotte, NC, Compass Group USA, Inc. is a
hospitality management conglomerate that operates, manages, and
staffs hotels, restaurants, education, and industrial sectors.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
COMPASS MINERALS: Seeks Class Cert Oral Argument in Local 295 Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 295 IBT EMPLOYER
GROUP WELFARE FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
FRANCIS J. MALECHA, JAMES D. STANDEN, and ANTHONY J. SEPICH, Case
No. 2:22-cv-02432-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Defendants ask the Court
to enter an order granting oral argument on the motion for class
certification.
The case is highly complex, and has required extensive briefing. In
connection with class certification, the parties submitted three
expert reports and elicited expert deposition testimony.
Although oral argument is the exception, this Court has discretion
under D. Kan. R. 7.2 to grant a party's request for such a hearing.
Given the complexity of the issues involved, Defendants believe
oral argument would be beneficial. Disputes at the class
certification stage are relatively infrequent in this District and
in the Tenth Circuit. Oral argument would allow the Court to ask
questions to test the parties’ theories and probe the parties'
arguments.
The Court has previously held oral arguments regarding motions for
class certification in complex cases.
The Defendants have notified Plaintiffs of their intent to file
this request, and Plaintiffs responded as follows: "Although
Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants' assertion that the parties'
class certification briefing presents "unique" or "complex" issues,
the Plaintiffs take no position on Defendants' request."
Compass is an American public company that, through its
subsidiaries, is a leading producer of minerals, including salt,
magnesium chloride and sulfate of potash.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yhjsnJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sara A. Fevurly, Esq.
Catherine Hanaway, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 983-8000
E-mail: Sara.Fevurly@huschblackwell.com
Catherine.Hanaway@huschblackwell.com
- and -
Victor L. Hou, Esq.
Rishi N. Zutshi, Esq.
Andrew Weaver, Esq.
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN
& HAMILTON LLP
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 225-2000
E-mail: vhou@cgsh.com
rzutshi@cgsh.com
aweaver@cgsh.com
CONCORD PET: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Claude Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CONCORD PET FOODS & SUPPLIES, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-01015 (D.N.J., Feb. 5, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.concordpetfoods.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired "to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.concordpetfoods.com, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the
United States, including the State of New Jersey.
The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online
sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers
features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access
navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail
consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for
sale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
COOLSTUFFINC.COM LLC: Henry Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Coolstuffinc.Com, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01065 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's website contains access
barriers that make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired
users to even complete a transaction on the website. Despite
readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to
rely on an exclusively visual interface. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts
claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Headquartered Maitland, FL, Coolstuffinc.Com, LLC owns and operates
the website, https://www.coolstuffinc.com, which allows customers
to which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services, including, the ability to view and purchase hobby gaming
products and collectible card games online. [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
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Status Conference Set for March 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baldino-Miller v.
Courtyard Management Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01613
(E.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered an order
setting status conference for March 19, 2025.
As discussed, based on the Plaintiff's identification of the
facilities for sampling and replacement interrogatories on January
23, 2025, the Defendants anticipate providing supplemental
discovery responses and documents in early March 2025.
The Plaintiff also has provided supplemental responses to discovery
and documents and intends to provide another round of discovery by
Feb 14, 2025.
The parties identified two issues for the Court's resolution:
(1) Defendants' request for additional time to complete
the Plaintiff's deposition, which is currently scheduled
for Feb. 28, 2025; and
(2) The Plaintiff's request for modification of the class
certification scheduling order.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Courtyard operates as a chain of hotels.[CC]
CRAIG KOENIG: Court Severs, Dismisses Brown's Claims
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELTON ADAMS, et al., v.
CRAIG KOENIG, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-08545-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting in part and denying
in part motion to sever as follows:
-- The Court will sever and dismiss all claims of Plaintiff
Lawrence Brown. This case will proceed with Plaintiffs
Shelton Adams, Robert Blackwell, Frederick Brinkley,
Terrence Brownlee, Danny Camel, Dwain Campbell, Maurice
Caples, Anthony Chambers, Daniel Colvin, Anthony Copeland,
Christopher Cox, Berlan Dicey, Ricky Duncan, Rahsaan
Fitzgerald, Ricky Fontenot, Marvin Foster, Marcelle
Franklin, Eric Frazier, Jonathan Hamilton, Claude Harper,
Bernard Harris, Erwin Harris, Mark Harris, Rashaun Horn,
Kevin Jackson, Nathanial Johnson, Antoine Keil, Anthony
King, Gary Lawless, Darreyl Lewis, Michael McCurty, Troy
Mendenhall, Alexander Moss, Reginald Nettles, Joseph O'Neal,
Derrice Porter, Michael Rhines, Chris Robinson, Cedric
Sanchez, Gary Sasser, Ronald Smallwood, Damon Terrell,
Clifford Williams, and Quinn Wilridge.
-- The Court denies the remainder of Defendants' motion
consistent with this order. As there will likely be
overlapping discovery between the two cases, discovery taken
in one case is admissible in both, unless otherwise agreed
by the parties or ordered by the Court.
Brown and the remaining Plaintiffs are directed to file separate
complaints by March 28, 2025. The clerk is directed to schedule a
case management conference for May 23, 2025, at 1:30pm, with case
management statements due from the parties by May 16, 2025. The
Court sets the following briefing schedule relating to the motion
for class certification in the Brown class action:
Filing Date
Motion for Class Certification: Feb. 26, 2027
Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Experts: Feb. 26, 2027
Defendants' Opposition: Apr. 23, 2027
Plaintiffs' Reply: June 18, 2027
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z7Bw1E at no extra
charge.[CC]
CRST EXPEDITED: Dean Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Faizah N. Dean, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC., an Iowa
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
CVRI2401296 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Riverside, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 3, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00296.
The Complaint asserts ten causes of action under California law:
Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods;
Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to
Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Violation of Labor Code;
and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: 626-795-4700
Fax: 626-795-4790
Email: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
DA VINCI SURGICAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (RE: DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting the amended omnibus
sealing motion in connection with certain documents submitted in
connection with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The complete list of excerpts that Plaintiffs, Intuitive, and third
parties seek to seal and the grounds therefore can be found in this
Motion to Seal, Plaintiffs' supplemental Memorandum of Law in
Support of Sealing Plaintiffs' Material, the statements and
declarations filed with the original Omnibus Motion to Seal
Regarding Class Certification Briefing, and the proposed order
prepared for the Court.
The Plaintiffs seek limited redactions in only four documents that
contain highly sensitive categories of non-public information
pertaining to the terms of confidential agreements between Larkin
and Intuitive and monies paid by Larkin to settle a contract
dispute unrelated to the issues in this litigation.
There are compelling reasons to grant Plaintiffs' proposed
redactions in the Early and Widman Declarations and the Exhibit to
the Widman Declaration. The Antitrust Counsel Agreement and 2022
Amendment are both confidential contracts; information regarding
their terms could harm Larkin if made public.
The disclosure of the amounts paid by Larkin to Intuitive could be
used by other parties to leverage against Larkin. And the sealing
of these materials is narrowly tailored and their contents weigh
against public disclosure, especially because their disclosure
would not aid the public in understanding the underlying
litigation.
Intuitive is an American biotechnology company that develops,
manufactures, and markets robotic products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=344d9h at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC
11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-2604
Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
Samuel Maida, Esq.
Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite
3200 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com
smaida@hausfeld.com
rgambhir@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
jsindoni@bonizack.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allen Ruby, Esq.
ALLEN RUBY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
15559 Union Ave. 138
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Telephone: (408) 477-9690
E-mail: allen@allenruby.com
- and -
Joshua Hill, Esq.
Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq.
Paul D. Brachman, Esq.
William B. Michael, Esq.
Crystal L. Parker, Esq.
Daniel A. Crane, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 204-7420
E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com
pbrachman@paulweiss.com
wmichael@paulweiss.com
cparker@paulweiss.com
dcrane@paulweiss.com
jhill@paulweiss.com
- and -
Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq.
Sonya E. Winner, Esq.
Andrew Lazerow, Esq.
Ashley E. Bass, 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: kcahoy@cov.com
swinner@cov.com
alazerow@cov.com
abass@cov.com
DAVE JEPPESEN: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Rossow Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEEVA ROSSOW, v. DAVE
JEPPESEN, Director, Idaho Health and Welfare, in his official
capacity, Case No. 1:23-cv-00131-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge
Lynn Winmill entered an order that:
1. Defendant's motion to modify scheduling order is granted.
2. The Feb. 18, 2025 deadline for dispositive motions set forth
in the amended scheduling order is vacated.
3. Any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before 120 days
after the resolution of plaintiff's motion to amend and
motion for class certification.
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare is Idaho's state government
agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MBhszi at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAVITA INC: Lightner Seeks Conditional Class Status of Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDUIN LIGHTNER, v.
DaVita, INC. Case No. 1:23-cv-03104-NYW-KAS (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certify this case as a
FLSA collective action with respect to the pleaded Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) meal break and rest break claims:
"All current and former hourly-paid nurses and technicians
employed at any DaVita location, excluding those in Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee,
Texas, and Virginia, who provide(d) direct patient care."
Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests authorization to send a
reminder notice.
On July 6, 2023, the Court conditionally certified a collective
action of nurses and technicians who worked at DaVita locations in
nine states, regarding allegations that DaVita failed to pay
overtime wages because its employees did not receive fully relieved
meal breaks.
DaVita provides healthcare services, in particular kidney
dialysis.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j3juWw at no extra
charge.[CC]
DCI DONOR: Court Amends Oct. 7, 2024 Order
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIAH WELLS, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. DCI DONOR SERVICES, INC., a Tennessee Corporation; and DOES 1 to
50, Case No. 2:21-cv-00994-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carolyn
Delaney entered an order amending Oct. 7, 2024, order preliminarily
approving class action settlement.
1. The Court's order granting plaintiff's unopposed motion for
conditional class certification and preliminary approval of
settlement will be modified to define the "class" as
"all individuals who are or were employed by the as per diem
piece rate non-exempt employees in California from April 30,
2017 through the earlier of March 1, 2023 or the date of
preliminary approval of the settlement (the "Class
Settlement Period")"; and
"PAGA class" as
"all individuals who are or were employed by the Defendant
as per diem piece rate non-exempt employees in California
during the PAGA Settlement Period" as indicated in the
Amended Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Class and PAGA
Action Settlement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") filed
concurrently with the parties' stipulation;
DCI Donor Services provides trusted organ, eye, and tissue donation
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OtgiSc at no extra
charge.[CC]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Plaintiffs Seek Temporary Restraining Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-9
Employees/Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, on behalf
of themselves and those similarly situated, v. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, James McHenry Acting Attorney General of the United
States, Case No. 1:25-cv-00325 (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting their motion for a temporary
restraining order against the Defendant.
Thus, Plaintiffs bring suit to ask the Court to protect their
rights under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. section 552a(b). In
this Motion, Plaintiffs ask this Court to temporarily restrain the
Defendant from aggregating and disseminating information to the
President, Vice President, members of their staff, or any other
persons not subject to the Privacy Act, that identifies Plaintiffs
and the work they performed on the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases.
The Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm should the information
at issue be leaked or published, which cannot be repaired by
compensatory damages. More importantly, the damage to the national
security apparatus of this nation would also be irreparably harmed.
On Jan. 31, 2025, the Defendant DOJ summarily terminated all of the
attorneys who prosecuted January 6 cases.
On Feb. 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs were ordered to fill out an online
survey in which they were to identify the work they did on January
6 cases and the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.
The Plaintiffs are nine current FBI agents and other personnel who
are assigned to the Washington, DC field office and who, in the
past, worked on matters related to the investigation and
prosecution of persons involved in the attack on the United States
Capital on Jan. 6, 2021, and other matters involving former
President Donald Trump.
The Plaintiffs pursue claims on their own behalf and on behalf of a
class of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and other
personnel who are similarly situated. During his campaign for
reelection, Mr. Trump made various public statements promising
retaliation and retribution against those persons whom he perceived
as enemies, including members of law enforcement.
Department of Justice enforces federal laws, seeks just punishment
for the guilty, and ensures the fair and impartial administration
of justice.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RpXjZ5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Pamela M. Keith, Esq.
Scott M. Lempert, Esq.
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE
650 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 800-0292
E-mail: pamkeith@centerforemploymentjustice.com
Slempert@centerforemploymentjustice.com
DILLON DAVIS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
Situated v. Dillon Davis, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01220 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 5, 2025) alleges that Dillon failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://wovenshop.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 Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of Illinois.
Wovenshop.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Dillon
Davis.
Yet, Wovenshop.com contains significant access barriers that make
it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website.
Thus, Dillon Davis excludes the blind and visually-impaired from
the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy
that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace
and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent
years, assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly
prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind and
visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a
variety of services, the lawsuit contends.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
DOLLAR TREE: Settlement in Dalton Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Julie Dalton, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-00368-KMM-LIB (D. Minn.), the Hon.
Judge Katherine Menendez entered a final class certification and
settlement approval order:
-- The following Class is certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement:
"All blind or visually impaired individuals or other
individuals in the United States with disabilities as
defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act who use or
require audio readouts of on-screen prompts and tactile
keypads associated with use of payment terminals (or
comparable technologies that allow the individuals to
interact with payment terminals), and who have or allege
they have been, or in the future will be, denied the full
and equal enjoyment of Defendant's payment terminals' cash
back feature at stores owned or operated by Defendant in the
United States because such persons encounter(ed) a payment
terminal without an audio readout and tactile keypad to
obtain cash back at Defendant's stores."
-- The Plaintiff Julie Dalton fairly and adequately represents
the interests of the Settlement Class in enforcing their
rights in this action is appointed as Settlement Class
Representative.
-- Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. is an experienced and
competent class action counsel who efficiently, effectively,
fairly, and adequately protected the interests of the
putative class throughout this litigation. He is appointed
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
Dollar is an American multi-price-point chain of discount variety
stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zPP6SK at no extra
charge.[CC]
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
On August 2, 2024, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements regarding the
Company's transformation journey.
The putative class of plaintiffs includes investors who acquired
DXC stock during the period of May 26, 2021 to May 16, 2024.
The Company believes that the lawsuit described above are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted.
DXC Technology Company is an information technology services and
consulting company based in Ashburn, Virginia.[BN]
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2025, that discovery is
ongoing for a securities class suit in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara.
On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former
officer of the Company, among other defendants. The action asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading
statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding
the Company's prospects and expected performance.
The putative class of plaintiffs includes former shareholders of
Computer Sciences Corporation ("CSC") who exchanged their CSC
shares for the Company's common stock pursuant to the offering
documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC.
The State of California action had been stayed pending the outcome
of the substantially similar federal action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The federal action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021.
Thereafter, the state court lifted the stay and entered an order
permitting additional briefing by the parties. In March 2022,
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Company moved to
dismiss.
In August 2022, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss,
but permitted Plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint.
In September 2022, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Company moved to dismiss.
In January 2023, the Court issued an order denying the Company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In March 2023, the
Court entered a scheduling order setting a trial date for September
2025. The trial date has since been extended to May 2026.
In May 2024, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
In July 2024, notice was provided to potential class members. The
case is otherwise in discovery.
DXC Technology Company is an information technology services and
consulting company based in Ashburn, Virginia.[BN]
E.R. CARPENTER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Marrow COBRA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida denied E.R. Carpenter Company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the plaintiff in
the case captioned as SAROYA MARROW, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. E.R. CARPENTER
COMPANY, INC., d/b/a CARPENTER CO., Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-02959-KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla.).
Carpenter sponsors and administrates a health plan for its more
than twenty employees.
Under COBRA, in the case of termination, the plan administrator is
required to provide the former employee with notice of her
eligibility to continue her healthcare coverage.
Marrow was employed by Carpenter until March 9, 2022, when she was
terminated, but not for gross misconduct. While she was employed,
Marrow obtained medical insurance for herself and her dependents
through Carpenter's health plan.
About a week after Marrow's termination, Carpenter mailed Marrow a
COBRA notice. The notice informed Marrow that she had 60 days after
her last day of employment with Carpenter Co. to elect COBRA
continuation coverage.
Marrow alleges, on behalf of a putative class, that Carpenter
failed to provide a sufficient notice of continuing healthcare
coverage, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). Carpenter argues that Marrow
lacks standing and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
Marrow alleges that her failure to enroll in continuation coverage
-- which included medical, dental, and vision coverage -- is due to
deficiencies in the COBRA notice. Marrow contends that Carpenter's
notice failed to comply with 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2590.606-4(b)(4)(v)
because the notice provided that the election form must be
postmarked no later than 60 days from your last day as a Carpenter
Co. employee, but failed to provide the specific date by which the
election must be made.
Marrow brings her claim as a class action on behalf of all
"participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health Plan who
were sent a COBRA notice by Defendant during the applicable statute
of limitations period as a result of a qualifying event, as
determined by Defendant, who did not elect COBRA." She seeks
declaratory, equitable, and monetary relief, among other things.
Carpenter moves to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Carpenter argues that Marrow fails to allege facts demonstrating
that she suffered an injury-in-fact that is traceable to
Carpenter's allegedly deficient notice. Even if Marrow sufficiently
alleges that she has standing, Carpenter argues that she fails to
state a claim.
But as Marrow points out, she alleges that the bare procedural
violation had a tangible impact. Specifically, the deficiencies in
Defendant's COBRA notice ultimately caused Plaintiff to not elect
COBRA continuation coverage, lose insurance coverage (medical,
dental, and vision), and incur medical bills as a result. In other
words, Marrow alleges that because of the insufficient notice, she
lost insurance and her medical expenses increased. This alleged
pocketbook injury qualifies as an injury-in-fact. Therefore,
Carpenter's motion to dismiss on this basis is denied, the Court
holds.
Carpenter argues that, even if Marrow adequately alleges an
injury-in-fact, her injury was not caused by the allegedly
deficient notice. According to the Court, this argument also does
not provide a basis for dismissal.
Even if Marrow fails to plausibly allege that her stated injuries
are traceable to the challenged notice's description of the
election period, this does not mean that she fails to plausibly
allege that her stated injuries are traceable to the challenged
notice as a whole. Carpenter's arguments therefore do not provide a
basis for dismissal, the Court concludes.
The Court finds Marrow adequately alleges that she suffered an
injury-in-fact that is traceable to Carpenter's allegedly deficient
COBRA notice. Because there is no dispute that Marrow's stated
injuries are redressable by a federal court, Marrow has satisfied
the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing at this stage
of the litigation.
No later than Feb. 25, 2025, the parties must file an amended case
management report.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GBVMY8 from PacerMonitor.com.
EMPOCC LLC: Fails to Pay Wages Under FLSA, NMMWA, Lee Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH LEE and all others similarly situated v. EMPOCC LLC and KANE
OUIES, Case No. 1:25-cv-00131 (D.N.M., Feb. 7, 2025) alleges that
the Defendants failed to pay wages in accordance with the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
Mr. Lee is employed by the Defendants in the position of budtender
-- a portmanteau of the words "bud" and "bartender" -- at
Defendants' Oasis Cannabis Company retail location at 2925 Juan
Tabo Boulevard Northeast in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The Defendant owns and operates the Oasis Cannabis Company chain of
cannabis dispensaries in New Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen Curtice, Esq.
YOUTZ & VALDEZ PC
900 Gold Ave. SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 244-1200
E-mail: stephen@youtzvaldez.com
- and -
Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
Sarah M. Block, Esq.
Patrick J. Miller-Bartley
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com
smb@mselaborlaw.com
pmb@mselaborlaw.com
ENVOY AIR: Adair Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLEOPHUS V. ADAIR and OLIVIA M. NISBET, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated Aggrieved Employees, the State of
California, and the general public v. ENVOY AIR INC., a Delaware
corporation; ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation,
ABM AVIATION, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 25STCV-03209 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 5, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
penalties, restitution, and related relief under the California
Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have:
-- failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate;
-- failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate;
-- failed to provide them with meal periods;
-- failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and rest
periods;
-- failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements;
-- failed to reimburse them with necessary business expenditures;
-- failed to pay them all their final wages following separation
of employment.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as non-exempt employees.
Envoy Air is an American regional airline headquartered in Irving,
Texas in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
David Keledjian, Esq.
Elizabeth Harrier, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
450 N. Brand Blvd.
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 962-6465
Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
E-mail: d.yeremian@d.law
d.keledjian@d.law
e.harrier@d.law
ESALON.COM LLC: Henry Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
---------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Esalon.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01069 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to take any
prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct.
Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to
its website, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal
access to it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for
Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Headquartered in El Segundo, CA, Esalon.com, LLC owns and
maintains the website, Esalon.com, which gives its users the
ability to view and purchase hair color enhancers, sprays and
masks, shampoos, conditioners, tools and accessories online. [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
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: March 20 Class Cert Hearing Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. SHIELDS and
KATINKA HOSSZU, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE NATATION, Case No.
3:18-cv-07393-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting request for a schedule of a hearing
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to certify the
proposed damages classes of professional swimmers as described
below, at 10 A.M. on Thursday, March 20, 2025.
The Court previously certified, under Rule 23(b)(2) for purposes of
seeking injunctive relief, a class of swimmers who signed contracts
to participate in International Swimming League ("ISL")
competitions from Jan. 1, 2018, through trial.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify two damages classes
under Rule 23(b)(3) and appoint Winston & Strawn, LLP, as class
counsel:
(1) 2018 Damages Class:
"All swimmers who signed contracts to participate in the
ISL's December 2018 event set to take place in Turin,
Italy."
(2) 2019 Damages Class:
"All swimmers who signed contracts to participate in the
ISL's 2019 season."
The case is about a group boycott engineered by Defendant World
Aquatics, swimming's international governing body, to prevent a
rival swimming league from competing for the services of top-tier
professional swimmers.
The Plaintiffs are world-renowned, Olympic-champion professional
swimmers. T
Federation Internationale is the sole and exclusive world governing
body for all Aquatics.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BsyXmK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
Johanna Rae Hudgens, Esq.
Jeanifer E. Parsigian, Esq.
Joshua Hafenbrack, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-4193
Telephone: (212) 294-6700
Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
E-mail: jkessler@winston.com
jhudgens@winston.com
jparsigian@winston.com
jhafenbrack@winston.com
FLEET FINANCIAL: Wilson Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLEET FINANCIAL, INC. d/b/a
ILENDING, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00340-TPO (D. Colo., January
31, 2025) accuses the Defendant of unlawful use of an artificial or
pre-recorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places
to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service,
without prior express consent.
The Plaintiff, through counsel, sent a letter to the Defendant
regarding the unwanted calls and made clear he did not want the
calls, even though he had never requested them in the first place.
Despite that letter, the Defendant still sent pre-recorded message
calls on January 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, 2025. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff now asserts claims for Defendant's violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Fleet Financial, Inc. offers auto loan refinancing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert. in Barnes Due June 26, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET BARNES, ERIC
SENKYRIK, MICHAEL HOGAN, SHARON JACKSON, SCOTT KAHLER, and MARK
PANNULLO individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-06147-AB-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order
granting the joint stipulation to continue deadlines for class
certification and discovery:
-- Close of fact discovery: April 29, 2025
-- Motion for class certification June 26, 2025
and expert reports:
-- Opposition to motion for class Aug. 22, 2025
Certification and expert reports:
-- Reply brief motion for class Oct. 17, 2025
certification:
-- Hearing on motion for class Dec. 12, 2025
Certification:
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IoxI3e at no extra
charge.[CC]
FOX CORPORATION: Faraji Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Noushin Faraji, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. FOX CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, FOX SPORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, FOX SPORTS 1, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
FOX SPORTS 2, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, FOX SPORTS
PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, CHARLIE
DIXON, an individual, SKIP BAYLESS, an individual, JOY TAYLOR, an
individual, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV00101 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Feb. 5, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 2:25-cv-01001.
The Complaint purports to assert claims for relief arising out of
Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, on behalf of a proposed
class of all non-exempt employees of Defendants who worked in
California at any time since January 3, 2021. Specifically,
Plaintiff brings claims for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure
to pay overtime; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to
pay all wages upon separation; failure to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements; unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business
practices; sexual battery, hostile work environment (sex/gender);
hostile work environment (race/national origin); hostile work
environment (disability); failure to prevent harassment; negligent
supervision, hiring, and retention; (13) retaliation; and wrongful
termination.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tracey A. Kennedy, Esq.
Robert Mussig, Esq.
Ryan J. Krueger, Esq.
Tyler Johnson, Esq.
Michaela R. Goldstein, Cal. Bar No. 316455
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
350 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3620
Phone: 213.620.1780
Facsimile: 213.620.1398
Email: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com
rmussig@sheppardmullin.com
rkrueger@sheppardmullin.com
tjohnson@sheppardmullin.com
mgoldstein@sheppardmullin.com
FRED MEYER: Settlement in Woody, et al. Suit Gets Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon granted the plaintiffs' unopposed renewed
motion for preliminary settlement in the case captioned as SAMANTHA
WOODY, APRIL ALLEN, DELIA CRUZ, CANDICE TRENT, and NICOLE URVINA,
Plaintiffs, v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01800-HZ (D. Ore.).
On Sept. 29, 2022, Defendant Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., activated a
new payroll system for its hourly, non-exempt employees in Oregon.
Plaintiffs allege that the new payroll system caused widespread pay
errors for many Oregon employees and that Defendant knew or should
have known that the new system would cause payroll errors.
On Nov. 17, 2022, Samantha Woody and Nicole Urvina filed a class
action Complaint in this Court on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt
employees of Defendant who were employed "on or after activation of
the new payroll system." They asserted claims for (1) failure to
pay all wages on regular paydays in violation of Oregon Revised
Statute Sec. 652.120, (2) failure to pay all wages on termination
in violation of Oregon Revised Statute Secs. 652.140 and 652.150,
and (3) withholding wages without authorization in violation of
Oregon Revised Statute Sec. 652.610.
On Dec. 1, 2022, Samantha Woody, April Allen, Delia Cruz, Candice
Trent, and Nicole Urvina ("named Plaintiffs") filed an amended
class action Complaint on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt
employees of Defendant who were "employed in the State of Oregon on
or after Sept. 29, 2022." They assert claims for:
(1) failure to pay all wages on regular paydays in violation of
Or. Rev. Stat. Sec. 652.120,
(2) failure to pay all wages on termination in violation of Or.
Rev. Stat. Secs. 652.140 and 652.150,
(3) withholding wages without authorization in violation of Or.
Rev. Stat. Sec. 652.610, and
(4) equitable accounting of wages.
On Nov. 17, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings in which it asserted it was entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on Plaintiffs' third and fourth claims.
On Jan. 24, 2024, the Court issued an Opinion and Order in which it
granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion.
Specifically, it declined to conclude that Plaintiffs cannot state
a claim for violation of Sec. 652.610 as a matter of law; held
Plaintiffs are not permitted to seek multiple recoveries of $200
for successive occurrences of the same improper deduction for the
same individual under Sec. 652.610, but may recover either actual
damages or $200 for each different type of violation of Sec.
652.610(3); granted the Motion as to Plaintiffs' fourth claim to
the extent that it relies on the complexity of accounts; and denied
the Motion as to Plaintiffs' fourth claim to the extent that it
relies on a fiduciary relationship.
On May 15, 2024, the parties had a settlement conference with
United States Magistrate Judge John Acosta. On June 25, 2024, the
parties informed the Court that they had reached settlement.
The Court found in its Oct. 17, 2024, Opinion and Order that the
parties had established that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) and most of the requirements of Rule
23(e)(2) had been satisfied.
The Court found, however, that Plaintiffs had not established that
the proposed service award or attorney fees were fair or
reasonable. Plaintiffs address these factors in their Renewed
Motion.
Class Certification and Class Counsel
The Court concludes Plaintiffs have established the requirements
for certification of the class set out in the Settlement Agreement
for settlement purposes.
The Court also approves Bennett Hartman LLP as class counsel.
Service Awards
The settlement agreement contains a proposed service award of
$9,500 for each class representative for a total of $47,500.
Plaintiffs indicate that under the settlement agreement all members
of the proposed class who do not opt out will receive equal
payments "in an expected amount between $50 and $100."
In addition to the $50 and/or $100 payment, each proposed class
member may submit a claim form for an additional payment under "one
or both" circumstances:
(1) "identifying at least one paycheck from September 25, 2022,
through December 31, 2022, containing an inaccurate rate of pay or
inaccurate worked hours" for which he or she will receive the
"total sum of $200" and
(2) "identifying at least one missing or late paycheck from
September 25, 2022, through December 31, 2022" for which he or she
will receive the "total sum of $200."
In theory, therefore, a prospective class member could obtain up to
$500. The settlement agreement also provides, however, that the
amount of each claim will be reduced on a pro rata basis depending
on the number of claims submitted. The service award proposed in
this case would be between 19 and 190 times the amount class
members might obtain.
The Court found that this vague description of the named
Plaintiffs' participation did not establish that a service award of
$9,500 per named Plaintiff was fair or reasonable particularly
given the disparity between the amounts that unnamed class members
stand to recover and the service award.
In the Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval Plaintiffs continue
to seek a service award of $9,500 per named Plaintiff. In support
of that request Plaintiffs submit declarations of each named
Plaintiff setting out their efforts in support of this action and
settlement. None of the Declarations, however, provide information
about the approximate amount of time the named Plaintiffs spent on
this matter, the Court finds.
The Court recognizes that named Plaintiffs likely spent more hours
compiling requested information and documents, but Plaintiffs have
provided the Court with no indication of the time these tasks took
and, therefore, it is difficult for the Court to conclude that the
time that named Plaintiffs spent on this matter warrants an
incentive award of $9,500 per named Plaintiff, particularly in
light of the disparity between the requested incentive award and
the possible awards to unnamed Plaintiffs.
The Court concludes Plaintiffs have established that incentive
awards are appropriate. The Court, however, declines to decide the
final amount of such an award at the preliminary stage. At the
final approval stage the Court will closely evaluate any additional
evidence in support of individual incentive awards of $9,500 per
named Plaintiff.
Attorney Fees
The settlement agreement provides that Plaintiffs' counsel will
receive $750,000 in attorney fees (25% of the $3,000,000 gross
settlement award) plus $51,838.75 for litigation costs and expenses
for a total of $801,838.75.
Plaintiffs' counsel requests attorney fees that are 25 percent of
the gross settlement award.
The Court preliminarily approves counsel's right to attorney fees
recognizing that the hourly rate is not the sole determiner of
fairness. At the final approval stage, however, the Court will
closely examine counsel's requested rates and hours to cross-check
the amount of fees requested. The Court will also consider whether
the guideline of 25 percent should be based on the gross settlement
amount or the amount net of items that are not a benefit to the
class members such as the fees paid to the settlement
administrator.
Settlement Administrator
As requested, the Court appoints Rust Consulting, Inc., as the
Settlement Administrator, who shall be supervised by class counsel,
Bennett Hartman, LLP, and the Court. Class counsel shall file with
the Court an appropriate declaration reporting Rust Consulting's
compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement no later
than 21 days before the final approval hearing.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1DT6m5 from PacerMonitor.com.
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Richard B. Myers, Esq.
Kate D. Flanagan, Esq.
BENNETT HARTMANN, LLP
210 S.W. Morrison Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
E-mail: richard@bennetthartman.com
Attorneys for Defendant:
Edward Choi, Esq.
April Upchurch Fredrickson, Esq.
Matthew A. Tripp, Esq.
MILLER NASH LLP
1140 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 700
Portland, OR 97205
E-mail: ed.choi@millernash.com
april.fredrickson@millernash.com
matthew.tripp@millernash.com
FURNITURE MART: Logan Files Suit in D. South Dakota
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furniture Mart USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Christine Logan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Furniture Mart USA,
Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-04018-CCT (D.S.C., Feb. 5, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury.
The Furniture Mart -- https://furnituremartusa.com/ -- offers the
best in home furnishings, mattresses and home decor for every room
of a home.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brett J. Waltner, Esq.
MYERS BILLION, LLP
230 S. Phillips Ave., Suite 300
PO Box 1085
Sioux Falls, SD 57101
Phone: (605) 336-3700
Fax: (605) 336-3786
Email: bwaltner@myersbillion.com
GAO ENTERPRISES: Hernandez Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCIAL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GAO ENTERPRISES LLC (DBA GAO THAI KITCHEN), KOSON
SILLPSITTE and VARAPHOL AMMATATHONGCHAI, Case No. 2:25-cv-01028
(D.N.J., Feb. 5, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, failure to maintain records pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour
Law.
The action arises from the Defendants' intentional, systematic, and
unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices.
The Plaintiff was employed as a cook but also did cleaning chores
for Defendants' business in New Jersey.
From January 2010 until January 12, 2024, Plaintiff was paid a base
hourly rate of $13.75. Despite regularly working approximately 60
hours per week, the Plaintiff was not compensated at the statutory
minimum wage rate nor paid the required overtime premium of one and
one-half times his regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40
per workweek.
The Defendants owned and operated Gao enterprises LLC, a corporate
entity principally engaged in the food services industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
www.stillmanlegalpc.com
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
GATEWAY CHURCH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Leach Due April 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE LEACH, GARRY K.
LEACH, MARK BROWDER, TERRI BROWDER, on behalf of themselves and
those Similarly situated, v. GATEWAY CHURCH, ROBERT MORRIS, THOMAS
M. LANE, KEVIN L. GROVE, and STEVE DULIN, Case No.
4:24-cv-00885-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered
a scheduling order as follows:
Date Description of Event
Feb. 17, 20251 Fact Discovery Related to Class Certification
("Class Cert. Discovery") will begin
April 18, 2025 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
will be filed and Plaintiffs' Expert Reports
for Class Certification will be served
June 20, 2025 Fact Discovery related to Class Certification
will be completed
June 30, 2025 Defendants' Opposition to Class Certification
will be filed and Defendants' Expert Reports
for Class Certification will be served
July 30, 2025 Expert Discovery, including depositions, for
Class Certification will conclude
Aug. 8, 2025 Plaintiffs' Reply for Class Certification
Motion is due
Aug. 22, 2025 Defendants' Sur-Reply for Class Certification
Motion is due
Aug. 28, 2025, Hearing on Class Certification at the Paul
at 2:00 p.m. Brown U.S. Courthouse, 101 E. Pecan St.,
Sherman, TX
Gateway Church is a non-denominational, evangelical Christian
multi-site megachurch based in Southlake, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kKvTQy at no extra
charge.[CC]
GEISINGER HEALTH: Interim Class Counsel Named in Data Security Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants the Wierbowski
Plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim class counsel in the lawsuit
titled In re Geisinger Health Data Security Incident Litigation,
Case No. 4:24-cv-01071-MWB (M.D. Pa.).
In this data breach class action, two groups of attorneys have
filed dueling motions to be appointed interim class counsel
(through their respective named plaintiffs). Although there is
little daylight between the applications, under the applicable
standards, Judge Brann finds the Wierbowski Plaintiffs' proposed
interim class counsel are best able to fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the putative class. Accordingly, the
Wierbowski Plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim class counsel is
granted, and the Schulte Plaintiffs' motion for the same is
denied.
On June 28, 2024, Plaintiff James Wierbowski filed a six-count
class action complaint against Defendants Geisinger Health and
Nuance Communications. At some point in the past, Wierbowski
visited a Geisinger location to receive healthcare services and, in
the process, provided his personally identifiable and personal
health information ("PII" and "PHI") to Geisinger.
Geisinger contracts with Nuance for healthcare technology services
and shares its patients' PII and PHI as part of those services.
Geisinger and Nuance both promise to take measures to maintain the
privacy of PII and PHI entrusted to them.
On Nov. 29, 2023, Geisinger became aware that a former Nuance
employee was accessing Geisinger patient information after he had
been terminated (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). He was able to do
so because Nuance did not immediately revoke his access to its
network after terminating him. According to Geisinger's notice, the
Data Breach may have affected "more than one million Geisinger
patients."
Plaintiff Wierbowski, accordingly, brought suit to recover on
behalf of a putative class of similarly situated Geisinger
patients. Several other putative class actions arising out of the
Data Breach were also filed, and on July 31, 2024, the Court
consolidated all pending and future related cases into Wierbowski's
suit and restyled it "In re Geisinger Health Data Security Incident
Litigation."
The Court also set a deadline for any Plaintiffs to file a motion
for appointment of interim lead counsel. Two groups of Plaintiffs
filed motions.
One group of Plaintiffs, consisting of Wierbowski, John and
Carolynn Saxer, Amber Lopez, Amanda Bidgood, and Ralph Reviello
(the "Wierbowski Plaintiffs"), moved to appoint Benjamin F. Johns,
Esq., and Ben Barnow, Esq., as interim co-lead class counsel and
Scott Edward Cole, Esq., Andrew W. Ferich, Esq., Todd S. Garber,
Esq., and Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq., as the Plaintiffs' executive
committee.
The other Plaintiffs' group, consisting of Robert Schulte Jr.,
Barbara Gray, Michelle Davis, Ruth Albright, Jasmine Alicea, Brenda
Everett, Mark Dushok, Christina Izquierdo, and Eric O'Brien (the
"Schulte Plaintiffs") moved to appoint John Yanchunis, Esq., and
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq., as interim co-lead class counsel, Courtney
E. Maccarone, Esq., Charles E. Schaffer, Esq., A.J. de Bartolomeo,
Esq., Marc Edelson, Esq., Richard Golomb, Esq., and Patrick Egan,
Esq., as the Plaintiffs' executive committee, and Clifford A.
Rieders, Esq., as local liaison counsel.
Although the Plaintiffs would undoubtedly be well-served by either
group of experienced and accomplished attorneys, the Court
concludes that the Wierbowski Plaintiffs' group is best positioned
to represent the interests of the class. Messrs. Johns and Barnow
have more collective experience (approximately seventy years) than
Messrs. Yanchunis and Etzel (approximately fifty years), and have
focused their practices more precisely on data breach claims. Mr.
Johns also appears to have the most experience of any of the
proposed attorneys when it comes to litigating data breach cases in
Pennsylvania.
Moreover, Judge Brann explains, the Wierbowski's Plaintiffs'
proposed executive committee comprises a host of data breach
experts, while the Schulte Plaintiffs' proposed executive committee
includes several attorneys, who would be better described as
complex litigation generalists.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Wierbowski Plaintiffs'
motion to appoint interim class counsel, and denies the Schulte
Plaintiffs' motion for the same.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/erwwac7v from PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yuk79fev from PacerMonitor.com.
GENEVA COLLEGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. GENEVA COLLEGE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00118 (W.D.N.Y. Feb.
5, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.geneva.edu/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 et
seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.
Because Defendant's interactive website, including all portions
thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to,
https://athletics.geneva.edu/index.aspx and
ttps://genevacampusstore.com/collections/athletics-apparel, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA and the RA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction
to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled
Individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to
refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet their definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually-impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant operates the Geneva online interactive Website and
retail store across the United States. This online interactive
Website and retail store constitutes a place of public
accommodation because it is a college, place of exhibition, place
of entertainment, service establishment and sales establishment.
The Defendant's interactive Website provides consumers with access
to an array of goods and services including information about
Defendant's: athletics, sports teams, schedule of team games,
roster of team participants, game statistics, team news, purchasing
admission tickets for team sporting events, viewing videos of team
sporting events, website terms and conditions, and the sale of
online retail goods like college and team merchandise such as T
shirts, sweat shirts, hats and other apparel, as well as other type
of goods, pricing, return, privacy and shipping terms. The
Defendant's interactive Website advertises, markets and/or operates
in the State of New York and across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
GOOGLE LLC: Filing of Omnibus Sealing Stipulation Extended
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order extending time to file
omnibus sealing stipulation and to exchange demonstrative exhibits
in advance of hearing on plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification and Daubert motions.
Pursuant to stipulation of the Parties, the Court hereby sets
and/or extends the following deadline:
-- With respect to the Parties' Omnibus Sealing Stipulation
pursuant to the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases (Section
10), the deadline to file the omnibus sealing stipulation
shall be Friday, Feb. 7, 2025 at 5:00pm Pacific Time.
-- With respect to the March 28, 2025 hearing on Plaintiffs'
Renewed Motion for Class Certification and related Daubert
Motions, the deadline for the Parties to email any hearing
demonstratives to opposing counsel and to chambers shall be
Tuesday, March 25, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time.
Google operates as a global technology company specializes in
internet related services and products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M3AV0v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
Anne K. Davis, Esq.
Gregory S. Mullens, Esq.
Joshua D. Samra, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
adavis@bfalaw.com
jsamra@bfalaw.com
gmullens@bfalaw.com
- and -
Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
Eric Johnson, Esq.
Jennifer 'Jenny' Paulson, 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
ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
jpaulson@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
David A. Straite, Esq.
Corban Rhodes, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Julia Veeser, Esq.
Adam Prom, Esq.
DiCELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com
crhodes@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
aprom@dicellolevitt.com
jveeser@dicellolevitt.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq.
Teuta Fani, Esq.
Joseph H. Margolies, Esq.
Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
Viola Trebicka, Esq.
Crystal Nix-Hines, Esq.
Alyssa G. Olson, Esq.
Xi ("Tracy") Gao, Esq.
Carl Spilly, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 705-7400
Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
teutafani@quinnemanuel.com
josephmargolies@quinnemanuel.com
stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com
violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com
crystalnixhines@quinnemanuel.com
alyolson@quinnemanuel.com
tracygao@quinnemanuel.com
carlspilly@quinnemanuel.com
GORDON LANE: Schedule & Trial Order Entered in Parrish Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAIL PARRISH ET AL, v.
GORDON LANE HEALTHCARE, LLC ET AL, Case No. 8:22-cv-01790-WLH-KES
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered a civil pretrial
schedule and trial order as follows:
1. Discovery Cut-Off and Discovery Motions
The cut-off date for discovery is not the date by which
discovery requests must be served; it is the date by which
all discovery, including all hearings on any related
motions, must be completed.
2. Non-Discovery Motions Deadline
The parties are required under Local Rule 7-3 to meet and
confer to attempt to resolve disputes before filing a
motion.
3. Final Pretrial Conference/Proposed Final Pretrial
Conference.
The Court has set the FPTC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16
and L.R. 16-8.
Gordon is a nursing facility located in the heart of Fullerton,
California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cigKen at no extra
charge.[CC]
GRAVY ANALYTICS: Little Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNIQUE LITTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRAVY ANALYTICS, INC., VENNTEL, INC., and
UNACAST INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00176 (E.D. Va., January
31, 2025) seeks to remedy the harms on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated individuals whose sensitive location data was
accessed and stolen during the data breach.
On January 4, 2025, hackers announced a successful breach of
Defendants' systems and networks. The hackers claim to have stolen
a massive amount of private data, including customer lists,
information on the broader location data tracking industry, and the
location data harvested from individuals' smartphones which show
peoples' precise movements.
Accordingly, the Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and
Class members by, among other things, intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to implement adequate and
reasonable measures to protect its data systems against
unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably
available steps to prevent the data breach; and failing to provide
Plaintiff and Class members prompt and accurate notice of the data
breach. Plaintiff and the class now bring claims against the
Defendants for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and state statutory claims seeking
damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.
Headquartered in Ashburn, VA, Gravy Analytics processes data from a
billion mobile devices daily. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Casey S. Nash, 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
casey@kellyguzzo.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
H&K FURNITURE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernadez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. H&K FURNITURE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00636 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.huffmankoos.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a chair from the
Defendant, Skye Accent Chair. The Plaintiff wished to purchase this
product because he was interested in stylish home furnishings. He
intended to find a comfortable option for his living room that
would combine stylish design with modern craftsmanship. The
Plaintiff came across Defendant's Website via "Google" search. This
Website hold themselves out as an online store renowned for
offering a wide selection of furniture and home décor items,
catering to various styles and preferences, with a focus on quality
and functionality to suit diverse customer needs. The Website also
offers a discount on a first purchase. Therefore, Plaintiff desired
to buy products from the Website. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff
contends that he was unable to complete the purchase due to the
inaccessibility of the Defendant's Website, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in
violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" as
Plaintiff's central visual acuity with correction is less than or
equal to 20/200. Based on a 2020 U.S. Census Bureau report,
approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually
impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind.
According a 2016 report published by the National Federation of the
Blind, 2016 report, approximately 418,500 visually impaired persons
live in the State of New York Defendant is a company that owns and
operates the Website, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and by which the
Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United
States, including New York State.
The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online
sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers
features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access
navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail
consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for
sale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
HARTFORD LIFE: Court Tosses Duplicative ERISA Claim in Flores Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JULIA FLORES, Plaintiff v. HARTFORD LIFE
AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY and DAN VON DECK, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-02687-X (N.D. Tex.), Judge Brantley Starr of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismisses the
Plaintiff's duplicative claim under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.
Before the Court is Defendants Hartford Life and Accident Insurance
Co. and Dan Von Deck's motion to dismiss some of Plaintiff Julia
Flores's claims and strike her request for a jury trial in this
ERISA case. After reviewing the briefing, the Court grants the
motion, dismisses the duplicative claim under ERISA section
1132(a)(3) but allows Flores to replead a potential class
injunction claim, dismisses all claims against Von Deck, and
strikes the jury demand.
The Plaintiff is the named beneficiary in a Hartford Life policy
covering Ivan Gonzalez Hernandez. Gonzalez Hernandez died in a car
accident, and Flores submitted a claim on the policy. Hartford
denied the claim, allegedly stating that Gonzalez Hernandez was in
the United States illegally.
Ms. Flores sued Hartford and Von Deck initially for state law
claims in state court. The Defendants removed to federal court and
moved to dismiss the state law claims and strike the jury demand
pursuant to the ERISA. In response, Flores filed an amended
complaint that dropped the state claims, added ERISA claims for
wrongful denial of benefits and unfair or deceptive settlement
practices, but kept the jury demand.
Ms. Flores's factual argument is that the Defendants denied her
claim for dependent life insurance and accidental death and
dismemberment (AD&D) benefits because of her race or ethnicity,
that Hartford misrepresented the terms of the Plan in order to deny
dependent life insurance benefits to her, and that Von Deck failed
to communicate honestly with her or accept that the insured was not
here illegally.
The Defendants then filed this motion to dismiss one of the ERISA
claims (the one under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)) as duplicative,
dismiss Von Deck as an improper party, and strike the jury demand.
In their motion, the Defendants argue that Flores's amended
complaint sets out facts to support a straightforward claim for
benefits under section 1132(a)(1)(B), alleging that Hartford denied
her claim for benefits despite knowing that the insured was a legal
resident and that Hartford "intentionally misrepresented the terms
of the Plan in order to deny dependent life insurance benefits to
the Plaintiff. And the Defendants contend that because both of
Flores's claims seek benefits, the catch-all claim under section
1132(a)(3) is duplicative.
The Court agrees with the Defendants. The Court understands full
well Flores's argument that the section 1132(a)(3) seeks to enjoin
the Defendants' racist practices, separate and apart from seeking
benefits under section 1132(a)(1)(B). Judge Starr opines that
Flores has specific, plausible allegations that the Defendants were
racist as to her claim, alleging that Gonzalez Hernandez was a
legal resident by virtue of an I-130 immigration application, that
Flores communicated this to Von Deck, but that the Defendants
denied the claim anyway.
But, Judge Starr opines, if Flores's claim for benefits prevails,
there is no further policy benefit Flores could seek and, thus, no
more work for an injunction to do as to her. So her request for an
injunction as to her policy is duplicative of her claim for
benefits and must be dismissed, Judge Starr holds.
Because it is within the realm of possibility Flores could replead
and add specificity, the Court will allow her 28 days to replead
her section 1132(a)(3) to make plausible allegations as to the
Defendants' treatment of others. But Flores must bear in mind that
such a request takes the form of a class action, and the
intersection of ERISA cases and class actions is fraught with
peril.
The Defendants also contend the amended complaint fails to make
plausible allegations against Von Deck. The defendants contend Von
Deck is a claims analyst and, therefore, not a party to the
contract or a proper party to an ERISA claim.
The Court agrees with the Defendants. The amended complaint does
not inform the Court of who Von Deck is. But Flores does not allege
who Von Deck is or how he is the party that controls the plan.
Accordingly, the Court grants the motion as to the claims against
Von Deck and requires Flores's repleading to cure this additional
defect or drop him as a party.
Finally, the defendants argue there is no right to a jury trial in
an ERISA claim for benefits. Flores argues that back pay is
compensatory and triggers her right to a jury trial.
The Court agrees with the Defendants that this case should not
involve a jury. In any event, Flores seeks policy benefits, not
back pay. For these reasons, the Court strike's Flores's jury
demand.
For these reasons, the Court grants the motion to dismiss. The
Court dismisses without prejudice Flores's section 1132(a)(3) claim
and grants her 28 days to replead to make plausible allegations as
to the Defendants' treatment of others.
The Court dismisses without prejudice Flores's claims against Von
Deck and grants her 28 days to replead plausible allegations for
why he is a proper ERISA defendant. And the Court strikes Flores's
jury demand.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxubyr4 from PacerMonitor.com.
HOME DEPOT: Oleski Seeks to Postpone Class Cert Filing Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE OLESKI and RUDY
CONDE, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC. and HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01964-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order postponing the deadline for Plaintiffs'
class certification motion until a future date to be established in
the Court's initial scheduling order.
Home Depot is a home improvement retailer.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ygS50M at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
Fazila Issa, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
fissa@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5229
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
HOMETOWN EQUITY: Edry Seeks Denial of Counter 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, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00804-MMD-MDC (D.
Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- granting motion for reconsideration,
-- vacating Jan. 21, 2025 Order and Jan. 23, 2025 Decision, and
-- denying the Defendant's Countermotion for Summary Judgment or,
alternatively, permit further briefing on the enforceability of
the BPLC under Nevada law.
Likewise, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification should not
have been denied and will no longer be moot. Plaintiff request oral
argument on that motion, or the Court to grant the motion.
The Plaintiff submits that reconsideration is warranted because the
Court
(1) overlooked or misapprehended material facts and controlling
law regarding consideration for the Business Purpose Lock
Confirmation ("BPLC"),
(2) committed clear error by concluding that no enforceable
contract or option contract existed, and
(3) failed to address arguments and evidence that were properly
presented. Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks clarification of
the Court's ruling to ensure the parties fully understand
its scope and reasoning
Hometown Equity is a national mortgage lending company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WnrseG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Royi Moas, Esq.
Jordan Butler, Esq.
WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO,
SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 590 South
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: (702) 341-5200
E-mail: rmoas@wrslawyers.com
jbutler@wrslawyers.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
David R. Parker, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
kstoops@sommerspc.com
dparker@sommerspc.com
- and -
Shoham Segal, Esq.
LVNV LEGAL
1180 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89144
Telephone: (702) 660-6700
E-mail: Segal@Lvnvlegal.com
HUMANA INC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Surreply
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, v. HUMANA
INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file
surreply in opposition to motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel.
The Court should thus grant Humana leave to address Plaintiff’s
new reply evidence in a surreply, just as it’s done in other
cases, the Defendant says.
All of the above issues are relevant to class certification, and
giving Humana an opportunity to address them would help the Court
decide Plaintiff's motion. Humana accordingly asks for the leave to
file the attached surreply.
Humana is an American for-profit health insurance company based in
Louisville, Kentucky.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PM7f9L at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
Alexander D. Terepka, Esq.
Logan R. Leonard, Esq.
WATSTEIN TEREPKA, LLP
1055 Howell Mill Road, 8th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: (404) 400-3382
E-mail: alex@wtlaw.com
ryan@wtlaw.com
lleonard@wtlaw.com
- and -
H. Toby Schisler
K. Cassandra Carter, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 977-8152
Facsimile: (513) 977-8141
E-mail: toby.schisler@dinsmore.com
cassandra.carter@dinsmore.com
HWS LLC: Class Settlement in Shall Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARNESE HALL, et al. On
Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
HWS, LLC t/a HENRY'S WRECKER SERVICE (Individually), et al. Case
No. 8:22-cv-00996-BAH (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Brendan Hurson
entered an order:
-- preliminarily approving settlement,
-- certifying class for settlement purposes,
-- appointing class counsel and settlement administrator, and
-- setting schedule with respect to notice, settlement hearing
and administration.
The Court certifies the following settlement class:
"All consumers on the class list compiled in this case whose
vehicles, between March 23, 2019 and Dec. 31, 2023, were non-
consensually/trespass towed by Henry's Wrecker Service from a
private Parking Lot in Montgomery County, Maryland, where
Henry's charged or was paid a fee."
The Settlement Class excludes all employees, officers and
directors of Henry's and all employees of the Court.
A hearing shall be held before the undersigned at 10:00 a.m. on May
22, 2025
HWS offers professional towing, recovery, and specialized
transportation to municipal, state and federal agencies.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xVDGHC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD.
11350 McCormick Road
Executive Plaza 1, Suite 1000
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Telephone: (410) 825-2300
Facsimile: (410) 825-0066
E-mail: rgordon@GWCfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Aidan F. Smith, Esq.
PK LAW
901 Dulaney Valley Road | Suite 500
Towson, MD 21204
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Filing for Conditional Status Bid Due March 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANA NIZEUL, v. ICF
TECHNOLOGY, INC. and ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-01393-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge S. Dave Vatti entered
a scheduling order as follows:
-- The deadline for either party to file motions to join
additional parties or to amend the pleadings is Feb. 7, 2025.
-- The Defendants shall respond to plaintiff's request for a
stipulation re: conditional certification as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by Feb. 14,
2025.
-- The Plaintiff's FLSA conditional certification motion is due
by March 10, 2025.
-- All fact and expert discovery will be completed (not
propounded) by Nov. 17, 2025.
-- The parties' expert reports on any issues on which they bear
the burden of proof will be due Aug. 11, 2025. Depositions of
such experts will be completed by Nov. 17, 2025.
-- The parties' expert reports on any issues on which they do not
bear the burden of proof will be due Sept. 11, 2025.
Depositions of such experts will be completed by Nov. 17,
2025.
-- A damages analysis will be provided by any party who has a
claim or counterclaim for damages by Aug. 11, 2025.
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due by Aug. 22,
2025.
ICF provides live streaming services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eJuyrt at no extra
charge.[CC]
INGERSOLL-RAND: Phase I Discovery in Bowman Suit Due May 5
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALLAS BOWMAN, et al., v.
INGERSOLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL U.S. INC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00285-CCB-SJF
(N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Scott Frankel entered an order
extending the deadline to complete Phase I Discovery to May 5,
2025.
To remain consistent with the timeframes originally set in the
Court’s Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order for Phase I Discovery [DE 17
as amended by this order], the Court now also sua sponte EXTENDS
the deadline to file any discovery-related nondispositive motion
regarding Phase I Discovery to April 4, 2025.
Moreover, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Motion for
Conditional Certification and/or Class Certification is extended to
June 16, 2025, with any response in opposition now due June 30,
2025, and any reply in support now due Aug. 1, 2025.
Ingersoll is an American multinational company that provides flow
creation and industrial products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z9sOJu at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mike Van Note, v.
International Flavors and Fragrances Inc., et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-02211-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Bruce
entered an order approving Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Settlement and preliminarily approving Rule 23 class action
settlement.
The court grants preliminary approval of the Rule 23 class action
settlement. Further, for all of the same reasons, and because Rule
23 standards exceed those of FLSA collective treatment, the court
approves the FLSA settlement.
Provisional settlement, class certification, and appointment of
class counsel have several practical purposes, including avoiding
the costs of litigating class status while facilitating a global
settlement, ensuring all class members are notified of the terms of
the proposed Agreement, and setting the date and time of the final
approval hearing.
Pursuant to the FLSA and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the
court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Rule
23 class and FLSA collective of current and former hourly employees
of Defendants who engaged in production work, who performed "hand
offs" or "shift relief," and worked more than 40 hours in at least
one workweek during the period of September 26, 2020, through
November 19, 2024, and which includes Named Plaintiff, Opt-in
Plaintiffs, and the Rule 23 Class Members.
The court appoints, for settlement purposes only, Named Plaintiff
Mike Van Note to serve as Class Representative.
For settlement purposes only, the Named Plaintiff meets all of the
requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The fact of this class certification
shall not be cited to, used, or admissible in any other judicial,
administrative, or arbitral proceeding for any purpose or with
respect to any issue, substantive or procedural.
For settlement purposes only, the court appoints Nilges Draher LLC
and Coffman Legal, LLC as Class Counsel ("Class Counsel") because
they meet all of the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g).
The court approves Analytics Consulting LLC as the Settlement
Administrator to perform duties in accordance with the Agreement.
International Flavors. is an American corporation that creates
products across taste, texture, scent, nutrition, enzymes,
cultures, soy proteins, and probiotics categories.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PgIfBE at no extra
charge.[CC]
ISCO INDUSTRIES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Best, et al. ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as NATHAN BEST, ET AL. Plaintiffs v. STEPHEN
C. JAMES, ET AL., Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-299-RGJ (W.D. Ky.),
Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky in the case granted the
plaintiffs' motion to reconsider an order granting dismissal of the
class action in favor of arbitration.
Plaintiffs Nathan Best, Matthew Chmielewski, and Jay Hicks filed a
motion to reconsider asserting new controlling precedent.
Defendants ISCO Industries, Inc., James Kirchdorfer, and Mark
Kirchdorfer, responded.
The individual and a proposed class of similarly situated
Plaintiffs participated in ISCO's Employee Stock Ownership Plan. In
April 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the ISCO Defendants
and Defendant Stephen James. Plaintiffs allege one count of breach
of fiduciary duty under ERISA Secs. 502(a)(2) and (a)(3) and one
count of engaging in a prohibited transaction under ERISA Secs.
406(a)-(b) and 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1106(a)(b).
ISCO Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' class action Complaint
and compel arbitration. The Court granted this motion on Sept. 20,
2022, finding Plaintiffs signed valid individual arbitration
agreements in the form of employee agreements, compelled their
claims against the ISCO Defendants to arbitration, and dismissed
the claims against the ISCO Defendants. That left Plaintiffs'
claims pending against James only.
On Sept. 27, 2022, Plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration
regarding the Court's order compelling arbitration against the ISCO
Defendants arguing it was a clear error of law, because their
claims are not individual ones and instead belong to the plan, and
that the Court's analysis already rejected application of the ESOP
Arbitration Agreement. Plaintiffs also argued for reconsideration
based on manifest injustice, because their claims cannot proceed in
class arbitration and because proceeding against James alone will
limit their judgment. However, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration.
On March 22, 2023, James filed a Brief in Support of this Court's
Sua Sponte Consideration of Dismissal for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction. In this motion, James asks this Court to affirm is
sua sponte consideration of its lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
over the remaining claims against Mr. James, as outlined in the
Court's Jan. 0, 2023, Opinion and Order, and proceed to dismiss
Plaintiff's claims against Mr. James in favor of arbitration. The
Court has yet to rule on this motion.
On July 11, 2024, ISCO Defendants then moved the Court to amend its
previous order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), 60(b) and 59(e),
where the Court dismissed the claims against the ISCO Defendants
because dismissal, rather than a stay, was appropriate because all
of the claims were subject to arbitration. The ISCO Defendants
argued that there has been a change in relevant case law, when the
Supreme Court issued its opinion in Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S.
472 (2024).
Plaintiffs now move the Court again to reconsider its Order
granting dismissal in favor of arbitration. Plaintiffs argue that a
change in controlling case law by the Sixth Circuit requires the
Court to reconsider its previous order.
The ISCO Defendants assert that the Sixth Circuit erred in their
decision and the Court should not follow this precedent.
Plaintiffs argue that the Sixth Circuit has issued binding
precedent making plain that the claims brought on behalf of an
ERISA plan -- like those here -- cannot be forced into individual
arbitration. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that in Parker v.
Tenneco, Inc., 114 F.4th 786 (6th Cir. 2024), the Sixth Circuit
rejected the defendants' efforts to invoke a provision in an ERISA
plan, like here, purporting to require arbitration on an individual
basis of claims brought on behalf of the plans or its
participants.
As a threshold matter, ISCO Defendants argue that the Sixth Circuit
erred in holding that the arbitration provision at issue in Parker
was unenforceable. But this Court is bound by Sixth Circuit
precedent. As a result, Parker is binding on this Court and ISCO
Defendants' argument that Parker is erroneous fails.
In Parker, the Sixth Circuit held that arbitration provisions that
barred effective vindication of statutory rights guaranteed by
ERISA are unenforceable. Thus, Parker provides controlling case law
that individual arbitration provisions are unenforceable when a
plaintiff brings a claim under ERISA on beheld of the plan,
individual arbitration agreements are no longer enforceable to
compel arbitration because they are non-severable, limiting
statutory remedies that bar effective vindication of statutory
rights. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider and vacates its prior order granting dismissal.
ISCO Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs allege that ISCO Defendants formed the ESOP, sold ISCO's
shares to the ESOP, and then years later, bought back the shares at
a deflated value when the company's value was increasing, to
benefit the ISCO Defendants. Thus, Plaintiffs now bring two claims:
(1) breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA Secs. 502(a)(2) and
(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3), and (2) engaging in
prohibited transactions in violation of ERISA Secs. 406(a)-(b), 29
U.S.C. 1106(a)-(b).
In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were
fiduciaries with respect to ESOP because they exercised
discretionary authority respecting management of such plan, or
disposition of its asserts, and had discretionary authority in the
administration of the Plan for all practical purposes. Because
Plaintiffs provided facts and not just conclusory statements, they
have alleged enough facts to make their breach of fiduciary duty
claim plausible on its face on Count I.
Under Count II, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in
prohibited transactions under ERISA Secs. 406(a)-(b) because (1)
the December 2011 ESOP Transaction did not meet the conditional
exemption requirements of ERISA Sec. 408(e), and (2) Defendants
failed to receive Fair Market Value for the ISCO stock sold to the
Kirchdorfer Defendants in February 2018. And for the same reasons
as Count I, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged enough facts to make
Count II plausible on its face.
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged in the complaint that Defendants
were fiduciaries of the ESOP. Additionally, they allege that the
Defendants engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA Secs.
406(a)-(b) because (1) the December 2011 ESOP Transaction did not
meet the conditional exemption requirements of ERISA Sec. 408(e),
and (2) Defendants failed to receive Fair Market Value for the ISCO
stock sold to the Kirchdorfer Defendants in February 2018. And for
the same reasons as Count I, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged
enough facts to make Count II plausible on its face.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims meet the plausibility standard of
Rule 12(b)(6) and ISCO Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.
James's Motion to Dismiss
For the same reasons that the Court vacated its previous order, the
Court now denies James's request.
ISCO Defendants' motion amend the court's previous order to stay
the claims against them in light of intervening Supreme Court
authority. is denied as moot.
Plaintiffs' motion for a hearing is denied as moot.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Uo15K from PacerMonitor.com.
JACOB FREY: Sagataw Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL SAGATAW, DEANTHONY
BARNES, ROBERTA STRONG, TRAVIS NELOMS, ALVIN BUTCHER, ADRIAN TIGER,
CHANCE ASKENETTE, DEVEN CASTON, LOLA HEGSTROM, and RONDEL APPLEBEE,
on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated
individuals, v. MAYOR JACOB FREY, in his individual and official
capacity, Case No. 0:24-cv-00001-ECT-TNL (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
(b)(2), certifying the following Class and naming Plaintiffs Cheryl
Sagataw, DeAnthony Barnes, Roberta Strong, Travis Neloms, Alvin
Butcher, Adrian Tiger, Chance Askenette, Deven Caston, Lola
Hegstrom, and RonDel Applebee as putative Class members:
People who, while experiencing unsheltered houselesseness,
found a temporary home at and experienced an eviction from Camp
Nenookaasi on one or more of the following dates:
a. Jan. 4, 2024 (evicted from 23rd Street and 13th Avenue);
b. Jan. 30, 2024 (evicted from 2601 14th Street);
c. Feb. 1, 2024 (evicted from 2213 16th Avenue);
d. July 25, 2024 (evicted from 2839 14th Avenue).
The Plaintiffs note that Nenookaasi was also located on the 1100th
block of 28th Street East, from Feb. 1, 2024 until a tragic fire on
Feb. 29, 2024, but the Plaintiffs do not consider the fire to be an
eviction for the purposes of this class definition.
Jacob Frey is an American politician and attorney who has served as
the mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota since 2018.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=izK9dg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kira Kelley, Esq.
Claire Nicole Glenn, Esq.
CLIMATE DEFENSE PROJECT
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: (802) 683-4086
E-mail: kira@climatedefenseproject.org
claire@climatedefenseproject.org
JOHN CHRISTNER: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 22
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRE STOKES,
individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; v. JOHN CHRISTNER TRUCKING, LLC, an
Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; HIRSCHBACH, INC., an Indiana
Corporation; HIRSCHBACH MOTOR LINES, INC., an Iowa Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive; Case No. 5:24-cv-01921-KK-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order granting the
Parties' stipulation to extend the Plaintiff's deadline to file
class certification motion.
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class
certification is extended from March 3, 2025, to May 22, 2025.
John Christner is an operator of a freight company committed to
providing truck transportation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a6zQde at no extra
charge.[CC]
KELLER WILLIAMS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to May 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAYAN GARVEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. KELLER WILLIAMS
REALTY, INC. AND BRITNEY GAITAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00920-APG-DJA (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order extend the remaining
deadlines in the case by two (2) months, as shown below:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Class certification expert Feb. 3, 2024 Apr. 3, 2025
disclosures:
Class certification rebuttal Mar. 3, 2024 May 2, 2025
expert disclosures:
Class certification motion: Mar. 17, 2024 May 19, 2025
Discovery cutoff: Sept. 15, 2025 Nov. 17, 2025
Dispositive motions: Oct. 13, 2025 Dec. 15, 2025
Pretrial order: Nov. 10, 2025 Jan. 12, 2025
Keller is an American technology and international real estate
franchise.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jGBXN4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Parties are 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 -
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
- 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 -
Melissa A. Saragosa-Stratton, Esq.
Robert McCoy, Esq.
Sihomara L. Graves, Esq.
KAEMPFER CROWELL
1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: (702) 792-7000
Facsimile: (702) 796-7181
E-mail: rmccoy@kcnvlaw.com
sgraves@kcnvlaw.com
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Itzhak Class Suit Over Express Warranties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTA ITZHAK, SANDY KREUTTER, & SKIP SOLORZANO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEURIG DR PEPPER,
INC., and KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-00235 (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 7, 2025) is a class action suit against the Defendants
to secure redress for violations of California's Song Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act and the California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Defendants manufacture consumer goods which are advertised and
accompanied by express warranties. The SBA explicitly requires that
"[a] manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller shall not make an
express warranty with respect to a consumer good that commences
earlier than the date of delivery of the good. However, Defendants
commence their express warranties on the date of purchase, not on
the date of delivery, as required by the SBA, the Plaintiffs
contends.
As a result of this unlawful and deceitful business practice,
consumers who receive their goods after the date of purchase, such
as online shoppers, do not receive the full benefit of their
warranty. These consumers are short-changed the full value of their
warranties. Furthermore, the Defendants unfairly benefit by saving
themselves the added time and expense that would be required to
properly track and administer their warranties were they to
commence on the date of delivery, the Plaintiffs add.
On Nov. 23, 2023, the Plaintiff Itzhak purchased the Defendants'
Keurig K-Mini Single Serve Coffee Maker, Oasis online from
Amazon.com for $53.86 to be delivered to her home in Irvine,
California. The Itzhak Product shipped on November 27, 2023, and
did not deliver until sometime after that date.
On March 28, 2024, the Plaintiff Kreutter purchased Defendants'
Keurig K-Express Coffee Maker online from Amazon.com for $76.64 to
be delivered to her home in Sherman Oaks, California.
The Kreutter Product shipped on March 30, 2024, and did not deliver
until sometime after that date.
On Jan. 2, 2025, the Plaintiff Solorzano purchased Defendants'
Keurig K-Supreme Plus Special Edition Single Serve Coffee Maker
online from Costco.com for $129.99 to be delivered to his home in
Murietta, California. The Solorzano Product delivered on January 4,
2025. Each Product's express limited warranty states.
The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, damages, and restitution
based on Defendant's unlawful and unfair conduct.
The Defendants engaged in the business of marketing, supplying, and
selling its products -- including the products purchased by
Plaintiffs and the public -- directly and through a system of
marketers, retailers, and distributors.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
Jonathan Gil, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
jonathan@kazlg.com
- and -
Adib Assassi, Esq.
Veronica Cruz, Esq.
ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM, PC
1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Telephone: (800) 500-0301
Facsimile: (800) 500-0301
E-mail: adib@aclegalteam.com
veronica@aclegalteam.com
LAKE FOREST: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. COLLEGE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00121 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2025)
alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its interactive website, https://www.lakeforest.edu/,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 et
seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.
Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.lakeforest.edu/, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon, including, but not limited to,
https://lakeforestcampusstore.com/collections/athletics-apparel and
https://athletics.lakeforest.edu/index.aspx, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA and the RA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled
Individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant offers the commercial website,
https://www.lakeforest.edu/, to the public. That Website offers
features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and
services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery
of such goods and services throughout the United States including
New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
LAUNDRESS LLC: Fact Discovery in McGowan Suit Due July 11
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McGowan v. The Laundress,
LLC et al. (re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability
Litigation), Case No. 1:24-cv-08018 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jesse Furman entered an amended civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed July 11, 2025
no later than:
-- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Aug. 29, 2025
to file a motion for class certification
and all Plaintiffs to serve expert
reports is:
-- The deadline to complete depositions Oct. 15, 2025
of Plaintiffs' expert(s) is:
-- The deadline for Defendants to file Nov. 17, 2025
opposition to motion for class
certification, serve expert reports,
and file any Daubert motion (on a
consolidated basis as to any/all
experts) is:
-- The deadline to complete depositions Jan. 5, 2026
of the Defendants' expert(s) is:
-- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Jan. 19, 2026
to file any reply in support of
motion for class certification and
to file any Daubert motion (on a
consolidated basis as to any/all
experts) is:
Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g9uMZo at no extra
charge.[CC]
LAUNDRESS LLC: Fact Discovery in Ostenfeld Suit Due July 11
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ostenfeld v. The
Laundress, LLC, et al. (re Laundress Marketing and Product
Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:22-cv-10667 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jesse Furman entered an amended civil case management plan
and scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed July 11, 2025
no later than:
-- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Aug. 29, 2025
to file a motion for class certification
and all Plaintiffs to serve expert
reports is:
-- The deadline to complete depositions Oct. 15, 2025
of Plaintiffs' expert(s) is:
-- The deadline for Defendants to file Nov. 17, 2025
opposition to motion for class
certification, serve expert reports,
and file any Daubert motion (on a
consolidated basis as to any/all
experts) is:
-- The deadline to complete depositions Jan. 5, 2026
of the Defendants' expert(s) is:
-- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Jan. 19, 2026
to file any reply in support of
motion for class certification and
to file any Daubert motion (on a
consolidated basis as to any/all
experts) is:
The Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1mf0Ks at no extra
charge.[CC]
LAUNDRESS LLC: Fact Discovery in Safran Due July 11
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Safran v. The
Laundress LLC, et al. (re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability
Litigation), Case No. 1:24-cv-00865 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jesse Furman entered an amended civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed July 11, 2025
no later than:
-- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Aug. 29, 2025
to file a motion for class certification
and all Plaintiffs to serve expert
reports is:
-- The deadline to complete depositions Oct. 15, 2025
of Plaintiffs' expert(s) is:
-- The deadline for Defendants to file Nov. 17, 2025
opposition to motion for class
certification, serve expert reports,
and file any Daubert motion (on a
consolidated basis as to any/all
experts) is:
-- The deadline to complete depositions Jan. 5, 2026
of the Defendants' expert(s) is:
-- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Jan. 19, 2026
to file any reply in support of
motion for class certification and
to file any Daubert motion (on a
consolidated basis as to any/all
experts) is:
Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GufWst at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEAD DOG: Filing for Class Cert in Slendak Extended to March 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Slendak v. Lead Dog Pizza,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-03988 (D.S.C., Filed July 17, 2024),
the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an order TEX granting
motion for extension of time:
-- Motion to certify class due by: March 6, 2025
-- Response to motion to certify April 7, 2025
class due by:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Lead Dog is a local franchise of Domino's Pizza.[CC]
LEUMAS RESIDENTIAL: Waterloo, et al. Case Remand to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leonard T. Strand of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand
the case captioned as WATERLOO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LLC and CENTRAL
STATES PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC. Plaintiffs, vs. LEUMAS
RESIDENTIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. C24-2057-LTS-KEM (N.D. Iowa)
to the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County where it
originated.
On May 2, 2024, plaintiffs filed this action in the Iowa District
Court for BlackHawk County, alleging claims of trespass, waste and
tortious interference with contract. On May 31, 2024, they filed an
amended petition adding a claim for declaratory judgment and adding
a paragraph estimating their current damages to be at or near
$20,000.
On Nov. 1, 2024, Leumas filed a notice of removal based on
diversity of citizenship jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332.
With regard to the amount in controversy, Leumas notes that it
attempted to discover the total amount of actual damages plaintiffs
claim in this matter, but plaintiffs refused to provide an amount
outside of what was alleged in their petition. In its notice of
removal, Leumas relied on the actual damages alleged in plaintiffs'
amended petition (presuming they had increased since May 31, 2024)
as well as the fact that plaintiffs sought attorney fees and
expenses and punitive damages. Leumas argues that the total amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Plaintiffs move to remand, arguing:
(1) Leumas has failed to establish the existence of diversity
jurisdiction by showing there is more than $75,000 in dispute, and
(2) Leumas' notice of removal was untimely.
Because Leumas filed its notice within 30 days from which it
learned of the citizenship of each of plaintiffs' members via their
discovery responses, the Court finds that its notice of removal was
timely. Plaintiffs' motion to remand on this basis is denied, the
Court holds.
Plaintiffs argue Leumas cannot meet its burden to show that the
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount.
Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration stating that as of Nov. 1,
2024, the total value of their affirmative claims, request for
attorneys' fees, and punitive damages is less than $75,000.
Leumas argues that when considering plaintiffs' claims of attorney
fees and punitive damages in addition to plaintiffs' actual
damages, the total amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Leumas relies on plaintiffs' claims of attorney fees and punitive
damages in addition to actual damages to establish the amount in
controversy. Plaintiffs have alleged they incurred $9,365.75 in
attorney fees as of May 31, 2024. If the case continues to trial,
Leumas argues these fees will likely increase by several multiples.
With regard to punitive damages, Leumas notes that such damages are
recoverable under Iowa law on plaintiffs' tortious interference
with contract claim. It argues that because such damages are
available under the claims presented, Leumas and this court cannot
say it is clear beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiffs would
under no circumstances be entitled to recover more than $75,000.
Additionally, it cites cases in which punitive damages awards over
$50,000 were affirmed for tortious interference with contract
claims.
Plaintiffs argue their claims for attorney fees and punitive
damages do not push the amount in controversy over the $75,000
threshold.
Judge Strand concludes that Leumas relies strictly on speculation
that plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages will carry the amount
in controversy over the $75,000 threshold. Because the majority of
the alleged amount in controversy comes down to punitive damages,
more than a few unrelated jury verdicts is required to demonstrate
that this court has subject matter jurisdiction. This is
particularly true in light of (1) the uncertainty of plaintiffs'
ability to recover attorney fees and (2) the directive that all
doubts must be resolved in favor of remand. As such, Judge Strand
finds that Leumas has failed to meet its burden to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
requirement is met and, thus, that this court has jurisdiction.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mZ2mpR from PacerMonitor.com.
LISA WOLFE: Weinberg Seeks OK of Amended Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weinberg, et al., v. Lisa Wolfe, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-13035-WGY
(D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
amended motion to certify class.
The action challenges the constitutionality of regulations enforced
by the Massachusetts Boards of licensure of Professions and
Occupations, including but not limited to the Massachusetts Boards
of Registration in Nursing (BORIM), Board of Registration I
Psychology, Board of Registration in Nursing, along with other
licensing boards, that create an impermissible classification among
the state's licensees based solely on marital status, a
quasi-suspect class, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment and which also burdens these licensees'
fundamental constitutional right to marry and the right to practice
one's profession."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kRDR8e at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears Pro Se
Robert P. Weinberg
Boston, MA 02215
Telephone: (781) 661-8207
Facsimile: (617) 977-0902
E-mail: LawDocBob@gmail.com
LOVE MANAGEMENT: Preliminary Case Management Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SENORA SPURLOCK,
individually, and on behalf of others similar situated, v. LOVE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-01560-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen Clark entered an ADR-Referral and Preliminary
Case-Management Order
Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
parties' joint motion regarding the Rule 16 Conference and
therefore cancels the conference currently scheduled for February
6, 2025.
The Court further refers this case to mediation pursuant to the
deadlines and requirements.
Also, the Court authorizes the parties to immediately begin
discovery, limited to the issue of conditional class certification
and subject to the deadlines and requirements, as well as sets a
deadline of June 6, 2025, for Spurlock to file any motion for, or
any stipulation of the parties to, conditional class certification.
The Court also orders that the parties must jointly file, no later
than June 6, 2025, a status report detailing
(i) any progress and/or outcome of the parties' mediation and
(ii) the status of the parties' exchange of information
related to conditional class certification. Lastly, the
Court resets a Rule 16 Conference for June 26, 2025, at
3:30 p.m. CT in Courtroom 14-North.
Lead trial counsel must appear in person at the reset conference
In November 2024, Spurlock filed this collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that her former employer, Love
Management, improperly calculated, and thus improperly paid, her
overtime compensation—and that of the putative collective
members—by failing to include certain "Extra Duty pay" in its
overtime calculations.
Love Management is a commercial and residential property
management, leasing and tenant representation firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5QipRg at no extra
charge.[CC]
MAYBACH INTERNATIONAL: Drivers Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, IWPCA
------------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARD GRAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MAYBACH INTERNATIONAL GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01252
(N.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2025) seeks damages on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated drivers arising from the foregoing
violations, including, without limitation, all unpaid wages or
compensation, liquidated damages, civil penalties as appropriate,
appropriate ancillary relief, injunctive relief, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief to which they are
entitled.
The Defendant has violated the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, because the company has
misclassified Plaintiff and other Contractors as independent
contractors when they are, as a matter of law, employees, and
failed to timely pay them all their wages.
The Defendant also violated Illinois consumer protection laws,
including the Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the
Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the suit asserts.
The Defendant is a transportation company, and Plaintiff works for
Defendant as a truck driver.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Facsimile: (3120 233-1560
E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Brook S. Lane, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
MCKESSON CORP: March 4 Deadline Set for Doe Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted the plaintiffs'
request for leave to amend the complaint in the case captioned as
BABY DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00771 (M.D. Tenn.).
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to remand or, in the
alternative, for leave to file an amended complaint and remand.
Defendant McKesson Corporation opposes the motion.
Plaintiffs bring this action against defendant drug producers and
distributors, chain and independent pharmacies, and individual
prescribers under the Tennessee Drug Dealer Liability Act. McKesson
is a wholesale distributor of prescription medications.
On Aug. 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this action in the Circuit Court
for Davidson County, Tennessee. McKesson removed this action to the
District Court under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1). McKesson contends
that this action is removeable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1) on
the grounds that it is the primary distributor of prescription
medications to federal facilities in Tennessee pursuant to a
contract with the federal government and that it acted under the
color of federal office and at the direction of a federal officer
in making these distributions.
On Oct. 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the pending motion to remand,
arguing that McKesson failed to demonstrate that it was acting
under a federal officer in distributing prescription opioids.
Plaintiffs state that they are not pursuing claims in this lawsuit
that are related to any distributions made by McKesson under the
PPV Contract. In the alternative, they seek leave to amend the
Complaint to expressly disclaim reliance on McKesson's
distributions under the PPV Contract.
Plaintiffs seek to amend their Complaint to expressly disclaim any
reliance on McKesson sales under the PPC Contract which Plaintiffs
maintain would negate any basis for federal officer jurisdiction
and justify remand to state court. They request that this action be
remanded after amendment of the Complaint.
McKesson contends that Plaintiffs cannot amend their Complaint at
this stage because jurisdiction is established based on the
complaint at the time of removal and this Court need not consider
an amended complaint filed after removal in determining whether an
action was properly removed. However, the Supreme Court clearly
held in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677, 2025
WL 96212 (2025) that post-removal amendments removing federal law
claims can defeat jurisdiction, the District Court notes.
McKesson also argues that permitting Plaintiffs to amend their
Complaint would not defeat removal because it contradicts the
allegations that underlie their DDLA claim, as well as their
theories of causation and injury. Making a finding on these issues
before Plaintiffs amend their Complaint would be premature, and the
District Court declines to do so.
The District Court finds the Rule 15(a)(2) factors also support
granting Plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs timely filed their
motion to remand after McKesson removed this action and filed a
notice of supplemental authority regarding the Royal Canin decision
on the same day it was issued.
According to the District Court, McKesson had notice of Plaintiffs'
motion to remand and their request for leave to amend, and there is
no evidence of bad faith, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
prior amendment, or undue prejudice to McKesson.
The District Court says the amendment proposed by Plaintiffs is not
futile as it will impact the Court's analysis of the pending motion
to remand regarding whether it has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs'
claims.
Accordingly, in light of Royal Canin and the Rule 15(a)(2) factors,
the District Court concludes that it is in the interest of justice
to allow Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to include the
proposed disclaimer.
Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint on March 4, 2025.
McKesson shall respond to the Amended Complaint by March 18, 2025.
The District Court will reserve ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to
remand until after McKesson has responded to the Amended Complaint.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0zdAA5 from PacerMonitor.com.
MEDICAL CLINIC: Summary Judgment Bid Filing Due Nov. 26
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH
INC., v. THE MEDICAL CLINIC BOARD OF THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY,
ALABAMA, INC. and JACKSON HOSPITAL & CLINIC, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00622-RAH-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge R. Austin
Huffaker, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows:
The parties are directed to jointly prepare a proposed pretrial
order, and the plaintiff shall ensure that the original of the
proposed pretrial order is received by the Court on or before May
18, 2026, by transmitting an electronic copy of the proposed
pretrial order to the Court as an attachment to an email message
sent to huffakerchambers@almd.uscourts.gov.
Dispositive motions, e.g., motions for summary judgment, shall be
no later than Nov. 26, 2025.
Amendments to the pleadings by motion or notice of consent pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 15, shall be filed on or before April 7, 2025.
Neither party has alleged that this is a class action. No motion
for class certification may be filed without prior leave of the
Court.
All discovery shall be completed on or before Oct. 27, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lbuxqq at no extra
charge.[CC]
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Maadanian Due May 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEYYED JAVAD MAADANIAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00665-RSL (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Robert Lasnik entered an amended order setting trial
date and related dates class action:
Trial Date March 1, 2027
Close of fact discovery: April 1, 2025
Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion May 30, 2025
for class certification and serve class
certification expert reports:
Deadline for the Defendants to file Aug. 11, 2025
opposition to motion for class
certification, serve any class
certification expert reports, and file
any Daubert motions regarding
Plaintiff's class certification experts:
Settlement conference held no later than: Aug. 17, 2026
Mercedes-Benz is responsible for the distribution, marketing and
customer service for all Mercedes-Benz products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fCs49x at no extra
charge.[CC]
METROPOLIS TECH: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Response Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD FRANKFORT; CURTIS §
GOODBAN; and SARINA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case
No. 3:24-cv-02283-L (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Brian McKay entered
an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion seeking to stay
deadline to file its response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and discovery until the Court rules on Defendant's
pending motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs are unopposed to the requested relief. The United
States District Judge Sam A. Lindsay has referred the motion for
class certification to the undersigned magistrate judge for
recommendation and all related procedural motions for resolution.
Metropolis provides tracking and reporting software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fCaNaA at no extra
charge.[CC]
MICROSOFT CORP: Just Josh Sues Over Browser Extension Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
Just Josh, Inc., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Microsoft Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00205 (W.D.
Wash., January 31, 2025) alleges that Defendant's browser extension
is designed to steal commissions from online content creators,
including but not limited to website operators, online
publications, YouTubers, influencers, and other creators in the
online community.
Allegedly, the Defendant programmed the Microsoft Shopping browser
extension to systematically appropriate commissions that belong to
Plaintiff and Class members. It does so by substituting its own
affiliate marketing identity code into a shopper's cookie in place
of the creator's affiliate marketing identity code, and this
happens even though the customer used the creator's specific
affiliate web link to purchase a product or service.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's
unlawful conduct and asserts claims for conversion, tortious
interference with contractual relations, and for violations of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and the Washington Consumer
Protection Act.
Headquartered in Redmond, WA, Microsoft Corporation is a
multinational technology conglomerate that, among other things,
develops computer software, operating systems, cloud computing, and
artificial intelligence applications. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 802-1272
Facsimile: (206) 299-4184
E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
MISS TOYAS: Class in Johnson Suit Gets Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as CANDICE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MISS TOYAS
CREOLE HOUSE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-02821 (D.
Md.), Chief Judge George L. Russell, III of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and
denied in part the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Miss Toyas Creole House, LLC is a Maryland restaurant franchise
owned by the Miskiri Hospitality Group, LLC, a Maryland limited
liability company. Johnson, a Maryland resident, was employed by
Defendants as a bartender from November 2022 through
February 2023.
Johnson alleges that throughout her employment she was paid a
subminimum hourly cash wage from Defendants and earned tips from
customers who chose to leave her a gratuity. Johnson also claims
that she was assigned non-tipped duties, such as taking out trash;
cleaning the restaurant; preparing food; and washing dishes.
However, she maintains that contrary to basic wage protections
under the FLSA and Maryland Wage laws, Defendants deprived her of
the mandated minimum wage for all hours she worked, and forced her
to unlawfully turn over portions of her tips. According to Johnson,
all members of the putative class employed by Defendants were
subject to these same unlawful pay practices.
On Oct. 18, 2023, Johnson filed her Class Action Complaint against
Miss Toyas Creole House, LLC and Miskiri Hospitality Group, LLC
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals. She asserts three Counts against Defendants for:
minimum wage violations under the FLSA (Count I); minimum wage
violations under the Maryland Minimum Wage and Hour Law (Count II);
and violation of the timely wage provision under the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law (Count III). Johnson seeks monetary
damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
On May 28, 2024, Johnson filed the instant Motion for Conditional
Certification.
Johnson argues that she and potential opt-in plaintiffs are
similarly situated because they all worked for Defendants shared
the same job responsibilities, performed the same or similar job
duties, and were subject to the same compensation policies.
Defendants do not meaningfully dispute Johnson's assertions and
instead argue that the underlying claims of the Complaint lack
merit.
As Johnson correctly explains, courts do not weigh the merits at
the conditional certification stage. Because Defendants do not
address Johnson's arguments, much less defeat them, and because the
Court finds Johnson's argument meritorious, the Court concludes
that Johnson and potential opt-in plaintiffs are sufficiently
similar to warrant conditional certification of the class.
The Court is also not persuaded by Defendants' unsupported argument
that the class should be limited to those who worked for Defendants
within the last two years rather than the last three years, as
Johnson requests. Johnson alleges that Defendants' violations were
willful. Accordingly, the Court finds that the putative class
includes bartenders and servers employed by Defendants within three
years of this lawsuit.
Because Johnson met her preliminary burden of showing that
potential opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated, she is entitled
to distribute Notice of this action to members
of the putative class.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aAGoON from PacerMonitor.com.
MUSKOGEE COUNTY EMS: Final Certification of FLSA Collective Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY SHERLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MUSKOGEE COUNTY EMS, Case No. 6:23-cv-00241-JFH-GLJ (E.D. Okla.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) granting final certification of the FLSA Collective;
(2) approving the Parties' Agreement;
(3) dismissing this case with prejudice; and
(4) retaining jurisdiction for purposes of ensuring compliance
with the Agreement and any related Court orders.
Mr. Sherley sued MCEMS for failing to pay overtime at 1.5 times the
regular rate of pay. He alleged MCEMS should have included certain
shift differential payments in the "regular rate" for the purposes
of calculating overtime.
On Nov. 21, 2024, the Court conditionally certified a Settlement
Collective defined as "any EMT employed by MCEMS who was paid by
the hour plus shift differential pay and who worked more than 40
hours in a workweek during the period from July 18, 2020 to Oct.
31, 2023."
The 40-day opt-in period ran its course and 78 individuals filed
consents to join and accept the proposed settlement. Of the
proposed $192,800 allocated to the Settlement Collective,
$160,860.52, or 83% has been claimed. About 38% of those that did
not claim were owed less than $100. Id. at ¶ 8
Muskogee County EMS is a provider of emergency medical services and
firefighting coordination in Muskogee County, Oklahoma.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=upx4nS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Stay Order Applies to Entire Wang Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York in the case captioned as HAO ZHE
WANG, Plaintiff, against NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-02371 (S.D.N.Y.) held that the stay
order previously issued by the Court applies to the case as whole.
The request asks whether the stay applies to only the four movants
(i.e., NAR, REBNY, Halstead, and BHS) or whether it applies to the
case as a whole. The answer is the latter.
Plaintiff chose to file the instant action against a group of
Defendants. That group includes, among others, the four movants who
are parties to the class action settlement on appeal in the Eighth
Circuit. Although eXp and HSA, also defendants in the instant
action, are not parties to the settlement on appeal in the Eighth
Circuit, the decision may be determinative of whether the four
movants remain as defendants in the instant action.
As this Court stated in granting the stays in both the Friedman and
March cases, proceeding with the instant litigation against REBNY
without knowing the fate of many of the non-REBNY Defendants is
inefficient and unwieldy and disserves the interests of the Court,
the Defendants, and the public.
Judge Lehrburger says the same is true here with respect to eXp and
HSA (be they 'unethical' or not) on one hand and the four movants
on the other: it would be inefficient, unwieldy, and disserving of
the interests of the Court, the Defendants, and the public, if the
case were to proceed now against eXp and HSA only to find out
months later that the case will also need to continue against other
Defendants. Even if the case were not to proceed against the four
movants following the Eighth Circuit decision, Plaintiff will not
be significantly prejudiced." As he notes, a briefing schedule has
been set in the Eighth Circuit appeal. The stay is not indefinite,
but rather is defined by the outcome of the Eighth Circuit appeal.
And, although Plaintiff raises the specter of stale evidence, lost
records, faded memories, and changing jobs and businesses, those
concerns are merely speculative at this juncture, and Plaintiff has
not identified any specific facts to give them enough heft to
outweigh other factors the Court finds.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for clarification that the Stay
Order applies only to the four movants is denied, the Court holds.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ut5IyA from PacerMonitor.com.
NATIONAL INSPECTION: Thurlow Bid for Conditional Class Cert OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYE THURLOW, v. NATIONAL
INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01135-CCW (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order granting
part Mr. and Court authorized notice, such that the Court has
conditionally certified a collective action and authorized notice,
and denying in part, such that the collective action is limited to
the past three years, from the date of this Order.
The further entered an order that:
-- The following proposed collective shall be conditionally
certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
"All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees who NIS
paid according to its shift rate pay scheme and/or per diem
pay scheme at any time in the past three years from Feb. 6,
2022 through the present (the "Putative Collective Members")."
-- Mr. Thurlow is also authorized to send the Notice and Consent
forms that the Court will issue in an accompanying Order.
-- NIS's Motion to Amend is granted in part, such that it may
amend its existing affirmative defense regarding overtime
exemptions, and denied in part, such that it is not permitted
to add a new affirmative defense regarding personal
jurisdiction.
-- NIS shall file its amended answer on or before Feb. 7, 2025.
Accordingly, because Mr. Thurlow has made the requisite modest
From September 2023 to June 2024, the Plaintiff Brye Thurlow worked
for NIS as an Assistant Radiographer.
National Inspection specializes "in radiography examination of
conventional land-laid pipelines" to "ensure that each section of
pipeline is up to code."
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sRFKiB at no extra
charge.[CC]
NCAA: Parties Must File Bid for Prelim OK of Settlement by March 24
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR SMART AND MICHAEL
HACKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated,
v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated
association; Case No. 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William Shubb entered an order as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' Jan. 31, 2025 deadline regarding their reply in
support of the motion for class certification and their
opposition to NCAA's motion to exclude Dr. Daniel Rascher
under Daubert is stayed pending the Court's ruling on the
parties' upcoming motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement;
2. All motions currently scheduled to be heard in the Smart
case are removed from the March 3, 2025 hearing calendar;
and
3. The parties shall have 45 days to file their motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, and no later than
March 24, 2025.
National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates
student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States,
and 1 in Canada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PhyDKA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-4844
Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
sberezney@koreintillery.com
gbroshuis@koreintillery.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, Esq.
Justin P. Raphael, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 512-4000
Facsimile: (415) 644-692
E-mail: carolyn.luedtke@mto.com
justin.raphael@mto.com
NEW YORK: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Dean Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANELL DEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEW YORK BLOOD CENTER,INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01051
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and
declaratory relief arising from the Defendant's failure to
safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information and Protected
Health Information of its patients, which resulted in unauthorized
access to its information systems on or around January 26, 2025 and
the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private
Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and
the proposed Class members.
As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent
the Private Information of Defendant's patients, including
Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including,
but not limited to, their names, dates of birth, emails, phone
number, medical information, treatment information and Social
Security number. The Defendant's investigation concluded that the
suspicious activity was the result of a ransomware attack.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff believes that Private Information
compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and other
individuals' information, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of
identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which
they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again, the
suit added.
New York Blood Center is a healthcare services provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
lloginov@shamisgentile.com
NEWMONT CORP: Karas Suit Alleges Breach of Securities' Law
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KARAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEWMONT CORPORATION, THOMAS R. PALMER,
NATASCHA VILJOEN, and KARYN F. OVELMEN, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-00341 (D. Colo., January 31, 2025) seeks to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.
The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Newmont
securities between February 22, 2024 and October 23, 2024,
inclusive. Throughout the said period, the Defendants disseminated
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed
material adverse facts concerning Newmont's ability to deliver
increased gold production at its Tier 1 operations, specifically,
Lihir and Brucejack, in addition to lowering overall costs
throughout its mining operations. As a result, the Plaintiff
purchased Newmont common stock at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the
Defendants' fraud.
Headquartered in Denver, CO, Newmont Corporation operates as a gold
mining company and producer of copper, silver, zinc and lead. Its
common stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"NEM." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
NEWSBANK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, James Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE JAMES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NEWSBANK, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00103 (M.D. Fla., Feb.
7, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's failures to properly secure,
safeguard, and adequately destroy the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had
acquired and stored for its business purposes.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack to compromise the Defendant's network (the "Data
Breach") that, upon information and belief, contained personally
identifiable information and protected health information of the
Plaintiff and other individuals.
The Data Breach occurred between June 20, 2024, and July 1, 2024,
and was disclosed via mail as a Notice of Security to the Plaintiff
and Class Members on January 16, 2025.
Accordingly, the Defendant admits it shut down its system because
of a cybersecurity incident. The Private Information compromised in
the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health
information of individuals whose Private Information was maintained
by Defendant, including the Plaintiff.
A wide variety of Private Information was implicated in the breach,
including potentially: names, mailing addresses, email addresses,
phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, payment and
account information, health insurance, and other medical
information.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information
with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment, or
both.
The Plaintiff was employed with the Defendant from Jan. 2023 until
November 2024. As an employee, she was required to provide her
Private Information to the Defendant, including among other things,
her name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license
number, financial account information, and health insurance
information.
The Plaintiff diligently protects her Private Information, and has
never knowingly transmitted her unsecured Private Information over
the internet.
NewsBank is a US-based commercial company founded in 1972 that
operates a global news database resource providing online archives
of media publications as reference materials to libraries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
NORTHSTAR CAFE: Court Denies Approval of Settlement in Highman Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio denied without prejudice the joint
motion filed by the parties in the case captioned as ANTHONY
HIGHMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NORTHSTAR CAFE EASTON, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-1757 (S.D. Ohio.) for stipulated
court supervised notice and approval of settlement pursuant to
Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and preliminary
approval of the Ohio Rule 23 second chance settlement.
On May 25, 2023, Named Plaintiffs Anthony Highman, Sarah Bates, and
Sarah Taylor filed this action against Defendants Northstar Cafe
Easton LLC and Northstar Cafe Westerville LLC. Named Plaintiffs
amended the Complaint four times, adding several Defendants. Per
the most recent Complaint, filed April 14, 2024, Named Plaintiffs
bring this action against Defendants on behalf of themselves and
all current and former tipped employees who worked for Defendants
in Ohio at any time between June 12, 2020, and May 24, 2023.
Plaintiffs allege that on a companywide basis, Defendants underpaid
tipped workers in violation of the FLSA, Ohio law, and the Ohio
Constitution. They claim Defendants enforced an improper
arrangement where employees' tips are pooled and distributed to
workers who should not receive them and where tipped employees were
underpaid for time spent performing non-tip-producing work.
Plaintiffs raise several causes of action: unlawful retention of
tips under the FLSA (Count I), violation of the minimum wage
requirements of the FLSA (Count II), violation of the Ohio
Constitution, Article II, Section 34a (Count III), FLSA and Ohio
overtime violations (Count IV), violation of the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act (Count V), and unjust enrichment (Count VI). They bring their
Ohio law and common law claims as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Parties reached a settlement agreement resolving all of
Plaintiffs' claims in February 2024. The Parties now ask this Court
to approve their Settlement Agreement.
This action is brought as a hybrid FLSA action and Ohio Rule 23
class action. The Parties jointly ask this Court to issue
Court-supervised notice of the FLSA action to the following group:
"All current and former tipped employees who worked for Northstar
Cafe at any time between June 12, 2020 through May 24, 2023 who
were subject to the tip credit." The Parties also ask this Court to
certify a class under Rule 23 for the sole purpose of facilitating
the Settlement Agreement.
Under the Parties' Settlement Agreement, the Named Plaintiffs and
all the plaintiffs who timely opt-in to the FLSA component of the
action would be considered the "FLSA Collective Action Members."
The Rule 23 class would be comprised of anyone who was eligible for
the FLSA action but did not opt into that action. Those individuals
would be afforded an opportunity to opt out of the class action.
The Parties describe the Rule 23 class as a "second chance" class.
Essentially, the Parties agree that all employees receiving the
FLSA notice are eligible to be a member of the Rule 23 class, but
those recipients lose their class action eligibility by joining the
FLSA action.
In their Joint Motion, the Parties ask this Court to take several
steps at once:
(1) Approve Court-supervised notice of the FLSA collective
action;
(2) Certify a class under Rule 23, to include any eligible
employees who did not opt-in to the FLSA collective action (subject
to final approval after the fairness hearing);
(3) Approve the Parties' FLSA settlement agreement;
(4) Preliminarily approve the Parties' second chance class
action settlement agreement and the class action settlement
notice;
(5) Order and schedule a final class action fairness hearing;
(6) Approve the multi-step notice arrangement.
The Parties ask this Court to approve the proposed settlement of
Plaintiffs' FLSA claims before notice is authorized by this Court
and distributed to potential plaintiffs. Given the structure of the
proposed Settlement Agreement, the proposal to approve the
Settlement concurrently with authorizing Court-supervised notice of
the FLSA action poses two problems.
First, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs have the authority to
settle FLSA claims on behalf of potential plaintiffs who have not
yet received notice of the action.
Because Plaintiffs do not act in a representative capacity on
behalf of those who have not yet opted in to the action, the Court
doubts whether they have the authority to settle the FLSA
collective action on behalf of other potential plaintiffs who have
not yet received Court-supervised notice of the action.
Second, the Parties have designed a complex payment structure under
which the Court cannot yet confidently assess the fairness of the
FLSA and Rule 23 class action settlements. The Court may approve an
FLSA settlement if there is a bona fide dispute under the FLSA that
can be resolved by a settlement agreement, the agreement was
reached through an arm's-length negotiation, and the agreement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Simply put, it is too early to tell whether the overall arrangement
meets the fairness and reasonableness requirements necessary for
the Court approve an FLSA settlement and to preliminarily approve a
class action settlement, especially given the interdependent nature
of this hybrid 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) FLSA collective and Rule 23
"second chance" class action.
The Court permits the Parties to proceed with the settlement by
first filing a renewed motion for Court-supervised notice of the
FLSA action, with supporting documents. The notice proposed by the
Parties in its current form is insufficient and must be amended and
resubmitted with the renewed motion.
The Parties' proposed settlement plan is thorough and
comprehensive. But until the number of FLSA Collective Action
Members (as defined in the settlement documents) and their proposed
individual payments are ascertained, the Court does not have enough
information to assess whether approval of the settlements and
certification of the proposed Rule 23 class are appropriate at this
stage.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IkkYwE from PacerMonitor.com.
NORTHSTAR CAFE: Settlement Approval Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HIGHMAN, et al.,
v. NORTHSTAR CAFE EASTON, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-01757-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund Sargus,
Jr. entered an order denying without prejudice the Parties' joint
motion for stipulated court supervised notice and approval of
settlement pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and preliminary approval of the Ohio Rule 23 second
chance settlement.
The Parties are directed to file a new motion for Court-authorized
notice within 14 days of this Order. After the opt-in period has
closed and the total number of FLSA Collective Action Members and
the amounts of their individual payments have been determined, the
Parties may file a renewed motion for Court-approval of the
settlement of the FLSA action, Rule 23 class certification, notice
to the Rule 23 class, and preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.
The Court will determine whether to approve that motion based in
part on the fairness of the FLSA payments, the final total of the
class fund, the number of potential class members, and other
relevant factors. The case remains open.
The Parties' proposed settlement plan is thorough and
comprehensive. But until the number of FLSA Collective Action
Members (as defined in the settlement documents) and their proposed
individual payments are ascertained, the Court does not have enough
information to assess whether approval of the settlements and
certification of the proposed Rule 23 class are appropriate at this
stage.
For this reason and for the other reasons stated in the Order, the
Parties' Joint Motion is denied without prejudice. The Parties must
first file a new motion for Court-supervised notice of the FLSA
action before seeking certification of the Rule 23 class and
approval of the settlements.
Northstar Cafe serves breakfast, brunch, lunch, and dinner.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=loFVJ7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NOW OPTICS: Seeks More Time to File Class Opposition Sur-Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MAROUS, on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. NOW OPTICS HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a
STANTON OPTICAL, Case No. 9:24-cv-80702-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for
leave to file sur-reply in support of the Defendant's opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Defendant seeks leave to file a sur-reply to Plaintiff’s
reply in Support of Motion for Class certification to address the
following:
(1) Plaintiff's accusations that Defendant misrepresented the
law on consent;
(2) Plaintiff's misrepresentation of the terms of the
stipulation entered into by the parties;
(3) Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant waived certain
defenses against absent class members;
(4) Plaintiff's misrepresentation of the evidence on his
character and fitness to serve as a class representative;
and
(5) The Plaintiff's accusations towards Defendant and its
counsel.
On Jan. 13, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification seeking to certify a class of individuals whom were
sent text messages informing them of the rebranding of their local
My Eyelab location to Stanton Optical.
On Jan. 30, 2025, the Defendant filed its Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification arguing that this case
is not suitable for class treatment for a variety of reasons,
including that the resolution of Plaintiff's case cannot address
the claims of the absent class members due to the unique facts of
his case and the need to make thousands of inquiries regarding the
facts of absent class members claims. Defendant also argued that
Plaintiff could not adequately represent the class due to his
history of dishonesty.
On Feb. 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Reply in Support of Motion for
Class Certification. In the reply, Plaintiff accuses counsel of
being disingenuous and misrepresenting the law and facts. However,
in doing so, Plaintiff does what he accuses Defendant of doing. For
example, the Plaintiff's argument that Defendant waived the
established business relationship defense is disingenuous because
it ignores the fact that the defense is not applicable to him, but
is applicable to thousands of the putative class members. This is
not an affirmative defense to plaintiff’s claim, which is why it
was not asserted, but it is a defense to thousands of the putative
class member claims.
Now Optics is an eye health industry leading company offering
health, retail and franchise services in the eye care industry
since 2006.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eDkU0s at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq.
DAPER LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Frank A. Zacherl, Esq.
Oliver Sepulveda, Esq.
SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 347-7305
Facsimile: (305) 347-7705
E-mail: FZacherl@shutts.com
OSepulveda@shutts.com
OAK STREET: McCrae Case Remains Stayed Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAHARI MCCRAE, on behalf
of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. OAK
STREET HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01670-JPO-KHP
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order
overruling McCrae's objections and affirming Judge Parker's Order
compelling arbitration.
The case will remain stayed pending arbitration, the Court says.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No.
34, which is denied as moot.
The Court thus finds no reason to disagree— and fully
agrees—with Judge Parker's conclusion that McCrae both expressly
and effectively assented to the arbitration provision.
Because McCrae's dispute concerns enforceability rather than
consideration, Judge Parker was correct to refer it to arbitration
for resolution in the first instance.
The Plaintiff Tahari McCrae brings this action against the
Defendants, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
New York Labor Law, Family and Medical Leave Act, and New York
State and City Human Rights Laws.
Oak Street specializes in caring for older adults on Medicare.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8zmFjK at no extra
charge.[CC]
OCWEN LOAN: 11th Cir. Affirms FDCPA Damages in Two Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judges Andrew L. Brasher, Ed Carnes and Charles R. Wilson of the
United States Appeals Court for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida finding that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and awarding damages to
plaintiffs in the following cases:
(1) SHERYL GLOVER, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 23-12578; and
(2) CATHY BOOZE, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus OCWEN
LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, No. 23-12579
This consolidated appeal requires the Eleventh Circuit to decide
whether Defendant-Appellant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC violated the
FDCPA when it charged consumers optional fees for making expedited
mortgage payments online or by phone. Plaintiff-Appellees Sheryl
Glover and Cathy Booze argue Ocwen's Speedpay fees were an
unconscionable means of collecting a debt under the FDCPA, which
prohibits collection of any amount (including any interest, fee,
charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless
such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the
debt or permitted by law.
The facts in these consolidated cases are nearly identical and
undisputed. Ocwen acquired servicing rights to Booze and Glover's
mortgages after they defaulted on their loans. Ocwen offered
borrowers the option to make expedited payments over the phone or
online, rather than by mail, for an additional convenience fee
ranging from $7.50 to $12. Ocwen did not charge a fee for mailed
payments. The payment processing company, Speedpay, Inc., kept
$0.40 of each fee. Ocwen kept the remainder. Glover and Booze paid
the fees a combined total of thirty-six times. Neither of their
mortgages nor promissory notes mentioned fees for making payments
online or by phone.
Booze and Glover filed nearly identical actions in Florida state
court, alleging that Ocwen's Speedpay fees were unlawful debt
collection practices under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f(l).
Ocwen timely removed both actions to the Southern District of
Florida. The parties agreed to consolidate their cases and
submitted both for judgment on joint stipulated facts in lieu of a
bench trial.
The district court entered judgment for both plaintiffs, holding:
(1) Ocwen was acting as a debt collector when it charged
Speedpay fees;
(2) Speedpay fees are expenses incidental to the principal
obligation, and are covered by the FDCPA; and
(3) Speedpay fees are not permitted by law nor expressly
authorized by the debt agreements.
The district court awarded Glover and Booze actual damages.
Ocwen timely appealed both judgments, which were consolidated on
appeal.
Ocwen protests that it is not acting as a debt collector when it
charges Speedpay fees -- it is charging a separate fee for a
separate service of accepting expedited payment. In Ocwen's view,
for Sec. 1692f(1) of the FDCPA to apply, the amount it collects
must also be part of a debt owed or due to another.
The Circuit Judges hold that Ocwen violated the FDCPA because it is
a debt collector who charged an amount that was not expressly
authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.
Hence, they affirm the district court's judgment for Glover and
Booze.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cbiKXT
OFFICE DEPOT: Court Tosses Benge's Wage Claims for Third Time
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Daniel J. Calabretta of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the
plaintiff's third amended class action complaint in the case
captioned as CHRISTOPHER BENGE, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00749-DJC-SCR (E.D. Calif.).
Plaintiff Christopher Benge brings his Third Amended Class Action
Complaint against Defendants Office Depot, LLC, Office Depot, Inc.,
and the ODP Corporation.
Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Sales
Advisor and Service Advisor from April 2022 to April 2023.
Defendants are retailers in the business of operating and providing
products and services through their retail stores and online
platforms to sell office related services and supplies.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated California's Labor Code
and various Wage Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission by:
(1) failing to pay overtime;
(2) failing to provide meal breaks;
(3) failing to provide rest breaks;
(4) failing to pay the minimum wage;
(5) failing to pay all unpaid wages upon discharge; and
(6) failing to provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants violated California's Unfair
Competition Law because of the predicate Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff first filed his Class Action Complaint in Placer County
Superior Court. Following removal to this Court, Defendants filed
their first motion to dismiss. Prior to any ruling on that motion,
the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Class Action Complaint, which
was replaced by his Second Amended Class Action Complaint following
the Parties' joint stipulation Defendants again moved to dismiss
Plaintiff's claims.
The Court granted dismissal, finding Plaintiff had not adequately
met the pleading standard set forth in Landers v. Quality
Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended
(Jan. 26, 2015), but granted Plaintiff leave to amend his claims.
Plaintiff filed his operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint
on Sept. 3, 2024. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims
without leave to amend on Sept. 24, 2024, arguing Plaintiff has
failed to adequately plead his claims pursuant to the Court's
guidance in its prior dismissal order.
Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wage Claims
Landers sets forth the pleading standard for Plaintiff's first
through fourth causes of action brought under the Labor Code.
Under Landers, in order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff
asserting a claim to overtime payments must allege that she worked
more than forty hours in a given workweek without being compensated
for the overtime hours worked during that workweek.
The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's first and fourth causes
of action for unpaid overtime and minimum wages because Plaintiff
failed to adequately plead a representative week when he
experienced overtime and minimum wage violations.
According to the Court, Plaintiff has not substantively amended his
allegations concerning a representative workweek during which
overtime and minimum wage violations occurred.
Having reviewed the allegations in Plaintiff's Third Amended Class
Action Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has not sufficiently
amended his claims to comply with Landers and this Court's prior
guidance. Accordingly, the Court will again dismiss his claims.
However, given Plaintiff's efforts thus far to meet the concerns
expressed in the Court's prior order, the Court will grant him one
final chance to sufficiently state a claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8.
Meal and Rest Break Claims
The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's second and third causes
of action for unpaid meal and rest breaks because, as with his
overtime and minimum wage claims, he failed to allege facts
specifically identifying an instance where he was deprived of a
meal or rest break.
The Court finds Plaintiff does not substantively amend his meal and
rest break allegations in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
Plaintiff failed to substantiate his allegations that he did not
receive all required meal and rest breaks by stating the
approximate frequency of missed rest breaks because of customer
service concerns and why these work duty tasks necessarily
interfered with taking timely meal breaks in support of his
allegation that there were violations on a daily basis.
Plaintiff fails, in his TAC, to allege the approximate frequency of
missed breaks, or to sufficiently plead a single instance in which
he was required or pressured to forgo his meal and rest breaks.
Reading Plaintiff's allegations liberally, it is possible these
allegations for unpaid overtime work could also support his
allegations for unpaid meal and rest breaks as he may have missed
required meal or rest breaks as a result of performing these
additional job duties off-the-clock. Thus, as the Court is granting
leave to amend on Plaintiff's claims for unpaid overtime and
minimum wage violations, the Court will also grant leave to amend
on his meal and rest break claims.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QO7jL6 from PacerMonitor.com.
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ramirez Due Nov. 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL RAMIREZ,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00054-EWH-RJK (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Hanes entered a scheduling and
pretrial order as follows:
-- Any motion seeking class certification Nov. 7, 2025
shall be filed no later than:
-- Responses shall be filed no later Dec. 5, 2025
than:
-- Any reply shall be filed no later than: Jan. 2, 2026
-- Fact discovery must be concluded no Aug. 1, 2025
later than:
-- Expert discovery must be concluded Oct. 17, 2025
no later than:
-- All dispositive motions shall be Nov. 7, 2025
filed not later than:
OneMain provides consumer finance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k1s2Gb at no extra
charge.[CC]
OSEA INTERNATIONAL: Walker Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Osea International, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01075 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
body care essentials on Defendant's website. Despite her efforts,
however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that
of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of
features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks
redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and its
implementing regulations.
Osea International, LLC controls and operates the commercial
website, Oseamalibu.com, which allow customers to purchase a
variety of skin care products. [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
OXY USA: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due May 9
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cherry Rider Family Trust,
et al., v. OXY USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01274 (D. Kan.,
Filed Dec. 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an
order sustaining joint motion for extension of time to file replies
as follows:
-- The Defendants may file a reply in March 21, 2025
support of their motion to strike
the expert opinions of Paul Saas
as an Improper Rebuttal Expert and
motion to exclude expert testimony
of Paul Saas on or before:
-- The plaintiffs may file a reply in May 9, 2025
support of their motion for class
certification on or before:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
OXY explores for, develops, produces, and markets crude oil and
natural gas.[CC]
PACCAR INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in 10th Gear Due Jan. 12, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 10TH GEAR LLC, et al., v.
PACCAR INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01933-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Robert Lasnik entered an amended order setting trial date &
related dates as follows:
Trial Date: Oct. 5, 2026
Deadline for joining additional parties: Mar. 6, 2025
Motion for class certification due: Jan. 12, 2026
Opposition to class certification motion due: Feb. 13, 2026
Reply to class certification motion due: Feb. 27, 2026
Deadline for amending pleadings: Apr. 8, 2026
Expert Disclosures Reports under Apr. 8, 2026
FRCP 26(a)(2) due:
Discovery completed by: June 7, 2026
Settlement conference held no later than: June 21, 2026
All motions in limine must be filed by Sept. 7, 2026
and noted on the motion calendar for no
earlier than fourteen days after filing.
Replies will be accepted:
Agreed pretrial order due: Sept. 23, 2026
Paccar is an American company primarily focused on the design and
manufacturing of large commercial trucks.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HIWZhO at no extra
charge.[CC]
PAULA'S CHOICE: Bid for Arbitration in Vargison Suit OK'd in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tana Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Seattle, grants in part Paula's Choice, LLC's Motion
to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Litigation as to Certain Named
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JESSE VARGISON and RACHAEL FORBIS,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. PAULA'S CHOICE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00342-TL (W.D. Wash.).
Paula's Choice manufactures and sells skincare products.
In the underlying complaint, some 107 Plaintiffs have brought this
action against Paula's Choice, alleging, among other things, that
the company misrepresented to consumers that its products were
"cruelty-free" and "never tested on animals," despite conducting
animal tests in China in order to register and sell its products
there. The Plaintiffs have also named as Defendants Sephora USA,
Inc., and THG Beauty USA LLC, two retailers by whom Paula's Choice
products are sold.
In the instant motion, Paula's Choice seeks to compel eight
particular Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against the
company, pursuant to an arbitration clause found in the company's
Terms of Use. Given their agreements to arbitrate, Paula's Choice
asserts, their claims do not belong in this Court.
Paula's Choice obliges its customers to accept its Terms of Use
when making purchases on its website. Prior to March 14, 2023, the
Terms of Use did not include an agreement to arbitrate. But on or
about that date, the company added such an agreement to its Terms
of Use. The arbitration provision also includes a class-action
waiver, which requires that customers bring any claims against the
company on an individual basis.
Consequently, from Paula's Choice's perspective, customers who made
purchases from the website after March 14, 2023, are subject to the
updated Terms of Use and the mandatory arbitration provision—and
are, therefore, barred from participating as plaintiffs in this
lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs, however, dispute the validity of the arbitration
provision and assert that because they never agreed to it, it is
unenforceable against them.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that three of the eight
Plaintiffs—Dalit Cohen, Bridget Froelich, and Maura
McCartan—made at least one additional purchase on the Paula's
Choice website after Paula's Choice filed its motion to compel
arbitration. Paula's Choice filed the instant motion to compel on
Oct. 15, 2024. Cohen made purchases on Nov. 28, 2024, and Dec. 13,
2024; Froelich made purchases on Oct. 19, 2024, Nov. 26, 2024, Nov.
27, 2024, and Dec. 4, 2024; McCartan made a purchase on Nov. 4,
2024.
As Named Plaintiffs in this case, and specifically as the subjects
of the instant motion to compel, Judge Lin notes these three
Plaintiffs were put on notice of the existence of the arbitration
agreement (and their acceptance thereof upon making a purchase)
when Paula's Choice raised the issue in the ongoing litigation.
The Plaintiffs' continuing to make purchases despite the ongoing
litigation--particularly as it relates to notice and acceptance of
the Terms of Use--is conduct that a reasonable person would
understand to constitute assent, Judge Lin opines. These three
Plaintiffs' post-motion purchases demonstrate their assent to the
website's updated Terms of Use, including the arbitration
provision. And importantly, Judge Lin adds, when they assented to
the updated Terms of Use—and the newly included arbitration
agreement—they agreed to arbitrate with Paula's Choice disputes
or claims that arise or have arisen. That is, even those disputes
or claims that predate the arbitration agreement fall within its
scope.
With respect to Plaintiffs Cohen, Froelich and McCartan's claims
against Defendants Sephora and THG Beauty--Parties with whom they
do not have an arbitration agreement—it is in the Court's
discretion whether to stay, for considerations of economy and
efficiency, an entire action, including issues not arbitrable,
pending arbitration, Judge Lin explains.
Judge Lin says it is not clear from the four corners of the Amended
Complaint that Plaintiffs Cohen, Froelich, and McCartan have claims
against Sephora and THG Beauty that depend on the same facts as and
are inherently separable from their arbitrable claims against
Paula's Choice. As to these Plaintiffs' respective purchase(s) of
Paula's Choice products, the Amended Complaint asserts that each
purchased Paula's Choice products either directly from Paula's
Choice or from a third-party retailer on or after Dec. 22, 2009.
Judge Lin points out the Plaintiffs' decision not to identify the
retailer from whom these Plaintiffs purchased their Paula's Choice
merchandise rendering it unclear whether these Plaintiffs even have
claims against Sephora and THG Beauty.
Presented with no good reason to set the stage for what would
potentially become a third act in this drama—that is, further
judicial proceedings after both the pending lawsuit now before the
Court and the three Plaintiffs' compelled arbitration with Paula's
Choice—the Court declines to stay any claims Cohen, Froelich, and
McCartan might have against Sephora and THG Beauty. Therefore, the
Court grants Paula's Choice's motion to compel arbitration as to
Plaintiffs Cohen, Froelich, and McCartan, and stays these
Plaintiffs' claims against Paula's Choice, pending arbitration.
The Court now turns to the five Plaintiffs, who did not make
purchases after Paula's Choice filed its Motion: Bartholomew-King,
Bridges, Erriquez, van der Steeg, and Wright. Judge Lin notes that
the cardinal precept of arbitration is that it is simply a matter
of contract between the parties; it is a way to resolve those
disputes—but only those disputes—that the parties have agreed
to submit to arbitration.
The Parties dispute whether a Paula's Choice customer actually
encounters the Notice when purchasing products on the website.
Judge Lin holds that this is a genuine issue of material fact.
Along with its reply brief, Paula's Choice provides a declaration
and exhibits that illustrate the multipage purchase flow for some,
but not all, of the remaining five Plaintiffs. But the Plaintiffs
did not seek the Court's leave to file any rebuttal to this
evidence and, in any event, Paula's Choice's submissions do not
cover all five Plaintiffs for whom the existence of an agreement to
arbitrate remains in dispute.
Under the Ninth Circuit's standard established in Berman v. Freedom
Fin. Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court
finds that Paula's Choice's notice is not reasonably conspicuous as
it appears on the "Order Review/Submit Order" page. If that were
the only instance where the Plaintiffs at issue encountered the
Notice, then it would not be enforceable against them.
But as discussed in this Order, the "Order Review/Submit Order"
page might not be the only instance where the Plaintiffs
encountered the Notice. Because Paula's Choice's Notice of its
Terms of Use might have been presented more frequently and more
robustly than in the one-time Notice, the Court cannot conclude
whether, when these Plaintiffs' entire purchasing experiences are
considered, their individual experiences purchasing products on the
website provided them with sufficient notice of the Terms of
Service.
Judge Lin finds that Paula's Choice has not demonstrated as a
matter of law that it had an agreement to arbitrate with five of
the Plaintiffs at issue, so the case moves to the next phase:
discovery. After discovery, the parties will brief--under the
summary judgment standard--whether the record establishes as a
matter of law that the Plaintiffs entered into an arbitration
agreement with Paula's Choice. If there remains a genuine dispute,
Judge Lin says the case will proceed to trial on the issue of the
making of an arbitration agreement.
Therefore, as to Plaintiffs Bartholomew-King, Bridges, Erriquez,
van der Steeg, and Wright, the Court holds in abeyance the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Litigation.
Accordingly, the Court rules that Defendant Paula's Choice's Motion
to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Litigation is granted in part and
held in abeyance in part. Plaintiffs Cohen, Froelich, and McCartan
are ordered to pursue their claims in arbitration, as specified in
their arbitration agreement, on an individual basis. Their claims
against Defendant Paula's Choice are stayed pending arbitration. As
to Plaintiffs Bartholomew-King, Bridges, Erriquez, van der Steeg,
and Wright, the motion is held in abeyance.
The Parties will (a) meet and confer; (b) file a joint report
identifying a proposed timeline for limited discovery pertaining
only to whether Plaintiffs Bartholomew-King, Bridges, Erriquez, van
der Steeg, and Wright consented to the arbitration agreement and
providing each Party's position as to whether this issue should
proceed as a bench or jury trial; and (c) file a proposed trial
schedule.
The joint report and proposed trial schedule will be filed no later
than fourteen (14) days after issuance of this Order. With the
exception of the issue to be tried, all pending motions and other
dates in this case are stayed until the question regarding whether
the Parties have agreed to arbitrate has been resolved.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/29sm2ee7 from PacerMonitor.com.
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Smith, et al. Towing Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion filed by the
City of Philadelphia to dismiss the case captioned as MACKENZIE
SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant,
Case No. 22-5092 (E.D. Pa.) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant, the City of
Philadelphia, in connection with the City's "vehicle relocation" or
"courtesy towing" program. Under this practice, Plaintiffs allege
that cars legally parked are relocated without adequate pre- or
post- notice, oftentimes to illegal and/or unknown spots resulting
in Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, being unable to
locate their vehicles and suffering related consequences.
Plaintiffs bring this putative class action asserting claims under
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments.
The City seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' Sec. 1983 claims on two
grounds. First, it asserts that, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), the named Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue
the claims for class-wide relief. Alternatively, it posits that,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Plaintiffs' Sec.
1983 claims fail to state a plausible claim for relief.
Standing
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate:
(1) an injury-in-fact,
(2) sufficient causal connection between the injury and the
conduct complained of, and
(3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a
favorable decision.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have pled standing.
Injury-in-Fact
The City contends that Plaintiffs' claims are insufficient to show
injury-in-fact. It notes that Plaintiffs itemize five policies or
practices that expose the City to liability for due process harms:
(1) failure to provide adequate post-deprivation notice; (2)
failure to maintain adequate records of relocated vehicles; (3)
allowing relocated vehicles to accumulate tickets; (4) failing to
provide adequate safeguards against improper listing of towed
vehicles as stolen; and (5) failing to train City personnel
including PPD, on how to maintain records of vehicle relocations
and respond to reports from vehicle owners and operators that a
vehicle has been relocated.
Judge Goldberg says that while discovery may cast doubt on
Plaintiffs' allegations, the standing inquiry requires that she
assumes the validity of Plaintiffs' claims. Doing so, she concludes
that Plaintiffs have met their burden of alleging injury-in-fact.
Causation
The City argues that Plaintiffs cannot show that their alleged
injuries were fairly traceable to the City and that several of the
named Plaintiffs had their vehicles towed by the Parking Authority,
which is an independent agency whose agents' actions are not
attributable to the City.
Judge Goldberg concludes that Plaintiffs have met the 'low bar' of
showing causal connection for purposes of standing.
Plaintiffs plead that the City courtesy tows vehicles in three
ways: (1) by or at the behest of the Philadelphia Police
Department; (2) by a private towing company under contract with a
City Department or responding to a direct City Department request;
or (3) by a private tow operator enforcing a temporary no parking
permit or temporary no parking signs issued by the City.
According to the Court, under any of these scenarios, the vehicle
tows could be deemed to have been carried out by the city, either
directly or indirectly.
Failure to State a Claim
Plaintiff asserts that the City's policy, practice, and custom of
relocating vehicles, without adequate safeguards, deprived them of
their possessory interests in their vehicles in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. They also allege that, by failing to provide
Plaintiffs with adequate notice that their vehicles would be or had
been towed, the City violated their Fourteenth Amendment due
process rights.
The City argues Plaintiffs' rights have not been violated and if
they have they are not the result of the City's policy.
Judge Goldberg holds that Plaintiffs have at minimum pled facts
that could plausibly establish that their vehicles were towed
pursuant to this policy. As such, she declines to dismiss this
claim.
Fourth Amendment Claim
The City contends that Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim is
legally insufficient on two grounds. First, it asserts that
"Plaintiffs together manifest several factual deficiencies which
undermine their claim of unlawful seizure." Second, The City
reasserts that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts suggesting that
their vehicles were towed by the City.
However, the Amended Complaint adequately pleads facts to suggest a
policy by which vehicles were towed by the City or by other actors
acting at the direction of the City. Plaintiffs have at minimum
pled facts that could plausibly establish that their vehicles were
towed pursuant to this policy. As such, the Court declines to
dismiss this claim.
Fourteenth Amendment Claim.
The City posits that the Fourteenth Amendment claims must be
dismissed because even though the PPD was unable to advise many of
the Plaintiffs where their vehicles were towed, "all but two of the
Plaintiff found their vehicles, either with the assistance of City
or non-City employees or by walking around their neighborhoods. And
those Plaintiffs who accumulated tickets in the new vehicle
location were able to, albeit unsuccessfully, challenge the tickets
through the structured process available to them."
According to the Court, the City's argument does not constitute
grounds for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Judge Goldberg explains
it is well settled that a temporary, nonfinal deprivation of
property is nonetheless a 'deprivation' in terms of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Therefore, the fact that some Plaintiffs were able to
locate their vehicles does not obviate the deprivation.
Moreover, The City has not established as a matter of law that
adequate post-deprivation procedures existed, the Court finds.
To the extent the City relies on the ability to appeal tickets and
fines resulting from courtesy tows as adequate post-deprivation
procedure, Judge Goldberg finds that The City has not met its
burden under Rule 12(b)(6). In many cases, Plaintiffs allege that
they had no meaningful way to appeal tickets because they had no
written proof that their vehicles had been courtesy towed to
illegal spots.
She concludes that none of these arguments allow her to find that
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Rather, these issues are appropriately litigated after
discovery. Accordingly, she denies The City's Motion in its
entirety.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VAe0LW from PacerMonitor.com.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Hogan Bid to Certify Class Moot
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hogan v. Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02611 (D. Colo., Filed Oct.
20, 2016), the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson entered an order
finding as moot motion to certify class.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Pilgrim's Pride is an American, multi-national food company.[CC]
PLUG POWER: Court Tosses Sec. 10(b) Claim Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware granted-in-part and denied-in-part the motion
filed by Plug Power Inc. and its officers to dismiss the amended
complaint and strike certain allegations in the securities fraud
class action captioned In re PLUG POWER INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 23-409-JLH (D. Del.).
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The operative pleading is
the Amended Class Action Complaint filed on Sept. 28, 2023.
The Amended Class Action Complaint contains 286 paragraphs and
spans 111 pages. The named Plaintiffs are purchasers of Plug Power
Inc. common stock.
The Complaint alleges that from January through August 2022,
Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading
statements in which they set out Plug's aggressive revenue goals
for 2022, explained how it planned to meet or exceed those goals,
asserted that Plug would produce at least 70 tons per day of liquid
hydrogen by the end of 2022, and touted its electrolyzer and fuel
cell manufacturing capabilities and improvements.
The next 68 paragraphs, spanning 33 pages, purport to set forth a
multitude of statements made by Defendants between January and
August 2022 relating to Plug's revenue and production goals, which
Plaintiffs now contend were materially false and misleading.
According to Plaintiffs, those false and misleading statements
caused the market price for Plug stock to be artificially inflated
between January and August 2022. Plug subsequently revised and
failed to meet some of its goals, and its stock price dropped. This
action ensued shortly thereafter. The Complaint contains two
counts: violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 (Count I); and violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act (Count II).
Motion to Dismiss
Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). They argue that the Sec. 10(b) claim should be dismissed
because it fails to comply with the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.
Judge Hall agrees saying while the Complaint contains allegations
gathered from 17 unnamed witnesses contacted by Plaintiffs'
investigators pertaining to Plug's inability to meet its stated
goals, those allegations are largely undated, which leaves the
Court without any way to assess whether it is plausible that
Defendants' statements were false or misleading when they were made
or whether there is a strong inference of scienter. What's more, it
appears that many (if not most) of the challenged statements are
forward-looking statements—and thus protected by the PSLRA Safe
Harbor, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-5(c)—but the Court has no practical
ability to make those assessments until Plaintiffs precisely
identify which statements are at issue.
She adds that until plaintiffs specifically identify the statements
on which they would like to proceed and the reasons why these
statements are false or misleading, neither the defendants nor the
court can address these allegations with the degree of
particularity required by the PSLRA.
Accordingly, the Sec. 10(b) claim will be dismissed without
prejudice, the Court holds. Because the Sec. 20(a) claim is
predicated on an alleged Sec. 10(b) violation, it will also be
dismissed.
Should Plaintiffs choose to file an amended pleading, it must
clearly specify each allegedly false or misleading statement,
identify whether such statement is alleged to be an affirmative
misrepresentation or false or misleading by omission, and describe
why that specific statement was materially false or misleading when
made. For any statements that are alleged to be false or misleading
by omission, Plaintiffs must clearly specify what the omission is
and why the omission is material. The Court says failure to comply
may result in dismissal with prejudice.
Motion to Strike
Defendants' request to strike the allegations pertaining to unnamed
Witness 1 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) is
denied. Plaintiffs' counsel has indicated that it stands behind the
allegations in the Complaint, notwithstanding that Witness 1 is
apparently now attempting to recant those statements.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qhjdIt from PacerMonitor.com.
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Joseph Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN JOSEPH, on behalf of her minor children, B.J. and C.J., and
EMILY KIDDER and DALE KIDDER, on behalf of their minor children,
E.K. and M.K., and all other similarly situated individuals v.
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-01351 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2025) alleges that PowerSchool
failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards and protocols to
protect its users' personal identifiable information (PII), none of
the information accessed in the Data Breach was encrypted.
Accordingly, PowerSchool also lacked proper controls to determine
which students, parents, and faculty were impacted by the Data
Breach. The Plaintiffs contend that PowerSchool's failure to timely
detect and report the Data Breach caused them and Class Members to
be vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor
their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized
use of their PII.
Even when PowerSchool finally notified Plaintiffs and Class Members
of their PII exfiltration, PowerSchool failed to adequately
describe the Data Breach and its effects, as well as the measures
it took to prevent data breaches from occurring in the future, the
Plaintiffs add.
In failing to adequately protect consumers' information, failing to
adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature
of the breach, PowerSchool allegedly violated the California Unfair
Competition Law.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members are victims of PowerSchool's
negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Plaintiffs and
Class Members trusted PowerSchool with their PII. But PowerSchool
betrayed that trust by failing to use up-to-date security practices
to prevent the Data Breach.
The Plaintiffs' minor children are also Data Breach victims.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit seeking damages and
injunctive relief to remediate PowerSchool's security failures,
credit monitoring or repair services to protect Class Members, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
PowerSchool is a provider of cloud-based software for K-12
education in the United States. PowerSchool collects and maintains
highly sensitive PII for more than 60 million students, parents,
and school faculty worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
Christopher K. L. Young, Esq.
Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1505
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Robert Neary, Esq.
Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.
Gail McQuilkin, Esq.
Daniel Herrera, Esq.
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Floor 9
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 372-1800
E-mail: rn@kttlaw.com
bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
gam@kttlaw.com
dherrera@kttlaw.com
RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Narrows Claims in West Drain Valve Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Christina A. Snyder of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted in part and
denied in part Rheem Manufacturing Company's motion to dismiss the
case captioned Vanessa West v. Rheem Manufacturing Company et al.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-09686-CAS-MAAx (C.D. Calif.).
On Nov. 8, 2024, plaintiff Vanessa West filed this action
individually and on behalf of a purported class against defendant
Rheem Manufacturing Company and defendant Melet Plastics, Inc.
Plaintiff asserts ten claims for relief:
(1) breach of express warranty;
(2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability;
(3) violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
2301;
(4) strict liability for the alleged manufacturing defect,
design defect, and failure to warn; (5) negligence;
(6) negligent failure to warn;
(7) common law fraud;
(8) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal.
Civil Code Sec. 1792;
(9) violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200; and
(10) unjust enrichment.
She seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and equitable and injunctive
relief enjoining defendants from continuing to pursue these
practices.
On Jan. 6, 2025, defendant Rheem filed the instant motion to
dismiss.
Plaintiff West brings this class action regarding certain water
heater drain valves manufactured and supplied by defendants Melet
and Rheem (the "Class Products"). The purported nationwide class is
defined as follows:
All individuals and entities that own or have owned Class Products
and/or who own or have owned homes or other structures physically
located in the United States, in which the Class Products are or
were installed.
The purported California subclass is defined as follows:
All individuals and entities residing in the State of California
that own or have owned Products and/or who own or have owned homes
or other structures physically located in the State of California,
in which Class Products are or were installed. Plaintiff is a
resident of California.
Defendant Melet formulates, designs, manufactures, assembles,
tests, labels, markets, advertises, warrants, and offers for
distribution and sale water heater drain valves that are used to
discharge water and sediment from water heaters. Among other
products, it sells the Class Products: round poly drain valves
advertised on Rheem's website and elsewhere as Part No. AP16800.
The Class Products at issue were manufactured and advertised
between 2019 and 2023 and offered for sale and distribution
promptly thereafter. Melet is a corporation that maintains its
principal place of business in North Dakota.
Defendant Rheem designs, manufactures, advertises, and sells water
heaters and water heater components. In some of its water heaters,
it uses the Class Products supplied by Melet. Rheem is a
corporation that maintains its principal place of business in
Georgia.
Both Melet and Rheem conduct substantial business in California,
including through the sale and distribution of Class Products at
stores such as Home Depot and Walmart, as well as on Amazon.com.
Defendants Rheem and Melet market the Class Products as suitable
and less expensive alternatives, e.g., to brass drain valves also
sold by Rheem. Rheem promises that the Class Products are suitable
for residential and commercial uses, specifically for water heater
drainage. However, contrary to defendants' representations, the
Class Products are defectively designed and manufactured and
unsuitable for their intended purpose.
Defendant Rheem moves to dismiss all claims other than the strict
products
liability and negligence claims. Rheem argues that:
(1) plaintiff's warranty claims fail as a matter of law;
(2) plaintiff's common law fraud and UCL claims fail to state a
claim;
(3) plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim fails as a matter of
law; and
(4) plaintiff cannot pursue equitable remedies through the UCL
or through her claim for unjust enrichment.
The Court (i) denies Rheem's motion to dismiss plaintiffs claims
for equitable relief; (ii) grants Rheem's motion to dismiss
plaintiff's first, second, third, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth
claims; and (iii) grants plaintiff leave to amend her first,
second, third, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth claims.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rQOVxL from PacerMonitor.com.
ROMAN CATHOLIC: Child Abuse Statute of Limitations Constitutional
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the retroactive elimination
of time restrictions applicable to child sexual assault claims that
is contained in the Child Victims Act of 2023 is constitutional as
applied to the defendants in the following cases:
(1) ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON v. JOHN DOE, ET AL.
(Case No. 9),
(2) BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY, ET AL. v. JOHN DOE
(Case No. 10), and
(3) THE KEY SCHOOL, INC., ET AL. v. VALERIE BUNKER (Case Misc.
No. 2).
In 2017, the General Assembly enacted legislation that, among other
things, established a new time restriction applicable to filing
child sexual abuse claims. The new provision stated that "in no
event may a civil action for child sexual abuse be filed against a
defendant not alleged to have been the perpetrator of the abuse
more than 20 years after the date on which the victim reaches the
age of majority."
In 2023, the General Assembly enacted the Child Victims Act of
2023. That law eliminated all time restrictions applicable to child
sexual abuse claims, including the new provision that had been
added in 2017.
Following the effective date of the Child Victims Act, alleged
survivors of childhood sexual abuse have filed numerous claims that
were previously time-barred.
Case No. 9, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Doe
Plaintiffs proceeding under pseudonyms filed a putative class
action in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County seeking to
hold the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington liable for alleged
sexual and emotional abuse by clergy. The Archbishop moved to
dismiss. The circuit court denied the motion based on its
determination that Subsection (d) established a statute of
limitations, not a statute of repose, and so did not give rise to
vested rights. The Archbishop noted an interlocutory appeal, and
the parties jointly petitioned for certiorari, which this Court
granted.
Case Misc. No. 2, The Key School, Inc. v. Bunker
Ms. Valerie Bunker filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland seeking to hold The Key School,
Inc. and The Key School Building Finance Corporation (collectively,
"The Key School") liable for alleged sexual and emotional abuse by
The Key School teachers between 1973 and 1977. Ms. Bunker moved to
certify the question of the 2023 Act's constitutionality to this
Court. The Key School opposed certification and separately moved to
dismiss. The court granted Ms. Bunker's motion to certify without
ruling on the motion to dismiss. This Court accepted a slightly
modified certified question.
Case No. 10, Board of Education of Harford County v. Doe
A plaintiff proceeding under the pseudonym John Doe sued the Board
of Education of Harford County and several individuals in the
Circuit Court for Harford County, seeking to hold the defendants
liable for alleged sexual abuse by a teacher and a custodian. The
Board moved to dismiss. The circuit court denied the motion based
on its determination that Subsection (d) established a statute of
limitations, not a statute of repose, and so did not give rise to
vested rights. The Board noted an interlocutory appeal and
petitioned for certiorari, which this Court granted.
In all three cases, the underlying factual allegations establish
that the claims would have been barred by Subsection (d) before the
effective date of the 2023 Act. The question presented or certified
in all three cases is the same:
Does the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023, 2023 Md. Laws Ch. 5
(S.B. 686) (codified at Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Sec.
5-117), constitute an impermissible abrogation of a vested right in
violation of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights
and/or Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution?
Before this Court, three defendants in such lawsuits contend that
the 2023 General Assembly lacked the authority to eliminate time
restrictions that had already run.
The parties' respective arguments focus on:
(1) whether the new time restriction in the 2017 law was a
statute of limitations or a statute of repose, and
(2) whether either or both types of restriction create a vested
right to be free of liability.
The Court concludes that the relevant provision of the 2017 law
created a statute of limitations and that the running of a statute
of limitations does not establish a vested right to be free from
liability from the underlying cause of action. It further holds
that it was within the power of the General Assembly to
retroactively abrogate that statute of limitations. The Child
Victims Act of 2023 is therefore constitutional as applied to the
defendants in the three cases before the Court.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SP8cup
SEED LEAF: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Girtley Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
KALARI JACKSON GIRTLEY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SEED LEAF, INC., D/B/A TRADE, Case No.
1:25-cv-01253 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2025) alleges that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendant's website, www.drinktrade.com is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant’s website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to
refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates
www.drinktrade.com, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the
United States, including the State of Illinois.
The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online
sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers
features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access
navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail
consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for
sale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
SHANDA GAMES: Dismissal of Monk Securities Suit Affirmed in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case captioned as DAVID MONK,
Lead-Plaintiff-Appellant, ASTOR BK REALTY TRUST, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v.- SHANDA
GAMES LIMITED, YINGFENG ZHANG, LI YAO, LIJUN LIN, HENG WING CHAN,
YONG GUI, SHAOLIN LIANG, DANIAN CHEN, Defendants-Appellees,
CAPITALCORP LIMITED, CAPITALHOLD LIMITED, Defendants, No. 22-3076
(2nd. Cir.), Judges Debra Ann Livingston, Dennis Jacobs and Raymond
J. Lohier, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissing Monk's claims on the ground that he failed properly to
allege loss causation.
Shanda Games Limited was a video games business registered in the
Cayman Islands with American Depository Shares listed on the
NASDAQ. Its premier asset was the right to market Mir II, a
massively multiplayer online computer game, in China. By 2013,
Shanda had begun developing a mobile version of Mir II ("MIIM" or
"Mir II Mobile") to access the expanding mobile game market. Mere
months before MIIM launched, Shanda authorized the Freeze-Out
Merger, a conflicted transaction in which members of the Board of
Directors of Shanda, including the CEO, were part of the group of
buyers. The Merger occurred three and a half months after the
launch of MIIM.
Plaintiffs brought this putative securities fraud class action on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated investors
pursuant to Secs. 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. David Monk was appointed lead plaintiff shortly
thereafter. Plaintiffs allege that Shanda; its former CEO, Yingfeng
Zhang; former CFO Li Yao; and five directors: Lijun Lin, Heng Wing
Chan, Yong Gui, Shaolin Liang, and Danian Chen (together with
Zhang, the "Individual Defendants") made material misstatements and
failed to disclose material information between May 5, 2015 and
Nov. 18, 2015 in an effort to conceal that the Freeze-Out Merger
price did not reflect the fair value of Shanda's shares and thereby
discourage the exercise of appraisal rights. As a result,
Plaintiffs claim, they suffered financial loss through failure to
exercise their appraisal rights and receive the appraisal value of
their shares.
The district court dismissed the claims against Shanda and the
securities claims against the Individual Defendants for failure to
state a claim.
Monk challenges the district court's dismissal of his Sec. 10(b)
securities fraud case for failure to state a claim. Monk alleges
that materially misleading proxy materials issued by Shanda as part
of a freeze-out merger caused him to accept the merger price
instead of exercising his appraisal rights.
The Circuit Judges conclude that the district court erred in
dismissing Monk's claim. They further conclude that Monk has
adequately pleaded actionable misstatements regarding the
amortization and depreciation figures used in preparing the
financial projections; the projections themselves as set forth in
the Proxies; and the statements by Defendants characterizing the
Merger as fair. But they hold that Monk has failed to plead
actionable misstatements or omissions with regard to statements
about the grouping of games for revenue estimates and the failure
to disclose MIIM's revenue. Accordingly, the Circuit Judges affirm
in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JXZUOK
SITEONE LANDSCAPE: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ramon Rodriguez, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals v. SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY
LLC, a California corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
CVRI2406898 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 3,
2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00297.
The Plaintiff's FAC alleges eight causes of action: Failure to Pay
Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide
Meal Periods or Premium Pay in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide
Rest Periods or Premium Pay in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide and
Maintain Accurate Records; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business
Expenses; Failure to Pay Wages When Due; PAGA Penalties (Labor Code
Section 2698, et seq.); and Violation of California Business &
Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
Sona P. Patel, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: aaron.cole@ogletree.com
sona.patel@ogletree.com
- and -
Briana Labriola, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: 714-800-7900
Facsimile: 714-754-1298
Email: briana.labriola@ogletree.com
SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Decker Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Symbotic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending December 28, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Decker securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On December 3, 2024, a putative class action captioned Decker v.
Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12976 was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an
alleged purchaser of the Company's common stock. The complaint
asserts claims for violations of federal securities laws against
the Company and three of its officers on the grounds that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements related to its
revenue recognition and the effectiveness of its disclosure
controls and procedures.
Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brings claims seeking
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs
and relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who
purchased the Company's stock between February 8, 2024 and November
26, 2024.
The parties have filed a stipulation staying the Company's deadline
to respond to the complaint until after a pending motion to
consolidate is resolved and a lead plaintiff has been appointed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
The Company intends to vigorously defend these cases. If a court
ultimately determines that the Company is liable in either or both
of these cases, the Company may be subject to substantial damages.
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]
SYMBOTIC INC: Continues to Defend Fox Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Symbotic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending December 28, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Fox securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On August 14, 2024, a putative class action captioned Fox v.
Symbotic Inc. et al., Case No. 24-cv-12090 was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an
alleged holder of the Company's common stock. The complaint asserts
claims for violations of federal securities laws against the
Company and two of its officers on the grounds that, among other
things, the Company made false and/or misleading statements related
to its expected earnings for the third quarter of fiscal year 2024.
Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brings claims seeking
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs
and relief on behalf of herself and a putative class of persons who
purchased the Company's stock between May 6, 2024 and July 29,
2024.
On September 11, 2024, the court entered a stipulation staying the
Company's deadline to respond to the complaint until after a lead
plaintiff has been appointed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act. As of February 3, 2025, a lead plaintiff has
not been appointed.
On December 20, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate
this matter with another putative class action captioned Decker v.
Symbotic Inc. et al.
As of February 3, 2025, the court has not yet ruled on the pending
motion to consolidate.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the case.
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]
SYMETRA LIFE: Court Refuses to Approve Class Deal in Davis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, denies motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit
titled DENNIS E. DAVIS, Plaintiff(s) v. SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-KKE (W.D. Wash.).
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, along with the
proposed notice to class members. The Court observes that the
proposed notice does not identify any cap on Class Counsel's costs
and expenses to be reimbursed from the Settlement Fund, although a
blank is left for that amount.
The Court declines to grant the unopposed motion without that
amount filled in, or without an explanation as to why it should not
be filled in.
Accordingly, the Court denies the unopposed motion without
prejudice to refiling in accordance with this order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2wxjwbyv from PacerMonitor.com.
TACOS VICTORIA: Munoz and Armenta Seek Proper OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------
ANDRES MUÑOZ and ELZON UZIEL ARMENTA, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs v. TACOS VICTORIA LLC, TAQUERIA VIVA MEXICO LLC, SOL
AZTECA RESTAURANT, MARCO A. VICTORIA AMADO, individually, LETICIA
AMADO VAZQUEZ, individually, and JULIO CESAR VICTORIA AMADO,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00894 (D.N.J., January
31, 2025) seeks for damages and equitable relief based upon
Defendants' willful violations of the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act; (ii) the anti-discrimination and
retaliation provisions of the FLSA; (iii) the overtime provisions
of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law; the minimum wage provisions of
the NJWHL; (v) the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection
Act; and (vi) New Jersey common law prohibitions against
retaliation.
The Defendants employed Plaintiffs as kitchen staff and delivery
workers, including as kitchen helpers and dishwashers. Defendants
required Plaintiffs to work at least six days per week, typically
from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M., with one hour break, resulting in at
least 72 compensable hours per week. However, the Defendants failed
and refused to pay Plaintiffs any overtime compensation--neither at
time and one-half their regular rate of pay, nor at time and
one-half the New Jersey minimum wage rate--for any of the hours
that they worked beyond forty each week, says the suit.
Tacos Victoria is a New Jersey limited liability company engaged in
the business of operating a restaurant offering an array of central
American cuisine. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
THORSON GMC: Jacquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THORSON GMC
TRUCK-BUICK MOTOR CO., et al. The case is styled as Paul Jacquez,
an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
THORSON GMC TRUCK-BUICK MOTOR CO., GUZMAN GABRIEL, Case No.
25STCV03090 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 4, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Thorson GMC Truck-Buick Motor Company --
https://www.thorsonmotorcenter.com/ -- retails motor vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jason W. Rothman, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Fax: 310-300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
Jason@tomorrowlaw.com
TREK BICYCLE: Crow Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Tactics
------------------------------------------------------
ERIN CROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Trek Bicycle, Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00133-KES-BAM (C.D. Cal., January 31, 2025) arises from
Defendant's inflated reference prices that allow Defendant to
continually advertise "sale" events and product discounts in order
to induce consumers into purchasing products.
The Defendant's practice of falsely inflating reference prices in
order to give the illusion of higher value, bigger discounts, and a
false sense of time pressure, constitutes false advertising, and is
an unfair and deceptive practice under California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act. In addition, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and for violations of California's Advertising Law. The
Plaintiff now seeks to bring claims on behalf of a Nationwide Class
and a California Subclass of consumers who purchased falsely
discounted products on Trek's website and is seeking, among other
things, to recover damages and injunctive or declaratory relief
ordering Defendant to disgorge all revenues unjustly received from
the proposed Classes due to its intentional and unlawful practice
of using false reference prices and false discounts.
Headquartered in Waterloo, WI, Trek, Bicycle, Corp. manufactures
and distributes bicycles and related products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
Leslie Pescia, Esq.
745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
Email : kmclean@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
lpescia@sirillp.com
UMEKEN USA: Dismissal of Shin False Advertising Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case captioned as MIN SOOK SHIN, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
UMEKEN USA INC; BRIAN HAN; DOES, 1 through 10,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 24-2848 (9th Cir.), Judges Kim McLane
Wardlaw, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Andrew D. Hurwitz of the United
States Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California that denied Plaintiff-Appellant Min Sook Shin's motion
to reopen her case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(6).
Shin filed this putative class action in February 2017, alleging
various state and federal claims against Defendant-Appellee Umeken
USA for false advertising. After twice dismissing Shin's complaint
with leave to amend, the district court dismissed her suit with
prejudice on Oct. 26, 2017. In June 2019, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal in a memorandum disposition.
In February 2024, Shin filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, seeking to
reopen her case to seek attorney's fees under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
Sec. 1021.5. Shin contended that she is entitled to her attorney's
fees as a "successful party" because she discovered in September
2023 that Umeken had removed the alleged statements at issue in her
original complaint from its website. Shin argued that her lawsuit,
dismissed three times several years ago, was the "catalyst" for
Umeken's removal of the allegedly false statements from its
website.
The Ninth Circuit finds the district court did not abuse its
discretion in treating Shin's Rule 60(b)(6) motion as untimely.
Shin asserted that she discovered the website changes in September
2023 but provided no explanation of why she delayed filing the
motion for seven months thereafter.
Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by finding that
Shin failed to show the "extraordinary circumstances" required for
relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Shin does not seek to correct the
district court's judgment; rather, she seeks only attorney's fees.
Moreover, the premise of Shin's claim to these fees -- that her
thrice-dismissed suit was the basis for Umeken's actions seven
years later -- is, as the district court concluded, "unreasonable,"
the Ninth Circuit finds.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LZZZvC
UNITED AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hughes Due July 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRELL HUGHES and ROBIN
GOINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-08967-LB (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 7, 2025
motion filing deadline, currently
set for April 7, 2025, is continued
to:
-- The Defendant's opposition filing Aug. 4, 2025
date:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply filing date: Sept. 1, 2025
-- The Interim Case Management Sept. 18, 2025
Conference set for Feb. 13, 2025
at 11:00 a.m. via videoconference
is reset to:
United Airlines provides domestic and international airline
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vujFZO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Melissa M.Kurata, Esq.
Brielle D. Edborg, Esq.
Cache Cummings, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Melissa@lebelaw.com
Brielle@lebelaw.com
Cache@lebelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Donald J. Munro, Esq.
Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
Joshua C. Dutton, Esq.
JONES DAY
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001-2113
Telephone: (202) 879-3939
Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 92121-3134
Telephone: (858) 314-1200
Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
E-mail: dmunro@jonesday.com
asommerfeld@jonesday.com
jdutton@jonesday.com
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in COLA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Eric G. Bruggink of the United States Court of Federal Claims
denied in part and granted in part the United States government's
motion to dismiss the case captioned as RODNEY L. DAVIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 24-364 (Fed.
Cl.).
This is a lawsuit by current and former members of Congress
protesting that they have not received a cost-of-living adjustment
("COLA") since 2009.
The typical practice for abrogating COLA increases can be seen with
respect to 2024. The executive order setting the GS pay rates for
2024 was issued on Dec. 21, 2023. Next, the new pay rates contained
therein took effect on Jan. 14, 2024. Finally, Congress enacted
the statute abrogating the 2024 congressional COLA on March 23,
2024. Since 2009, the timing of the executive orders setting the GS
rates and the effective date of those rates has remained relatively
consistent, with the order issued in December and the rates taking
effect the following January. The timing of legislation abrogating
congressional COLAs, however, has varied widely -- being enacted
as early as March 2009 to prevent the January 2010 COLA, for
instance, or as late as March 2018 to prevent the January 2018
COLA.
These congressional annulments of member COLAs form the
keystone of this case. On March 7, 2024, four current and former
members of Congress filed the present complaint, alleging that the
timing of many of these annulments violated the Twenty-Seventh
Amendment because they took effect without an intervening election
of representatives. The complaint consists of three separate
claims. Count I asserts a failure to pay plaintiffs' correct
salary. Count II asserts a failure to pay retirement benefits in
the correct amount. Count III asserts that plaintiffs were not
credited with the correct Thrift Savings Plan contributions under
the Federal Employees' Retirement System. Plaintiffs intend to seek
certification of a class action.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Rule of the Court of
Federal Claims 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction. The court held
oral argument on Aug. 23, 2024.
Defendant advances three arguments in support of its motion. First,
defendant contends that this court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the pay claims advanced in Count I. The Tucker
Act requires that a complaint be based on a money-mandating source
of law, and, because the Twenty-Seventh Amendment is not, according
to defendant, money-mandating, the Court may not exercise
jurisdiction. Second, defendant asserts that the Court lacks
jurisdiction over plaintiffs' Count II and III claims related to
their retirement benefits and TSP employer matching because 5
U.S.C. Sec. 8461 mandates that such cases be adjudicated by the
Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Protection Board,
and ultimately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Third, defendant argues that any pay or retirement claim that
accrued before March 7, 2018, is barred by this court's six-year
statute of limitations.
Plaintiffs insist that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over
their case. They respond to the government's first argument by
asserting that the ERA, when enforced in compliance with the
Twenty-Seventh Amendment, affords a money-mandating source of law.
As to the second argument, they contend that this is the proper
forum for their retirement and TSP-related claims because the
agencies to which the government directs them do not have the
authority to determine the substantive validity of plaintiffs'
claims with respect to the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. Finally,
plaintiffs contend that the judicially-created "continuing claims
doctrine" means that their salary claims, claims for retirement
benefits, and entitlement to TSP contributions for the past six
years should reflect, not just those COLAs improperly nullified
within the past six years, but also those improperly nullified more
than six years ago.
Judge Bruggink holds that they agree with plaintiffs that we have
jurisdiction over their Count I pay claims. They agree with the
defendant, however, that they lack jurisdiction over the Count II
retirement benefit claims and Count III TSP contribution claims.
With respect to the limitations period, they agree with defendant
that plaintiffs' pay claims cannot reflect COLAs that took effect
before March 2018.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hJclYA
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs in Case v. DOJ Can Use Pseudonyms
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff's motion for
leave to file under pseudonym in the case captioned as JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1–9, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-00325 (D.C.).
At this stage, Plaintiffs have succeeded in showing that their
privacy and safety concerns outweigh the public's presumptive and
substantial interest in learning their identities, the Court finds.
According to the Court, the first and second factors, taken
together, support granting the Motion. Judge Boasberg says that
Plaintiffs argue that disclosure of their identities to the public
risks physical harm to them and their families, as many
individuals, including those recently pardoned for crimes committed
at the Capitol, have begun a campaign to publicize the names of the
FBI agents and other personnel involved in the January
investigations in order to harass and threaten them. As they
concede, however, the third factor—the ages of the persons whose
privacy interests are sought to be protected—weighs against
pseudonymity because they are adults.
The fourth factor is, at worst, neutral. Plaintiffs are suing a
government defendant and seeking individualized relief: the
non-disclosure of their identities to the public. In such cases,
courts have generally favored pseudonymity.
Plaintiffs also seek this individualized relief on behalf of an
as-yet-uncertified class of "all FBI personnel for whom a survey
was requested and/or completed by the Trump administration that
identifies their specific role in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases."
The suit thus potentially implicates the rights of many individuals
whose interests may or may not be adequately represented by
Plaintiffs. In light of that wrinkle, the Court considers this
factor a wash.
Fifth and finally, the Government would suffer no risk of
unfairness if the Motion were granted. In such circumstances, this
factor does not require disclosure, the Court says. Although
Plaintiffs have not yet filed a declaration under seal with their
identifying information, they indicate that they will fully
disclose their identities to Defendant, and the Court will order
them to do so.
In sum, the first, second, and fifth factors weigh in favor of
granting the Motion, the Court concludes. That lopsided balance
resolves the matter in Plaintiffs' favor, at least on the current
record.
All parties shall use the pseudonyms listed in the Complaint in all
documents filed in this action, the Court holds.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SDiAv9 from PacerMonitor.com.
UNITED STATES: Wang Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVELYN NEW WANG v. UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL., Case No. 1:24-cv-02419-TNM (D.D.C.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
class certification.
U.S. Postal Service provides mail processing and delivery services
to individuals and businesses in the U.S.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xqy0wO at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIVERSAL LENDERS: Krulicki Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA KRULICKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL LENDERS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01104 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2025) arises from Defendant's
its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated customers' names, Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, and financial information from hackers.
The Defendant detected unusual activity on some of its computer
systems on November 7, 2024. In response, the company conducted an
investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access
to certain company files. However, it was only on or about January
23, 2025, the Defendant filed official notice of a hacking incident
with the Maine Attorney General's Office and also sent out data
breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as
a result of the hacking incident.
Universal Lenders LLC, based in Oak Park, IL, is a financial
lending service provider that partners with automotive dealerships
across the United States to deliver tailored financial solutions.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle D. McLean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 297-5195
E-mail: kmclean@sirillp.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Neil Williams, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
nwilliams@sirillp.com
VAUGHAN MCLEAN: DeMetro Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE DeMETRO, et al.
v. VAUGHAN McLEAN, LLC, et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-02199-APM (D.D.C.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- that this Court certify as a class pursuant to Rule 23
"all those tenants at Vaughan Place whom Defendant Vaughan
McLean, LLC caused to be served with a Form 1 Notice of Intent
to Sell (Single Family Home) between approximately July 30,
2021 and Aug. 2, 2021 or whom were otherwise entitled to
notice of their rights under the District of Columbia's Tenant
Opportunity to Purchase Act ("TOPA"); and
-- that this Court order the Defendant Vaughan McLean LLC to
provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the Vaughan Place "rent
rolls" from July and August 2021 and/or the mailing list used
to send the TOPA notices in July/August 2021, along with any
forwarding address information for any of those tenants who
are no longer residing at Vaughan Place.
The proposed classes meet all the requirements of Rule 23 to be
certified as a class action.
Vaughan offers litigation and advisory legal services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=02dgs3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew P. McGuire, Esq.
IN REM PLLC
1140 Third Street NE, Suite 200
Washington DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 618-3461
E-mail: mcguireesquire@msn.com
- and -
Aristotle Theresa, Esq.
STOOP LAW PLLC
1604 V Street SE
Washington DC 20020
The Defendant is represented by:
Constantinos Panagopoulos, Esq.
Sarabeth Ranghia, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR, LLC
1909 K Street NW, 12th Floor
Washington DC 20006
- and -
Nathan J. Bresee, Esq.
Brian W. Thompson, Esq.
JACKSON & CAMPBELL PC
2300 N Street NW, Ste. 300
Washington DC 20037
- and -
Robert C. Gill, Esq.
Jason W. McElroy, Esq.
Kyra A. Smerkanich, Esq.
SAUL EWING LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20006
VESTIS CORP: Continues to Defend Pension Fund Class Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vestis Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 27, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Plumbers, Pipefitters and
Apprentices Local No. 112 Pension Fund class suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
On May 17, 2024, a purported Vestis shareholder commenced a
putative class action lawsuit against Vestis and certain of its
officers, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, captioned Plumbers, Pipefitters and
Apprentices Local No. 112 Pension Fund v. Vestis Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02175-SDG.
The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
Vestis' common stock between October 2, 2023 and May 1, 2024,
inclusive.
The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly false or
misleading statements generally related to the Company's business
and operations, pricing practices, and financial results and
outlook.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
On September 23, 2024, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
on November 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Defendants expect to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
by February 25, 2025.
Vestis Corporation is a provider of uniform rentals and workplace
supplies across the United States and Canada, providing uniforms,
mats, towels, linens, restroom supplies, first-aid supplies, safety
products and other workplace supplies.
VESTIS CORP: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss O'Neill Suit Set for May 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vestis Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 27, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the hearing to
dismiss the O'Neill class suit is set for May 8, 2025.
On June 4, 2024, a purported Vestis shareholder commenced a
putative class action lawsuit against Vestis, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned O'Neill v. Vestis
Corp., Case No. 2024-0600-JTL.
The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of Vestis
shareholders. The complaint alleges a single claim for declaratory
judgment, seeking to invalidate and void Section II.5(d) of Vestis'
Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective September 29, 2023.
On October 7, 2024, the Court granted a stipulation to consolidate
multiple related actions involving similar company defendants,
including the Vestis action, solely for purposes of adjudicating an
omnibus motion to dismiss the complaints in each of those actions.
On October 11, 2024, Vestis and the other consolidated defendants
filed an omnibus motion to dismiss.
The Court has scheduled a hearing on the omnibus motion to dismiss
for May 8, 2025.
Vestis Corporation is a provider of uniform rentals and workplace
supplies across the United States and Canada.
VINTAGE STOCK: Court Narrows Claims in Thompson, et al. TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as SHEILA THOMPSON and DENNIS THOMPSON,
Plaintiffs, v. VINTAGE STOCK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00042-SRC (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen R. Clark of the United
States District Court for the District of Missouri granted in part
and denied in part Vintage Stock Inc.'s motion for summary judgment
on the Thompsons' Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Missouri
do-not-call-list claims.
Vintage Stock operates stores that sell a wide variety of
entertainment products and that buy back from customers movies,
games, and CDs.
In 2019, Sheila Thompson entered her telephone number into a
credit-card system at one of Vintage Stock's stores. Despite
expressing to a Vintage Stock employee her disinterest in receiving
advertisements, Sheila, a couple years later, started receiving
text messages that advertised Vintage Stock's sales. Now, she and
her husband (Dennis) claim that Vintage Stock violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Missouri law by sending
Sheila those text messages. Vintage Stock seeks summary judgment on
these claims.
After Sheila began receiving the texts, Sheila continued to visit
Vintage Stock's stores and never called Vintage Stock to complain
about the messages in any way.
The District Court finds as a fact that, after Sheila started to
receive text messages, Sheila did not tell a cashier or
customer-service employee to stop the messages. Dennis, on the
other hand, did not receive any messages from Vintage Stock. He
maintains a separate cellular telephone from Sheila, and he does
not use Sheila's phone.
The Thompsons assert three claims in their amended complaint: two
TCPA claims and a Missouri do-not-call-list claim. They also assert
these claims as class-action claims. In February 2024, the Court
remanded one of the TCPA claims, which asserted that Vintage Stock
violated a TCPA implementing regulation (47 C.F.R. Sec.
64.1200(d)), for lack of standing. And the Court struck several of
the proposed class definitions as fail safe, i.e., class
definitions that preclude membership unless the putative member
would prevail on the merits.
The deadline for a motion for class certification came and went
with no filings by the Thompsons. To this day, the Thompsons have
neither filed a class-certification motion nor sought to pursue the
class claims in any other way.
The District Court holds that Sheila gave Vintage Stock "prior
express invitation" to send her text messages, rendering her
individual TCPA claim meritless, and therefore grants Vintage Stock
summary judgment on this claim. Further, because Sheila has failed
to prosecute her class TCPA claim, the District Court dismisses
Sheila's class TCPA claim without prejudice to the putative class.
The District Court remands, for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, Dennis's individual and class TCPA claims to the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, 21st Judicial Circuit of
Missouri. It declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the Thompsons' Missouri do-not-call-list claim and remands that
claim to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, 21st Judicial
Circuit of Missouri.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qoX8si from PacerMonitor.com.
VINTAGE STOCK: Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Thompson
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEILA THOMPSON and DENNIS
THOMPSON, v. VINTAGE STOCK, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00042-SRC (E.D.
Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Clark entered an order granting in
part and denying in part Vintage Stock's motion for summary
judgment.
The Court grants summary judgment in favor of Vintage Stock on
Sheila's individual TCPA claim and dismisses, with prejudice, that
claim. The Court further dismisses, for failure to prosecute,
Sheila's class TCPA claim, without prejudice to the putative class
members.
The Court remands, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
Dennis's individual and class TCPA claims to the Circuit Court of
St. Louis County, 21st Judicial Circuit of Missouri. And the Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Thompsons'
Missouri do-not-call-list claim and remands that claim to the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, 21st Judicial Circuit of
Missouri.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c), the Court directs the Clerk
of Court to mail a certified copy of this order of remand to the
clerk of the state court.
Accordingly, the Court holds that Sheila gave Vintage Stock "prior
express invitation" to send her text messages, rendering her
individual TCPA claim meritless, and therefore grants Vintage Stock
summary judgment on this claim. Further, because Sheila has failed
to prosecute her class TCPA claim, the Court dismisses Sheila's
class TCPA claim without prejudice to the putative class.
Accordingly, the Court remands Dennis's individual and class TCPA
claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In 2019, Sheila Thompson entered her telephone number into a
credit-card system at one of Vintage Stock, Inc.'s stores. Despite
expressing to a Vintage Stock employee her disinterest in receiving
advertisements, Sheila, a couple years later, started receiving
text messages that advertised Vintage Stock's sales. Now, she and
her husband (Dennis) claim that Vintage Stock violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Missouri law by sending
Sheila those text messages. Vintage Stock seeks summary judgment on
these claims.
Vintage operates as an entertainment store.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EQ9tKm at no extra
charge.[CC]
VONS COMPANIES: Carrillo Sues Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO SANDOVAL CARRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.; ONE
SOURCE TECHNOLOGY LLC d/b/a ASURINT, and DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case
No.8:25-cv-00191 (C.D. Cal., January 31, 2025) asserts that
Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc. has violated the: (i) California
Megan's Law, (ii) California Fair Chance Act, and (iii) California
Unfair Competition Law as well as claims that Asurint has violated
the Fair Credit Reporting Act and (ii) the UCL of California's
Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff now seeks for damages and other legal and equitable
remedies, based on: (i) Vons' unlawful and unfair conduct in using
information disclosed in the California Department of Justice
Megan's Law Website for employment purposes; (ii) Vons' failure to
conduct an individualized assessment of whether Plaintiff's
conviction has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific
duties of a Vons deli clerk that justified denying him the
position; and (iii) Asurint's unlawful and unfair conduct in
furnishing consumer background reports to Vons while knowing that
Vons unfairly and unlawfully uses information contained in the
consumer reports.
Headquartered in Fullerton, CA, The Vons Companies operates as
grocery store chain. The company is owned by Albertson's Companies,
Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Y. Kim, Esq.
RAY KIM LAW, APC
112 E. Amerige Ave., Suite 240
Fullerton, CA 92832
Telephone: (833) 729-5529
Facsimile: (833) 972-9546
E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com
WALT DISNEY Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Walt Disney Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 28, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a private securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
On May 12, 2023, a private securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer,
Robert Chapek, its former Chief Financial Officer, Christine M.
McCarthy, and the former Chairman of the Disney Media and
Entertainment Distribution segment, Kareem Daniel on behalf of
certain purchasers of securities of the Company (the "Securities
Class Action").
On November 6, 2023, a consolidated complaint was filed in the same
action, adding Robert Iger, the Company's Chief Executive Officer,
as a defendant.
Claims in the Securities Class Action include (i) violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against all defendants, (ii) violations of Section 20A
of the Exchange Act against Iger and McCarthy, and (iii) violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against all defendants.
Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action allege purported
misstatements and omissions concerning, and a scheme to conceal,
accurate costs and subscriber growth of the Disney+ platform.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, plus interest and costs and
fees.
The Company intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously and
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim on December 21, 2023.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on September 27, 2024.
The lawsuit is in the early stages and at this time we cannot
reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss.
The Walt Disney Company, commonly referred to as simply Disney, is
an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate
headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank,
California.[BN]
WALT DISNEY: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Walt Disney Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 28, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the consolidated Sherman
Act-related class suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
On November 18, 2022, a private antitrust putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company on behalf of a putative
class of certain subscribers to YouTube TV (the "Biddle Action").
The plaintiffs in the Biddle Action asserted a claim under Section
1 of the Sherman Act based on allegations that Disney uses certain
pricing and packaging provisions in its carriage agreements with
vMVPDs to increase prices for and reduce output of certain services
offered by vMVPDs.
On November 30, 2022, a second private antitrust putative class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company on behalf of a
putative class of certain subscribers to DirecTV Stream, making
similar allegations. The Company filed motions to dismiss for
failure to state a claim in both the Biddle Action and Fendelander
Action on January 31, 2023.
On September 30, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the Company's motions to dismiss both cases
and, on October 13, 2023, the court issued an order consolidating
both cases.
On October 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
putative class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The
Consolidated Complaint asserts claims under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and certain Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois,
Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina,
and Tennessee antitrust laws based on substantially similar
allegations as the Biddle Action and the Fendelander Action.
The Consolidated Complaint seeks injunctive relief, unspecified
money damages and costs and fees.
The Company intends to defend against the lawsuits vigorously and
filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint for failure to
state a claim on December 1, 2023.
The Company's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was
granted in part and denied in part on June 25, 2024.
On September 12, 2024, the Court entered a case management order
setting, among other dates, Plaintiffs' deadline to file their
class certification motion on March 27, 2026.
The Walt Disney Company, commonly referred to as simply Disney, is
an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate
headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank,
California.[BN]
WALT DISNEY: Faces Sherman Act-Related Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------
The Walt Disney Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 28, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the Company faces
the Sherman Act class suit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
On January 14, 2025, a private antitrust putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company on behalf of a putative
class of certain subscribers to fuboTV (the "Unger Action"), making
similar allegations to those in the now-consolidated Biddle and
Fendelander Actions.
The consolidated lawsuit and the Unger Action are in the early
stages, and at this time we cannot reasonably estimate the amount
of any possible loss.
The Walt Disney Company, commonly referred to as simply Disney, is
an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate
headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank,
California.[BN]
WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Class Settlement in Terry, et al. Case Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as United States of America ex rel. Denika
Terry, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00799 (E.D. Calif.), Senior Judge of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the plaintiffs' motions for final approval of
the class action settlement and for attorneys' fees and costs.
The members of the plaintiff classes are tenants who received
assistance through the federally subsidized Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher Program. They alleged defendants violated federal
and California law by charging rent beyond what the voucher program
allowed. Plaintiffs also asserted claims as relators on behalf of
the United States under the False Claims Act.
This court certified two classes: an injunction class under Rule
23(b)(2) and a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3). After extensive
pretrial litigation, which included motions to dismiss, to amend
the pleadings, seeking and opposing discovery, and summary
judgment, among others, the court scheduled a trial on several
claims against Wasatch Property Management to begin in July 2024.
The parties also attended private mediation. They reached an
agreement and filed a notice of settlement two days before the
first day of trial.
Class Settlement
The settlement agreement offers both injunctive and monetary relief
to the tenant classes.
First, defendants agreed to take measures designed to ensure
members of the injunction class are no longer required to pay the
charges at the foundation of plaintiffs' legal claims.
Second, defendants agreed to pay $5 million into a fund for
reimbursing the charges tenants paid between May 2011 and November
2022, plus interest. No class member would receive less than $100.
Class members will not need to file or verify any claims to obtain
these payments. The parties also have agreed to retain a consultant
to answer questions from class members about whether their
settlement payments will make them ineligible for a government
benefits program, with the costs of the consultation paid from the
settlement fund. If any settlement funds go unpaid, they will not
revert to defendants, but rather will be paid to cy pres legal aid
organizations that serve tenants in Section 8 housing programs.
Each of the named plaintiffs will receive additional awards of
$5,000.
Third, defendants have agreed to pay up to $4.5 million to cover
attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the counsel who litigated the
claims on behalf of the two classes.
Finally, the settlement agreement included provisions resolving the
claim plaintiffs asserted on behalf of the United States under the
FCA, i.e., that defendants had submitted claims for federal
reimbursements based on false representations about the alleged
side payments.
The court granted plaintiffs' unopposed motions to dismiss their
claim under the FCA and to approve the proposed class settlement on
a preliminary basis under Rule 23(e). The court also approved the
proposed notice to class members.
Now that the deadline for objections has passed, plaintiffs seek
final approval of the proposed settlement agreement.
As the settlement agreement permits, class counsel also have filed
a motion seeking an award of their fees and costs. They seek
reimbursement of $312,000 in costs and $4,188,000 in attorneys'
fees, $4.5 million in total. They contend that award is reasonable
both under the "lodestar" method, i.e., based on counsel's hourly
rates and the time they have devoted to this case, and based on the
value of the relief they obtained for the plaintiff class.
Defendants opposed neither the motion for final approval nor the
motion for fees and costs. The court held a hearing on Jan. 23,
2025.
The court finds now as a final matter that the proposed agreement
is fair, reasonable and adequate. No problems or unexpected
developments arose in administering the settlement agreement. No
class members objected, only three class members opted out of the
settlement, and in general, class members responded positively when
they learned about the agreement. These developments confirm the
court's preliminary assessment of the settlement agreement as a
fair, reasonable and adequate resolution of this hard-fought and
long-pending litigation. The court therefore grants the motion for
final approval of the proposed settlement agreement.
Fees and Costs
The court finds class counsel's proposed hourly rates are
reasonable for complex civil cases and class actions litigated
within this district between 2015 and 2025.
The court finds the proposed hours were well within the bounds of
what was reasonable in this matter.
Multiplying the rates and hours approved in the previous two
sections results in a lodestar fee of about $3.3 million. Class
counsel requests an upward adjustment of that lodestar fee to about
$4.2 million, which would represent an effective enhancement of
about 27–28 percent.
Counsel argues the 27–28 percent adjustment they propose is
particularly reasonable. Counsel also argues the agreement to
accept the representation in this case prevented them from taking
on other cases.
The court agrees each of these considerations can weigh in favor of
an upward adjustment. The effective multiplier of about 27–28
percent counsel proposes is justified given the complexity and
length of this litigation, the loss of other opportunities, the
favorable result obtained for the class via settlement, and class
counsel's willingness to take the case on a contingency basis. The
court therefore grants class counsel's request for an attorneys'
fees award of $4,188,000.
The court has reviewed class counsel's request for an award of
$312,000 in litigation costs. Those costs are reasonable for
litigation of this duration and complexity. The court therefore
grants the request for an award of costs.
The court approves service payments of $5,000 each to Class
Representatives Denika Terry, Roy Huskey III, and Tamera Livingston
pursuant to the terms of the settlement and for their service as
Class Representatives.
The court authorizes distribution of payments to Reimbursement
Class Members as set forth in the settlement.
The court approves the cy pres distribution of any funds remaining
following distribution as set forth in the settlement to: Bay Area
Legal Aid; Central California Legal Services; Inland County Legal
Services; Legal Services of Northern California; Legal Aid Society
of San Diego; and Legal Aid of Sonoma County.
The court orders payment of $4.5 million in attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses to Class Counsel consistent with the schedule set
forth in the settlement agreement.
This order constitutes a judgment within the meaning and for
purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, and the matter is
dismissed, except that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce
the agreement for a period of five years, as described in the
settlement agreement.
A final compliance hearing is set for March 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
after all funds are to have been distributed pursuant to the
schedule set forth in the settlement agreement.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dnjEGv from PacerMonitor.com.
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Klare Must File Class Cert Bid by April 4
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Klare, v. Westlake
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-06386-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order that:
1. All pending deadlines and proceedings are hereby vacated.
2. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification
and preliminary approval of settlement agreement no later
than April 4, 2025. The Defendant is encouraged to also file
a brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval.
3. The Plaintiff is advised that the court will not grant the
Motion unless it includes a discussion of the Rule 23(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requirements
4. With respect to any settlement involving claims pursuant to
the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Cal.
Labor Code sections 2698, et seq., the parties shall address
whether the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency
received notice of the settlement, and any response to such
notice.
5. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as
moot.
Westlake Services provides financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=77q6PU at no extra
charge.[CC]
ZIP CAPITAL: Simon Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zip Capital Group,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Brian Simon, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zip Capital Group, LLC,
Amerifi Capital Group, GreenVine Group, Tenthly LLC, Jaydee
Ventures, LLC also known as: "1West", Spark Financial LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-00644-MGL (D.S.C., Feb. 4, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Zip Capital Group -- https://zipcapitalgroup.com/ -- providing
merchant cash advances to working capital financing to small and
medium businesses across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM (CHA)
32 Ann Street, Unit B
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: roy@akimlawfirm.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***