/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250303.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, March 3, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 44
Headlines
10 SOUTH STREET: Calle and Scala Sue Over Labor Law Violations
3M COMPANY: Garcia Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Giomi Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Greenlee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Huhn Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Michot Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Washington-Bey Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
65 BURNSIDE MEAT: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Reyes Says
ACE PARKING: Tobey Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Can Arbitrate Claims in Johnson, et al. Suit
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Kusnier Class Suit in Calif.
AGOSTINI RESTAURANTS: Sanders Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ALLIANCE FOR FEDERAL: Ray Suit Removed to E.D. California
ALTO PHARMACY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 1
AMAZON.COM INC: Albano et al. Sue Over Unlawful Data Collection
AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Must File Class Cert Bid by April 14
AMERICAN INCOME: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN RENAL: Jolicoeur Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
AMPHENOL CORP: Class Settlement in Bookhout Suit Gets Initial Nod
ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: District of Nevada Dismisses Sessa Suit
AQUABLEU INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Suit Says
ATARAXIA LLC: Corralejo Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
ATARAXIA LLC: McKenzie Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
ATELIER-NY LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Randolph Says
BALDWIN WALLACE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Says
BAUSCH HEALTH: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Kelk Suit
BLAZESOFT LTD: Ambrosia Sues Over Illegal Online Casinos
BLUE CROSS: Class Settlement in Stark Gets Final Court Approval
BLUE CROSS: Court Certifies Settlement Class
BOOKS INC: Gets OK to Hire Finestone Hayes as Bankruptcy Counsel
BROKEN TROPHIES: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BROOKE ROLLINS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bennett Amended to Nov. 3
BRUCE PACKING: Bryant Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to Oklahoma
BYTEDANCE INC: Young Loses Bid for Class Certification
C & K MARKET: Phllips Suit Removed to N.D. California
CALDERONI TRUCKING: Davila Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CAROLINA TITLE LOANS: Watson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
CENGAGE LEARNING: Bernstein Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Class Certification Denied in Reuschel Suit
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Reuschel Class Cert Bid Tossed
CHARLESTON AREA: Hunt Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
CHEMONICS INTERNATIONAL: Elzin Sues Over Private Data Breach
CIGNA HEALTH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Whittemore Class Suit
CIRCOR AEROSPACE: Newman Suit Removed to C.D. California
CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Class Suit in New York
COINBASE GLOBAL: Aceves Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
COMMUNITY CHOICE: Wade Suit Removed to E.D. California
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Colino Suit Over Data Breach
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Rodriguez Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Court Refuses to Alter Judgment in Hoang Suit
CROCS INC: Faces Carretta Suit over Inventory Disclosures
CVS HEALTH: Court Grants Bids for Arbitration in Osterhaus Suit
CYBERSOFT TECHNOLOGY: Myers Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Borden Sues Over Data Security Failures
DESKTOP METAL: Court Tosses Campanella Lawsuit Over ExOne Merger
DON'T RUN OUT: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DOT TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by May 12
EASTERN MENNONITE: Ortiz Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
EDEN FINE ART: Balfour-Browne Sues Over Breach of Contract
EL POLLO LOCO: Removes Bogavac Suit to S.D. Calif.
ENVIGO RMS: Continues to Defend PAGA Class Suit in California
EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California
EXTRA SPACE MANAGEMENT: Burkhardt Suit Removed to E.D. California
FCA US: Class Settlement in Raymo Suit Gets Final Nod
FCA US: Settlement in Raymo, et al. Suit Obtains Final Approval
FEDERAL EXPRESS Faces Brown Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
FEDEX CORP: Bid for Class Cert in Almonte Extended to June 23
FELLINI SOHO: Erickson Sues Over Illegal Tip Practices
FIRST CHATHAM BANK: Blanski Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
FISHER INVESTMENTS: Human Appeals Stricken Voluntary Dismissal
FITON INC: Class Certification Order Entered in Hoffman Suit
FREDDIE MAC: Pension Fund Securities Suit Ongoing
FTAI AVIATION: Class Members' Bid to Serve as Lead Due March 18
FUTURE MOTION: Versteeg Sues Over Disregard for Rights of Safety
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK
GOODRX INC: C&M Pharmacy Sues Over Illegal Price-Fixing Scheme
GROUP HEALTH: Collins Suit Remanded to Dane County Circuit Court
GROUP HEALTH: District Court Remands Jenich Suit to Circuit Court
GROUP HEALTH: District Court Remands Mauer Suit to Dane County Ct.
GROUP HEALTH: Donahue Suit Remanded to Dane County Circuit Court
GROUP HEALTH: Mitchell Suit Remanded to Dane County Circuit Court
GROUP HEALTH: Moskoff Suit Remanded to Dane County Circuit Court
GROUP HEALTH: Pearson Suit Remanded to Dane County Circuit Court
GUCCI AMERICA: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
H&E EQUIPMENT: Dittebrandt Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
HALLEN CONSTRUCTION: Rosario Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Div.
HEALTHY SPOT: Hires Sage Law Partners as Real Estate Counsel
HELLERS GAS: Appeals Court Order in Gorney Suit to 4th Circuit
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Crano Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Va.
IMAGINE360 LLC: Collins Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
IMPERIAL PRODUCTS: Turek Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
IMY FOODS INC: Schuler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
INMAR INC: 4th Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Cert. in Mr. Dee's Suit
JERRITT CANYON: Rosales Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Griffin Suit Removed to N.D. California
JSP INTERNATIONAL: Blair Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
JW PEI: Faces Gee Suit Over Deceptive Advertised Sale Prices
KENT MARTIN: Burch Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
KENTUCKY: Harvey Appeals Court Rulings in Kennedy Case to 6th Cir.
KERRIGAN GROUP: Collazos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
KROGER CO: Court Dismisses Garland Consumer Suit With Prejudice
LA SOLAR GROUP: Steves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LAZ PARKING: 2nd Amended Complaint in Harris Suit Due on March 5
LESLIE'S INC: Continues to Defend WPBPPF Securities Class Suit
LOREAL USA INC: Grossenbacher Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
MALIN + GOETZ: Andrews Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MAXIMUS EDUCATION: Ackerman Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
MCCAIN FOODS USA: Burgers Are Fun Sues Over Unlawful Price Fixing
MCCARTHY BUILDING: Lyons Suit Removed to E.D. California
MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Fleming Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
METRO SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert in Ramires Reset to June 20
MID-ATLANTIC RHEUMATOLOGY: Hires Asher & Associates as Accountant
MIELLE ORGANICS: Allen Sues Over Unlawful Labeling and Advertising
MOLINA CLINICAL: Walker Suit Removed to C.D. California
MONSTER ENERGY: Galvan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Opposition to Summary Judgment Bid Due March 4
NEW YORK, NY: Removes Defalco Class Suit to S.D.N.Y.
NEWSBANK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Oyen Suit Says
OMNOVA NORTH AMERICA: Moncavage Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
OPW FUELING: Motion for Reconsideration of Scheduling Order Denied
ORIGIN MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
PARTY CITY: Smith et al. Sue Over Unlawful Mass Layoff
PB FRANCHISING SPV: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
PFIZER INC: Greeno Suit Transferred to N.D. Florida
PG&E CORP: Court Stays Securities Suit
PHARMACANN, INC: Turek Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PHENOMENEX INC: Ahamed Suit Removed to C.D. California
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kelly ZYN Class Suit in Florida
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Neumark Antitrust Class Suit
PLAVAN COMMERCIAL: Class Settlement in Tanner Gets Initial Nod
PREVAIL CA: Escobar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PRODIGAL COMPANY: Fiorito Appeals Denied in Forma Pauperis Request
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Kim Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Class Settlement in Brown Gets Initial Nod
PROGRESSIVE TREATMENT: McKenzie Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Insurance-Related Suit in California
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settlement in Stewart Suit Denied Approval
RETINA GROUP: Court Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class
REVOLUTION GLOBAL: Turek Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
ROBERT LUNA: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Modified to March 10
ROYAL CATERING: Quebraholla Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT: Reyes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SALEM MEDIA: Boyd Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
SCHNADER HARRISON: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 18
SCHULER SHOES: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Bid for Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply Nixed
SHOPPING PLAZA: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
SORMAN & FRANKEL: Abram Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SPRO LLC: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Court OK's $11K Add'l Admin. Fees in Chen Suit
SUNTRUST FARMS: Davis Sues Over Vapable Oils' THC Content
SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND: Davidson Sues Over Unpaid Wages
SUREFIRE MANAGEMENT: Diamond Sues Over Labor Law Violations
TAPESTRY INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Delaware
TAPESTRY INC: Continues to Defend Shareholders Class Suit
TETHER LIMITED: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by May 2
THREADBEAST LLC: Ransom Sues Over Illegal Debiting
TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
UNITED SERVICES: Coleman Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir.
UNITED STATES: Nelson Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene in Wash. Suit
UNITED STATES: Orr Balks at Reversal of Settled Passport Policy
UNITED TOWER: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Wage and Hour Practices
VECTRARX MAIL: Avila Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII
VF OUTDOOR: Court Denies Approval of Settlement in Valencia Suit
VITACOST.COM INC: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Villatoro Suit Removed to N.D. California
WALMART INC: Bonkowski Suit Removed to C.D. California
WARDEN WILKENS: Larez, et al. Prisoner Civil Rights Suit Tossed
WELLS FARGO: Brickman Investments Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
WELLS FARGO: Christner Suit Transferred to N.D. California
WLCC LENDING: Rainey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York
WYNN RESORTS: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod
XTO ENERGY: Wins Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Hystad Suit
ZACKS INVESTMENT: Eggert Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
*********
10 SOUTH STREET: Calle and Scala Sue Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS CALLE and CARMELA SCALA, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 10 SOUTH STREET CLUB OPERATOR,
INC. and CARLO PROIETTI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01124
(S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2025), accuses the Defendants of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as servers. Throughout
their employment, Plaintiffs were required to share tips with
ineligible employees. In addition, Plaintiffs were only paid the
foodservice minimum wage for their hours worked despite Defendants'
failure to give Plaintiff the proper notice of the tip credit.
Among other things, the Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per
week and were not paid the appropriate overtime rate for hours in
excess of 40.
The 10 South Street Club Operator, Inc. is a New York corporation
that owns and operates Casa Cipriani located at 10 South St, New
York, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Lucas Buzzard, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
3M COMPANY: Garcia Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ceasar Augusto Garcia, Jr., and others similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00303-RMG
(D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during her working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Giomi Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stacey Giomi, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00308-RMG
(D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during her working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease and high cholesterol as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Greenlee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
David Greenlee Sr., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00304-RMG
(D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during her working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease, kidney tumor, and high cholesterol as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Huhn Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Richard Huhn, et al., and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No.
2:25-cv-01045-RMG was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on Feb. 21, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00799 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Personal Injury - Product
Liability.
3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational
conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael C. Zogby, Esq.
Thomas A. Zelante, Jr., Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
1776 on the Green
67 E. Park Place, Suite 1000
Morristown, NJ 07960
Phone: (973) 775-6101
3M COMPANY: Michot Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Michot and Trisha Michot, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:25-cv-00295-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff David Michot regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and/or other
medical related conditions as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Miller, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00306-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16,
2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during her working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease and high cholesterol as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Washington-Bey Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Conrad J. Washington-Bey, et al., and others
similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No.
01-CV-2024-904718.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the
Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County,
Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on Feb. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-00271-JHE.
The Plaintiffs generally allege that certain Defendants, including
3M, have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold
AFFF products and/or fluorinated surfactants used therein, which
contain PFAS, including PFOS, PFOA, and/or their precursors, and
allege that other Defendants have designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and/or sold TOG products and/or fluorinated
surfactants used therein, which contain PFAS, including PFOS, PFOA,
and/or their precursors. Each of the Plaintiffs expressly alleges
that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF
and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and suffered
injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG
products."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
65 BURNSIDE MEAT: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Reyes Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PABLO REYES and PABLO MERINO GONZALEZ, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 65 BURNSIDE MEAT
MARKET CORP. (D/B/A SAGAL MEAT MARKET), SAGAL MEAT MARKET III INC.
(D/B/A SAGAL MEAT MARKET), SAGAL FISH MARKET INC. (D/B/A SAGAL FISH
MARKET), JOSE SANCHEZ, VICTOR SANCHEZ, Lenny Sanchez and FERNANDO
SANCHEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01132 (S.D.N.Y., February 7,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
violations of 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.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather,
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.
Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants also repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs were employed as grocery attendants and produce
workers at the supermarkets located in Bronx, New York.
65 Burnside Meat Market Corp., d/b/a Sagal Meat Market, owns,
controls, and operates three supermarkets in Bronx, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ACE PARKING: Tobey Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT TOBEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ACE PARKING
MANAGEMENT, INC. AND PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 3:24-cv-02932-X (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying class action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23:
The Plaintiff additionally prays for any and all other relief to
which Plaintiff may be entitled
Ace Parking provides a full range of parking services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SiEsTA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
Kevin P. Parker, Esq.
Alex J. Brown, Esq.
Alfred Mackenzie, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
Telephone: (713) 659-5200
E-mail: mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com
kevin.parker@lanierlawfirm.com
alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
alfred.mackenzie@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
Craig A. Haynes, Esq.
Robert C. Vartabedian, Esq.
Daniella P. Main, Esq.
VARTABEDIAN HESTER & HAYNES LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4600E
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 654-1632
E-mail: craig.haynes@vhh.law
rob.vartabedian@vhh.law
daniella.main@vhh.law
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Can Arbitrate Claims in Johnson, et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James M. Moody Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas granted the Activision
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned as
PRESTON JOHNSON and ELIZABETH JONES PLAINTIFFS v. ACTIVISION
BLIZZARD, INC.; INFINITY WARD, INC.; TREYARCH CORP.; SLEDGEHAMMER
GAMES, INC.; EPIC GAMES, INC.; ROBLOX CORP.; ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC.;
ROCKSTAR NORTH LIMITED; TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.; GOOGLE
LLC; and JANE & JOHN DOES I-XX DEFENDANTS, Case No.
3:24-cv-00026-JM (E.D. Ark.)
Pending is the motion to compel arbitration filed on behalf of
Defendants Activision Blizzard, Inc., Infinity Ward, Inc., Treyarch
Corp. and Sledgehammer Games, Inc. (collectively "Activision" or
the "Activision Defendants").
Plaintiffs, Preston Johnson and Elizabeth Jones filed suit against
the Activision Defendants and others due to alleged harm
experienced by Preston, including video game addiction (also called
internet gaming disorder) and brain damage, resulting from his use
of various video game products. The Activision Defendants developed
the video game franchise Call of Duty.
Activision argues that Plaintiffs' claims should be compelled to
arbitration. In order to play any Call of Duty game, Activision
requires a player to affirmatively agree to the Terms of Use and
End User License Agreement. Activision contends that the agreement
contains a binding arbitration provision and an agreement to
delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator. Plaintiffs admit
that Activision requires users to agree to the Terms of Use and
EULA in order to play Call of Duty.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that Preston has an Activision Call of
Duty account but argue that Preston created this account when he
was a minor, without his parent's input or knowledge and Preston
affirmatively disaffirms any agreements he may have entered.
However, Johnson admits that as a minor, if he wanted to play a
game or was playing a game and a screen popped up that required him
to "click it" to keep playing he would click the box to keep
playing. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue that there is not a valid
agreement to arbitrate.
Plaintiffs challenge Activision's motion to compel arbitration
arguing that it does not have a valid, enforceable arbitration
agreement with Plaintiffs Preston Johnson or Elizabeth Jones.
Additionally, even if an agreement existed, Plaintiffs argue that
it would not be enforceable because the arbitration clause is
unconscionable. Finally, Plaintiffs contend that this Court should
consider their arguments regarding the enforceability of the
arbitration provision because the delegation clause cannot apply
until there is a finding of a valid, enforceable contract.
The Court notes the existence of the arbitration agreement is not
factually disputed, there is no genuine issue of fact as to the
making of the contract.
Johnson does not dispute that he created the account. Plaintiffs
argue that the agreement is not valid because Johnson lacked the
capacity and competency to manifest assent and Elizabeth Jones
never assented to or accepted the EULA. Alternatively, they argue
the contract is unconscionable. The Court finds because Johnson's
contract is voidable, not void under Arkansas law, Johnson's
infancy and alleged lack of competency do not nullify his
agreement. Further, because of the EULA's broad delegation clause,
the plaintiffs' contract enforceability challenges including the
disaffirmation of the agreement go to an arbitrator, the Court
concludes.
According to the Court, Plaintiff Elizabeth Jones is bound by the
EULA under the doctrine of apparent authority.
Judge Moody explains that the Activision Defendants were justified
in believing that the user of the accounts possessed the authority
to agree to the EULA. There was no reason for the Activision
Defendants to question whether the user of the account was anyone
other than Johnson who was either over the age of 18 or was acting
with the consent of his parent or guardian.
The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists and the
Plaintiffs claims fall within the substantive scope of the
arbitration agreement.
The case is stayed as to Plaintiffs' claims against the Activision
Defendants pending the completion of arbitration.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=euu3nN from PacerMonitor.com.
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Kusnier Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Affirm Holdings 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 6, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Kusnier class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On December 8, 2022, plaintiff Mark Kusnier filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Affirm, Max Levchin, and Michael Linford in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(the "Kusnier action").
On May 5, 2023, plaintiffs Kusnier and Chris Meinsen filed their
first amended complaint alleging that the defendants (i) caused
Affirm to make materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that Affirm's BNPL service facilitated excessive
consumer debt (including with respect to certain for-profit
educational institutions), regulatory arbitrage, and data
harvesting; (ii) made false and/or misleading statements about
certain public regulatory actions; and (iii) made false and/or
misleading statements about whether Affirm’s business model was
vulnerable to interest rate changes.
On December 20, 2023, the Court granted Affirm’s motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint with leave to amend.
On January 19, 2024, plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint, which contains only the allegations from the first
amended complaint relating to false and/or misleading statements
about whether Affirm's business model was vulnerable to interest
rate changes.
In light of the above, plaintiffs assert that Affirm violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and that Levchin and Linford violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and costs and expenses.
Affirm filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
February 2, 2024.
On August 26, 2024, the Court granted Affirm's motion to dismiss
with leave to amend.
On September 23, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order granting Affirm's
motion to dismiss.
The Company have determined, based on current knowledge, that the
aggregate amount or range of losses that are estimable with respect
to our legal proceedings, including the matters described above,
would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Amounts
accrued as of December 31, 2024 were not material. The ultimate
outcome of legal proceedings involves judgments, estimates and
inherent uncertainties, and cannot be predicted with certainty.
Affirm Holdings, Inc. is a next-generation e-commerce platform
with
agreements with originating banks, and capital markets partners,
that enable consumers to confidently pay for a purchase over time,
with terms ranging up to sixty months.
AGOSTINI RESTAURANTS: Sanders Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agostini Restaurants,
Inc. The case is styled as Sabrina Sanders, on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated non-exempt current and former
employees v. Agostini Restaurants, Inc., Case No. MCV094257 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Madera Cty., Feb. 19, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Agostini Restaurants Inc is a company that operates in the
Restaurants industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon Sweeney, Esq.
THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM
15303 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 900
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-3199
Phone: 818-380-3051
Fax: 818-380-3001
Email: bsweeney@thesweeneylawfirm.com
ALLIANCE FOR FEDERAL: Ray Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jerry Ray, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and in his capacity as a Private
Attorneys General Representative v. ALLIANCE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
INC., Case No. S-CV-0054245 was removed from the Superior Court of
Placer County, California, to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California on Feb. 21, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-00617-TLN-AC.
The Complaint further asserts claims for failure to reimburse
expenses in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; willful misclassification
as an independent contractor in violation of Cal. Lab. Code;
failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure
to pay overtime in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to provide
itemized wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; meal and
rest period violations in violation of Cal. Wage Order No. 4-2001
and Cal. Lab. Code; failure to pay all regular wages when due in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to pay waiting time penalties
in violation of Cal. Lab. Code; failure to pay commission wages in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code; unfair business practices in violation
of Cal. Bus & Prof. Code; and penalties pursuant to Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bradford G. Harvey, Esq.
Jessica M. Wolinsky, Esq.
MILLER & MARTIN PLLC
832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1200
Volunteer Building
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Phone: 423-756-6600
Facsimile: 423-785-8480
Email: brad.harvey@millermartin.com
jessica.wolinsky@millermartin.com
- and -
Eileen R. Ridley, Esq.
Krista M. Cabrera, Esq.
John J. Atallah, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
555 South Flower Street, Ste. 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418
Phone: (213) 972-4500
Facsimile: (213) 486-0065
Email: eridley@foley.com
kcabrera@foley.com
jatallah@foley.com
ALTO PHARMACY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 1
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFIYFAH MUHAMMAD, et al.,
v. ALTO PHARMACY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11315-KHP
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an order that
the Plaintiffs shall file their motion for conditional class
certification by March 1, 2025.
-- The Defendants shall file their opposition by March 22, 2025.
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply by March 29, 2025.
On Feb. 18, 2025, the parties appeared before the undersigned for a
case management conference.
Discovery for any collective that may be certified shall take place
within 120 days following a ruling on the Motion for Conditional
Class Certification, if appropriate.
There shall be no further amendments to the pleadings or joinder of
parties absent good cause.
The parties shall conduct depositions of the Lead Plaintiffs and
the Defendants in the 60 days following the date of this order.
Alto offers support for patients requiring specialty medications,
including coordination with insurance and manufacturers for access
and adherence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SqduXq at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Albano et al. Sue Over Unlawful Data Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ALBANO ET AL., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and AMAZON ADVERTISING, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-00252-TL (W.D. Wash., February 7, 2025), alleges that the
Defendants are covertly exfiltrated location and personal
information of millions of Americans by using software development
kit (SDK) that is embedded in mobile phones' third-party
applications.
According to the complaint, the Defendants illegally collected this
information without informing or seeking consent from millions of
Americans, including Plaintiffs and Class members. Plaintiffs and
Class members did not know and had no way to know that their data
was continuously being exfiltrated, manipulated, and monetized by
Amazon. The Amazon Ads SDK operated in the background of these
third-party developers' applications and the developers themselves
may not have had any idea the extent to which their apps had become
a Trojan Horse for Amazon's secret tracking mechanism. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs now assert claims for, among other things,
violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications
Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, and the state common law right to privacy.
Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Amazon.com, Inc. is engaged in
e-commerce, cloud computing, and online advertising. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq,
Jacob M. Alhadeff, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY
1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 802-1272
Facsimile: (206) 299-4184
E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
jalhadeff@cpmlegal.com
AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Must File Class Cert Bid by April 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARINATWE v. AMERICAN
HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61678 (S.D. Fla., Filed
Sept. 12, 2024), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend deadline for
class certification.
-- The Plaintiff shall file its Motion April 14, 2025
for Class Certification on or by:
The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
American Health Associates provides clinical laboratory services to
long term care in the United States.[CC]
AMERICAN INCOME: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bianca Ethlyn Rodriguez, an individual, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN INCOME LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation; GLOBE LIFE INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV32420 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Feb. 20, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-01427.
The Plaintiff asserts ten purported putative class claims against
Defendants AIL and Globe Life under the California Labor Code and
the Industrial Wage Commission Wage Orders for: statutory penalties
for misclassification of employees; failure to pay wages due in
violation of Labor Code; failure to pay minimum wages due in
violation of Labor Code; failure to pay overtime in violation of
Labor Code; failure to indemnify for necessary business expenses in
violation of Labor Code; failure to pay mandatory sick time in
violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize compliant rest breaks
in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize compliant rest
breaks in violation of Labor; failure to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements in violation of Labor Code; and waiting time
penalties for failure to timely pay all wages upon termination
pursuant to Labor Code. The Plaintiff also asserts a putative class
claim for unfair business practices under California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), Business & Professions Code. Finally,
Plaintiff seeks recovery of derivative civil penalties under the
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"),
California Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey M. Hammer, Esq.
Ramon A. Miyar, Esq.
Alexis Ashjian, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-4355
Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
Email: jhammer@kslaw.com
rmiyar@kslaw.com
aashjian@kslaw.com
AMERICAN RENAL: Jolicoeur Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Renal
Management LLC. The case is styled as Steevenson Jolicoeur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Renal Management LLC d/b/a Innovative Renal Care, Case No.
1:25-cv-10439 (D. Mass., Feb. 21, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
American Renal Management LLC doing business as Innovative Renal
Care -- https://innovativerenal.com/ -- is a network of dialysis
professionals devoted to helping people with kidney disease lead
their best lives as they undergo treatment.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
AMPHENOL CORP: Class Settlement in Bookhout Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIM BOOKHOUT, SAMUEL
BACKUS, and TANIA BACKUS, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, v. AMPHENOL CORPORATION, and any
related entities doing business as Amphenol Aerospace, Case No.
3:23-cv-00777-AJB-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Brindisi
entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action
settlement:
1. The consent motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement is granted;
2. The proposed Settlement Class1 shall consist of:
"all hourly employees who (a) worked at Amphenol's location
in Sidney, New York during the Class Period; (b) were
members of Sidney Lodge No. 1529, affiliate of the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers; and (c) do not timely opt-out pursuant to Section
2.4 of the Settlement Agreement";
3. The proposed FLSA Collective shall consist of:
"All hourly employees who (a) worked at Amphenol's location
in Sidney, New York during the FLSA Collective Period; (b)
were members of Sidney Lodge No. 1529, affiliate of the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers; and (c) meet the requirements to be an Authorized
Claimant";
4. A Fairness Hearing will be held in the 3rd floor courtroom
of the U.S. Courthouse in Utica, New York, on Tuesday,
Aug. 12, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.
On June 27, 2023, the Plaintiff Bookhout filed this putative
collective and class action alleging that the Defendant violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and related state law by
maintaining a policy and practice of depriving her and other
similarly situated employees of straight-time wages and overtime
wages.
On Oct. 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement and an order directing notice to the
proposed settlement class.
Amphenol is an aerospace company with a manufacturing facility in
Sydney, New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zJelAI at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: District of Nevada Dismisses Sessa Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit
styled ANTHONY SESSA, et al., Plaintiffs v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW (D.
Nev.).
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, filed by
Defendants Ancestry.com Operations Inc., Ancestry.com, Inc., and
Ancestry.com LLC, (collectively, "Defendants" or "Ancestry").
Plaintiffs Anthony Sessa and Mark Sessa filed a Response to which
the Defendants filed a Reply. Also pending before the Court is the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery in the
Alternative, and the Plaintiffs' three Motions for Leave to file
Supplemental Authority.
The case arises out of the Plaintiffs' class action against
Ancestry for knowingly misappropriating their yearbook photos,
without the Plaintiffs' consent, for the purpose of selling access
to them. The Plaintiffs allege that to create its Yearbook
Database, Ancestry extracted personal information from school
yearbooks and aggregated it into digital records for their website.
Customers can pay a monthly subscription, ranging from $24.99 to
$49.99, to search and download these records.
To sell subscriptions, Ancestry offers a 14-day promotional free
trial that provides temporary access to the Yearbook Database at
issue in this case, and offers a limited-access version of its
website that encourages visitors to search the database and receive
records. Users are urged to sign up for a paid subscription to
access the full version of the photograph or additional information
about the person they searched for. Ancestry also advertises with
email promotions, such as by sending photographs of the gravesites
of deceased relatives and messages containing names and likenesses
from its Yearbook Database.
In the Court's first Order granting in part the Defendants' initial
Motion to Dismiss, it found that the Court had personal
jurisdiction over Ancestry. The Defendants, then, brought a Motion
for Reconsideration of personal jurisdiction based on the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 87 F.4th 404, 417
(9th Cir. 2023). The Court explained that Briskin expanded on the
application of personal jurisdiction jurisprudence as it applies to
website-based contacts and established a clear test.
The Court noted that it had not previously evaluated whether the
Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Ancestry had a forum-specific
focus on Nevada, and ultimately granted dismissal for lack of
personal jurisdiction based on Briskin and three previous Ninth
Circuit cases: Will Co. v. Lee, 47 F.4th 917 (9th Cir. 2022),
Mavrix Photo Inc. v. Brand Technologies, 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir.
2011), and and AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201 (9th
Cir. 2020).
The Court granted leave to amend to allow the Plaintiffs to plead
additional jurisdictional facts, and they filed their First Amended
Complaint ("FAC").
The Defendants, then, filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, arguing
that the Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that Ancestry
expressly aimed its conduct at Nevada pursuant to the four cases
cited. After briefing concluded, Ancestry filed a Notice of
Rehearing En Banc, informing the Court that the Ninth Circuit
granted a motion for rehearing en banc in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc.
and vacated the panel opinion.
The Plaintiffs assert that this Court has specific jurisdiction
over the Defendants because it purposefully directed its
suit-related activity into this forum. The Defendants disagree,
arguing that because its website operates the same way in Nevada as
it does everywhere else, the FAC should be dismissed. Because the
Ninth Circuit's Briskin decision has been vacated, the Court will
address only the parties' arguments that rely on current Ninth
Circuit precedent.
Because the Court has previously granted leave to amend to allege
additional jurisdictional facts, the Plaintiffs' additional facts
in the FAC did not remedy the deficiencies identified, and the
Plaintiffs' requested topics for additional discovery would not
confer jurisdiction, the Court finds that another amendment would
be futile.
The Court, therefore, grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
without leave to amend but without prejudice.
In their Motion to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery, the Plaintiffs
assert that the Court should permit jurisdictional discovery
because discovery closed before the Court granted the earlier
Motion for Reconsideration under Briskin, and because more
discovery will show that Ancestry intentionally targeted Nevada.
As to the Plaintiffs' first argument relating to Briskin, Judge
Navarro maintains that this Order does not rely on Briskin because
it has been vacated and is no longer precedential. But beyond that,
the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion because they have not
demonstrated that "pertinent facts" are in dispute.
The Defendants agree that it wants a market in Nevada, and that
does not change the Court's analysis that the Plaintiffs failed to
show the Defendants' conduct was expressly aimed at Nevada, Judge
Navarro explains. The same logic applies to the determining the
precise number of Nevadans in Ancestry's customer base. Because the
Court does not find that more facts are needed, or that additional
facts would change the analysis, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery is denied.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss. The case is
dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery is denied.
The Plaintiffs' first Motion for Leave is granted. The Plaintiffs'
second and third Motions for Leave are denied. The Clerk of Court
is requested to close this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/48ebjwps from PacerMonitor.com.
AQUABLEU INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AQUABLEU INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01147 (S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2025) 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.
The Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the
facilities, goods, and services of Defendant's interactive website
while attempting to access the website from her home in Bronx, NY.
Allegedly, Defendant's failed to make its website available in a
manner compatible with computer screen reader programs.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's
unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business
Law.
Based in Tappan, NY, Aquableu, Inc. operates the Aquableu online
retail store, as well as the Aquableu interactive website,
https://aquableu.com/, which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services including information about the
company's hair care products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
ATARAXIA LLC: Corralejo Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Royal Corralejo, on behalf of himself
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BAYMARK HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Case No. 25-0927-431 was removed
from the 431st Judicial District Court, Denton County, Texas, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on Feb.
23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00180.
On January 29, 2025, the Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf
of other individuals, filed the State Court Action against BayMark
in the District Court of Denton County, Texas, alleging claims for
negligence; negligence per se; (breach of implied contract; breach
of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment; invasion of privacy; and
breach of confidence.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lisa A. Houssiere, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
811 Main Street, Ste. 1100
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 751-1600
Facsimile: (713) 751-1717
Email: lhoussiere@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Melissa M. Bilancini, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Square, Ste. 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 861-7094
Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
Email: mbilancini@bakerlaw.com
ATARAXIA LLC: McKenzie Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kevin McKenzie, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ATARAXIA, LLC, VERANO ILLINOIS,
LLC; VERANO HOLDINGS, LLC; VERANO HOLDINGS USA CORP., and VERANO
HOLDINGS, CORP., Case No. 2025CH00342 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 20, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 1:25-cv-01777.
The Complaint alleges that the purported class was "harmed in the
full amount of the moneys paid for the Vapable Oils
purchases."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Casey T. Grabenstein, Esq.
SAUL EWING, LLP
161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 876-7100
Fax: (312) 876-0288
Email: Casey.grabenstein@saul.com
- and -
Jonathan A. Singer, Esq.
SAUL EWING, LLP
1001 Fleet Street, Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: (410) 332-8690
Email: Jon.singer@saul.com
ATELIER-NY LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Randolph Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarity
situated Plaintiff v. Atelier-NY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01373 (N.D. Ill., February 8, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Atelier for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://ateliernewyork.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.
According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: incorrectly formatted lists,
ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning,
inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links
go to the same URL address and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Atelier's policies, practices, and procedures to that its website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.
Atelier-NY, LLC operates the website that provides consumers with
access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to
view scarves, sneakers, flats, heels, boots, dresses, T-shirts,
sweaters, jackets, handbags, wallets, earrings, bracelets,
necklaces, rings, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Camarena, Esq.
1016 W. Jackson, No. 32
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (630) 534-2527
E-mail: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com
BALDWIN WALLACE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BALDWIN WALLACE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00125 (W.D.N.Y., February 7, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.bw.edu,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
The Rehabilitation Act, prohibiting discrimination against the
blind.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
January 15, 2025, in an attempt to purchase the Baldwin Wallace
University Crewneck Sweatshirt, from Defendant, and to view the
information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping and recreational
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues
to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the
discriminatory conditions present on Defendant's website. These
discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's
sense of isolation and segregation, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Baldwin Wallace University operates the website that offers
information about its 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.[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
BAUSCH HEALTH: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Kelk Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in the lawsuit titled JOHN KELK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAUSCH
HEALTH COMPANIES INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-03996-ZNQ-RLS (D.N.J.).
The matter comes before the Court upon (1) a Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendants Bausch Health Companies Inc. ("the Company"),
Joseph Papa, Paul Herendeen, and Thomas Appio, and (2) a Motion for
Leave to File a Sur-Reply filed by Lead Plaintiffs R. Cassian
Anderson and Donna S. Preves.
The Plaintiffs filed an initial complaint on July 26, 2023.
Thereafter, on Jan. 19, 2024, they filed a 95-page amended
class-action complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Counts One and Two).
The Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on July 9, 2024.
The Plaintiffs then sought leave to file a sur-reply after the
Motion to Dismiss was fully briefed.
As alleged in the Amended Complaint, Defendant Bausch Health is a
global healthcare conglomerate that develops, manufactures, and
markets a broad range of pharmaceuticals and medical devices in the
areas of eye-health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. Bausch
Health's common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
Also named as Defendants are Joseph Papa ("Chairman Papa"), Bausch
Health's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Paul
Herendeen ("CFO Herendeen"), Bausch Health's former Chief Financial
Officer and Executive Vice President, and Thomas Appio ("CEO
Appio"), Bausch Health's current Chief Executive Officer.
Prior to Bausch Health becoming a corporate entity in 2018, Bausch
Health was Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. ("Valeant").
Valeant changed its name to Bausch Health as a result of securities
violations. After the name change, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants maintained a facade that downplayed the Company's
financial struggles, including that the Company owed billions of
dollars in liability from Valeant shareholders, and that the
Company's most valuable drug--Xifaxan--was "seriously threatened."
The Class Period begins on May 7, 2020, when the Defendants
misleadingly told investors that they "preserved market
exclusivity" over Xifaxan until 2028--while making no mention of
the ongoing and credible challenge to its patents by Norwich
Pharmaceutical Inc., one of its competitors. The Defendants also
purportedly downplayed the threat of litigation from its Valeant
past. As a result of these problems, the Company's stock price
declined, injuring investors, who purchased Bausch Health shares.
Prior to May 5, 2021, Bausch Health's portfolio of products
included (1) Bausch + Lomb/International ("B+L"); (2) Salix, a
large specialty pharmaceutical company committed to treating
gastrointestinal disorders; (3) Ortho Dermatologics; and (4)
Diversified Products. Bausch Health's 2022 Form 10-K revealed that
its revenues for 2022, 2021 and 2020 were "$8,124 million, $8,434
million and $8,027 million, respectively."
As of Dec. 31, 2019, Bausch Health had $33.8 billion of assets with
long-term debt totaling $24.6 billion. Bausch Health also had an
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization
(EBITDA) score of 7.5, indicating that it was at serious risk of
default according to various financial agencies. However, contrary
to those liabilities and risks of default, Chairman Papa stated on
May 12, 2020, that Bausch Health has paid down over $8 billion of
debt since 2016. The Company recognizes though, that it still has
significant amount of debt, and is continuing to look to pay down
the debt.
According to the Amended Complaint, Bausch Health conducted no
major divestitures in 2018, 2019, or 2020 other than what the
Amended Complaint calls the "B+L spinoff" in August 2020. In short,
the Amended Complaint alleges two counts: Count One is a violation
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Count Two is a
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual Defendants.
With respect to their Motion for leave to file a Sur-Reply, Judge
Quraishi finds the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that a
sur-reply is necessary, as the parties' arguments were sufficiently
addressed in the original moving papers. The Defendants have not
raised new arguments in their Reply--contrary to the Plaintiffs'
position--and the Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing
that a sur-reply is otherwise merited.
Consequently, Judge Quraishi rules that the Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply
Motion will be denied, and the Court will not consider their
sur-reply when addressing the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
In their Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants argue that the Amended
Complaint impermissibly resorts to general speculation about the
Company and relies on unproven allegations. The Defendants add,
among other things, that the statements that the Plaintiffs allege
to be misleading are forward-looking inactionable statements of
opinion or belief. The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs
have not sufficiently alleged that some of the purportedly
misleading statements were false when made.
Based on a complete and liberal reading of the Amended Complaint,
Judge Quraishi finds that many of the alleged misleading statements
relied upon by the Plaintiffs to show fraud or that the spinoff was
unlikely to occur are forward-looking statements of opinion and
belief. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' contentions, Judge Quraishi
finds the statement over the spinoff is an inactionable
forward-looking statement because it states what the Company
believes, involves projections of revenue, income, earnings, and
capital expenditures, and is merely corporate optimism pertaining
to future business plans. At best, the statements relied upon by
the Plaintiffs to show fraud are merely expressions of corporate
optimism.
The Court agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have
failed to adequately plead scienter as to each individual Defendant
for the statements identified in Paragraphs 138 and 139. The
Amended Complaint--even when read in the "aggregate,"--fails to put
forth facts demonstrating "particularized allegations of a concrete
and personal benefit to the individual defendants resulting from
the fraud," Judge Quraishi opines, citing In re Bio-Tech. Gen.
Corp. Sec. Litig., 380 F. Supp. 2d 574, 586–87 (D.N.J. 2005). The
Amended Complaint does not include memoranda, internal reports, or
communications suggesting that the Defendants were aware that their
statements were false.
Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' inferences of scienter
are not cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference
of nonfraudulent intent. Consequently, the Court finds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege scienter when the
Amended Complaint is read as a whole.
In sum, because the Court has found that scienter is not adequately
pled with respect to the two remaining actionable statements, the
Court will not proceed to loss causation. The Plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim under Section 10(b) and corresponding Rule
10b-5 for the Defendants' statements pertaining to the spinoff.
Just like the statements related to the spinoff, Judge Quraishi
also finds, among other things, that most of the statements
pertaining to the Xifaxan litigation are forward-looking
inactionable statements protected by the safe harbor provision of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to
plead a plausible violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Count
One will, therefore, be dismissed without prejudice. Because the
Court has found that there are no underlying primary violations
under Section 10(b), the Court will also dismiss Count Two without
prejudice.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a
Sur-Reply. The Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs will be given leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint to address the deficiencies identified here within 30
days.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Feb. 12, 2025, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2pemmy3r from PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3k9fjw25 from PacerMonitor.com.
BLAZESOFT LTD: Ambrosia Sues Over Illegal Online Casinos
--------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Ambrosia, Jr. and Robert Houpt, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BLAZESOFT LTD., BLAZEGAMES,
INC., SSPC LLC d/b/a SPORTZINO, and SCPS LLC d/b/a ZULA CASINO,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01723 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 19, 2025), is brought
arising from a predatory scheme orchestrated by Defendants through
their illegal online casinos, Sportzino and Zula.
The Defendants lure consumers to their platforms by falsely
marketing them as free-to-play "sweepstakes" casinos when, in
reality, they operate as unregulated gambling traps where users
wager and lose real money playing virtual slot machines and other
casino-style games of chance over the Internet.
At the heart of Defendants' "sweepstakes" casino model is a dual
currency system deliberately crafted to obscure the fact users are
engaging in real-money gambling. Consumers purchase "Gold Coins,"
which can be used to play "free" casino games but are not
redeemable for real money outside of the platforms. However, each
purchase of Gold Coins is "bundled" with Sweepstakes Coins ("Sweeps
Coins"), which can be wagered on games of chance (plainly branded
as "casino-style slots," for instance) and actually redeemed for
cash at a 1:1 ratio to the U.S. Dollar. For every dollar spent on
Gold Coins, players receive a nearly equivalent number of Sweeps
Coins, exposing Gold Coins as a thin veil over the truth that
players are really purchasing Sweeps Coins for real-money, virtual
gambling.
By enabling Illinois residents to purchase Sweeps Coins, wager them
on games of chance over the Internet, and redeem them for real
money, Defendants are effectively operating unlicensed and illegal
online casinos. And without any oversight or accountability,
Defendants flout Illinois gambling regulations by, for example,
allowing individuals under the age of 21 to gamble on their
platforms in violation of state law designed to protect minors and
failing to provide gambling addiction resources for problem
gamblers.
The Defendants' misconduct inflicts particularly severe harm on
vulnerable populations, including individuals predisposed to
gambling addiction and younger consumers targeted through "free
play" marketing. Defendants aggressively market and promote their
online casinos on social media platforms, using deceptive tactics
to entice users into engaging with their seemingly harmless games.
By masking real-money gambling as "sweepstakes" promotions,
Defendants create a dangerously misleading environment that fosters
unchecked gambling in Illinois--precisely the harm that the
Illinois Legislature sought to prevent. This deliberate obfuscation
exposes unsuspecting Illinois consumers to significant risks of
financial ruin, psychological distress, and compulsive gambling
addiction.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals, bring this lawsuit to expose
Defendants' predatory practices, recover funds lost by their
victims, and dismantle their deceptive and unregulated gambling
operations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have been playing Zula and Sportzino games.
Blazesoft owns, operates, funds, and controls the Sportzino and
Zula online casinos.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
Michael Ovca, Esq.
Hannah Hilligoss, Esq.
Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312.589.6370
Fax: 312.589.6378
Email: ewadescott@edelson.com
movca@edelson.com
hhilligoss@edelson.com
ascharg@edelson.com
BLUE CROSS: Class Settlement in Stark Gets Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina granted the plaintiff's
motion for final approval of the class action settlement in the
case captioned as ALEXANDRA STARK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE
SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA and CHANGE HEALTHCARE RESOURCES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-CV-22 (M.D.N.C.).
On Jan. 10, 2023, Alexandra Stark filed a class action complaint
against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina and Change
Healthcare Inc. She alleged that Change Healthcare made phone calls
on behalf of BCBSNC that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, both by making pre-recorded calls without
consumers' consent and by not stopping such calls when consumers
requested.
In July 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement agreement, ordered settlement notices to be sent to the
putative class members, and set a date for a final settlement
fairness hearing. The plaintiffs have now moved for final approval
of the settlement terms under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
and for attorneys' fees and other disbursements.
The hearing on the motion for final approval was held on Jan. 30,
2025.
The Court finds that the proposed settlement meets the requirements
of Rule 23.
The Court will also grant fair and reasonable attorneys' fees and
approve reimbursement of reasonable expenses.
The Court finally certifies the class as defined in the Settlement
Agreement, certifies Ms. Stark as class representative, and
confirms the appointment of Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.
The plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, is granted
as follows:
a. Class counsel is awarded attorneys' fees of 30% of the
settlement fund, $501,000.
b. Class counsel shall be reimbursed $21,407.62 for expenses.
c. All payments of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses
to class counsel in this action shall be made from the settlement
fund, and the Released Parties shall have no liability or
responsibility for the payment of class counsel's attorneys' fees
or expenses.
d. Payment of up to $107,463.74 to the Settlement Administrator
is authorized as fair and reasonable compensation for its work.
Should its final fee exceed that amount for unexpected reasons,
class counsel may file a supplemental motion.
The Court enters final judgment, and all claims are dismissed with
prejudice. Without affecting the finality of the judgment entered,
the Court reserves jurisdiction over the implementation of the
settlement, including enforcement and administration of the
settlement agreement and decisions about any cy pres recipient.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
http://urlcurt.com/u?l=LaNsX2from PacerMonitor.com.
BLUE CROSS: Court Certifies Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDRA STARK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA and CHANGE HEALTHCARE
RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00022-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Catherine Eagles entered an order granting the plaintiff's
motion for final approval of class action :
-- The Court finally certifies the class as defined in the
Settlement Agreement, certifies Ms. Stark as class
representative, and confirms the appointment of Plaintiff's
counsel as class counsel.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, is
granted as follows:
a. Class counsel is awarded attorneys' fees of 30% of the
settlement fund, $501,000.
b. Class counsel shall be reimbursed $21,407.62 for
expenses.
c. Payment of up to $107,463.74 to the Settlement
Administrator is authorized as fair and reasonable
compensation for its work. Should its final fee exceed
that amount for unexpected reasons, class counsel may
file a supplemental motion.
-- The Court enters final judgment, and all claims are
dismissed with prejudice. Without affecting the finality of
the judgment entered, the Court reserves jurisdiction over
the implementation of the settlement, including enforcement
and administration of the settlement agreement and decisions
about any cy pres recipient.
Subject to various exclusions, the proposed class for settlement
purposes is defined as follows:
"All regular users or subscribers to numbers assigned to
wireless carriers which Change Healthcare, on behalf of BCBSNC,
called during the Settlement Class Period using an artificial
or pre-recorded voice who were not members or subscribers of
BCBSNC or that opted out of receiving calls from Change
Healthcare."
On Jan. 10, 2023, Alexandra Stark filed a class action complaint
against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina and Change
Healthcare Inc.
She alleged that Change Healthcare made phone calls on behalf of
BCBSNC that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, both by
making pre-recorded calls without consumers' consent and by not
stopping such calls when consumers requested.
Blue Cross provides healthcare and insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vU0Smo at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOOKS INC: Gets OK to Hire Finestone Hayes as Bankruptcy Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Books Inc. received approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of California to hire Finestone Hayes LLP as its
general bankruptcy counsel.
The firm will provide these services:
a. advise and represent the Debtor as to all matters and
proceedings within this Chapter 11 case, other than those
particular areas that may be assigned to special counsel;
b. assist, advise and represent the Debtor in any manner
relevant to a review of its debts, obligations, maximization of its
assets and where appropriate, disposition thereof;
c. assist, advise and represent the Debtor in the operation of
its business;
d. assist, advise, and represent the Debtor in the performance
of all its duties and powers under the Bankruptcy Code and
Bankruptcy Rules, and in the performance of such other services as
are in the interests of the estate; and
e. assist, advise, and represent the Debtor in dealing with its
creditors and other constituencies, analyzing the claims in this
case, and formulating and seeking approval of a plan of
reorganization.
The firm will be paid at $425 to $650 per hour.
The firm received a pre-petition retainer in the amount of
$575,000.
The firm will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred.
Stephen Finestone, Esq. a partner at Finestone Hayes LLP, disclosed
in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the
term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The firm can be reached at:
Stephen D. Finestone, Esq.
Finestone Hayes LLP
456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 481-5481
Fax: (415) 398-2820
Email: sfinestone@fhlawllp.com
About Books Inc.
Books Inc. is the oldest independently owned bookstore in the
western U.S. and operates eleven brick-and-mortar stores in the Bay
Area. In addition to its physical locations, the Company runs an
online store, offering a mix of direct shipping and in-store pickup
for customers. The Company also fosters strong community
engagement, hosting hundreds of author events, book clubs, and
other activities each year.
Books Inc. sought protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Case No. 25-40087 on January 20,
2025, with $3,283,300 in assets and $5,161,574 in liabilities.
Andrew Perham, chief executive officer of Books Inc., signed the
petition.
Judge William J. Lafferty oversees the case.
The Debtor is represented by Stephen D. Finestone, Esq. at
Finestone Hayes LLP.
BROKEN TROPHIES: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Broken Trophies, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01695 (N.D. Ill., Feb.
19, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Broken
Trophies provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://duneandsalt.com (hereinafter "Duneandsalt.com" or "the
website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Duneandsalt.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Broken Trophies' policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Broken Trophies provides to the public a website known as
Duneandsalt.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to view outerwear,
sweaters, tops, dresses, sneakers, clogs, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (630)-478-0856
Email: Dreyes@ealg.law
BROOKE ROLLINS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bennett Amended to Nov. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRINA BENNETT, v. BROOKE
ROLLINS et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00430-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered an order granting the
Parties' joint motion to amend the case scheduling order as
follows:
Old Deadline New Deadline
Plaintiff's expert witness Feb. 28, 2025 May 12, 2025
Disclosures:
Defendants' expert witness Mar. 14, 2025 May 26, 2025
Disclosures:
Daubert motions: June 6, 2025 Aug. 18, 2025
Close of fact discovery: June 20, 2025 Sept. 8, 2025
Plaintiff's settlement demand: July 7, 2025 Sept. 18, 2025
Defendants' response to July 21, 2025 Oct. 13, 2025
settlement demand:
Class certification motion: Aug. 22, 2025 Nov. 3, 2025
Dispositive motions: Nov. 21, 2025 Feb. 2, 2026
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=omap34 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRUCE PACKING: Bryant Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRITTON BRYANT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRUCE PACKING COMPANY
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05636-MMB (E.D. Pa.), Michael M.
Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and transfers
the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma.
Plaintiff Britton Bryant purchased a salad in South Carolina that
contained ready-to-eat chicken produced by Defendant Bruce Packing
Company Inc. ("BrucePac") at a facility in Oklahoma. Bryant took
ill and BrucePac's ready-to-eat chicken was later recalled due to
the presence of Listeria monocytogenes ("Listeria"). Bryant
initiated a class action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against BrucePac, who moved to dismiss the Complaint and/or
transfer venue.
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum, the Court finds it
lacks personal jurisdiction over BrucePac and transfers this case
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1631.
BrucePac is a corporation organized and with a principal place of
business in Oregon. BrucePac manufactures ready-to-eat products
that are incorporated into other food items sold nationwide. On
Oct. 9, 2024, the Department of Agriculture announced that it
discovered Listeria in products containing BrucePac's ready-to-eat
chicken, and that BrucePac's ready-to-eat chicken was contaminated
by Listeria. BrucePac recalled 11 million pounds of chicken
prepared between May 31 and Oct. 8, 2024.
Prior to the recall, Bryant purchased a chicken Caesar salad at a
Walmart in South Carolina. After consuming the salad on Aug. 26,
2024, Bryant had gastrointestinal distress. The salad that Bryant
consumed was later recalled.
Mr. Bryant filed this Complaint on Oct. 23, 2024, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated. He asserts that this
Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d). He asserts that the Court has general and specific
personal jurisdiction over BrucePac.
On Dec. 20, 2024, BrucePac filed a Motion to Dismiss the case
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6), or in
the alternative transfer the case to the District of Oklahoma or
the District of Oregon.
BrucePac seeks dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3),
and 12(b)(6). BrucePac argues that this Court lacks personal
jurisdiction. BrucePac contends there is no general jurisdiction
because BrucePac is incorporated and has its principal place of
business in Oregon. BrucePac also argues, among other things, that
the case must be dismissed for improper venue or transferred
because no underlying events occurred in this District.
Judge Baylson finds that this Court lacks general jurisdiction over
BrucePac. BrucePac is incorporated and has a principal place of
business in Oregon. Nor does Bryant allege this is an "exceptional
case" in which BrucePac's Pennsylvania contacts are so substantial
and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in
Pennsylvania.
Although Bryant claims BrucePac has continuous and systematic
contacts with Pennsylvania through sales, distribution, and
marketing, Judge Baylson says BrucePac's Declaration states
otherwise. BrucePac does not manufacture or distribute products in
Pennsylvania, has no physical presence, property, assets, business
registration or license, bank accounts, registered agent, or
employees in the state, and does not market or advertise there.
The Court also lacks specific jurisdiction over BrucePac. Even
assuming, in Bryant's favor, that BrucePac's alleged sales in
Pennsylvania constitute sufficient minimum contacts, specific
jurisdiction requires a connection between those contacts and
Bryant's claims, Judge Baylson opines. BrucePac's only contacts
with Pennsylvania are the sale of its products there.
Judge Baylson says that venue would be proper in Oregon or
Oklahoma. Thus, this case could have been brought against BrucePac
in either Oregon or Oklahoma. While both the Districts of Oregon
and Oklahoma have appropriate jurisdiction and venue, Oklahoma has
a stronger connection to the claims based on the prima facie
showing of specific jurisdiction because the events giving rise to
the claims occurred there, suggesting a direct relationship to the
case.
Because Oklahoma has a direct nexus to this case, Judge Baylson
holds that this case will be transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
For these reasons, the Court rules that BrucePac's Motion is
granted and this case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Feb. 12, 2025, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8t5nf from PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/46bf3362 from PacerMonitor.com.
BYTEDANCE INC: Young Loses Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG, et al., v.
BYTEDANCE INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying motion for class
certification:
-- The primary relief sought by Young on behalf of the class is
forward-looking: he wants the Court to order TikTok to
institute various protective measures to mitigate the risk
that content moderators will suffer psychological harm from
reviewing disturbing videos and photos. But Young has no
standing to seek such relief in federal court. He is no longer
employed as a TikTok moderator and has no intention of
returning to that work.
-- The secondary form of relief Young seeks is something he calls
a "medical monitoring fund." There is no mention of this
proposed fund in the motion for class certification, much less
an explanation of how it would work. On reply, Young makes
general reference to it but still doesn’t really explain it.
-- Young has not shown that the question of whether TikTok
retained control over the moderators’ work for the vendors
(or
exercised that control) is apt to generate the same answer
across the class.
-- Even the number of TPA moderators—335—overstates the size
of
the class that Young could (if there were not so many other
problems) represent. That's because more than two-thirds of
these people signed arbitration agreements with the TPAs.
-- Finally, the Court is not convinced that the class action
device would be superior to individual adjudication in this
context. This is not like a consumer case where each proposed
class member’s monetary harm is so low as to destroy any
incentive to bring an individual suit.
A case management conference is scheduled for March 21, 2025.
ByteDance is a technology company operating a range of content
platforms that inform, educate, entertain and inspire people across
languages.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QEGEH6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
C & K MARKET: Phllips Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Eric Allen Phllips, an individual, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C & K
MARKET, INC., DBA SHOP SMART and RAY'S FOOD PLACE, an Oregon
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CV2401836
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Humboldt, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on Feb. 21, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 3:25-cv-01868.
The Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint asserts individual and class
claims for: Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
Failure to Provide Timely Off Duty Meal Periods; Failure to Provide
Rest Periods; Failure to Maintain Records and Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages Due Upon
Termination; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Reporting Time
Pay; Unlawful Deduction of Wages; Failure to Pay All Sick Leave
Wages When Due; Failure to Allow Inspection of Employment Records;
and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Spencer S. Turpen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
spencer.turpen@ogletree.com
CALDERONI TRUCKING: Davila Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Davila, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Calderoni Trucking, LLC, Seth Bloom, and Carli
Calderoni, Individually, Case No. 8:25-cv-00421 (M.D. Fla., Feb.
19, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff overtime at a rate not less than one and a half times the
regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a
work week.
The Plaintiff regularly worked hours over 40 in a work week,
however Plaintiff was not compensated for the required overtime
premium. The Plaintiff performed over 96 hours of work for
Defendant between December 9, 2024, and December 27, 2024, and has
not been compensated for any hours worked. The Defendant has a
policy or pattern/practice of improperly calculating the lawful
overtime rate of Plaintiff and others similarly situated. All
records necessary to calculate the amount of overtime monies due
are in the possession of the Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from April 1, 2024, to
January 3, 2025 as a full-time Loader Operator/Truck Driver.
CALDERONI TRUCKING, LLC is a Florida company licensed and
authorized and doing business in this Judicial District.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Havican, Esq.
Troy Longman, Esq.
FLORIN | GRAY
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Phone: (727) 254-5255
Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
Email: dhavican@floringray.com
tlongman@floringray.com
CAROLINA TITLE LOANS: Watson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carolina Title Loans,
Inc. The case is styled as Shante Watson, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Carolina Title Loans, Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-00906-LMM (N.D. Ga., Feb. 20, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Carolina Title Loans -- https://carolinatitleloansinc.com/ -- is a
fast cash service that provides online title and installment loans
subject to vehicle evaluation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
48 Wall Street-Suite 1100
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (732) 588-8688
Email: ross@kazlg.com
CENGAGE LEARNING: Bernstein Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS BERNSTEIN, ELAINE
INGULLI, TERRY HALBERT, EDWARD ROY, LOUIS PENNER, and ROSS PARKE,
as personal representative of THE ESTATE OF ALISON CLARKE-STEWART,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CENGAGE
LEARNING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07541-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, move the Court for an order granting final approval of
the settlement and allocation plan and certifying the Settlement
Class.
Cengage provides learning solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=72pbFA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
Alexander W. Aiken
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
rnath@susmangodfrey.com
clangham@susmangodfrey.com
aaiken@susmangodfrey.com
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Class Certification Denied in Reuschel Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frank W. Volk of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia denied the plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification in the case captioned as NANCY
REUSCHEL as Executrix of the Estate of Louise McGraw, deceased; and
LORETTA HOLCOMB as Executrix of the Estate of Charlotte Rodgers,
deceased; and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CHANCELLOR SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Defendant, Case
No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D. W. Va.).
Defendant Chancellor Senior Management, Ltd. opposes the motion.
On Oct. 25, 2016, Plaintiffs, acting as executrices of their
decedent mothers' estates, instituted this action on behalf of
Louise McGraw, Charlotte Rodgers, and others similar situated in
the Circuit Court of Raleigh County. On
July 7, 2022, following extensive state litigation, CSM removed. It
asserts the jurisdictional amount exceeds the $5 million threshold
prescribed by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d)(2).
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint alleges CSM owns,
operates, controls, and manages four senior assisted living
facilities in West Virginia, namely, (1) the Greystone Senior
Living Community of Beckley, (2) the Wyngate Senior Living
Community of Parkersburg, (3) the Wyngate Senior Living Community
of Barboursville, and (4) the Wyngate Senior Living Community of
Weirton. Decedents Ms. McGraw and Ms. Rodgers resided in the
Greystone Senior Living Community. Plaintiffs allege Greystone's
staffing shortages resulted in the decedents' inadequate care.
Plaintiffs allege CSM misrepresents facility staffing needs based
upon a Resident Assessment System. They assert Greystone instead
staffs its facilities based on pre-determined labor budgets
designed to meet corporate profit objectives and routinely and
systematically fails to staff its facilities in a manner sufficient
to meet the assessed needs of its resident populations. Plaintiffs
contend this is an unfair and deceptive trade practice and a scheme
to defraud seniors, persons with disabilities, and their family
members by making misrepresentations, misleading statements, and
concealing material facts such that reasonable consumers are
misled. Plaintiffs contend they and others have thus overpaid for
services based on the reasonable expectation that CSM would staff
its facilities to meet the collective assessed needs of each
facilities' residents.
Plaintiffs assert various, resulting unfair or deceptive acts under
the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.
On Aug. 15, 2024, Plaintiffs renewed their Motion for Class
Certification, seeking class treatment for this group:
All individuals that entered any of the four assisted living
communities alleged herein to be controlled by CSM between Oct. 25,
2012, and Oct. 25, 2016, whose Residency Agreement contained an
arbitration provision adopting the Rules of the American Health Law
Association.
In their Renewed Motion, Plaintiffs seek certification of two
putative common issues under the Rule 23(c)(4) issue certification
category.
The issues identified in the Renewed Motion are:
(1) Whether CSM staffs its West Virginia facilities only to the
minimum staffing levels outlined with W. Va. C.S.R. 64-14-5.4.b
instead of providing staffing sufficient to meet the collective
assessed needs of the residents of its facilities and
(2) Whether CSM failed to disclose to the residents of its West
Virginia facilities between 2012 and 2016 that it would not provide
staffing levels sufficient to meet the collective assessed needs of
its residents.
Plaintiffs make no corresponding mention, however, of issue
certification, Rule 23(c)(4), or the applicable legal standard
thereunder, in their accompanying Memorandum of Law. The Court
finds Plaintiffs supporting Memorandum is entirely devoid of any
alternative certification request under Rule 23(c)(4) and
exclusively seeks certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).
Inasmuch as Plaintiffs have failed to meaningfully brief the issue
of alternative certification under Rule 23(c)(4), the ground is not
fairly raised, and the Court declines to consider the unsupported
alternative request.
Commonality and Predominance
This matter begins and ends with the commonality and predominance
inquiries required by Rule 23(a)(2) and (b)(3). As a threshold
matter, despite litigating this case for eight years as an alleged
violation of section 46A-6-106(a) of the WVCCPA under the primary
theory that CSM engaged in deceptive conduct by overt
misrepresentations and misleading statements regarding the way it
staffs its facilities, Plaintiffs veer sharply by now principally
contending—presumably to obtain certification—that their claims
sound only in an omission theory of liability. The effect of this
rather radical end run would, if permitted, relieve Plaintiffs of
proving the individual reliance requirement mandated by the Supreme
Court of Appeals of West Virginia in White for section 46A-6-106(a)
claims sounding in deceptive conduct by affirmative
misrepresentations.
Judge Volk concludes that, like common law claims for fraud and
negligent misrepresentation, proof of subjective reliance is
necessary for section 46A-6-106(a) claims based on affirmative
misrepresentations. The individualized inquiry necessary to satisfy
the reliance requirement renders Plaintiffs' WVCCPA deceptive act
claim incapable of class-wide resolution, inasmuch as the claim
will turn on consideration of the individual circumstances of each
class member.
Given that proof of subjective reliance will be necessary for each
member, it is apparent individualized questions will entirely
consume any minimal benefits achieved by the class device. And this
consideration alone precludes a finding that common issues of fact
predominate. Plaintiffs are thus unable to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)
and (b)(3)'s commonality and predominance requirements, rendering
class certification improper.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hOIXVY from PacerMonitor.com.
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Reuschel Class Cert Bid Tossed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL as
Executrix of the Estate of Louise McGraw, deceased; and LORETTA
HOLCOMB as Executrix of the Estate of Charlotte Rodgers, deceased;
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR
SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Frank Volk entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification:
The following motions are denied as moot:
(1) CSM's Emergency Motion to Strike Opinions Disclosed in
Violation of Court's Order,
(2) CSM's Motion to Seal Exhibits Attached to Emergency Motion,
(3) CSM's Emergency Motion to Strike Expert Report of Cristina
Flores, Ph.D., R.N.,
(4) CSM's Motion to Strike References to and Reliance Upon
Expert Opinions Disclosed in Violation of Court's Orders
and Rule 26 in Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
Certification,
(5) CSM's Motion to Strike Expert Report of Cristina Flores,
Ph.D., R.N.,
(6) CSM's Motion to Strike Corrected Supplemental Expert Report
of Jeffrey West, and
(7) CSM's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs are ordered, no later than March 1, 2025, to inform
the Court in writing whether they intend to pursue the individual
actions alone or, instead, pursue some other permissible course of
action pursuant to the governing rules of procedure.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this written opinion
and order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
On Aug. 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs renewed their Motion for Class
Certification, seeking class treatment for this group:
"All individuals that entered any of the four assisted living
communities alleged herein to be controlled by CSM between
Oct. 25, 2012, and Oct. 25, 2016, whose Residency Agreement
contained an arbitration provision adopting the Rules of the
American Health Law Association ("AHLA").
Chancellor is a dynamic company that develops, owns, and operates
properties that provide seniors with housing and health care
options.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zNIDt2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHARLESTON AREA: Hunt Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charleston Area
Medical Center, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Hunt,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00113
(S.D.W. Va., Feb. 21, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Other Contract.
Charleston Area Medical Center -- https://www.camc.org/ -- is the
name of a complex of hospitals in Charleston, West Virginia, formed
via a merger of previously independent facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William M. Tiano, Esq.
TIANO O'DELL
P. O. Box 11830
Charleston, WV 25339
Phone: (304) 720-6700
Fax: (304) 720-5800
Email: wtiano@tolawfirm.com
CHEMONICS INTERNATIONAL: Elzin Sues Over Private Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
DUEAA ELZIN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHEMONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00356 (D.D.C., February 7, 2025) arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
and Class members’ personally identifiable information stored
within Defendant’s information network.
On approximately May 30, 2023 an unauthorized ransomware group
accessed Defendant's information network and claimed to have stolen
the PII belonging to 263,136 individuals. However, it was only on
or about December 3, 2024 that Plaintiff was notified of the data
breach and of the impact to her PII via letter from Defendant.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidences,
breach of an implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
judgment, seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys’
fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and
declaratory relief.
Chemonics International, Inc. is a contractor for the US government
providing international development services and maintains offices
in New Jersey and Washington, DC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
- and -
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.com
CIGNA HEALTH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Whittemore Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Lance E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maine grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled JAMIE WHITTEMORE, on her own behalf and on behalf of
similarly situated others, Plaintiff v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00206-LEW (D. Me.).
The Plaintiff in this action, Jamie Whittemore, is a participant in
a healthcare plan administered by the Defendant, Cigna Health and
Life Insurance Company. She claims that the plan discriminates
against her and all obese persons, who participate in Defendant's
healthcare plan, based on disability, because it does not provide
prescription drug coverage for commonly prescribed weight loss
medications if the medications are prescribed solely to treat
obesity.
In her class action counsels' words: "As a result of Cigna's
Obesity Exclusion, Ms. Whittemore and proposed class members do not
have access to the prescription medications that they require to
treat their disability and diagnosed health condition of obesity.
At the same time, other enrollees have access to prescription
medications that are medically necessary to treat their diagnosed
health conditions, including the same or similar medications."
The matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, which Judge Walker grants for the several reasons set out
in the Defendant's Motion.
More particularly, Judge Walker opines that none of the allegations
in the Plaintiff's Complaint plausibly support a finding that she
is disabled merely as a function of her body mass index (BMI), let
alone that every putative class member with a BMI of 30 or more is
presumptively (or as a matter of law) disabled. Nor does the
Plaintiff's Complaint include allegations that would support a
finding, based on any facts, that the Defendant has ever regarded
her (or any member of the putative class) as disabled.
Judge Walker explains that disability is an essential requirement
of a disability discrimination claim, and without it, the Plaintiff
fails to state a claim of disability discrimination under the
Affordable Care Act.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss, and dismisses
the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2rp4swmv from PacerMonitor.com.
CIRCOR AEROSPACE: Newman Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Aaron Newman, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated employees v. CIRCOR AEROSPACE, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2500164 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. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00476.
The Plaintiff's potential individual recovery on only seven of his
nine alleged causes of action (namely, Plaintiff's claims for
alleged meal period violations, rest period violations, failure to
timely pay all wages during employment, untimely final wages, wage
statement violations, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to
pay minimum wages), plus Plaintiff's potential attorneys' fees, the
individual recovery that Plaintiff could potentially obtain based
on the allegations in the Complaint.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas H. Petrides, Esq.
Gabrielle M. Mercurio, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (424) 204-7700
Fax: (424) 204-7702
Email: tpetrides@vedderprice.com
gmercurio@vedderprice.com
CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
CleanSpark 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 6, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Bishins class suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On January 20, 2021, Scott Bishins ("Bishins"), individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated (together, the "Class"),
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and
certain of its officers, including the Company's CEO and the
Executive Chair (such action, the "Class Action").
On December 2, 2021, the court appointed Bishins and Darshan
Hasthantra ("Hasthantra") as lead plaintiffs, and on February 1,
2024, the Court entered a voluntary dismissal on behalf of Bishins,
leaving Hasthantra as the sole lead plaintiff.
COn February 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Complaint
alleging that, between December 10, 2020 and August 16, 2021,
Defendants made material misstatements and omissions related to the
Company's acquisition of ATL Data Centers LLC and its anticipated
expansion of bitcoin mining operations.
Plaintiff seeks certification of the Class, an award of
compensatory damages, and reimbursement of costs and expenses.
To date, no class has been certified in the Class Action.
Discovery is currently proceeding.
The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously. At this time, the
Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, that may
arise.
CleanSpark operates as a bitcoin miner in the Americas.
COINBASE GLOBAL: Aceves Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gerardo Aceves, Thomas Fan, Edwin Martinez,
Tiffany Smoot, Edouard Cordi, and Brett Maggard, Mollijoy Carter,
Bradley Barnes, Antonett Foy, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., COINBASE, INC.,
COINBASE ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, and BRIAN ARMSTRONG, Case No.
3:24-cv-02663 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Feb. 21, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01486-JPC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities.
Coinbase -- https://www.coinbase.com/ -- is a secure online
platform for buying, selling, transferring, and storing
cryptocurrency.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+ SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 233-4565
Fax: (619) 233-0508
Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
- and -
Matthew Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016-1101
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark R.S. Foster, Esq.
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
525 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 470-4580
- and -
Alexander C. Drylewski, Esq.
Lara A. Flath, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001-8602
Phone: (212) 735-2129
Email: alexander.drylewski@skadden.com
lara.flath@skadden.com
COMMUNITY CHOICE: Wade Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Candice Wade, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated and on
behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California
Private Attorneys General Act v. COMMUNITY CHOICE FINANCIAL, an
unknown business entity; CCFI COMPANIES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
25CV206848 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Shasta, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 21, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00257.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges eleven causes of action against
Defendant: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid
Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely
Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage
Statements; Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed
Business Expenses; Violation of California Business & Professions
Code; Violation of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, all in Violation of the California Labor
Codes.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Spencer S. Turpen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
spencer.turpen@ogletree.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Colino Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS COLINO, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY HEAL TH CENTER, INC., Defendant,
Case No. _____ (Conn. Sup., February 7, 2025) arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs and
Class Members' protected health information and personally
identifiable information stored within Defendant's information
network.
Defendant Community Health Center, Inc. breached its duty to
protect the sensitive PHI/PII entrusted to it and failed to abide
by its own Privacy Policies. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class
action on behalf of himself and the approximately 1,000,000 other
patients whose PHI/PII was accessed and exposed to unauthorized
third parties during a data breach of Defendant's systems. Indeed,
CHC did not inform Plaintiff of the data breach until January 30,
2025, even though it became aware of the data breach on or about
January 2, 2025.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of confidences, breach of an implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking
actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief.
Headquartered in Middletown, CT, Community Health Center, Inc. is a
nonprofit corporation that operates healthcare service facilities
across the state of Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-8888
Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
- and -
Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
2 International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY, 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Rodriguez Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., Case No. _____
(Conn. Super., New Haven Cty., February 7, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, stemming from a data breach impacting over 1
million individuals who entrusted their personal information to
Defendant in the course of their employment and/or to receive
medical treatment and services.
The data breach occurred on October 14, 2024, and impacted current
and former patients, as well as all individuals who received a
COVID test or vaccine at a CHC clinic. CHC did not discover the
data breach until January 2, 2025.
On January 30, 2025, CHC began notifying affected individuals their
personal information, including at least names, dates of birth,
addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, diagnoses, treatment
details, test results, Social Security numbers, and health
insurance information may have been stolen.
The complaint asserts that the data breach occurred because CHC
failed to implement adequate and reasonable data security
procedures and protocols necessary to protect the Private
Information it collected and stored from a foreseeable and
preventable cyber-attack. As a direct and proximate result of the
data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members therefore face a
heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff
and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their
financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit.
Community Health Center, Inc. is a Connecticut-based healthcare
services provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, Floor 15
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com
jseredynski@sgtlaw.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Court Refuses to Alter Judgment in Hoang Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division denies the
Plaintiffs' motion to alter judgment in the lawsuit captioned YEN
HOANG, et al., Plaintiffs v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-03930-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter the Judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Defendants Context
Logic, Inc. ("Wish") and its officers and directors filed an
opposition to the motion. The underwriters of Wish's initial public
offering ("IPO") ("Underwriter Defendants") joined Wish's
opposition. The Plaintiffs filed a reply.
The lawsuit is a putative class action for violation of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") against Wish, certain of
its officers and directors, and underwriters of its IPO. The
Plaintiffs allege that, in its Registration Statement for its
Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on Dec. 15, 2020, Wish omitted its
"de-emphasized" advertising spend and user acquisition efforts in
emerging markets outside of Europe and North America in 4Q 2020 and
failed to warn the investing public of the specific risk associated
with its de-emphasized efforts. The Plaintiffs allege that this
omission and the continued reduction in advertising spend into 1Q
2021 caused Wish's stock value to drop by more than 29% after May
12, 2021.
On July 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
alleging the Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"). The Court granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to all Plaintiffs'
claims with leave to amend. On April 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed
the Second Amended Complaint, in which they abandoned their claims
under the Exchange Act and narrowed their claims under the
Securities Act. The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to plead
an underlying violation of Section 11 or 15 of the Securities Act
and granted leave to amend.
On Feb. 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint
("TAC"), alleging that Wish's Registration Statement omitted that
Wish reduced its advertising efforts in emerging markets in 4Q
2020, which resulted in material declines in monthly active users
("MAUs"). The Plaintiffs allege that, on March 8, 2021, when Wish
first revealed in its Form 8-K that it had de-emphasized
advertising and customer acquisition efforts in certain emerging
market that caused year-over-year MAUs to decline by 10% in 4Q 2020
("March Disclosure"), the stock price fluctuated over the next two
hours. Nonetheless, the market reacted positively to Wish's 4Q 2020
results and the price of Wish's common stock went up.
The Plaintiffs allege that, on May 12, 2021, when Wish announced
its 1Q 2021 results and stated in its Form 8-K that it had
continued its de-emphasized advertising and user acquisition
efforts that it had initiated pre-IPO and that its MAUs declined by
another 7% in 1Q 2021 ("May Disclosure"), its stock price decreased
by more than 29% on the following day.
On Aug. 22, 2024, the Court dismissed the TAC without leave to
amend. The Court found that the Defendants had met their burden of
establishing a negative causation defense under the Ninth Circuit
precedent Hildes v. Arthur Anderson LLP, 734 F.3d 854 (9th Cir.
2013). The Court applied the Hildes "touches upon" standard for
Section 11 cases and found that the Defendants had established a
negative causation defense based on the allegations in the TAC and
judicially noticeable facts.
Specifically, when the alleged omission in the Registration
Statement was revealed to the public on March 8, 2021, Wish's stock
price went up and traded above the closing price on March 8, 2021,
and for two weeks thereafter.
The Court found that Defendants had established a negative
causation defense based on this fact alone because there was no
loss associated with the revelation of the alleged omission. The
Court further found that the alleged omission could not have
plausibly "touch[ed] upon the reasons" for Wish's stock price drop
in May 2021 because nothing related to pre-IPO activity is revealed
in the May Disclosure. Rather, the Court found the decline in
Wish's stock price was a result of Wish's continued reduction in
advertising spend due to persisting logistics problems post-IPO.
In their Motion, the Plaintiffs argue that the Court's ruling that
the Defendants had met their burden of proving negative causation
was "clear error of law" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). According to
the Plaintiffs, the Court ignored the clear requirement of Hildes,
which applied a "but for" causation standard to determine whether a
plaintiff parries a negative causation defense for Section 11
claims.
The Plaintiffs argue, among other things, that the Court erred in
extending the Supreme Court's holding in Dura Pharms., Inc. v.
Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005), which required a plaintiff alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act to prove proximate
causation for his losses, to Section 11 cases where Hildes still
applies the "touches upon" standard.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to identify a basis
for the Court to set aside the Judgment. The Court concludes that
it correctly applied the Ninth Circuit standard for negative
causation in Section 11 cases in its Order Dismissing the TAC.
Judge Freeman points out that for over 30 years, the Ninth Circuit
has applied the "touches upon" standard in deciding whether a
defendant has established a loss causation defense for claims
brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act
Applying the "touches upon" standard, the Court finds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to present any basis to alter the Judgment.
In dismissing the TAC, the Court did not require revelation or
corrective disclosure to defeat the negative causation defense.
Instead, the Court took facts as presented in the TAC and found
that the Defendants had established the negative causation
defense.
Based on the facts of this case, the Court maintains that it
properly applied Hildes and concluded that the alleged omission in
Wish's Registration Statement did not "touch upon" the reasons for
the investment's decline in value in May 2021.
Because the Court finds that there is no clear error in its holding
that the Defendants have met their burden to establish negative
causation under Ninth Circuit precedent, the Court denies the
Plaintiffs' request to set aside its Judgment under Rule 59(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8jz353 from PacerMonitor.com.
CROCS INC: Faces Carretta Suit over Inventory Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------
Crocs, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 13, 2025, that on January 22, 2025, a
putative class action lawsuit titled "Carretta v. Crocs, Inc., et
al.," Case No. 1:25-cv-00096, was filed in the District Court for
the District of Delaware against the company and certain of its
current officers.
The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all purchasers of the company's common stock between November 3,
2022 and October 28, 2024, inclusive. The complaint asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false
and misleading statements related to the company's wholesaler
inventory and its alleged impact on its revenue. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, an award of costs and expenses, and
other unspecified relief. The case is in its early stages and a
lead plaintiff has yet to be appointed.
Crocs, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries are engaged in the
design, development, worldwide marketing, distribution, and sale of
casual lifestyle footwear and accessories.
CVS HEALTH: Court Grants Bids for Arbitration in Osterhaus Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John J. Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona grants the Defendants' Motions to Compel Arbitration in the
lawsuit styled Osterhaus Pharmacy Incorporated, et al., Plaintiffs
v. CVS Health Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-01539-JJT (D. Ariz.).
At issue are the residual portions of two related motions to compel
arbitration filed by the Defendants against the four named
Plaintiffs in this class action. The Defendants' motions are
predicated upon an arbitration agreement that assigns to an
arbitrator both (1) adjudicative authority over the claims
contained in the Plaintiffs' pleading, and (2) adjudicative
authority over questions relating to the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement itself.
Judge Tuchi notes that although there exist separate arbitration
agreements between the Defendants and each respective Plaintiff,
the agreements are materially similar because they all derive from
the Defendants' Provider Manuals. For ease of reference, the Court
will refer to the parties' arbitration agreement in the singular.
In response to the Defendants' motions, the Plaintiffs have argued
that both aspects of the arbitration agreement (i.e., the provision
concerning the arbitrability of the Plaintiffs' substantive claims
and the provision concerning the arbitrability of the agreement
itself) are unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable.
In a prior Order, the Court held that the self-referential clause
of the arbitration agreement delegating to an arbitrator issues
concerning the agreement's own arbitrability is indeed
unenforceable. As a result of that holding, it became the duty of
the Court, and not an arbitrator, to determine whether the
arbitration agreement is also unenforceable as applied to the
Plaintiffs' substantive claims. However, the Court declined to
dispose of that matter in the prior Order and instead requested
supplemental briefing on the issue, which both sides have now
provided.
The Defendants have also filed a Motion to Strike parts of the
Plaintiffs' supplemental brief, to which the Plaintiffs filed a
response and the Defendants filed a reply. The Court finds these
matters appropriate for resolution without oral argument.
The Plaintiffs bring seven claims in their First Amended Complaint,
and the Defendants assert that all seven claims are subject to
mandatory arbitration pursuant to the terms of the parties'
arbitration agreement.
Because the arbitration agreement at issue here concerns interstate
commerce, Judge Tuchi says it is governed by the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA). Judge Tuchi adds that the standard governing
summary judgment controls the resolution of a motion to compel
arbitration, citing Hansen v. LMB Mortg. Servs., Inc., 1 F.4th 667,
670 (9th Cir. 2021).
The Plaintiffs do not contest that they entered into an arbitration
agreement with the Defendants. Nor do the Plaintiffs contest that
this lawsuit falls within the ambit of that agreement. Instead, the
Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable by
virtue of its unconscionability under Arizona law.
The Defendants have moved the Court to strike the portion of the
Plaintiffs' supplemental brief that addresses procedural
unconscionability or in the alternative to provide the Defendants
an opportunity to submit their own argumentation on the subject.
Judge Tuchi finds that the Plaintiffs' response to the Defendants'
Motion to Strike is utterly devoid of merit and consists of little
more than a patently absurd denial of non-compliance. The Court's
prior Order states that the parties will confine their analysis to
substantive unconscionability, and yet the Plaintiffs' supplemental
brief opens with a four-page section entitled "Caremark's
arbitration clause is procedurally unconscionable."
Given this clear deviation from the Court's request, Judge Tuchi
finds the Plaintiffs' refusal to recognize their error is simply
bizarre. The Court expects attorneys, who appear before it to at
least attempt to preserve their credibility by acknowledging
mistakes when such are made. The Court could, therefore, grant the
Defendants' Motion to Strike, as the objected-to portion of the
Plaintiffs' briefing constitutes a "part of a filing" that is
expressly "not authorized" by a "court order."
Nevertheless, the Court will not do so, as motions to strike are
disfavored and rarely granted, even where, as here, the motion is
technically sufficient. Judge Tuchi adds that there is also no need
to strike the section of the Plaintiffs' supplemental brief
addressing procedural unconscionability because, in addition to
being impermissible, it is legally unavailing.
Judge Tuchi holds that the Plaintiffs fail to establish that the
Defendants procedurally abused their market power. The Court is
unpersuaded by the Plaintiffs' contention that the Defendants kept
them in the dark about the terms of the arbitration agreement.
Among other things, Judge Tuchi opines that the Plaintiffs'
assertion of ignorance is inconsistent with their assertion of
coercion, and their declaration of unawareness is devoid of factual
substantiation.
Although the Plaintiffs' averments establish that the Provider
Manuals were contracts of adhesion, Judge Tuchi points out that
arbitration agreements located within adhesive contracts are not
intrinsically procedurally unconscionable under Arizona law.
Instead, such agreements are fully enforceable unless they are
substantively unconscionable or otherwise violate the reasonable
expectations of the parties. Thus, even if the Defendants possessed
immense market power and issued a contract of adhesion containing
an arbitration agreement, that arbitration agreement is enforceable
under Arizona law unless it is substantively defective.
Therefore, Judge Tuchi explains, there is no need to present an
argument grounded in procedural unconscionability when the success
of that argument depends upon a showing of substantive
unconscionability. As the Court explained once before, such an
argument would be an exercise in redundancy. Thus, because the
Plaintiffs' briefing on the subject of procedural unconscionability
is both improper and unavailing, the Court will not consider it
further.
For these reasons, the Court will nevertheless deny the Defendants'
Motion to Strike, and the Court reiterates here the disfavored
status of such motions.
The Plaintiffs argue that the following provisions render the
arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable and, therefore,
unenforceable: (1) the fee-shifting provision, (2) the unilateral
modification provision, (3) the uneven remedies provision, (4) the
escrow provision, (5) the confidentiality provision, and (6) the
limitations provision. The Plaintiffs also argue that the
unconscionable provisions are not amenable to severance and,
therefore, doom the entire agreement.
The Court has found three of the arbitration agreement's provisions
to be unconscionable: (1) the unilateral remedy for breach
provisions, (2) the escrow provision, and (3) the confidentiality
provision. All relevant versions of the arbitration agreement
contain a severability clause stating that in the event that any
provision or term set forth in the Provider Agreement is determined
invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity and unenforceability will
not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision or
term set forth in the Provider Agreement.
The Defendants argue that the Court ought to give effect to this
clause by severing the unconscionable portions of the arbitration
agreement and enforcing the remainder. In contrast, the Plaintiffs
contend that the unconscionable provisions of the arbitration
agreement so predominate over the remainder thereof that the entire
agreement must be stricken. The Court agrees with the Defendants.
The Court holds that three provisions of the parties' arbitration
agreement are substantively unconscionable. However, these
provisions are severable. The remainder of the arbitration
agreement is enforceable. The parties will, therefore, proceed to
arbitration.
Judge Tuchi notes that the Supreme Court recently overturned a long
line of Ninth Circuit cases and held that "[w]hen a federal court
finds that a dispute is subject to arbitration, and a party has
requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, the
court does not have discretion to dismiss the suit on the basis
that all the claims are subject to arbitration," citing Smith v.
Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 475–76 (2024). That holding is vitally
important to the parties' appellate rights, as an order compelling
arbitration and staying the action is not immediately appealable,
but an order compelling arbitration and dismissing the action is.
Here, the Defendants have not requested a stay and instead have
affirmatively requested a dismissal. Therefore, the Court will
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims.
Therefore, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to Strike, and
grants both of the Defendants' Motions to Compel Arbitration. The
parties will submit this matter to arbitration pursuant to the
terms of their arbitration agreements, except that the
unenforceable provisions of the agreements identified here will not
be enforced.
The Court also dismisses this case without prejudice and directs
the Clerk of Court to terminate this matter.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4px394s7 from PacerMonitor.com.
CYBERSOFT TECHNOLOGY: Myers Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Patricia Myers and Maryhesper Santos, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CYBERSOFT
TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-07186 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on Feb. 21,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00777 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract: for Breach of
Contract.
Cybersoft Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.cybersoft.net/ -- is a
leading provider of innovative business software solutions,
information technology and consulting services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
490 43rd Street, No. 122
Oakland, CA 94609
Phone: (202) 350-4783
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 975-3320
- and -
Amanda Jasmine Rosenberg, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th St. NW, 4th Fl.
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: arosenberg@kalielgold.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul Angelo Calfo, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 337-6569
Fax: (213) 337-6551
- and -
Scott J. Helfand, Esq.
HUSCH BLACK WELL LLP
120 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 655-1500
Email: scott.helfand@huschblackwell.com
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Borden Sues Over Data Security Failures
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BORDEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELOITTE CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01120 (S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2025) arises from
Defendant's alleged data security failures.
On or about December 23, 2024 news broke that a ransomware gang,
now identified as "Brain Cipher" accessed and leaked the sensitive
personal information (SPI) of approximately 650,000 Rhode Islanders
whose SPI was part of the RI Bridges database. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff now brings this action on behalf of all persons whose SPI
was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i)
adequately protect consumers' SPI, (ii) adequately warn its current
and former customers and potential customers of its inadequate
information security practices, and (iii) effectively monitor its
platforms for security vulnerabilities and incidents. In addition,
Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and for declaratory
judgment.
Headquartered in New York, Deloitte Consulting, LLC manages,
maintains and operates the State of Rhode Island's RIBridges
database, a database which maintains and manages state benefits,
for Rhode Islanders, including health insurance, cash assistance,
and child care benefits. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
BRONSON LEGAL LLC
1216 Broadway (2nd Floor)
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (609) 255-1031
Facsimile: (609) 228-4997
E-mail: bronsonlegalny@gmail.com
- and -
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
DESKTOP METAL: Court Tosses Campanella Lawsuit Over ExOne Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lori W. Will of the Delaware Chancery Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned as PIETRO
CAMPANELLA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. S. KENT ROCKWELL, JOHN HARTNER, JOHN IRVIN,
GREGORY F. PASHKE, WILLIAM F. STROME, ROGER W. THILTGEN, BONNIE K.
WACHTEL, PAUL A. CAMUTI, LORETTA L. BENEC, and DESKTOP METAL INC.,
Defendants, C.A. No. 2021-1013-LWW (Del. Ch.). The case is
dismissed with prejudice under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6).
This lawsuit challenges an arms' length, third-party merger between
two 3D printing companies. In 2021, Desktop Metal, Inc. acquired
The ExOne Company for a mix of cash and Desktop Metal stock at a
47% premium to market. The ExOne board was concededly disinterested
and independent, and no controlling stockholder was involved. A
majority of ExOne's stockholders voted in favor of the merger.
Ten days after withdrawing his federal preliminary injunction
motion, on Nov. 22, 2021, Campanella filed the present action in
this court on behalf of himself and a putative class of former
ExOne stockholders. His suit came on the heels of a books and
records action filed by Leo Lissog Goldstein, another former ExOne
stockholder.
Desktop Metal gave Campanella the books and records it had produced
to Goldstein. Campanella then filed the operative Verified First
Amended Class Action Complaint in this court on Oct. 20, 2023. The
Complaint includes two counts. Count I is a breach of fiduciary
duty claim against the former members of ExOne's board and its
former general counsel. Count II is an aiding and abetting claim
against Desktop Metal regarding the alleged deprivation of material
information from ExOne stockholders.
On Jan. 12, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint.
The defendants argue that dismissal is warranted under the Corwin
doctrine. In Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings, LLC, the Delaware
Supreme Court confirmed that the business judgment rule applies
when a transaction "is approved by a fully informed, uncoerced vote
of disinterested stockholders."
The defendants also argue, in the alternative, that Campanella
failed to plead a non-exculpated claim against the director
defendants or a claim against ExOne's former general counsel.
Vice Chancellor Will holds that because she concludes that Corwin
compels the application of the business judgment rule, she need not
reach this argument. She also dismisses Campanella's aiding and
abetting claim against Desktop Metal for lack of a predicate
breach. The Complaint is therefore dismissed in its entirety.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
http://urlcurt.com/u?l=VssYTd
DON'T RUN OUT: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Leah Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Don't Run Out, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01698 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 19,
2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Broken
Trophies provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.publicgoods.com (hereinafter "Publicgoods.com" or "the
website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Publicgoods.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Don't Run Out's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Don't Run Out provides to the public a website known as
Publicgoods.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to view shampoos,
conditioners, moisturizers, cleansers, kitchen tools and home
decor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (630)-478-0856
Email: Dreyes@ealg.law
DOT TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by May 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watson v. DOT
Transportation, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01303 (E.D. Cal.
Filed July 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an
order as follows:
-- The Defendants shall file their April 11, 2025
opposition to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification
no later than:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their May 12, 2025
Reply thereto no later than:
As for the parties' request to continue the Motion Hearing on
Plaintiffs' Motion, the Court already vacated that hearing pursuant
to Local Rule 230(g).
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.[CC]
EASTERN MENNONITE: Ortiz Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EASTERN MENNONITE UNIVERSITY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00120 (W.D.N.Y., February 7, 2025), 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.
The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner
compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind
and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and service. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks redress for
Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New York
General Business Law.
Eastern Mennonite University operates the commercial website,
https://emu.edu, which offers information about 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
university and team merchandise such as T shirts and sweat shirts.
[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
EDEN FINE ART: Balfour-Browne Sues Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
TEKLA BALFOUR-BROWNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDEN FINE ART NY INC. d/b/a EDEN GALLERY,
CATHIA KLIMOVSKY, GUY MARTINOVSKY, GAL YOSEF, and CETRA ART
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01142 (S.D.N.Y., February
7, 2025) asserts claims for for breach of contract and, in the
alternative, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing in that contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of New
York General Business Law's Section 349.
By creating the Meta Eagle Club, promising exclusive benefits in
exchange for joining the club, and requiring the purchase of Meta
Eagle Club Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), to join the club, the
Defendants made an offer of a contract for club membership and the
associated benefits. The Plaintiff and the Class accepted the
Defendants’ offer by purchasing the Meta Eagle Club NFTs.
However, the Defendants did not keep their contractual promises,
says the suit.
Eden Fine Art NY, Inc. operates under the name "Eden Gallery."
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq.
Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
Justyn Millamena, Esq.
845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
E-mail: cwaldman@wolfopper.com
jruthizer@wolfpopper.com
minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com
jmillamena@wolfpopper.com
- and -
Max Burwick
BURWICK LAW, PLLC
43 West 43rd Street, Suite 114
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (646) 762-1080
Facsimile: (855) 978-2710
EL POLLO LOCO: Removes Bogavac Suit to S.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of DARKO BOGAVAC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL POLLO
LOCO, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice
to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego (Case No. 24CU018405C) to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on Feb. 14,
2025, 2025.
The clerk of court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:25-cv-00339-MMA-BLM. The case is assigned to Judge
Michael M. Anello and referred to Judge Barbara Lynn Major.
El Pollo Loco, Inc. owns and operates a chain of fast food
restaurants. The Company offers family, individual chicken meals,
bowls, salads, soups, food combinations, rice, cakes, vegetables,
black beans, desserts, and drinks. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel T. Rockey, Esq.
Merrit M. Jones, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4070
Telephone: (415) 675-3400
Facsimile: (415) 675-3434
Email: daniel.rockey@bclplaw.com
merrit.Iones@bclplaw.com
ENVIGO RMS: Continues to Defend PAGA Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inotiv 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 Envigo RMS LLC, a
company it acquired in November 2021, continues to defend itself
from PAGA clsss suit in the Superior Court of California, Alameda
County.
Envigo RMS, LLC is a defendant in a purported class action and a
related action under California's Private Attorney General Act of
2004 ("PAGA") brought by Jacob Greenwell, a former non-exempt
employee of Envigo RMS, on June 25, 2021 in the Superior Court of
California, Alameda County. The complaints allege that Envigo RMS
violated certain wage and hour requirements under the California
Labor Code. PAGA authorizes private attorneys to bring claims on
behalf of the State of California and aggrieved employees for
violations of California's wage and hour laws.
The class action complaint seeks certification of a class of
similarly situated employees and the award of actual, consequential
and incidental losses and damages for the alleged violations.
The PAGA complaint seeks civil penalties pursuant to the California
Labor Code and attorney's fees.
On June 2, 2023, Envigo RMS and the plaintiff signed a Memorandum
of Understanding ("MOU") that sets forth the parties' intent to
settle these matters for $795 which includes attorneys' fees. On
August 2, 2024, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation of
Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release of Claims (the
"Agreement") that incorporated the material terms of the MOU and is
subject to court approval.
The Agreement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing by
Envigo RMS. The Agreement provides that, if the settlement is
approved by the court, the settlement amount would be paid in four
quarterly installments, with the first one to be funded after the
court's final approval of the settlement, and the following ones in
the three subsequent quarters. We anticipate that a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement will be filed and heard in
the second quarter of calendar year 2025.
While the timeline for final court approval is not yet determined,
the Company took a reserve equal to the proposed settlement amount,
which is included in accrued expenses and other current
liabilities.
Inotiv, Inc. and its subsidiaries and a variable interest entity
comprise a contract research organization specializing in
nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development services.
The company also manufactures scientific instruments for life
sciences research, which it sells with related software for use by
pharmaceutical companies, universities, government research
centers
and medical research institutions.
EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Martha Chavez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. DBA CRATE &
BARREL, an Illinois Stock Corporation and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0000637 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Feb. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-at-00222.
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Unpaid
Overtime; Minimum Wages; Meal Break Violations; Rest Break
Violations; Failure to Provide Sick Pay at the Regular Rate;
Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to
Minimize Excessive Heat and Provide Compliant Recovery Periods;
Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Wage Statement and
Recordkeeping Violations; and Violation of Cal. Business &
Professions Code all in violation of Cal. Labor Codes.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
12760 High Bluff Drive, Suite 240
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (619) 848-2523
Facsimile: (949) 732-6501
Email: ellen.bronchetti@gtlaw.com
- and -
Bailey A. Hashim, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 442-1111
Facsimile: (916) 448-1709
Email: bailey.hashim@gtlaw.com
EXTRA SPACE MANAGEMENT: Burkhardt Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jordan Burkhardt, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. EXTRA
SPACE MANAGEMENT, INC., a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive, Case No. 25CV0131 was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California in and for the County of El Dorado, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on Feb. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00235.
The Plaintiff's Complaint contains 9 causes of action. These causes
of action are for: unfair competition in violation of California
Business & Professions Code; failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of Labor Code; failure to pay minimum wages in violation
of Labor Code; failure to provide meal periods in violation of
Labor Code and the IWC Wage Orders; failure to provide rest periods
in violation of Labor Code and the IWC Wage Orders; failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor
Code; failure to timely pay wages upon termination in violation of
Labor Code; failure to indemnify or reimburse business expenses in
violation of Labor Code; and violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act under Labor Code ("PAGA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew M. Sonne, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: 714-513-5100
Facsimile: 714-513-513
Email: msonne@sheppardmullin.com
FCA US: Class Settlement in Raymo Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY RAYMO, et al., v.
FCA US LLC and CUMMINS INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-12168-TGB-SDD (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Terrence Berg entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion:
-- final approval of class action settlement and for class
certification, and
-- attorney's fees, expenses, and incentive awards.
The Court certifies the following Settlement Class for purposes of
Settlement only:
"All persons and entities who purchased or leased a new
2013, 2014, or 2015 Dodge Ram 2500 or 3500 truck with
Cummins Diesel between Nov. 26, 2014, to July 13, 2016, in
the following states: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and
Washington."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: Cummins and FCA US;
any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of Cummins or FCA US;
any entity in which Cummins or FCA US has a controlling
interest; any officer, director, or employee of Cummins or
FCA US; any successor or assign of Cummins or FCA US; and
any judge to whom this Action is assigned, and his or her
spouse; individuals and/or entities who validly and timely
opt out of the settlement; and current or former owners of
Class Vehicles that previously released their claims in an
individual settlement with Cummins with respect to the
issues raised in the Action.
The Settlement Agreement submitted by the Parties is finally
approved pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
of the Settlement Class.
The Court appoints the following persons as Settlement Class
Representatives: Jeremy Raymo and Forrest Poulson.
The Court appoints Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, The Miller Law
Firm, P.C., Seeger Weiss, LLP, and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody &
Agnello, P.C. as Co-Lead Class Counsel.
The Litigation is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without
costs.
The Released Claims of all Settlement Class Members are hereby
fully, finally, and forever released, discharged, compromised,
settled, relinquished, and dismissed with prejudice against all of
the Released Parties.
The Plaintiffs' counsel move for an award of $1,800,000 in
attorney's fees, along with reimbursement of $325,299.52 for costs
of litigation, for a total of $2,125,299.52.
This means Plaintiffs' attorneys would receive 35.42% of the
$6,000,000 settlement.
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WlwAzu at no extra
charge.[CC]
FCA US: Settlement in Raymo, et al. Suit Obtains Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Terrence G. Berg of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for final approval of the class action settlement
and for class certification in the case captioned as JEREMY RAYMO,
et al., Plaintiffs, vs. FCA US LLC and CUMMINS INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-CV-12168-TGB-SDD (E.D. Mich.). The plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for attorney's fees, expenses and incentive awards
is also granted.
Jeremy Raymo and sixteen others have arrived at a settlement of
this long-running class action against FCA US LLC and Cummins Inc.
for damages arising from defects in Dodge Ram trucks.
The Court held a fairness hearing on the motions on
November 19, 2024.
Class Certification
Plaintiffs move to have their class certified for settlement
purposes. They define the settlement class as:
All persons and entities who purchased or leased a new 2013, 2014,
or 2015 Dodge Ram 2500 or 3500 truck with Cummins Diesel between
November 26, 2014 to July 13, 2016 in the following states:
Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan,
Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.
The proposed class contains 33,581 members. The numerosity
requirement for class actions is satisfied.
Plaintiffs have satisfied the commonality element of Rule 23 on
their fraud claims as well as their unjust enrichment claims.
Plaintiffs have shown that their claims are typical of the Class
Members' claims. Plaintiffs allege that the Trucks were
manufactured in a defective way, and that this resulted in
Plaintiffs unjustly enriching Defendants and being harmed by
Defendants' alleged fraudulent affirmative misrepresentation.
Because every Class Member purchased a Truck, each Class Member
could have enriched Defendants unjustly at the point of sale
because of the defects, and each Class Member could have been
affected by Defendants' alleged false representations concerning
the Trucks emissions standards. Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
injuries arise from the same conduct, so Plaintiffs' claims are
typical of the Class Members, and Rule 23's typicality element is
satisfied.
The Plaintiffs and their counsel satisfy the Rule 23(a) adequacy
requirement.
The Court finds that questions of fact common to Class Members
predominate over questions affecting only individual Class Members.
Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied.
Because Plaintiffs have proved, not merely pled, that their
proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, the Court
orders that the following class is certified for settlement
purposes for Plaintiffs' claims of unjust enrichment and fraudulent
misrepresentation:
All persons and entities who purchased or leased a new 2013, 2014,
or 2015 Dodge Ram 2500 or 3500 truck with Cummins Diesel between
November 26, 2014 to July 13, 2016 in the following states:
Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan,
Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.
There are exclusions from the class.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: Cummins and FCA; any
affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of Cummins or FCA US; any entity
in which Cummins or FCA US has a controlling interest; any officer,
director, or employee of Cummins or FCA US; any successor or assign
of Cummins or FCA US; and any judge to whom this Action is
assigned, and his or her spouse; individuals and/or entities who
validly and timely opt out of the settlement; Class Members who
previously released their claims in an individual settlement with
respect to the issues raised in the Action.
Settlement Approval
The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.
The Settlement Agreement is finally approved. pursuant to Rule
23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court appoints the following persons as Settlement Class
Representatives: Jeremy Raymo and Forrest Poulson.
The Court appoints Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, The Miller Law
Firm, P.C., Seeger Weiss, LLP, and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody &
Agnello, P.C. as Co-Lead Class Counsel.
The litigation is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
The Released Claims of all Settlement Class Members are fully,
finally, and forever released, discharged, compromised, settled,
relinquished, and dismissed with prejudice against all of the
Released Parties.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UkpZSQ from PacerMonitor.com.
FEDERAL EXPRESS Faces Brown Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD BROWN, JR., individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00076 (M.D. Fla., February 7, 2025)
arises out of Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly-paid
courier since February 2022 at the Ocala, Florida terminal.
Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff was not paid for all hours
recorded and worked by FedEx. After the Plaintiff would clock out
for the day which showed his accurate time worked, FedEx would
lower Plaintiff's time worked to reflect working fewer hours than
he actually worked, says the suit.
Federal Express Corporation is a Delaware corporation engaged in
transportation, e-commerce, and logistics businesses. The company
operates terminals throughout the State of Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2069
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
FEDEX CORP: Bid for Class Cert in Almonte Extended to June 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARRERA ALMONTE, et al.,
v. FEDEX CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03224 (D.N.J., Filed
June 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Karen M. Williams entered an order
amending the July 17, 2024, scheduling order as follows:
-- The deadline to serve Plaintiffs' June 23, 2025
motion for class certification and
disclose Plaintiffs' class
certification expert report:
-- The deadline to serve Defendants' Aug. 20, 2025
opposition to class certification,
disclose Defendants' expert reports,
and serve Defendants' Daubert
motions to plaintiffs' class
certification experts is:
-- The deadline to serve Plaintiffs' Oct. 20, 2025
reply to class certification, serve
Plaintiffs' rebuttal class
certification Expert Reports,
serve Plaintiffs' Daubert Opposition;
and serve Plaintiff's Daubert Motions
to Defendant's Class Certification
Experts is:
-- The deadline to serve Defendant's Dec. 3, 2025
Daubert replies and Defendants'
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert
motions is:
-- The deadline to serve Plaintiff's Jan. 5, 2026
Daubert replies is:
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud
involving fraud-motor vehicle (odometer).
FedEx, originally known as Federal Express Corporation, is an
American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in
transportation, e-commerce, and business services.[CC]
FELLINI SOHO: Erickson Sues Over Illegal Tip Practices
------------------------------------------------------
Vance Erickson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. FELLINI SOHO CORP. d/b/a FELLINI SOHO, PYRAMID APEX CORP. d/b/a
FELLINI WEST VILLAGE, FELLINI CHELSEA CORP. d/b/a FELLINI CHELSEA,
and FRANCO NORIEGA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01344 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14,
2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a
result of the Defendants' illegal tip practices.
While being billing as the trendiest coffee shops in the City, the
Fellini cafes are in fact bilking their baristas and waitstaff of
their hard earned tips from all sides. First, the coffee shops
illegally takes 5% off the top from all employees' tips. Fellini
then pays their accountant an additional $50 per week per location
to perform a basic calculation of how the tips should be
distributed. These weekly $50 fees for accounting services are also
inexplicably taken out the employees' tips. If that were not bad
enough, the shops then unlawfully force tipped employees to share
their tips with management employees who are ineligible to share
tips as they have the authority to, among other things, hire, fire
and schedule employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a barista and server from
September 2024 to January 2025.
The Fellini coffee shops are a single, integrated enterprise as
they are owned and operated in tandem.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 688-5640
Fax: (212) 981-9587
FIRST CHATHAM BANK: Blanski Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Chatham Bank.
The case is styled as Michael Blanski, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. First Chatham Bank, Case No. SPCV25-00234-MI
(Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty., Feb. 18, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other General Civil."
First Chatham Family of Banks -- https://www.firstchatham.com/ --
is a local community bank focused on building customer
relationships with integrity and trust.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jasmin Kaur Gill, Esq.
J. GILL LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S Flower St., Ste. 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2231
Phone: 213-459-6023
Email: jasmin@jkgilllaw.com
FISHER INVESTMENTS: Human Appeals Stricken Voluntary Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HUMAN is taking an appeal from a court order striking his
notice of voluntary dismissal in the lawsuit entitled Daniel Human,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Fisher Investments, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-01177-MTS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, is
brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.
On Jan. 27, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal, which Judge Matthew T. Schelp ordered to strike on same
day.
The Plaintiff filed a second notice of voluntary dismissal, which
Judge Schelp ordered to strike again.
The appellate case is captioned Daniel Human v. Fisher Investments,
Inc., et al., Case No. 25-1248, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 6, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DANIEL HUMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Edwin V. Butler, II, Esq.
BUTLER LAW GROUP
1650 Des Peres Road, Suite 220
Frontenac, MO 63131
Telephone: (314) 504-0001
Defendants-Appellees Fisher Investments, Inc., et al. are
represented by:
Matthew D. Guletz, Esq.
THOMPSON & COBURN
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2700
505 N. Seventh Street
Saint Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 552-6000
- and -
Melanie Ng, Esq.
James Michael Ruley, Esq.
Alexander Donald Terepka, Esq.
WATSTEIN & TEREPKA
Eighth Floor
1055 Howell Mill Road
Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: (404) 600-1240
(864) 386-5126
(404) 782-9821
FITON INC: Class Certification Order Entered in Hoffman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVA HOFFMAN, et al., v.
FITON, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-09105-FMO-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order regarding motions for class
certification:
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully
integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed
by the opposing party's/parties’ response.
All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to
the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page
and line number(s) of a deposition.
The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since
the court will be familiar with the procedural history. The court
is also familiar with the general standard for class certification,
so that need not be argued.
In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a
timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than 35
days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth
in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VT9866 at no extra
charge.[CC]
FREDDIE MAC: Pension Fund Securities Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FREDDIE MAC) disclosed in
its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13,
2025, that a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned
"Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et
al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
On May 3, 2024, defendants filed motions for summary judgment,
which remain pending. The trial in the District Court is scheduled
to begin on October 6, 2025.
This was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on
January 18, 2008 purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements concerning our business, risk management, and
the procedures put into place to protect the company from problems
in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages
and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney
and expert fees.
In August 2018, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and in January 2019, the Sixth Circuit
denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal that decision. On
September 17, 2020, the District Court granted a request from the
plaintiff for summary judgment and entered final judgment in favor
of Freddie Mac and the other defendants. On October 9, 2020, the
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Sixth Circuit. On April
6, 2023, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's September
17, 2020 decision and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.
Freddie Mac is a government-sponsored enterprise chartered by
Congress in 1970, with a mission to provide liquidity, stability,
and affordability to the U.S. housing market by primarily
purchasing single-family and multifamily residential mortgage loans
originated by lenders and packaging these loans into guaranteed
mortgage-related securities, which are sold in the global capital
markets, and transfer interest-rate and liquidity risks to
third-party investors.
FTAI AVIATION: Class Members' Bid to Serve as Lead Due March 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York holds that members of the purported
class have until March 18, 2025, to move to serve as lead
plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL SHANNAHAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FTAI
AVIATION LTD., JOSEPH P. ADAMS, JR., and EUN (ANGELA) NAM,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00541-JAV (S.D.N.Y.).
On Jan. 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
FTAI securities between July 23, 2024, and Jan. 15, 2025. The
Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
As explained in the Court's Jan. 28, 2025 Order, Section
78u-4(a)(3)(A) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA") requires that within 20 days of the filing of the
complaint, the Plaintiff will cause to be published, in a widely
circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service,
a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class of the
pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the
purported class period.
The PSLRA also provides that not later than 60 days after the date
on which the notice is published, any member of the purported class
may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the purported
class.
In addition, the Act requires that not later than 90 days after the
date on which notice is published, the Court will consider any
motion made by a purported class member in response to the notice,
and will appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the
purported plaintiff class that the Court determines to be most
capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.
In the event that more than one action on behalf of a class
asserting substantially the same claim or claims has been filed,
and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial
purposes or for trial, the Court will not appoint a lead plaintiff
until after a decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered.
The Plaintiff's counsel notified the Court that the required notice
was published on Jan. 17, 2025. Members of the purported class,
therefore, have until March 18, 2025, to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiffs, Judge Vargas holds. Opposition to any motion for
appointment of lead plaintiff will be served and filed by April 18,
2025.
A conference will be held on July 17, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., to
consider any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel and for consolidation.
If an amended complaint or a related case is filed prior to
appointment of a lead plaintiff, the Plaintiff's counsel will,
within one week, submit a letter to the Court identifying any
differences between the allegations in the new complaint(s) and the
allegations in the original complaint (including any differences in
the claims asserted and the relevant class periods) and showing
cause why the Court should not order republication of notice under
the PSLRA and set a new deadline for the filing of motions for
appointment.
The named Plaintiffs must promptly serve a copy of this Order on
each of the Defendants.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mwmf65cx from PacerMonitor.com.
FUTURE MOTION: Versteeg Sues Over Disregard for Rights of Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Nicholas Versteeg, an individual, and others similarly
situated v. FUTURE MOTION, INC., a California Corporation, Case No.
5:25-cv-01650 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2025), is brought as a direct
and proximate result of the strict products liability and
negligence of Defendant Future Motion, and also seeks an award of
punitive damages for Future Motion's deliberate disregard for the
rights or safety of others.
The Onewheel is operated, controlled, and monitored, in part, by an
application ("app") that users can download and install on their
phones. The app allows users to customize their ride with what the
company refers to as "Digital Shaping" and allows the user to
monitor battery status, toggle the LED lights on the board, and
track riding data. Upon information and belief, the Onewheel
application was also developed and designed by Defendant Future
Motion.
On or about February 26, 2023, Austin was riding his Onewheel GT
when the Onewheel suddenly and unexpectedly came to an abrupt halt,
violently launching Austin off the device and onto the pavement. As
a result of the incident, Austin sustained, inter alia, a severe
traumatic brain injury with intracerebral, epidural, and subdural
hemorrhages as well as compression of the brain cerebral edema,
brain herniation, and fractures to his skull, orbital roof, and
sinuses. Austins injuries resulted in multiple complications
including coma, acute respiratory failure, acute pulmonary
insufficiency, infection, hemorrhagic shock, acute blood loss
anemia, and seizures.
The CPSC's investigation found that Onewheels can additionally fail
by either failing to balance the rider or by stopping suddenly
while in motion, causing the rider to be suddenly and forcefully
ejected from the product, which can result in serious injury or
death to the rider The CPSC also stated that between 2019 and 2021,
there were at least four deaths reported and multiple reports of
serious injuries after the product failed to balance the rider or
suddenly stopped while in motion.
Despite the CPSC's findings and urgent warnings, Future Motion
refused for nearly a year to agree to recall its remaining Onewheel
models, demonstrating a callous disregard for the rights and safety
of consumers, including Maria. Future Motion manufactured its
Onewheels with a defect that made them inherently dangerous. As a
direct and proximate result of Defendant Future Motion's conduct,
the Plaintiff in this case incurred significant and painful bodily
injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish, and
diminished enjoyment of life, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the City of Newport,
County of Lincoln, State of Oregon.
Future Motion designs, develops, manufactures, produces,
distributes, markets, and sells a line of personal "riding
machines" commonly referred to as "Onewheel(s)."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael K. Johnson, Esq.
Adam J. Kress, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: (612) 436-1800
Fax: (612) 436-1801
Email: mjohnson@johnonsbecker.com
akress@johnsonbecker.com
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company (GE) disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that since November 2017,
several putative shareholder class actions under the federal
securities laws were filed against GE and certain affiliated
individuals and consolidated into a single action currently pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the Hachem case, also referred to as the Sjunde AP-Fonden case).
In October 2024, parties reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs to settle the matter for $362.5 million and the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement in January 2025.
The complaint against defendants GE and current and former GE
executive officers alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to
insurance reserves and accounting for long-term service agreements
and seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock
between February 27, 2013 and January 23, 2018. GE filed a motion
to dismiss in December 2019.
In January 2021, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to the
majority of the claims. Specifically, the court dismissed all
claims related to insurance reserves, as well as all claims related
to accounting for long-term service agreements, with the exception
of certain claims about historic disclosures related to factoring
in the Power business that survive as to GE and its former CFO
Jeffrey S. Bornstein. All other individual defendants have been
dismissed from the case.
In April 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for shareholders who acquired stock between February
26, 2016 and January 23, 2018. In September 2022, GE filed a motion
for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims. In
September 2023, the court denied GE's motion for summary judgment,
except as to claims arising from disclosures made between November
2017 and January 2018. In April 2024, the court scheduled a trial
date for November 2024.
General Electric Company is a high-tech industrial company that
today operates worldwide through three segments: Aerospace,
Renewable Energy, and Power. Its products include commercial and
military aircraft engines and systems; wind and other renewable
energy generation equipment and grid solutions; and gas, steam,
nuclear and other power generation equipment.
GOODRX INC: C&M Pharmacy Sues Over Illegal Price-Fixing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
C&M PHARMACY INC., d/b/a PARVIN'S PHARMACY & KATZ PHARMACY, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
GOODRX, INC.; GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; EXPRESS
SCRIPTS, INC.; MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.; and NAVITUS
HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01099 (C.D.
Cal., February 7, 2025) is an antitrust class action under the
Sherman Act and the Clayton Act to put a stop to Defendants'
illegal price-fixing scheme, which targets independent pharmacies
including Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are ostensibly
competitors for pharmacy reimbursements when patients fill
prescriptions for generic medications. But rather than compete,
GoodRx and the pharmacy benefit manager Defendants agreed to
artificially suppress prescription drug reimbursement rates paid to
independent pharmacies, and to increase fees charged to pharmacies,
on all GoodRx-related transactions. This conspiracy has caused harm
to independent pharmacies throughout the United States.
The Defendants' collusive agreement to fix the price of pharmacy
reimbursements for generic medicine is per se illegal under the
federal antitrust laws. The Defendants may not accomplish this
forbidden price-fixing activity by passing their pricing
information through an algorithm -- especially not an algorithm
maintained and operated by a horizontal competitor. The Defendants'
illegal conspiracy to underpay pharmacies must be stopped, and
independent pharmacies must see their stolen earnings restored so
they can continue to serve their communities and patients, says the
Plaintiff.
GoodRx, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of GoodRx Intermediate
Holdings, LLC, which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of GoodRx
Holdings, Inc. GoodRx processes 2.5% of all prescription drug
claims in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
Caroline Corbitt, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
1900 Powell Street, Suite 450
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
bc@pritzkerlevine.com
ccc@pritzkerlevine.com
GROUP HEALTH: Collins Suit Remanded to Dane County Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin grants the motion to remand the lawsuit
titled MICHAEL COLLINS and JENNIFER JOHNSON-HEISS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP
HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00315-jdp (W.D. Wis.), to the Dane County Circuit Court.
These seven cases: DANIEL PEARSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF
SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00310-jdp
(W.D. Wis.); GABRIELLA JENICH and MARGARET HETZLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP
HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00312-jdp (W.D. Wis.); LISA MITCHELL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00313-jdp (W.D. Wis.); SUE MAUER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00314-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MICHAEL COLLINS and JENNIFER
JOHNSON-HEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00315-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MARY
DONAHUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00316-jdp (W.D. Wis.); and
MALEAH MOSKOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00317-jdp (W.D. Wis.), are
all proposed class actions about a data breach that occurred at
Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin, which provides
health care and health insurance.
The Plaintiffs are current or former members of Group Health, and
they have received healthcare services from Group Health. The
Plaintiffs allege that Group Health breached various duties under
state law by failing to protect their personal information from the
data breach.
All seven cases were filed in state court, but Group Health has
removed them to this Court, asserting multiple bases for federal
jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs move to remand the cases. The Court
had preliminarily concluded that Group Health adequately alleged
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the
Plaintiffs have shown that exceptions to federal jurisdiction
apply.
Judge Peterson notes that most of the class members are, like Group
Health, citizens of Wisconsin, so the Court must decline to
exercise jurisdiction under CAFA. And the Court concludes that
Group Health was not acting as a federal officer and that the
Plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs'
motions to remand.
Group Health asserts four bases for removing some or all of the
seven lawsuits: (1) each case is a proposed class action that has
minimal diversity and more than $5,000,000 in controversy (28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)); (2) Group Health is a federal officer
based on its participation in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment
Systems (MIPS) (28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1)); (3) Group Health is
a federal officer based on its management of Federal Employment
Health Benefit (FEHB) plans; and (4) the claims in some of the
lawsuits are completely preempted under ERISA (28 U.S.C. Section
1331).
At the least, Judge Peterson opines, it is reasonable to infer by a
preponderance of the evidence that more than one-third of the class
members are domiciled in Wisconsin, so remand is appropriate under
Section 1332(d)(3). Judge Peterson points out that Group Health
identifies no plausible scenario under which it would be likely
that two-thirds of the more than 500,000 members, who received
medical care in this state are domiciled in states other than
Wisconsin.
Judge Peterson finds that most of the factors under Section
1332(d)(3) favor remand: the Plaintiffs are raising only
Wisconsin-law claims against a Wisconsin Defendant, who provided
services to the Plaintiffs in Wisconsin only. The Plaintiffs did
not plead their complaint in a manner to avoid federal
jurisdiction. A small fraction of members may have been citizens of
nearby states while they were receiving services, and some former
members may have moved to other states. But there is no basis to
infer that there are more potential class members domiciled in any
state than in Wisconsin.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have
satisfied both Section 1332(d)(4)(B) and Section 1332(d)(3). Hence,
remand is appropriate unless Group Health identifies another basis
for jurisdiction.
The Court also concludes, among other things, that the Plaintiffs'
claims are not preempted by ERISA. This is consistent with two
other decisions holding that ERISA did not preempt state-law claims
arising out of a data breach, Judge Peterson points out, citing In
re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 15-md-2617, 2016 WL
3029783, at *45–50 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2016); and In re: Premera
Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No.
15-md-2633, 2017 WL 539578, at *20–22 (D. Or. Feb. 9, 2017).
Group Health cites no contrary authority.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motions to remand
these cases to Dane County Circuit Court. The Clerk of Court is
directed to stay remand for 30 days pending Group Health
Cooperative's appeal deadline.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/a6ewu33c from PacerMonitor.com.
GROUP HEALTH: District Court Remands Jenich Suit to Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin grants the motion to remand the lawsuit
styled GABRIELLA JENICH and MARGARET HETZLER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00312-jdp (W.D. Wis.), to the Dane County Circuit Court.
These seven cases: DANIEL PEARSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF
SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00310-jdp
(W.D. Wis.); GABRIELLA JENICH and MARGARET HETZLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP
HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00312-jdp (W.D. Wis.); LISA MITCHELL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00313-jdp (W.D. Wis.); SUE MAUER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00314-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MICHAEL COLLINS and JENNIFER
JOHNSON-HEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00315-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MARY
DONAHUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00316-jdp (W.D. Wis.); and
MALEAH MOSKOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00317-jdp (W.D. Wis.), are
all proposed class actions about a data breach that occurred at
Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin, which provides
health care and health insurance.
The Plaintiffs are current or former members of Group Health, and
they have received healthcare services from Group Health. The
Plaintiffs allege that Group Health breached various duties under
state law by failing to protect their personal information from the
data breach.
All seven cases were filed in state court, but Group Health has
removed them to this Court, asserting multiple bases for federal
jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs move to remand the cases. The Court
had preliminarily concluded that Group Health adequately alleged
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the
Plaintiffs have shown that exceptions to federal jurisdiction
apply.
Judge Peterson notes that most of the class members are, like Group
Health, citizens of Wisconsin, so the Court must decline to
exercise jurisdiction under CAFA. And the Court concludes that
Group Health was not acting as a federal officer and that the
Plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs'
motions to remand.
Group Health asserts four bases for removing some or all of the
seven lawsuits: (1) each case is a proposed class action that has
minimal diversity and more than $5,000,000 in controversy (28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)); (2) Group Health is a federal officer
based on its participation in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment
Systems (MIPS) (28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1)); (3) Group Health is
a federal officer based on its management of Federal Employment
Health Benefit (FEHB) plans; and (4) the claims in some of the
lawsuits are completely preempted under ERISA (28 U.S.C. Section
1331).
At the least, Judge Peterson opines, it is reasonable to infer by a
preponderance of the evidence that more than one-third of the class
members are domiciled in Wisconsin, so remand is appropriate under
Section 1332(d)(3). Judge Peterson points out that Group Health
identifies no plausible scenario under which it would be likely
that two-thirds of the more than 500,000 members, who received
medical care in this state are domiciled in states other than
Wisconsin.
Judge Peterson finds that most of the factors under Section
1332(d)(3) favor remand: the Plaintiffs are raising only
Wisconsin-law claims against a Wisconsin Defendant, who provided
services to the Plaintiffs in Wisconsin only. The Plaintiffs did
not plead their complaint in a manner to avoid federal
jurisdiction. A small fraction of members may have been citizens of
nearby states while they were receiving services, and some former
members may have moved to other states. But there is no basis to
infer that there are more potential class members domiciled in any
state than in Wisconsin.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have
satisfied both Section 1332(d)(4)(B) and Section 1332(d)(3). Hence,
remand is appropriate unless Group Health identifies another basis
for jurisdiction.
The Court also concludes, among other things, that the Plaintiffs'
claims are not preempted by ERISA. This is consistent with two
other decisions holding that ERISA did not preempt state-law claims
arising out of a data breach, Judge Peterson points out, citing In
re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 15-md-2617, 2016 WL
3029783, at *45–50 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2016); and In re: Premera
Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No.
15-md-2633, 2017 WL 539578, at *20–22 (D. Or. Feb. 9, 2017).
Group Health cites no contrary authority.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motions to remand
these cases to Dane County Circuit Court. The Clerk of Court is
directed to stay remand for 30 days pending Group Health
Cooperative's appeal deadline.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yeymy7b5 from PacerMonitor.com.
GROUP HEALTH: District Court Remands Mauer Suit to Dane County Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin grants the motion to remand the lawsuit
entitled SUE MAUER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH
CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00314-jdp (W.D.
Wis.), to the Dane County Circuit Court.
These seven cases: DANIEL PEARSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF
SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00310-jdp
(W.D. Wis.); GABRIELLA JENICH and MARGARET HETZLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP
HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00312-jdp (W.D. Wis.); LISA MITCHELL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00313-jdp (W.D. Wis.); SUE MAUER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00314-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MICHAEL COLLINS and JENNIFER
JOHNSON-HEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00315-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MARY
DONAHUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00316-jdp (W.D. Wis.); and
MALEAH MOSKOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00317-jdp (W.D. Wis.), are
all proposed class actions about a data breach that occurred at
Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin, which provides
health care and health insurance.
The Plaintiffs are current or former members of Group Health, and
they have received healthcare services from Group Health. The
Plaintiffs allege that Group Health breached various duties under
state law by failing to protect their personal information from the
data breach.
All seven cases were filed in state court, but Group Health has
removed them to this Court, asserting multiple bases for federal
jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs move to remand the cases. The Court
had preliminarily concluded that Group Health adequately alleged
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the
Plaintiffs have shown that exceptions to federal jurisdiction
apply.
Judge Peterson notes that most of the class members are, like Group
Health, citizens of Wisconsin, so the Court must decline to
exercise jurisdiction under CAFA. And the Court concludes that
Group Health was not acting as a federal officer and that the
Plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs'
motions to remand.
Group Health asserts four bases for removing some or all of the
seven lawsuits: (1) each case is a proposed class action that has
minimal diversity and more than $5,000,000 in controversy (28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)); (2) Group Health is a federal officer
based on its participation in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment
Systems (MIPS) (28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1)); (3) Group Health is
a federal officer based on its management of Federal Employment
Health Benefit (FEHB) plans; and (4) the claims in some of the
lawsuits are completely preempted under ERISA (28 U.S.C. Section
1331).
At the least, Judge Peterson opines, it is reasonable to infer by a
preponderance of the evidence that more than one-third of the class
members are domiciled in Wisconsin, so remand is appropriate under
Section 1332(d)(3). Judge Peterson points out that Group Health
identifies no plausible scenario under which it would be likely
that two-thirds of the more than 500,000 members, who received
medical care in this state are domiciled in states other than
Wisconsin.
Judge Peterson finds that most of the factors under Section
1332(d)(3) favor remand: the Plaintiffs are raising only
Wisconsin-law claims against a Wisconsin Defendant, who provided
services to the Plaintiffs in Wisconsin only. The Plaintiffs did
not plead their complaint in a manner to avoid federal
jurisdiction. A small fraction of members may have been citizens of
nearby states while they were receiving services, and some former
members may have moved to other states. But there is no basis to
infer that there are more potential class members domiciled in any
state than in Wisconsin.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have
satisfied both Section 1332(d)(4)(B) and Section 1332(d)(3). Hence,
remand is appropriate unless Group Health identifies another basis
for jurisdiction.
The Court also concludes, among other things, that the Plaintiffs'
claims are not preempted by ERISA. This is consistent with two
other decisions holding that ERISA did not preempt state-law claims
arising out of a data breach, Judge Peterson points out, citing In
re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 15-md-2617, 2016 WL
3029783, at *45–50 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2016); and In re: Premera
Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No.
15-md-2633, 2017 WL 539578, at *20–22 (D. Or. Feb. 9, 2017).
Group Health cites no contrary authority.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motions to remand
these cases to Dane County Circuit Court. The Clerk of Court is
directed to stay remand for 30 days pending Group Health
Cooperative's appeal deadline.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr6k2mmm from PacerMonitor.com.
GROUP HEALTH: Donahue Suit Remanded to Dane County Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin grants the motion to remand the lawsuit
titled MARY DONAHUE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH
CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00316-jdp (W.D.
Wis.), to the Dane County Circuit Court.
These seven cases: DANIEL PEARSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF
SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00310-jdp
(W.D. Wis.); GABRIELLA JENICH and MARGARET HETZLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP
HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00312-jdp (W.D. Wis.); LISA MITCHELL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00313-jdp (W.D. Wis.); SUE MAUER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00314-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MICHAEL COLLINS and JENNIFER
JOHNSON-HEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00315-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MARY
DONAHUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00316-jdp (W.D. Wis.); and
MALEAH MOSKOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00317-jdp (W.D. Wis.), are
all proposed class actions about a data breach that occurred at
Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin, which provides
health care and health insurance.
The Plaintiffs are current or former members of Group Health, and
they have received healthcare services from Group Health. The
Plaintiffs allege that Group Health breached various duties under
state law by failing to protect their personal information from the
data breach.
All seven cases were filed in state court, but Group Health has
removed them to this Court, asserting multiple bases for federal
jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs move to remand the cases. The Court
had preliminarily concluded that Group Health adequately alleged
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the
Plaintiffs have shown that exceptions to federal jurisdiction
apply.
Judge Peterson notes that most of the class members are, like Group
Health, citizens of Wisconsin, so the Court must decline to
exercise jurisdiction under CAFA. And the Court concludes that
Group Health was not acting as a federal officer and that the
Plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs'
motions to remand.
Group Health asserts four bases for removing some or all of the
seven lawsuits: (1) each case is a proposed class action that has
minimal diversity and more than $5,000,000 in controversy (28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)); (2) Group Health is a federal officer
based on its participation in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment
Systems (MIPS) (28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1)); (3) Group Health is
a federal officer based on its management of Federal Employment
Health Benefit (FEHB) plans; and (4) the claims in some of the
lawsuits are completely preempted under ERISA (28 U.S.C. Section
1331).
At the least, Judge Peterson opines, it is reasonable to infer by a
preponderance of the evidence that more than one-third of the class
members are domiciled in Wisconsin, so remand is appropriate under
Section 1332(d)(3). Judge Peterson points out that Group Health
identifies no plausible scenario under which it would be likely
that two-thirds of the more than 500,000 members, who received
medical care in this state are domiciled in states other than
Wisconsin.
Judge Peterson finds that most of the factors under Section
1332(d)(3) favor remand: the Plaintiffs are raising only
Wisconsin-law claims against a Wisconsin Defendant, who provided
services to the Plaintiffs in Wisconsin only. The Plaintiffs did
not plead their complaint in a manner to avoid federal
jurisdiction. A small fraction of members may have been citizens of
nearby states while they were receiving services, and some former
members may have moved to other states. But there is no basis to
infer that there are more potential class members domiciled in any
state than in Wisconsin.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have
satisfied both Section 1332(d)(4)(B) and Section 1332(d)(3). Hence,
remand is appropriate unless Group Health identifies another basis
for jurisdiction.
The Court also concludes, among other things, that the Plaintiffs'
claims are not preempted by ERISA. This is consistent with two
other decisions holding that ERISA did not preempt state-law claims
arising out of a data breach, Judge Peterson points out, citing In
re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 15-md-2617, 2016 WL
3029783, at *45–50 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2016); and In re: Premera
Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No.
15-md-2633, 2017 WL 539578, at *20–22 (D. Or. Feb. 9, 2017).
Group Health cites no contrary authority.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motions to remand
these cases to Dane County Circuit Court. The Clerk of Court is
directed to stay remand for 30 days pending Group Health
Cooperative's appeal deadline.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdcn3p78 from PacerMonitor.com.
GROUP HEALTH: Mitchell Suit Remanded to Dane County Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin grants the motion to remand the lawsuit
entitled LISA MITCHELL, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH
CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00313-jdp (W.D.
Wis.), to the Dane County Circuit Court.
These seven cases: DANIEL PEARSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF
SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00310-jdp
(W.D. Wis.); GABRIELLA JENICH and MARGARET HETZLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP
HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00312-jdp (W.D. Wis.); LISA MITCHELL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00313-jdp (W.D. Wis.); SUE MAUER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00314-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MICHAEL COLLINS and JENNIFER
JOHNSON-HEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00315-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MARY
DONAHUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00316-jdp (W.D. Wis.); and
MALEAH MOSKOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00317-jdp (W.D. Wis.), are
all proposed class actions about a data breach that occurred at
Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin, which provides
health care and health insurance.
The Plaintiffs are current or former members of Group Health, and
they have received healthcare services from Group Health. The
Plaintiffs allege that Group Health breached various duties under
state law by failing to protect their personal information from the
data breach.
All seven cases were filed in state court, but Group Health has
removed them to this Court, asserting multiple bases for federal
jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs move to remand the cases. The Court
had preliminarily concluded that Group Health adequately alleged
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the
Plaintiffs have shown that exceptions to federal jurisdiction
apply.
Judge Peterson notes that most of the class members are, like Group
Health, citizens of Wisconsin, so the Court must decline to
exercise jurisdiction under CAFA. And the Court concludes that
Group Health was not acting as a federal officer and that the
Plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs'
motions to remand.
Group Health asserts four bases for removing some or all of the
seven lawsuits: (1) each case is a proposed class action that has
minimal diversity and more than $5,000,000 in controversy (28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)); (2) Group Health is a federal officer
based on its participation in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment
Systems (MIPS) (28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1)); (3) Group Health is
a federal officer based on its management of Federal Employment
Health Benefit (FEHB) plans; and (4) the claims in some of the
lawsuits are completely preempted under ERISA (28 U.S.C. Section
1331).
At the least, Judge Peterson opines, it is reasonable to infer by a
preponderance of the evidence that more than one-third of the class
members are domiciled in Wisconsin, so remand is appropriate under
Section 1332(d)(3). Judge Peterson points out that Group Health
identifies no plausible scenario under which it would be likely
that two-thirds of the more than 500,000 members, who received
medical care in this state are domiciled in states other than
Wisconsin.
Judge Peterson finds that most of the factors under Section
1332(d)(3) favor remand: the Plaintiffs are raising only
Wisconsin-law claims against a Wisconsin Defendant, who provided
services to the Plaintiffs in Wisconsin only. The Plaintiffs did
not plead their complaint in a manner to avoid federal
jurisdiction. A small fraction of members may have been citizens of
nearby states while they were receiving services, and some former
members may have moved to other states. But there is no basis to
infer that there are more potential class members domiciled in any
state than in Wisconsin.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have
satisfied both Section 1332(d)(4)(B) and Section 1332(d)(3). Hence,
remand is appropriate unless Group Health identifies another basis
for jurisdiction.
The Court also concludes, among other things, that the Plaintiffs'
claims are not preempted by ERISA. This is consistent with two
other decisions holding that ERISA did not preempt state-law claims
arising out of a data breach, Judge Peterson points out, citing In
re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 15-md-2617, 2016 WL
3029783, at *45–50 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2016); and In re: Premera
Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No.
15-md-2633, 2017 WL 539578, at *20–22 (D. Or. Feb. 9, 2017).
Group Health cites no contrary authority.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motions to remand
these cases to Dane County Circuit Court. The Clerk of Court is
directed to stay remand for 30 days pending Group Health
Cooperative's appeal deadline.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/486f7t6s from PacerMonitor.com.
GROUP HEALTH: Moskoff Suit Remanded to Dane County Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin grants the motion to remand the lawsuit
captioned MALEAH MOSKOFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH
CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00317-jdp (W.D.
Wis.), to the Dane County Circuit Court.
These seven cases: DANIEL PEARSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF
SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00310-jdp
(W.D. Wis.); GABRIELLA JENICH and MARGARET HETZLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP
HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00312-jdp (W.D. Wis.); LISA MITCHELL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00313-jdp (W.D. Wis.); SUE MAUER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00314-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MICHAEL COLLINS and JENNIFER
JOHNSON-HEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00315-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MARY
DONAHUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00316-jdp (W.D. Wis.); and
MALEAH MOSKOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00317-jdp (W.D. Wis.), are
all proposed class actions about a data breach that occurred at
Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin, which provides
health care and health insurance.
The Plaintiffs are current or former members of Group Health, and
they have received healthcare services from Group Health. The
Plaintiffs allege that Group Health breached various duties under
state law by failing to protect their personal information from the
data breach.
All seven cases were filed in state court, but Group Health has
removed them to this Court, asserting multiple bases for federal
jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs move to remand the cases. The Court
had preliminarily concluded that Group Health adequately alleged
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the
Plaintiffs have shown that exceptions to federal jurisdiction
apply.
Judge Peterson notes that most of the class members are, like Group
Health, citizens of Wisconsin, so the Court must decline to
exercise jurisdiction under CAFA. And the Court concludes that
Group Health was not acting as a federal officer and that the
Plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs'
motions to remand.
Group Health asserts four bases for removing some or all of the
seven lawsuits: (1) each case is a proposed class action that has
minimal diversity and more than $5,000,000 in controversy (28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)); (2) Group Health is a federal officer
based on its participation in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment
Systems (MIPS) (28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1)); (3) Group Health is
a federal officer based on its management of Federal Employment
Health Benefit (FEHB) plans; and (4) the claims in some of the
lawsuits are completely preempted under ERISA (28 U.S.C. Section
1331).
At the least, Judge Peterson opines, it is reasonable to infer by a
preponderance of the evidence that more than one-third of the class
members are domiciled in Wisconsin, so remand is appropriate under
Section 1332(d)(3). Judge Peterson points out that Group Health
identifies no plausible scenario under which it would be likely
that two-thirds of the more than 500,000 members, who received
medical care in this state are domiciled in states other than
Wisconsin.
Judge Peterson finds that most of the factors under Section
1332(d)(3) favor remand: the Plaintiffs are raising only
Wisconsin-law claims against a Wisconsin Defendant, who provided
services to the Plaintiffs in Wisconsin only. The Plaintiffs did
not plead their complaint in a manner to avoid federal
jurisdiction. A small fraction of members may have been citizens of
nearby states while they were receiving services, and some former
members may have moved to other states. But there is no basis to
infer that there are more potential class members domiciled in any
state than in Wisconsin.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have
satisfied both Section 1332(d)(4)(B) and Section 1332(d)(3). Hence,
remand is appropriate unless Group Health identifies another basis
for jurisdiction.
The Court also concludes, among other things, that the Plaintiffs'
claims are not preempted by ERISA. This is consistent with two
other decisions holding that ERISA did not preempt state-law claims
arising out of a data breach, Judge Peterson points out, citing In
re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 15-md-2617, 2016 WL
3029783, at *45–50 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2016); and In re: Premera
Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No.
15-md-2633, 2017 WL 539578, at *20–22 (D. Or. Feb. 9, 2017).
Group Health cites no contrary authority.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motions to remand
these cases to Dane County Circuit Court. The Clerk of Court is
directed to stay remand for 30 days pending Group Health
Cooperative's appeal deadline.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3a8eu8p8 from PacerMonitor.com.
GROUP HEALTH: Pearson Suit Remanded to Dane County Circuit Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin grants the motion to remand the lawsuit
styled DANIEL PEARSON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH
CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00310-jdp (W.D.
Wis.), to the Dane County Circuit Court.
These seven cases: DANIEL PEARSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF
SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00310-jdp
(W.D. Wis.); GABRIELLA JENICH and MARGARET HETZLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP
HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00312-jdp (W.D. Wis.); LISA MITCHELL, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00313-jdp (W.D. Wis.); SUE MAUER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH
COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00314-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MICHAEL COLLINS and JENNIFER
JOHNSON-HEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00315-jdp (W.D. Wis.); MARY
DONAHUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00316-jdp (W.D. Wis.); and
MALEAH MOSKOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE OF SOUTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00317-jdp (W.D. Wis.), are
all proposed class actions about a data breach that occurred at
Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin, which provides
health care and health insurance.
The Plaintiffs are current or former members of Group Health, and
they have received healthcare services from Group Health. The
Plaintiffs allege that Group Health breached various duties under
state law by failing to protect their personal information from the
data breach.
All seven cases were filed in state court, but Group Health has
removed them to this Court, asserting multiple bases for federal
jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs move to remand the cases. The Court
had preliminarily concluded that Group Health adequately alleged
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the
Plaintiffs have shown that exceptions to federal jurisdiction
apply.
Judge Peterson notes that most of the class members are, like Group
Health, citizens of Wisconsin, so the Court must decline to
exercise jurisdiction under CAFA. And the Court concludes that
Group Health was not acting as a federal officer and that the
Plaintiffs' claims are not preempted by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs'
motions to remand.
Group Health asserts four bases for removing some or all of the
seven lawsuits: (1) each case is a proposed class action that has
minimal diversity and more than $5,000,000 in controversy (28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)); (2) Group Health is a federal officer
based on its participation in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment
Systems (MIPS) (28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1)); (3) Group Health is
a federal officer based on its management of Federal Employment
Health Benefit (FEHB) plans; and (4) the claims in some of the
lawsuits are completely preempted under ERISA (28 U.S.C. Section
1331).
At the least, Judge Peterson opines, it is reasonable to infer by a
preponderance of the evidence that more than one-third of the class
members are domiciled in Wisconsin, so remand is appropriate under
Section 1332(d)(3). Judge Peterson points out that Group Health
identifies no plausible scenario under which it would be likely
that two-thirds of the more than 500,000 members, who received
medical care in this state are domiciled in states other than
Wisconsin.
Judge Peterson finds that most of the factors under Section
1332(d)(3) favor remand: the Plaintiffs are raising only
Wisconsin-law claims against a Wisconsin Defendant, who provided
services to the Plaintiffs in Wisconsin only. The Plaintiffs did
not plead their complaint in a manner to avoid federal
jurisdiction. A small fraction of members may have been citizens of
nearby states while they were receiving services, and some former
members may have moved to other states. But there is no basis to
infer that there are more potential class members domiciled in any
state than in Wisconsin.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have
satisfied both Section 1332(d)(4)(B) and Section 1332(d)(3). Hence,
remand is appropriate unless Group Health identifies another basis
for jurisdiction.
The Court also concludes, among other things, that the Plaintiffs'
claims are not preempted by ERISA. This is consistent with two
other decisions holding that ERISA did not preempt state-law claims
arising out of a data breach, Judge Peterson points out, citing In
re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 15-md-2617, 2016 WL
3029783, at *45–50 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2016); and In re: Premera
Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No.
15-md-2633, 2017 WL 539578, at *20–22 (D. Or. Feb. 9, 2017).
Group Health cites no contrary authority.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motions to remand
these cases to Dane County Circuit Court. The Clerk of Court is
directed to stay remand for 30 days pending Group Health
Cooperative's appeal deadline.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mpcmuyy4 from PacerMonitor.com.
GUCCI AMERICA: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gucci America, Inc.
The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Gucci America, Inc., Case No.
0:25-cv-00680-JRT-SGE (D. Minn., Feb. 21, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gucci America, Inc. -- https://www.gucci.com/us/en/ -- was founded
in 1993. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of
women's clothing accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
Chad Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street
55402, Suite 101
St. Michael, MN 55330
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
- and -
Patrick W Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE, LLC
222 South Ninth Street, Ste. 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Fax: (763) 226-2515
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
H&E EQUIPMENT: Dittebrandt Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mike Dittebrandt, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. H&E Equipment Services, Inc., Case
No. 25-00002-01157-7 KNT was transferred from the King County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington on Feb. 19, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00321 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.
H&E Equipment Services, Inc. -- https://he-equipment.com/ --
operates as an integrated equipment services company in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erika Lane, Esq.
Greg Alan Wolk, Esq.
Hardeep S. Rekhi, Esq.
REKHI & WOLK PS
529 Warren Avenue N., Suite 201
Seattle, WA 98109
Phone: (206) 388-5887
Email: elane@rekhiwolk.com
greg@rekhiwolk.com
hardeep@rekhiwolk.com
- and -
Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS INC
3333 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 693-4007
Fax: (619) 350-6855
Email: nick@ferrarovega.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Susan Kathleen Stahlfeld, Esq.
MILLER NASH LLP (SEA)
605 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 624-8300
Fax: (206) 340-9599
Email: susan.stahlfeld@millernash.com
HALLEN CONSTRUCTION: Rosario Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Div.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ROSARIO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Daniel Rosario, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The
Hallen Construction Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 157141/2021, in
the lower court of New York.
The case type is stated as Civil Action - General.
The appellate case is captioned Daniel Rosario, et al. vs. The
Hallen Construction Co., Inc., Case No. 25-00682, in the New York
Appellate Division's First Judicial Department, filed on January
31, 2025. [BN]
Defendant-Respondent THE HALLEN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. is
represented by:
Cheryl F. Korman, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
926 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
Telephone: (516) 357-3573
Facsimile: (516) 357-3333
HEALTHY SPOT: Hires Sage Law Partners as Real Estate Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
Healthy Spot Operating, LLC received approval from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California to employ
Sage Law Partners as real estate counsel.
Sage Law Partners will be providing legal counsel related to
commercial real estate and the Debtor's Leases. Sage will provide
the following services: review, negotiate and execute real estate
documents including leases, lease amendments, purchase and sale
agreements, and various other documents related to Debtor's real
estate transactions.
Chet Olsen, Esq. will be the primary attorney at Sage that will be
working with the Debtor during the pendency of the bankruptcy case.
Mr. Olsen's standard billing rate is $450 per hour. However, Mr.
Olsen has agreed to offer a 15% discount so that the fees provided
to the estate in this matter will be billed at the discounted rate
of $382 per hour.
Mr. Olsen assured the court that Sage does not hold or represent
any interest materially adverse to the Debtor or the Debtor's
estate with respect to the matters for which it is to be employed.
The firm can be reached through:
Chet Olsen, Esq.
Sage Law Partners
9696 Culver Blvd, Ste 301
Culver City, CA 90232-2759
Telephone: (310) 388-4872
Facsimile: (310) 388-4871
Email: colsen@sagelawpartners.com
About Healthy Spot Operating
Healthy Spot Operating LLC is a pet care retail company that offers
dog grooming, dog daycare, and community experiences.
Healthy Spot Operating LLC sought relief under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Case No. 24-20065) on
December 10, 2024. In the petition filed by Mark Boonnark, chief
executive officer, the Debtor reports estimated assets between $10
million and $50 million and estimated liabilities between $1
million and $10 million.
David L. Neale, Esq., at Levene, Neale, Bender, Yoo & Golubchik LLP
serves as the Debtor's counsel.
HELLERS GAS: Appeals Court Order in Gorney Suit to 4th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HELLERS GAS MARYLAND, INC., et al. have filed an appeal in the
lawsuit entitled Mikhail Gorney, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hellers Gas Maryland,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00146-GMG, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, West
Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia, is brought against the Defendant for alleged
consumer credit violations.
The appellate case is captioned Hellers Gas Maryland, Inc. v.
Mikhail Gorney, Case No. 25-113, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on February 10, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent MIKHAIL GORNEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Stephen Gibson Skinner, Esq.
SKINNER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 487
Charles Town, WV 25414
Telephone: (304) 725-7029
Defendants-Petitioners HELLERS GAS MARYLAND, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Phillip Theodore Glyptis, Esq.
BURNS WHITE LLC
32 20th Street
Wheeling, WV 26003
Telephone: (304) 231-1013
- and -
Kenneth N. Schott, Esq.
Kiley M. Verbanac, Esq.
Lyle D. Washowich, Esq.
BURNS WHITE LLC
Burns White Center
48 26th Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 995-3000
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Crano Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Suellen Crano, Kelly Cooney, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. Hilton Worldwide
Holdings Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 2:24-cv-09809 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on Feb. 19, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00305-RDA-IDD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. --
https://www.hilton.com/en/corporate/ -- is an American
multinational hospitality company that manages and franchises a
broad portfolio of hotels, resorts, and timeshare properties.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Monroe Petty, Esq.
Christopher Poole Yakubisin, Esq.
PHELAN PETTY PLC
3315 West Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23230
Phone: (804) 980-7100
Fax: (804) 767-4601
Email: jpetty@phelanpetty.com
elizabeth@eko.law
- and -
Kevin Michael Osborne, Esq.
Julie Christine Erickson
ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP
44 Tehama Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 635-0631
Fax: (415) 599-8088
Email: kevin@eko.law
julie@eko.law
Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP
433 Plaza Real, Suite 275
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 849-8060
Email: edwoskin@dwowas.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Isabelle Louise Ord, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP
555 Mission Street Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Phone: (415) 836-2500
Fax: (415) 836-2501
Email: isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com
- and -
Ashley Lauren Barton, Esq.
Matthew Danaher, Esq.
Oliver Moody Kiefer, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP US
4365 Executive Drive Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (661) 619-3001
Email: ashley.barton@us.dlapiper.com
matt.danaher@us.dlapiper.com
oliver.kiefer@us.dlapiper.com
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Va.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2025, that
the Company continues to defend itself from antitrust class suit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.
On October 6, 2023, a class action antitrust lawsuit was filed
against the Company and other defendants in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The lawsuit names several HII companies, among other companies, as
defendants.
The named plaintiffs generally allege that the defendant companies
have adhered to a "gentlemen’s agreement" that prohibits any
defendant from actively recruiting naval engineers from other
defendants.
The complaint seeks class certification, treble damages, and any
other relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled.
Depending on the outcome of the lawsuit, the Company could be
subject to penalties and damages that could have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.
The case is at an early stage, and, as a result, the Company
currently is unable to estimate an amount or range of reasonably
possible loss or to express an opinion regarding the ultimate
outcome of the matter.
Huntington is a global, all-domain defense provider and military
shipbuilder.[BN]
IMAGINE360 LLC: Collins Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
---------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IMAGINE360, LLC, Case No. CACE-25-002370 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 19, 2025), is brought arising
from a cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive
information in the possession and custody and/or control of
Defendant ("Data Breach").
The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration,
and theft of current and former health plan members' personally
identifying information ("PIT") and protected health information
("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information"). The Data Breach
occurred within the Citrix file-sharing solution, which Defendant
used to securely exchange files related to self-insured health
plans.
The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of
Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures.
Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted
Defendant with their Private Information. But Defendant betrayed
that trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security
practices to prevent the Data Breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on
his own behalf and on behalf of a class Of similarly situated
individuals, brings this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief,
damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim.
Imagine360, LLC a limited liability company with its headquarters
and principal place of business located in Wayne,
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
IMPERIAL PRODUCTS: Turek Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bo Turek, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. IMPERIAL PRODUCTS, LLC, IMPERIAL
PRODUCTS MGMT LLC, REDBUD ROOTS, INC., REDBUD ROOTS, LLC, and
REDBUD ROOTS NATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 2025CH00499 was removed from
the Circuit Court of Cook County Department, Chancery Division,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Feb. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01789.
The Complaint alleges that the purported class was "harmed in the
full amount of the moneys paid for the Vapable Oils
purchases."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Casey T. Grabenstein, Esq.
SAUL EWING, LLP
161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 876-7100
Fax: (312) 876-0288
Email: Casey.grabenstein@saul.com
- and -
Jonathan A. Singer, Esq.
SAUL EWING, LLP
1001 Fleet Street, Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: (410) 332-8690
Email: Jon.singer@saul.com
IMY FOODS INC: Schuler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IMY Foods Inc. The
case is styled as Joseph Schuler, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. IMY Foods Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2025-0002510 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb.
19, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
I-Mei Foods Co., Ltd. manufactures and distributes food
products.[BN]
INMAR INC: 4th Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Cert. in Mr. Dee's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms
the denial of class certification in the lawsuit titled MR. DEE'S
INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
RETAIL MARKETING SERVICES, INC., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; CONNECTICUT FOOD ASSOCIATION, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs -
Appellants v. INMAR, INC.; CAROLINA MANUFACTURER'S SERVICES, INC.;
CAROLINA SERVICES; CAROLINA COUPON CLEARING, INC., Defendants -
Appellees; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Amicus Supporting Appellee, Case No. 23-2165 (4th Cir.).
The Appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District
Judge, Case No. 1:19−cv−00141−WO−LPA (M.D.N.C.). The matter
was argued on Dec. 10, 2024, and decided on Feb. 12, 2025, before
WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
The matter is affirmed by published opinion. Judge James Harvie
Wilkinson III wrote the opinion, in which Judge Quattlebaum and
Judge Berner joined.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Mr. Dee's Inc., Retail Marketing Services,
Inc., and Connecticut Food Association are purchasers of coupon
processing services. They sought class certification in a lawsuit
alleging that Inmar, Inc., and its subsidiaries participated in an
anticompetitive conspiracy to raise coupon processing fees.
After multiple rounds of briefing, the district court rejected the
Plaintiffs' attempts to certify a manufacturer purchaser class. The
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that each of the three manufacturer
class definitions they proposed satisfied the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Because the Panel finds that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to
certify any of the proffered manufacturer classes, the Court of
Appeals affirms.
The case arose out of alleged anticompetitive conduct in the coupon
processing industry. Stated simply, coupon processing is what
happens to coupons after they have been redeemed at grocery stores
and other retailers. When a manufacturer issues a coupon, a
consumer may present the coupon to a retailer in exchange for a
discount on the purchase price of the manufacturer's product.
Naturally, retailers want to be reimbursed for the discount they
provide in honoring the coupon. Manufacturers, meanwhile, want to
ensure that they only reimburse retailers for coupons that have
been properly redeemed. This is where coupon processing comes into
play.
Traditionally, processing paper coupons involved two additional
players beyond retailers and manufacturers. First, retailers would
send the coupons to a "retailer processor" to count them and
invoice the manufacturer. Next, the coupons would be sent to a
"manufacturer processor" hired by the manufacturer to re-count the
coupons and verify the retailer processor's invoice. The amount
that manufacturers were ultimately asked by retailers and retailer
processors to pay included the face value of the coupons plus
additional processing fees, including shipping fees.
Importantly, because retailers and retailer processors did not
contract directly with manufacturers for coupon processing
services, manufacturers were not contractually obligated to pay
shipping fees. Adding another layer of complication, manufacturers
sometimes disagreed with the amounts they were invoiced. When this
happened, the manufacturer might refuse to pay, or "charge back,"
part of the invoiced amount. In response, a retailer could "deduct"
chargebacks from what the retailer owed the manufacturer for the
products they purchased.
The three named Plaintiffs in this case are purchasers of coupon
processing services. Mr. Dee's, Inc., is a manufacturer that issues
coupons and purchases coupon processing services. Retail Marketing
Services, Inc. and Connecticut Food Association purchase coupon
processing services on behalf of retailers.
Defendants Inmar, Inc. and its subsidiary Carolina Manufacturer's
Services, Inc. ("CMS") sell processing services to manufacturers.
Inmar's subsidiaries Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. ("CCC") and
Carolina Services (collectively "Inmar") sell processing services
to retailers.
The Plaintiffs allege that Inmar entered a horizontal price-fixing
agreement with competitor International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS") that resulted in higher shipping fees. The alleged
conspiracy lasted from 2001 until 2007 when certain IOS personnel
were criminally indicted. The antitrust case against Inmar was
first brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin in 2008, but proceedings were stayed to allow
resolution of the criminal charges. IOS was eventually dismissed
from the antitrust case after filing for bankruptcy, leaving only
the Inmar defendants. In 2019, the case was transferred to the
Middle District of North Carolina.
As is typical in the antitrust context, the Plaintiffs relied
heavily on expert testimony to make their case. The centerpiece of
the Plaintiffs' evidence was a report prepared by expert witness
Dr. Kathleen Grace. Dr. Grace used a dataset of fees charged to
manufacturers to calculate a "mean shipping fee payment per 1,000
coupons" for Inmar, IOS, and NCH (another coupon processor not part
of the alleged conspiracy) for each year between 2000 and 2007. She
then performed regression analyses "to estimate shipping fee
overcharges," that is, the amounts manufacturers paid above a
forecasted competitive shipping fee. Dr. Grace also estimated
shipping fee overcharges for retailers that resulted from
manufacturers refusing to pay shipping fees.
The Plaintiffs sought certification for two classes, one of
manufacturer purchasers of coupon processing services (which the
district court denied) and another of retailer purchasers (which
the district court granted). For simplicity, the Court of Appeals
focuses only on the proffered manufacturer classes as to which it
granted permission to appeal.
The district court denied the Plaintiffs' first two motions for
class certification without prejudice. The first was denied after
issues arose during discovery. The second sought to certify "a
class of manufacturers that directly paid observably higher CCC or
IOS shipping fees during the class period (April 11, 2001 through
March 28, 2007), identified on the list attached to Plaintiffs'
supporting brief at Exhibit 24, Appendix A." Appendix A was a list
of 5,280 manufacturers, which Dr. Grace identified as having
"directly paid observably higher CCC or IOS shipping fees during
the class period."
The district court rejected the proposed class as an impermissible
fail-safe class because class membership is conditioned on having
suffered antitrust injury or impact in the form of increased
shipping fees.
The Plaintiffs' third motion sought certification of "a class of
manufacturers that directly paid CCC shipping fees during more than
8 different calendar months during the class period (April 11, 2001
through March 28, 2007) and/or were clients of CMS and directly
paid shipping fees to IOS for at least 2.2 million coupons during
the class period" (the "Limited Payer Class").
After a motions hearing, the district court directed the parties to
file additional briefing discussing whether a class could be
certified without the month and volume cutoffs. In response, the
Plaintiffs added a new potential class definition: "manufacturers
that directly paid CCC shipping fees during the class period and/or
were clients of CMS and directly paid shipping fees to IOS" (the
"All Payer Class"). The Plaintiffs also proposed that the classes
could, alternatively, be defined simply as the "manufacturers
listed in [Appendix A]." (the "Fixed List Class").
The district court rejected each of the three proffered
manufacturer classes. With respect to the Fixed List Class, the
district court determined that the revised definition mirrored the
fail-safe class that it previously refused to certify and failed
for the same reason. Finally, the district court rejected the All
Payer Class for failing to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement.
The district court found that of the 7,813 members of the All Payer
Class, 2,533 suffered no demonstrable antitrust injury. Without
"expert testimony showing impact and damages to almost a third of
the class," the district court determined that the Plaintiffs had
not met their burden to show that common questions would
predominate.
Invoking Rule 23(f), the Plaintiffs appealed the district court's
denial of certification of a manufacturer class. This Court granted
review.
Judge Wilkinson notes that the he and the Panel need not reach the
viability of fail-safe classes because the Fixed List Class suffers
from more basic defects under Rule 23, citing Cochran v. Morris, 73
F.3d 1310, 1315 (4th Cir. 1996).
Fatal to the Fixed List Class is the fact that it fails to define a
class at all, Judge Wilkinson opines. The text of Rule 23 and this
Court's cases interpreting the Rule make clear why it is
insufficient merely to provide a list, however lengthy, of persons
said to be in the class and leave it to the court to devise a class
definition.
Judge Wilkinson finds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to certify the Limited Payer Class. Judge
Wilkinson explains that an essential purpose of any class action is
to redress an injury. If the criteria for class membership bear
little relationship to the Defendants' conduct, then the class
definition is untethered from the purpose of employing the class
action procedure in the first instance.
By the same token, excising such a large share of potential
claimants from the proposed class raises a superiority problem,
Judge Wilkinson opines. Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) requires
that the class action mechanism be superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
Because the Limited Payer Class cutoffs exclude thousands of
manufacturers purporting to show the same harm as the included
class members, certifying such an incomplete class might expose
defendants to a continued trickle of individual lawsuits and
thereby impair the efficiency goal which is a key purpose of the
class action mechanism.
Judge Wilkinson also finds that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in finding that the high share of class members with
no demonstrable injury presented a predominance problem. The Panel
cannot conclude that the district court erred in finding that
common questions of injury and damages would not predominate where
the Plaintiffs' only expert witness failed to show harm for nearly
one-third of the class.
The need for common issues to predominate is an explicit and
indispensable requirement for classes certified under Rule 23(b)(3)
and underscores the issues with certifying the manufacturer classes
proposed here, Judge Wilkinson says. Under the circumstances, Judge
Wilkinson points out that the Panel cannot fault the trial court
for its decision.
In view of the latitude afforded district courts in making class
certification rulings, the Panel cannot rightly overturn what the
district court did here as an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, its
judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/33dv4fa9 from PacerMonitor.com.
Daniel Lee Low -- dlow@kotchen.com -- KOTCHEN & LOW LLP, in
Washington, D.C., for the Appellants.
Lisa R. Bugni -- lbugni@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP, in San
Francisco, California, for the Appellees.
Daniel Kotchen -- dkotchen@kotchen.com -- KOTCHEN & LOW LLP, in
Washington, D.C.; Kearns Davis -- kdavis@brookspierce.com --
Matthew B. Tynan -- mtynan@brookspierce.com -- BROOKS PIERCE
MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD LLP, ub Greensboro, North Carolina, for
the Appellants.
Anne M. Voigts -- anne.voigts@pillsburylaw.com -- in Palo Alto,
California, Mateo de la Torre -- mdelatorre@kslaw.com -- in New
York City, Matthew V.H. Noller -- mnoller@kslaw.com -- KING &
SPALDING LLP, in San Francisco, California; Samuel B. Hartzell --
sam.hartzell@wbd-us.com -- Pressly McAuley Millen --
Press.Millen@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, in
Raleigh, North Carolina, for the Appellees.
Jennifer B. Dickey -- jdickey@uschamber.com -- Jonathan D. Urick --
jurick@uschamber.com -- UNITED STATES CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, in
Washington, D.C.; Brian D. Schmalzbach --
bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, in Richmond,
Virginia, for Amicus Curiae.
JERRITT CANYON: Rosales Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
NICANDRO ROSALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JERRITT CANYON GOLD LLC and FM US HOLDINGS
LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00269 (D. Nev., February 7,
2025) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and
other damages from the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Nevada law.
The complaint alleges the Defendant's failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime, and failure to timely pay all wages
due.
Plaintiff Rosales was employed by Defendant Jerritt Canyon in its
Nevada mine from approximately June 2022 through April 2023 as
non-exempt employee.
Jerritt Canyon Gold LLC is the operator of the Jerritt Canyon mine
and FM US Holdings Limited is the manager of Jerritt Canyon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq.
RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C.
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Telephone: (702) 320-8400
Facsimile: (702) 320-8401
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Griffin Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Timothy Griffin and Damir Baric, individuals
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; MARIE GILEM, an individual and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CPF-25-518864 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the
County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on Feb. 21, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 3:25-cv-01888.
The Complaint alleges various causes of action on behalf of
Plaintiffs and a putative class under California law, including
alleged 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 penalties; and
unfair business competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
Nicole L. Antonopoulos, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: +1.650.843.4000
Fax: +1.650.843.4001
Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
nicole.antonopoulos@morganlewis.com
JSP INTERNATIONAL: Blair Files Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JSP International
Group, LTD. The case is styled as Brenda Blair, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JSP International
Group, LTD., Case No. 1:25-cv-00300-JPW (M.D. Pa., Feb. 19, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
JSP -- https://www.jsp.com/en/ -- is a truly global business,
serving the automotive, construction, civil engineering and
packaging markets with a range of expanded polymers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alicyn B. Whitley, Esq.
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Fax: (510) 891-7030
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
sec@colevannote.com
JW PEI: Faces Gee Suit Over Deceptive Advertised Sale Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Gee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JW PEI, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
8:25-cv-00243 (C.D. Cal., February 7, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of express
warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and violations of
the California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, and Unfair Competition Law.
Defendant JW PEI makes, sells, and markets clothing and
accessories. The products are sold online through Defendant's
website, www.jwpei.com. On its website, the Defendant lists
purported regular prices and advertises purported discounts from
those listed regular prices. These include discounts offering "up
to X% off" and "X% off."
The complaint alleges that the regular prices Defendant advertises
are not actually Defendant's regular prices, because Defendant's
products are always available for less than that. The purported
discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discount the
customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are
the purported discounts limited time—quite the opposite, they are
always available. Had Defendant been truthful, Ms. Gee and other
consumers like her would not have purchased the Products, or would
have paid less for them, says the complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
KENT MARTIN: Burch Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kent Martin, et al.
The case is styled as Elijah Burch, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated former and current pre-trial detainees housed at
the Coles County Jail v. Kent Martin, in his individual and
official capacity as the COLES COUNTY SHERIFF; Kari Beadles,
Corrections Supervisor of the Coles County Jail, in her individual
capacity; Officer Benner, Logan Brown, Officer Butler, Kyle
Childress, Buddy Le Coe, Chase Dunne, Derrick Finney, Jamey Flynn,
Nicole Katz, Officer Kastle, Alexander Kersten, Thaddeus Lang,
Officer Lyl, Joshua Miller, Caden Price, Officer Reno, Ryan
Sheperd, Kristina Sokolinski Baxter, Macie Waddill, Officer Wilson,
in their individual capacities as Coles County Sheriff's Deputies;
County of Coles, an Illinois municipal corporation; Case No.
1:25-cv-01068-JEH (C.D. Ill., Feb. 19, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jude Marie Redwood, Esq.
REDWOOD LAW OFFICE
505 E. Sherman
P.O. Box 864
St. Joseph, IL 61873
Phone: (217) 469-9194
Fax: (217) 469-8094
Email: redwoodlaw42@hotmail.com
- and -
Devlin Joseph Schoop, Esq.
LADUZINSKY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
216 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 301
Chicago, IL 60661
Phone: (312) 424-0700
Fax: (312) 262-2646
Email: dschoop@laduzinsky.com
KENTUCKY: Harvey Appeals Court Rulings in Kennedy Case to 6th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
KERRY HARVEY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting in part and denying in part their motion to strike in the
lawsuit entitled Jamiahia Kennedy, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kentucky
Department Of Juvenile Justice, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00016, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky.
The Plaintiffs brought this action to address constitutional and
statutory deficiencies within Kentucky's juvenile facilities. The
Plaintiffs claim that they were subjected to gross and
unconscionable violations of the rights, privileges, and immunities
guaranteed them by the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to
the Constitution of the United States while they were in custody at
the detention centers.
On Apr. 24, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to strike the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint and motions to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.
On May 8, 2024, the Defendants filed their fifth motion to
dismiss.
On June 7, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
substitute document.
On Jan. 23, 2025, Judge Greg N. Stivers entered an Order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for leave and granting and denying in part
the Defendants' motion to strike. The Defendants' first and second
motions to dismiss were denied as moot. Their third and fifth
motions to dismiss were granted, while fourth motion was granted in
part and denied in part.
The appellate case is captioned Jamiahia Kennedy, et al. v.
Kentucky Department Of Juvenile Justice, et al., Case No. 25-5087,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed
on February 6, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMIAHIA KENNEDY, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Laura E. Landenwich, Esq.
ADAMS LANDENWICH & WALTON
517 W. Ormsby Avenue
Louisville, KY 40203
Telephone: (502) 561-0085
Defendants-Appellants KERRY HARVEY, individually and in his
capacity as former Secretary of the Kentucky Justice and Public
Safety Cabinet, et al. are represented by:
Edward A. Baylous, II, Esq.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
125 Holmes Street, Second Floor
Frankfort, KY 40601
Telephone: (502) 564-8207
KERRIGAN GROUP: Collazos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ginneth Collazos and Matias Hernandez, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and all other persons similarly situated v. KERRIGAN
GROUP ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a LAS PALMAS RESTAURANT, ARIEL CARTAGENA
and OLGA CARTAGENA, Case No. 2:25-cv-01301 (D.N.J., Feb. 17, 2025),
is brought for damages and equitable relief based upon willful
violations that the Defendants committed of Plaintiffs' rights
guaranteed to them by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA;
the overtime provisions of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
("NJWHL"); the minimum wage provisions of the NJWHL; the full
payment provision of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"); and
any other claim(s).
Despite being required to regularly work in excess of forty hours
during their workweeks, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs at
their required overtime rate of pay of at least one and one-half
times the applicable minimum wage rate or their proper regular
hourly rates of pay, whichever is greater, for their hours worked
in excess of forty per workweek, in violation of the FLSA NJWHL and
NJWPL. Throughout their employment, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate records of Plaintiffs' hours worked as Defendants failed
to record the end time of Plaintiffs' and other employees' shifts,
and therefore Defendants failed to record Plaintiffs' and other
employees' hours worked.
The Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded record
keeping requirements of the FLSA and New Jersey law by failing to
record or maintain accurate records of Plaintiffs' hours worked on
a daily or weekly basis, failing to accurately track and pay
Plaintiffs in accordance with their hours worked, failing to pay
Plaintiffs at their correct overtime rate of pay, failing to pay
Plaintiffs at least the minimum wage or even the tipped minimum
wage for many hours worked, failing to provide Plaintiffs with a
compliant tip credit notice prior to paying Plaintiffs at a reduced
tipped hourly rate of pay for their hours worked, and intentionally
failing to accurately record tips and gratuities received by
Plaintiffs and other tipped employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt server
from May 2023 until January 16, 2024.
The Defendants are a company and its owners that serves Cuban and
Latin American cuisine at its restaurant, located in West New York,
New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Phone: (631) 257-5588
Email: dbarnhorn@romerolawny.com
KROGER CO: Court Dismisses Garland Consumer Suit With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Linda Lopez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants, with prejudice, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled CHELSEA GARLAND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; LEROY
JACOBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00240-LL-JLB (S.D. Cal.).
Before the Court is Defendant The Kroger Co.'s Motion to Dismiss
First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b). Plaintiffs Chelsea Garland and Leroy Jacobs filed an
Opposition to the Motion and Kroger filed a Reply.
Judge Lopez notes that the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Supplemental Authority referencing Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark
Corp., 108 F.4th 771 (9th Cir. 2024), a relevant Ninth Circuit
order issued on July 17, 2024, after the Plaintiffs had filed their
Opposition on June 18, 2024. On Sept. 27, 2024, the Defendant filed
an Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental
Authority ("Application") referencing Trammell v. KLN Enterprises,
Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01884-H-JLB, 2024 WL 4194794 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12,
2024), a district court ruling issued after the conclusion of
briefing for this Motion with legal and factual similarities to the
instant action, and which discusses Whiteside.
Counsel for the Defendant attests that the Plaintiffs' counsel
indicated that the Plaintiffs do not intend to oppose Kroger's
request to file a notice of supplemental authority. The Court finds
good cause to grant the Defendant's Application because the
Plaintiffs do not oppose, the ruling discusses Whiteside, and it is
relevant and helpful to the Court's analysis.
The Plaintiffs initiated this matter by filing their original
complaint on Feb. 5, 2024. After the Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b), but before the Court ruled on it, the
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on May 13, 2024
("FAC").
In the FAC, the Plaintiffs allege four claims in this putative
class action: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law
("FAL"), (3) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"), and (4) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA").
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a California Class of all persons
in California, who purchased Kroger Blueberry Fruit & Grain Cereal
Bars bearing the labeling identified here in California during the
statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged and an
Illinois Class of all persons in Illinois, who purchased Kroger
Blueberry Fruit & Grain Cereal Bars bearing the labeling identified
here in Illinois during the statutes of limitations for each cause
of action alleged.
Plaintiff Chelsea Garland is a citizen of California and Plaintiff
Leroy Jacobs is a citizen of Illinois. Garland purchased the
Product between January 2020 and January 2024 in San Diego County,
California and/or other areas. Jacobs purchased the Product between
January 2021 and January 2024 in Illinois. The Plaintiffs assert
they try to avoid foods with artificial flavors, based on the
belief they are potentially harmful, not natural and unhealthy.
The Plaintiffs allege that they read, saw and relied on statements
of "naturally flavored" and "made with real fruit" on the front
label of Kroger Blueberry Fruit & Grain Cereal Bars ("the Product")
that included pictures of blueberries bursting from a cereal bar
with dark blue filling and expected its filling's blueberry taste
was from blueberries and natural flavors, not artificial flavor.
The Plaintiffs did not expect the Product's filling would use
artificial flavoring in the form of the synthetic compound of
DL-Malic acid to provide its blueberry taste in addition to
blueberries and natural flavors.
The Plaintiffs assert they would not have bought the Product or
they would have paid less for it had they known its fruit filling's
taste was from artificial flavoring instead of only from
blueberries and natural flavor. They seek injunctive relief,
restitution, disgorgement, and compensatory damages.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the FAC without leave to amend for
exceeding the statutes of limitations, failure to meet the
heightened pleading requirements of their fraud-based claims
pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
failure to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over the Defendant for
the Illinois state law claim, failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, and failure to show standing under Article
III of the United States Constitution for injunctive relief.
As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that all of the
Plaintiffs' claims are subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading
requirement. At the core of each of their claims is the allegation
that the Defendant engaged in a unified course of fraudulent and
misleading conduct by including "naturally flavored" and "made with
real fruit" on the Product's front label when the Product contains
artificial flavoring ingredients. Therefore, each claim is grounded
in fraud and the pleading of each claim as a whole must satisfy the
particularity requirements of Rule 9(b).
The Court finds the Plaintiffs do not adequately plead that their
claims are within the applicable statute of limitations. Judge
Lopez notes there are no allegations that they made multiple
purchases. Thus, the plain meaning is that they bought the Product
once sometime within the specified time range. Such vague
statements with multi-year ranges of time do not adequately convey
when they purchased the Product, Judge Lopez points out.
The Plaintiffs do not plead that any tolling of the statute of
limitations applies, Judge Lopez says. Accordingly, the Court
grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the claims for failure to
adequately plead they are within the limitations period.
The Court also finds they Plaintiffs have not shown that the Court
has personal jurisdiction for their ICFA claim. Jacobs, a citizen
of Illinois, was allegedly misled and suffered damages when he
purchased the Product in Illinois at stores owned and controlled by
the Defendant. To the extent the Defendant has minimum contacts
with California, Judge Lopez opines this does not demonstrate
specific jurisdiction as to an Illinois state claim arising from a
sale of the Product in Illinois to a citizen of Illinois, with harm
incurred in Illinois.
Because the action is before the Court based on diversity
jurisdiction with no federal claim to hook their state law claim
onto, the Court declines to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to dismiss the
ICFA claim without leave to amend because the allegations of other
facts could not cure the jurisdictional deficiency, but without
prejudice to filing in an appropriate jurisdiction.
The Court finds the Plaintiffs have failed to plead with sufficient
particularity that the malic acid used in the Product is
artificial. The Court also finds that requiring some factual
details as to when and where the testing was conducted and by whom
is aligned with one of the principal purposes of Rule 9(b).
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims for failing to sufficiently plead the malic acid
in the Product is artificial pursuant to Rule 9(b)'s heightened
pleading standard. Although this finding is enough to dismiss the
entire complaint, the Court proceeds to analyze the Defendant's
argument regarding consumer deception as if the allegations of
synthetic malic acid are sufficient.
The Court finds the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the
front label of the Product is unambiguously deceptive to an
ordinary consumer, such that the consumer would feel no need to
look at the back label. Accordingly, the Court grants the
Defendants' Motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for failing to
adequately plead that the Product label is likely to deceive
reasonable consumers.
Because the Court has found the Product label is not deceptive as a
matter of law, any additional factual allegations consistent with
the FAC will not change this finding, and amendment of the
complaint would therefore be futile.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion with
prejudice, and without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court will
enter judgment and close this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ja37zwy from PacerMonitor.com.
LA SOLAR GROUP: Steves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LA Solar Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Curtis Steves, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated employees v. LA Solar Group, Inc., Case
No. 25STCV04746 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 20,
2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
LA Solar Group -- https://la-solargroup.com/ -- is a solar
installation company that designs and installs solar panel
installation and electrical equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
Phone: 855-786-6355
Fax: 855-786-6356
Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
LAZ PARKING: 2nd Amended Complaint in Harris Suit Due on March 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled AMY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAZ PARKING LTD, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00889-SVN (D. Conn.), Judge
Sarala V. Nagala of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut grants the Plaintiff leave to amend complaint for a
second time by March 5, 2025.
Plaintiff Amy Harris, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, brings this putative consumer class action
against Defendants LAZ Parking Ltd, LLC ("LAZ LTD") and LAZ Karp
Associates, LLC ("LAZ Karp"), asserting claims for breach of
contract, violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
("CUTPA") and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"),
and civil conspiracy related to service fees charged by the
Defendants.
The amended complaint alleges, generally, that the Defendants
improperly charged the Plaintiff and putative class members an
unauthorized service fee for parking in their lots when they paid
for parking through the Defendants' online payment system.
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended
complaint in full for failure to state a claim. For the reasons
described in this Ruling, the Court grants the Defendants' motion
to dismiss, though the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her MMPA
and civil conspiracy claims only.
The Defendants are Connecticut-based limited liability companies
that own, operate, manage, and lease parking facilities throughout
the United States. Defendant LAZ LTD is wholly owned and controlled
by Defendant LAZ Karp, and the two entities share the same address
as their principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut.
In their parking lots, the Defendants post signs that display the
parking rates, and in some instances applicable taxes, but do not
disclose that an additional fee or surcharge may apply to the
parking transaction. Most of the Defendants' parking lots require
customers to pay using an online cashless payment system that can
be accessed via the LAZ mobile app (LAZGo App.) or the LAZ website
(the "Payment System"), eliminating "traditional" methods of
payment, such as parking attendants, meters, or ticketed gates.
In the Payment System, customers specify the duration of their
parking session and provide their vehicle information, personal
information, and credit or debit card information. The Payment
System then calculates the cost of the parking session based on the
duration of the parking session, the rate posted on the parking lot
signage, and a "service fee" that is not disclosed on the signage.
When the customer confirms the purchase by selecting the "PAY"
button, she also agrees to the "Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy
and License Plate Recognition Policy," which are linked to and
contained on the LAZ app or the LAZ website.
Named Plaintiff Harris is a citizen and resident of Missouri. On
Dec. 21, 2022, she parked in a parking lot located in Missouri,
operated by the Defendants. The signage at the parking lot
specified parking rates of $6 for the first four hours, $12 for
four to eight hours, and $24 for eight to twenty-four hours, and
did not disclose anything about a service fee.
Once parked, the Plaintiff accessed the Payment System to pay for
four hours of parking. As a result of the $0.37 service fee charged
for using the Payment System, the Plaintiff paid a total of $6.37,
rather than the posted rate of $6, for her four-hour session. In
Plaintiff's the view, the posted signage is an offer, not an
advertisement, and the act of parking in the lot is conduct
signifying her acceptance of the offer, even before she renders
payment.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all
other individuals in two different classes: (1) the "Nationwide
Class" and (2) the "Missouri Class." The Nationwide Class
constitutes all persons, who during the class period were charged a
"Service Fee" by the Defendants for parking in a parking lot that
contains a LAZ Parking sign, the terms of which provide for parking
at an hourly rate based on the duration of the parking session and
do not disclose the Service Fee. The Missouri Class similarly
includes customers, who were charged an undisclosed service fee in
Missouri. The Plaintiff does not specify whether the Nationwide
Class includes the Missouri Class.
The Plaintiff brings the following claims in her amended complaint:
(1) breach of contract based on parking lot signage, individually
and on behalf of the members of the Nationwide Class (Count I); (2)
as an alternative to the breach of contract parking lot signage
claim, breach of contract based on the Terms & Conditions,
individually and on behalf of the members of the Nationwide Class
(Count II); (3) per se violations of CUTPA, individually (Count
III); (4) violation of the MMPA, individually and on behalf of the
members of the Missouri Class (Count IV); and (5) civil conspiracy,
individually and on behalf of the members of an unspecified class
(Count V).
For the reasons described in this Ruling, the Court grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss in full.
The Court considers only the Terms & Conditions and the photo of
the "Pay to park" sign in ruling on the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The other images of the parking lot signage, the
screenshots of the Payment System, and the copies of the Privacy
Policy and License Plate Recognition Policy are excluded.
The Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to both of
the Plaintiff's breach of contract claims. The Court finds that the
Defendants do not breach the Terms & Conditions when they charge
service fees on payments made via the LAZ app and website.
Next, the Court finds that the Plaintiff's individual CUTPA claim
must be dismissed. Given that the parking transaction at issue
occurred in Missouri and its connection to trade or commerce in
Connecticut is, at best, tenuous, the Court finds that CUTPA does
not apply and dismisses Count III without leave to amend.
The Court also concludes that the Plaintiff fails to allege that
the Defendants have engaged in "unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce" in the state of
Connecticut, as would be required to pursue a claim under CUTPA.
The Court does not believe Connecticut courts would find this
allegation sufficient to sustain a CUTPA claim.
Finally, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's MMPA claim. The Court
holds that she fails to state a claim under the MMPA, as the
amended complaint fails to show a likelihood that the Defendants'
parking rate sign would mislead a reasonable consumer. Accordingly,
based on her failure to establish a likelihood that the Defendants'
conduct would mislead a reasonable consumer, the Court dismisses
the MMPA claim. The Court does not reach whether the other elements
required under the MMPA have been met.
The Court also dismisses the Plaintiff's claim for civil
conspiracy, as it cannot survive absent a plausible allegation of a
substantive tort. As the Court has dismissed the CUTPA and MMPA
claims, there is no allegation of a substantive tort with which the
Plaintiff's claim of civil conspiracy may be joined. Accordingly,
the Court dismisses the civil conspiracy claim.
The Plaintiff has not expressly requested leave to amend, in the
event the Court were to dismiss any of her claims. The Court
acknowledges, too, that the Plaintiff has already amended once.
Nonetheless, it believes it is appropriate to grant the Plaintiff
leave to amend as to her MMPA and associated civil conspiracy
claims only.
Judge Nagala notes that leave to amend the CUTPA claim would be
futile, in light of the Court's conclusion that CUTPA does not
apply to the Plaintiff's parking transaction. Likewise, leave to
amend would be futile as to the Plaintiff's breach of contract
claims, as the Court rejects the legal underpinnings of those
claims.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff's claims in
Counts I, II, III, IV, and V are dismissed; the dismissals as to
Counts I, II, and III are without leave to amend. The Court grants
the Plaintiff leave to amend for a second time, to attempt to
remedy the deficiencies identified in this order as to Counts IV
and V only.
Any Second Amended Complaint will be filed by March 5, 2025. The
Defendants will answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended
Complaint by March 19, 2025.
A full-text copy of the Court's Ruling is available at
https://tinyurl.com/54cxfzv2 from PacerMonitor.com.
LESLIE'S INC: Continues to Defend WPBPPF Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie's 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 6, 2025, that the company continues
to defend itself from the West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund
securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona.
On September 8, 2023, a class action complaint for violation of
federal securities laws was filed by West Palm Beach Police Pension
Fund in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against
the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and its former
Chief Financial Officer.
On December 1, 2023, the court appointed the lead plaintiff, and on
February 20, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended and
consolidated complaint. The amended and consolidated complaint
alleges that it violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements that failed to disclose
adverse facts about its financial guidance, business operations and
prospects, and seeks class certification, damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other relief.
Due to the early stage of this proceeding, it cannot reasonably
estimate the potential range of loss, if any.
The Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
defend ourselves vigorously in this matter.
Leslie's, Inc. is a direct-to-consumer pool and spa care brand. It
markets and sells pool and spa supplies and related products and
services, which primarily consist of maintenance items such as
chemicals, equipment and parts, and cleaning accessories, as well
as safety, recreational, and fitness-related products.
LOREAL USA INC: Grossenbacher Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Holly Grossenbacher, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Loreal USA, Inc., Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-00663 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Feb. 21, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01497-UA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- manufactures
and markets cosmetic products. The Company's cosmetic line includes
brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline,
Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer M. Hoekstra, Esq.
R. Jason Richards, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Ste. 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: jrichards@awkolaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ashley Joy Heilprin, Esq.
Jesse Cobb Stewart, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP (NEW ORLEANS)
365 Canal St., Suite 2000
New Orleans, LA 70130-6534
Phone: (504) 584-9372
Fax: (504) 596-0933
MALIN + GOETZ: Andrews Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Andrews, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Malin + Goetz, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00940 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 19, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Malin +
Goetz provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.malinandgoetz.com/ (hereinafter "Malinandgoetz.com" or
"the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to
its website, and therefore denial of its products and services
offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Malinandgoetz.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Malin + Goetz's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Malin + Goetz specializes in the wide range of high-quality, and
effective skincare and fragrance including cleansers, moisturizers,
sunscreen, serums, lip balms, creams, lotions, soaps, deodorants,
shampoos, conditioners, perfumes and room sprays..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: +1 (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ealg.law
MAXIMUS EDUCATION: Ackerman Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHANI ACKERMAN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Ashani Ackerman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Maximus Education,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00975-MSN-WBP, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a suit against the Defendant for alleged violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
On Nov. 29, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, which Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff
granted on Jan. 8, 2025. The Court held that the Plaintiff has not
presented facts to indicate that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over her case. The Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed
without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Ashani Ackerman v. Maximus
Education, LLC, Case No. 25-1118, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on February 6, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ASHANI ACKERMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS P.C.
1600 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
- and -
Drew David Sarrett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
626 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 905-9900
Defendant-Appellee MAXIMUS EDUCATION, LLC is represented by:
Ryan Lawrence Diclemente, Esq.
Colleen Fox, Esq.
Michael Jay Schrier, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
1801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 378-2300
(202) 378-2313
MCCAIN FOODS USA: Burgers Are Fun Sues Over Unlawful Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Burgers Are Fun LLC d/b/a Wes Burger 'N' More, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.;
LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW,
LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN
FOODS LIMITED; J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD; and CAVENDISH
FARMS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01738 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 19, 2025), is
brought under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton
Antitrust Act as well as State antitrust and trade regulation
statutes, and common law unjust enrichment, make this Complaint for
relief against Defendants for their conspiracy to fix prices of
frozen french fries, tater tots, hash browns, and other frozen
potato products ("Frozen Potato Products") in the United States
from at least as early as January 1, 2021, through the date by
which the anticompetitive effects of its violations of law shall
have ceased, but in any case no earlier than the present (the
"Class Period").
The Plaintiff and members of the Class whom it seeks to represent
overpaid for Frozen Potato Products by reason of Defendants' price
fixing conspiracy. Defendants are the four dominant processors of
Frozen Potato Products sold in the United States. Together, they
control more than 97% or more of the $68 billion per year Frozen
Potato Products market. The Defendants abused their collective
market power by conspiring to overcharge and actually overcharging
Plaintiff and the Class whom it seeks to represent for their Frozen
Potato Products, unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of
Plaintiff and members of the Class.
The Defendants were able to successfully implement lockstep price
increases and collusively increase prices because the industry is
structurally susceptible to collusion. The Frozen Potato Products
Market features highly concentrated sellers, high entry barriers,
fragmented buyers, repetitive purchases, inelastic demand, and
opportunities to collude through common co-packing arrangements,
trade association events, and mechanisms to exchange market share
and likely other information enabling Defendants to implement and
monitor their conspiracy. But for their conspiracy and unlawful
acts in furtherance, Plaintiff and members of the Class would have
paid less for Frozen Potato Products than they did during the Class
Period.
The Plaintiff brings this action for redress of the injury and
damages it and members of the Class have suffered and continue to
suffer by reason of Defendants' past and continuing violations of
law, including for damages, injunctive relief, and disgorgement of
Defendants' ill-gotten gains into a common fund from which it and
members of the Class may obtain restitution, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Frozen Potato Products indirectly from at
least one Defendant in California, United States.
The Defendants are a leading producer, distributor, and marketer of
value-added Frozen Potato Products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Phone: (872) 263-1100
Fax: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Stacey P. Slaughter
Caitlin E. Keiper, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 349-8500
Facsimile: (612) 349-4181
Email: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
ckeiper@robinskaplan.com
MCCARTHY BUILDING: Lyons Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Derek Lyons, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES, INC.,
a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
BCV-24-103737 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Kern, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on Feb. 20, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 1:25-cv-00226-JLT-CDB.
The Complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging: Failure to
Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit
Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination;
Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to
Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Violation of California
Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq.
James Payer, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.443.4300
Fax: 800.715.1330
Email: estaggs-wilson@littler.com
jpayer@littler.com
- and -
Rachael Lavi, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Phone: 310.553.0308
Fax: 800.715.1330
Email: rlavi@littler.com
MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Fleming Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McMurry University.
The case is styled as Yolanda Fleming, Individually and on Behalf
of all Others Similarly Situated vs. McMurry University, Case No.
13506-D (Tex. Dist. Ct., Taylor Cty., Feb. 21, 2025).
The case type is stated as "All Other Civil Cases."
McMurry University -- https://mcm.edu/ -- is a vibrant
higher-education institution with outstanding academics and a
welcoming, supportive campus community.[BN]
METRO SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert in Ramires Reset to June 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA E. RAMIREZ DE
PORTILLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. METRO SERVICES GROUP; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No.
3:24-cv-02118-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laura Beeler entered
an order resetting class action briefing schedule and hearing
date:
-- Last day for the Plaintiff to file June 20, 2025
her motion for class certification:
-- Last day for the Defendant to file Aug. 1, 2025
its opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for class certification:
-- Last day for the Plaintiff to file Sept. 2, 2025
her reply brief in support of
class certification:
-- Hearing on Plaintiff's class Sept. 18, 2025
certification motion:
Metro Services provides information and communications technology
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Am1kgU at no extra
charge.[CC]
MID-ATLANTIC RHEUMATOLOGY: Hires Asher & Associates as Accountant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-Atlantic Rheumatology, LLC received approval from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland to employ Marc Asher
of Asher & Associates, LLC as its accountant.
The firm will prepare bookkeeping for filing tax returns and
assist, if necessary, with the Monthly Operating Reports for the
United States Trustee's office.
Mr. Asher disclosed in the court filings that the firm has no
interest adverse to the estate of the Debtor or interested person.
The firm can be reached through:
Marc Asher, CPA
Asher & Associates, LLC
9515 Deereco Road, Suite 710
Timonium, MD 21093
Phone: (410) 453-6600
Email: marc@asherassoc.com
About Mid-Atlantic Rheumatology
Mid-Atlantic Rheumatology, LLC is a medical group practice located
in Millersville, Md., which specializes in internal medicine and
rheumatology.
Mid-Atlantic Rheumatology filed Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. D. Md.
Case No. 25-10845) on January 31, 2025, with up to $1 million in
assets and up to $10 million in liabilities. Erinn Maury, sole
member, signed the petition.
Judge David E. Rice oversees the case.
Daniel Staeven, Esq., at Frost Law, represents the Debtor as
bankruptcy counsel.
MIELLE ORGANICS: Allen Sues Over Unlawful Labeling and Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIELLE ORGANICS, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-00342 (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 21, 2025), is brought for damages, injunctive relief,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from
the illegal actions of the Defendant concerning unlawful labeling
and advertising of Defendant's consumer goods in violation of
federal and California laws.
The unlawfully represented products are sold direct to consumers on
Mielle's website (https://mielleorganics.com/), as well as through
third-party retailers such as Amazon.com ("Amazon"), Walgreens,
ULTA, Nordstrom Rack, CVS and elsewhere. The Plaintiff alleges as
follows upon personal knowledge as to herself and her own acts and
experiences, and as to all other matters, upon information and
belief, including investigation conducted by his attorneys.
Mielle represents (via its advertising and/or on the packaging of
its products) that the products have: certain hair and scalp
benefits, including dandruff relief, hair growth, and increased
circulation to the scalp; anti-inflammatory and anti fungal
benefits; natural ingredients; and are Made in the USA–when in
fact, all of these representations are false and/or misleading.
Contrary to Defendant's express representations and its failure to
clearly and adequately qualify those representations, the products
purchased by Plaintiff and Class members do not in fact contain:
"combatting dandruff" and/or "increasing blood circulation" [to the
scalp] to cause "faster and thicker" hair growth; ingredients
capable of reliably, repeatedly and demonstrably providing
anti-inflammatory or anti-fungal benefits; natural ingredients; and
components and/or ingredients solely sourced from the United
States
The Defendant's conduct of advertising and selling deceptively
labeled products violates: California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"); California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); California's
False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and constitutes breach of express
warranty; unjust enrichment; negligent misrepresentation; and
intentional misrepresentation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Mielle's Rosemary Mint Scalp & Hair
Strengthening Oil.
The Defendant is among the fastest growing and now one of the most
well-known hair care product companies in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
pamela@kazlg.com
MOLINA CLINICAL: Walker Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Fallon S. Walker, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MOLINA CLINICAL SERVICES, LLC,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV33884 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. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-01515.
On December 23, 2024, Walker filed a Class Action Complaint
against Molina which sets forth the following 8 causes of action:
Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation;
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit
Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses;
Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business
Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Erin N. Bass, Esq.
Kimberly G.A. Dennis, Esq.
Jemuel S. Gascon, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 623-9300
Facsimile: (213) 623-9924
Email: erin.bass@dentons.com
kimberly.dennis@dentons.com
jemuel.gascon@dentons.com
MONSTER ENERGY: Galvan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monster Energy
Company, et al. The case is styled as David Cerda Galvan, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Monster Energy Company, Monster Beverage Corporation, Sacks Rodney,
Case No. 25STCV04792 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 20,
2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Monster Beverage Corporation --
https://www.monsterenergy.com/en-us/ -- is an American beverage
company that manufactures energy drinks including Monster Energy,
Relentless, Reign and Burn.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jasmin Kaur Gill, Esq.
Sacha Pomares, Esq.
J. GILL LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Flower St., Ste. 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2231
Phone: 213-459-6023
Email: jasmin@jkgilllaw.com
sacha@jkgilllaw.com
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Opposition to Summary Judgment Bid Due March 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Horti, et al., v. Nestle
Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. (RE: NESTLE BOOST NUTRITIONAL DRINK
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-09812-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order regarding summary judgment
and class certification schedule:
-- The Court concludes it will be more efficient to resolve
Defendant's summary judgment motion prior to any briefing on
class certification, as the Defendant's summary judgment
motion may moot or narrow the issues to be decided for class
certification.
-- So, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' request to set the
summary judgment briefing schedule concurrently with the
previously ordered briefing schedule for class certification
and vacates the current class certification briefing schedule
at Docket No. 77.
-- The Court grants the Plaintiffs' request for an extension of
time to respond to the Defendant's summary judgment motion and
sets the following deadlines:
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment: March 4, 2025
Reply in Support of Summary Judgment: March 13, 2025
Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment: April 10, 2025
Nestle manufactures, markets and/or distributes more than 2 drugs
in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y0ThRM at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Removes Defalco Class Suit to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of SCOTT DEFALCO; JOHN AMBRONSINO;
FELICIA WHITELY; and ANDERSON THIMOTE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW
YORK; PRIMARK CORPORATION; PRIMARK US CORP ZARA USA, INC.;
ROCKEFELLER CENTER, INC.; and BRYANT PARK CORPORATION, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York (Index No. 150717/2025) to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Feb. 14, 2025.
The clerk of court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:25-cv-01339. The case is assigned to Judge Katherine
Polk Failla.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Arbizo, Esq.
Muriel Goode-Trufant, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
100 Church Street, Room 2-124
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-3580
Email: earbizo@law.nyc.gov
NEWSBANK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Oyen Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
RONDA OYEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NEWSBANK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00105-JLB-KCD (M.D. Fla., February 7, 2025) arises out of
Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately
destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its
business purposes.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network that, upon
information and belief, contained personally identifiable
information and protected health information of 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
Incident to Plaintiff and Class Members on January 16, 2025.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity
theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into
the future closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to
guard against identity theft. As a result of Defendant's
unreasonable and inadequate data security practices, the Plaintiff
and Class Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete
injuries and damages, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for:
(i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied
contract, (iii) breach of fiduciary duty, and, (iv) declaratory
relief.
NewsBank, Inc. is a news reporter that provides information to
libraries, colleges, schools, and professionals.[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
OMNOVA NORTH AMERICA: Moncavage Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kevin Moncavage, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. OMNOVA NORTH AMERICA INC., and OMNOVA
SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08953 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on
Feb. 20, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00312 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labors.
OMNOVA -- https://www.omnova.com/ -- is a global innovator of
aesthetic and performance-enhancing surfaces for a variety of
applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: 215-884-2491
Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel F. Thornton, Esq.
Jasmine Williams, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
Three Parkway
1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 267-319-7802
Email: daniel.thornton@jacksonlewis.com
jasmine.williams@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Andrew N. Howe, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP
100 Berwyn Park
850 Cassatt Road, Suite 110
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: 610-408-6034
Email: andrew.howe@dinsmore.com
OPW FUELING: Motion for Reconsideration of Scheduling Order Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted
in part OPW Fueling Components LLC's motion to reconsider the
scheduling order in the case captioned as Ovis Matamoros Canales,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. OPW Fueling Components LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-00459-BO-RJ (E.D.N.C.).
Plaintiff Ovis Matamoros Canales has sued his former employer,
Defendant OPW Fueling Components, LLC, for, among other things,
violating his rights under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.
In June 2024, the Court held a hearing on case management
deadlines. The Scheduling Order allowed two phases for discovery.
In addition to information on his individual claims, Phase I
centered on factual circumstances underlying Canales's potential
motion(s) for class and collective action certification. And it
allowed discovery on hours and dates worked by Canales and
similarly situated employees.
OPW asks the court to clarify the scope of Phase I discovery. In
the alternative, it asks the court to enter a Protective Order
limiting Phase I discovery regarding non-parties.
Canales requested documents about hours worked, payments, time
sheets, and schedules for putative plaintiffs. OPW claims that
discovery on hours and dates worked by similarly situated employees
is neither relevant to Phase I discovery nor proportional to the
needs of the case. Canales maintains that this information is
relevant and consistent with the Scheduling Order.
Canales opposes the motion.
Having reviewed the parties' arguments, the Court agrees with OPW.
Judge Numbers concludes, "The requested discovery is not germane to
Phase I issues because it relates to individuals who are not yet
parties. Canales's memorandum in support of his motion for
conditional certification bolsters this conclusion."
The Court finds OPW's argument persuasive and will grant its motion
in part.
The Court denies OPW's motion to the extent that it seeks
reconsideration of the Scheduling Order. In the hearing on the
Scheduling Order, the Court specifically declined to address the
appropriateness of the disputed topics related to putative
plaintiffs. So the motion for reconsideration is denied.
But the Court grants the motion as to the request for a Protective
Order. It excludes information on individuals who are not parties
from Phase I discovery.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S16cNd from PacerMonitor.com.
ORIGIN MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned In re ORIGIN
MATERIALS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
2:23-cv-01816-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal.). ALL ACTIONS CONSOLIDATED FROM:
ANTONIO F. SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORIGIN MATERIALS, INC., RICHARD J. RILEY,
and JOHN BISSELL, Defendants.
Lead plaintiff Todd Frega brings this putative class action against
Defendants Origin Materials Inc., Richard Riley, and John Bissell,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act. The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's
Corrected Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff subsequently filed the
Second Amended Complaint, which the Defendants move to dismiss.
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, on Nov. 25, 2024, the Court
set oral argument on the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint for Feb. 18, 2025. On Feb. 7, 2025 -- less than
two weeks prior to a hearing that had been set for months -- the
parties submitted a new stipulation to continue the hearing one
month, to March 17, 2025, based on an unspecified "family event."
The Court approved that stipulation. On Feb. 11, 2025, the parties
submitted a third stipulation, seeking to continue the hearing an
additional two weeks to March 31, 2025.
The issues have been thoroughly briefed by the parties and the
Court has carefully considered all arguments raised. Rather than
further delay resolution of the matter, the Court will decide the
motion on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule
230(g). The scheduled March 17, 2025 hearing on the motion is,
therefore, vacated.
Defendant Origin Materials is a publicly traded company that
purports to produce "sustainable materials" by converting
plant-based matter, such as wood residues, into materials that can
replace the petroleum-based plastics typically used in consumer
products. Defendants Bissell and Riley are the co-CEOs of Origin.
Origin produces chloromethylfurfural ("CMF"), a "building block"
chemical that can be converted into other products. As relevant
here, CMF can be converted into (1) paraxylene ("PX"), a chemical
used to produce a type of plastic called polyethylene terephthalate
("PET"); and (2) furandicarboxylic acid ("FDCA"), a chemical used
to produce a different type of plastic called polyethylene
furanoate ("PEF"). The complaint frequently refers to PX and PET
interchangeably or as one unit. As such, the Court will refer to
the first product line as "PX/PET," and the second product line as
"FDCA/PEF."
In February 2021, Origin announced plans to build Origin 2, a
manufacturing plant intended to focus on, inter alia, production of
PX/PET, with construction to be completed by mid-2025. In November
2021, Origin retained an outside engineering firm to conduct the
"front-end loading" process, a multiphase development process
involving "progressively refining the project scope, definition,
and feasibility, ultimately paving the way for detailed engineering
and construction."
Origin subsequently encountered chemical engineering issues related
to scaling up the production of PX/PET. As a result, the plans for
Origin 2 changed, with the plant to instead focus on the production
of FDCA/PEF and construction to be delayed by several years.
On Aug. 9, 2023, the Defendants publicly announced these changes.
The company's share price subsequently fell.
In pleading the alleged violations, the complaint relies primarily
upon statements attributed to a former Origin employee referred to
as Confidential Witness 1 ("CW1"). Judge Shubb finds that the
statements attributed to CW1 bear sufficient indicia of reliability
and personal knowledge to be relied upon in analyzing whether the
section 10(b) requirements are satisfied.
Based on the allegations provided, Judge Shubb finds that the
Plaintiff has adequately pled scienter as to Bissell and the
company, but not as to Riley. For instance, it is possible that
Riley was less involved in or knowledgeable about the technological
aspects of the company than Bissell. Accordingly, Judge Shubb holds
that the Plaintiff has failed to plead Riley possessed scienter and
his claims will be dismissed as against Defendant Riley.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants made
several statements and omissions that misled consumers concerning
both the construction timeline of Origin 2 and the products to be
produced at Origin 2. Specifically, they allege that the Defendants
continued to represent that Origin 2 would produce PX/PET and
construction would be completed by mid-2025, despite knowing that
Origin 2 would instead produce FDCA/PEF and would not be completed
by that date.
Judge Shubb finds the complaint fails to plead that any statements
or omissions concerning the plans for Origin 2 made prior to March
3, 2023 -- namely, the Press Release, Earnings Call, PowerPoint,
and Form 10-K dated Feb. 23, 2023 -- were false or misleading.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed insofar as
they are premised on statements made prior to March 3, 2023.
A PowerPoint presentation posted to the company's website on March
7, 2023, stated that Origin 2 was "expected" to use sustainable
materials "to make PET," and that construction was "expected to
start by mid-2023," with the plant "expected to be operational
mid-2025." CW1 alleges that by March 3, 2023, the Defendants had
affirmatively made the decision to change the plans for Origin 2,
which would no longer produce PX/PET and would not be completed by
mid-2025.
Assuming the truth of that allegation, Judge Shubb opines that the
statements to the contrary in the March 7 PowerPoint presentation
were false because they affirmatively created an impression of a
state of affairs that differed in a material way from the one that
actually existed.
Based on the allegations of the complaint, Judge Shubb points out
that these statements were not merely projections made amidst
uncertainty concerning Origin 2's development, but rather directly
contradicted the new, concrete plans for the plant. Accordingly,
the Court finds the Plaintiff has pled that the representations in
the March 7, 2023 PowerPoint were false or misleading.
Judge Shubb also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff has
adequately pled loss causation. He identified a specific economic
loss: the immediate drop in value on Aug. 10, 2023, that followed
the Aug. 9, 2023 press release -- which directly contradicted
information previously disseminated by the Defendants -- and he
alleged that this loss was caused by the Defendants'
misrepresentations. Accordingly, the complaint will not be
dismissed on this ground.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss on
all claims against Defendant Richard Riley. On the claims against
Defendants John Bissell and Origin Materials, Inc., the motion to
dismiss is granted as to the following:
* All statements dated February 23, 2023;
* May 10, 2023 Press Release;
* May 10, 2023 1Q'23 Earnings Call;
* Statements about "progress" in May 10, 2023 1Q'23 Form 10-Q;
* May 10, 2023 Fireside Chat;
* May 22, 2023 Fireside Chat; and
* June 8, 2023 Fireside Chat.
The motion to dismiss is denied as to the following:
* March 7, 2023 PowerPoint;
* Cautionary language in May 10, 2023 1Q'23 Form 10-Q; and
* May 12, 2023 PowerPoint.
The Plaintiff has 20 days from the date of this Order to file an
amended complaint, if he can do so consistent with this Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ykz9trpt from PacerMonitor.com.
PARTY CITY: Smith et al. Sue Over Unlawful Mass Layoff
------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG SMITH ET AL., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBERT FREDERICK HULL ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01099 (D.N.J., February 7, 2025)
arises from Defendants' failure to give Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class Members 90 days notice of the mass layoff/termination of
operations as required by the New Jersey Millville Dallas Airmotive
Plant Job Loss Notification Act (NJ WARN Act).
The Plaintiffs seek severance of one week of pay for each year of
employment and--because Defendants failed to provide the statutory
90 days notice--an additional four weeks as required by the NJ WARN
Act, for themselves and Putative Class Members along with payment
by the Defendants of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.
Furthermore, pursuant to New Jersey's Wage Payment Law, the
Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages in the amount of 200 per cent of
the unpaid severance to themselves and the members of the Putative
Class.
Robert Frederick Hull serves as the Chairman of the Board and a
Director of Party City, a chain of party stores. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
Julie Salwen, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD
110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (888) 239-4410
E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
jsalwen@nynjemploymentlaw.com
PB FRANCHISING SPV: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PB Franchising SPV,
LLC. The case is styled as Andrea Thompson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PB Franchising SPV, LLC
doing business as: Pure Barre, Case No. 3:25-cv-00183 (D. Ariz.,
Feb. 21, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
PB Franchising SPV, LLC doing business as Pure Barre --
https://www.purebarre.com/ -- offers full-body workouts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
PFIZER INC: Greeno Suit Transferred to N.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Makishia Greeno, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PFIZER, INC., PHARMACIA AND UPJOHN
COMPANY LLC, PHARMACIA LLC, PRASCO LLC doing business as: PRASCO
LABS, GREENSTONE LLC, VIATRIS INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00607 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida on Feb. 20, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00148-MCR-HTC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.
Pfizer, Inc. -- https://www.pfizer.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation
headquartered on 42nd Street in Manhattan, New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ellen Relkin, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC - NEW YORK NY
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 558-5715
Fax: (212) 344-5461
Email: erelkin@weitzlux.com
- and -
Thomas R. Anapol, Esq.
ANAPOL WEISS - PHILADELPHIA PA
130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 790-4572
Fax: (215) 875-7707
Email: tanapol@anapolweiss.com
The Defendants are represented by:
George John Gigounas, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP
555 Mission Street Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA
Phone: (415) 615-6005
Fax: (415) 836-2501
Email: george.gigounas@us.dlapiper.com
PG&E CORP: Court Stays Securities Suit
--------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 13, 2025 that on September 30, 2022, the
District Court issued an order staying "In re PG&E Corporation
Securities Litigation" pending resolution of an ongoing bankruptcy
proceeding. Accordingly, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California administratively closed the case, subject to
a motion by the parties thereto to reopen the case.
On August 21, 2024, the District Court entered an order setting a
briefing schedule for renewed motions to dismiss a third amended
complaint. Opening briefs were filed on October 24, 2024,
opposition briefs were filed December 20, 2024, and reply briefs
were filed January 31, 2025.
In June 2018, a purported securities class action was filed in the
District Court, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its
then-current and former officers as defendants, entitled "Jon Paul
Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et al."
The complaint alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in
various PG&E Corporation public disclosures related to, among other
things, vegetation management and other issues connected to the
2017 Northern California wildfires. The complaints asserted claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought unspecified monetary
relief, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs.
Said complaint identified a proposed class period of April 29,
2015, to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court
consolidated both cases, and the litigation is now denominated In
re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Case No. 18-03509. The court
also appointed PERA as the lead plaintiff. PERA filed a
consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018.
Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, the proceedings
were automatically stayed as to PG&E Corporation and its parent
Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint,
which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions
and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, certain current and former officers and former directors,
and the underwriters. On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court
denied their request to extend the stay to the claims against the
officer, director, and underwriter defendants.
On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint,
which motions are under submission with the District Court.
On October 31, 2022, the Public Employees Retirement Association of
New Mexico (PERA) filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's
order staying the action. PERA filed its opening brief on March 6,
2023, the answering brief was filed on May 8, 2023, and PERA filed
its reply on May 30, 2023. Oral argument was held on September 13,
2023. On May 3, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued an opinion vacating the stay in the "In re PG&E Corporation
Securities Litigation" action, and remanding the case to the
District Court with instructions for the District Court to weigh
all the relevant interests in determining whether a stay is
appropriate. The District Court has set a status conference for
August 27, 2024, regarding mediation and a potential schedule for
further briefing on the pending motions to dismiss.
PG&E Corporation is an energy and gas company based in California.
PHARMACANN, INC: Turek Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bo Turek, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PHARMACANN, INC., PHARMACANNIS LABS,
LLC, PHARMACANN USA, INC. PHARMACANN HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
2025CH00417 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County
Department, Chancery Division, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 20, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01791.
The Complaint alleges that the purported class was "harmed in the
full amount of the moneys paid for the Vapable Oils
purchases."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Casey T. Grabenstein, Esq.
SAUL EWING, LLP
161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 876-7100
Fax: (312) 876-0288
Email: Casey.grabenstein@saul.com
- and -
Jonathan A. Singer, Esq.
SAUL EWING, LLP
1001 Fleet Street, Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: (410) 332-8690
Email: Jon.singer@saul.com
PHENOMENEX INC: Ahamed Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Salma Ahamed, an individual, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PHENOMENEX, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV32598
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Feb. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-01472.
The Complaint alleges causes of action for: Failure to Pay Wages;
Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation;
Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Meal Periods;
Failure to Provide Itemized Wage and Hour Statements; Waiting Time
Penalties; and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
Peter J. Choi, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Phone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
Email: trusche@seyfarth.com
pchoi@seyfarth.com
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Kelly ZYN Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2025, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Kelly ZYN class suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.
A putative class action, Kelly v. Philip Morris International Inc.,
et al., filed on March 19, 2024, before United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, plaintiff alleges,
among other things, addiction to nicotine resulting from the use of
ZYN nicotine pouches (the "Kelly class action"). The complaint
named PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC as defendants.
Plaintiff purports to represent classes comprised of (i) all
persons who purchased ZYN products in the United States, (ii) all
residents of Florida who purchased ZYN products, and (iii) all
residents of Florida who, at the time of their use of ZYN products,
were under the age of 21, and who procured and used ZYN products.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants defectively
designed ZYN products and sold them in an unreasonably unsafe and
dangerous condition, marketed ZYN products to minors, and
misrepresented or failed to warn consumers about information
related to ZYN products, including information about health risks
associated with these products.
Plaintiff asserts strict liability design defect and failure to
warn claims, as well as negligence and fraud claims and is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs,
interest, and medical monitoring.
On May 6, 2024, PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC filed
motions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
On August 20, 2024, the court granted Swedish Match North America
LLC's motion to dismiss the fraud claim and plaintiff's request for
medical monitoring, but denied the motion to dismiss other claims,
denied PMI's motion to dismiss without prejudice, and granted
plaintiff's request to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
On December 4, 2024, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
PMI and Swedish Match North America LLC and added three additional
entities as named defendants: Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global
Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc.
On December 18, 2024, PMI, Swedish Match USA Inc., PMI Global
Services Inc., and Philip Morris Global Brands Inc., filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, and Swedish Match
North America LLC filed a motion to dismiss the fraud claim.
At this time, no estimated loss has been accrued in the
consolidated financial statements for this proceeding and the
Company cannot determine the likelihood of loss, or reasonably
estimate a range of loss, if any, from this proceeding.
Headquartered in Stamford CN, Philip Morris is one of the world's
leading international tobacco companies. Philip Morris bought the
Zyn brand in 2022 after acquiring Zyn's maker, Swedish Match. [BN]
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Neumark Antitrust Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2025, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Neumark antitrust class
suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia.
On November 18, 2024, a putative class action, Neumark v. Swedish
Match North America LLC, was filed before United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint named
Swedish Match North America LLC as the defendant. Plaintiff alleges
that Swedish Match North America LLC violated federal and state
antitrust laws by, among other things, driving a competitor from
the market through purportedly baseless litigation and entering
into an allegedly anticompetitive agreement with PMI whereby PMI,
through an indirect subsidiary, acquired Swedish Match North
America LLC and eliminated itself as a competitor in the U.S.
nicotine pouch market.
Plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the
Clayton Antitrust Act, state antitrust law, and for unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to represent (i) all natural persons,
businesses, entities, and corporations in the United States who
purchased ZYN at retail during the class period; and (ii) all
natural persons, businesses, entities, and corporations in the
United States who live in states that have certain antitrust
statutes who purchase ZYN at retail during the class period.
Plaintiff is seeking damages (including treble damages as available
under antitrust laws), costs, attorneys' fees, disgorgement of
profit, pre- and post-judgment interest, and declaratory and
injunctive relief (including a declaration that the acquisition of
Swedish Match North America LLC by PMI is unlawful and must result
in divestiture or be enjoined).
On January 15, 2025, Swedish Match North America LLC filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
Subsequently thereto, Plaintiff informed Swedish Match North
America LLC that he will file an amended complaint, which is due on
February 10, 2025
At this time, no estimated loss has been accrued in the
consolidated financial statements for this proceeding and the
Company cannot determine the likelihood of loss, or reasonably
estimate a range of loss, if any, from this proceeding.
Headquartered in Stamford CN, Philip Morris is one of the world's
leading international tobacco companies. Philip Morris bought the
Zyn brand in 2022 after acquiring Zyn's maker, Swedish Match. [BN]
PLAVAN COMMERCIAL: Class Settlement in Tanner Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY TANNER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. PLAVAN COMMERCIAL
FUELING, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01341-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement and to direct notice of proposed settlement to the
class:
Settlement Class:
"All individual U.S. residents to whom Plavan sent written
notification of the Feb. 23, 2024, Ransomware Incident."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are:
(1) the Judge and Magistrate Judge presiding over the
Lawsuits, any members of the Judges' respective staffs,
and any person within the third degree of relationship
to either of the Judges or the Judges’ spouses, or the
spouse of such a person;
(2) officers, directors, members and shareholders of
Defendant;
(3) persons who timely and validly request exclusion from
and/or opt-out of the Settlement Class and the
successors and assigns of any such excluded persons; and
(4) any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing,
aiding or abetting the criminal activity or occurrence
of the Ransomware Incident or who pleads nolo contendere
to any such charge.
Plavan is a provider of fuel card and payment management services
to commercial fleets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Nl1LD at no extra
charge.[CC]
PREVAIL CA: Escobar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prevail CA. The case
is styled as Estefany Escobar, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Prevail
CA, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0002533 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., Feb. 19, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Prevail CA provide free, confidential services and shelter for
homeless runaway youth and victims of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and human trafficking.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Fax: (888) 850-1310
Email: roman@OLFLA.com
PRODIGAL COMPANY: Fiorito Appeals Denied in Forma Pauperis Request
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FIORITO is taking an appeal from a court order denying his
application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in the lawsuit
entitled Michael Fiorito, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Prodigal Company, Defendant,
Case No. 0:24-cv-03757-PJS, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On Nov. 7, 2024, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz entered an Order
dismissing the Plaintiff's all federal claims and class-action
allegations.
On Nov. 25, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal, which Judge Schiltz denied on Jan. 3,
2025. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed
in forma pauperis.
The appellate case is captioned Michael Fiorito v. The Prodigal
Company, Case No. 25-1268, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit, filed on February 10, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL FIORITO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, appears pro se.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Kim Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jung Kim, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Ohio corporation, Case No. 23CV-24-l926 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on Feb. 20, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00145-BRW.
The Plaintiff alleges that he had an insurance policy with
Progressive Direct, and that following a "car wreck," Plaintiff
made a property damage claim. Progressive Direct declared
Plaintiff's vehicle to be a total loss, meaning Plaintiff was
entitled to receive the Actual Cash Value ("ACV") of the
vehicle.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Graham C. Talley, Esq.
MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, PLLC
425 west capitol Avenue, suite 1900
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 688-8800
Fax: (501) 688-8807
Email: gtalley@mwlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Allison Hill White, Esq.
Erin M. Munger, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 572-4600
Fax: (404) 572-5100
Email: jcashdan@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
mbrigman@kslaw.com
awhite@kslaw.com
emunger@kslaw.com
- and -
Julia Barrett Bates, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
500 W. 2nd Street
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 457-2000
Fax: (512) 457-2100
Email: jbates@kslaw.com
PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Class Settlement in Brown Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEDDRICK BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00175-TCB
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Batten entered an order granting
preliminary approval of class action settlement:
Under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and in accord with the Settlement Agreement and solely
for purposes of judgment on the proposed Settlement, the Court
preliminarily approves the following Settlement Classes:
Progressive Mountain Class:
"All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of
insurance issued by Progressive Mountain Insurance Company
to a Georgia resident where the claim was submitted from
Oct. 11, 2015, through the date of Preliminary Approval, and
Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss and
based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell
where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least
one comparable vehicle."
Progressive Premier Class:
"All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of
insurance issued by Progressive Premier Insurance Company of
Illinois to a Georgia resident where the claim was submitted
from June 8, 2016, through the date of Preliminary Approval,
and Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss
and based its claim payment on an Instant Report from
Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at
least one comparable vehicle.
Excluded from the Settlement Classes are (1) any judge
presiding over this Action and members of their families;
and (2) the Defendants, their subsidiaries, parent
companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which
any Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and
their current or former officers, directors, agents,
attorneys, and employees.
The Final Fairness Hearing is scheduled to be held before this
Court on May 15, 2025 at 11:00 am.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=84IQKC at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE TREATMENT: McKenzie Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kevin McKenzie, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE TREATMENT SOLUTIONS,
LLC; and PTS CORP., Case No. 2025CH00343 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County Department, Chancery Division,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Feb. 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01768.
The Complaint alleges that the purported class was "harmed in the
full amount of the moneys paid for the Vapable Oils
purchases."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Casey T. Grabenstein, Esq.
SAUL EWING, LLP
161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 876-7100
Fax: (312) 876-0288
Email: Casey.grabenstein@saul.com
- and -
Jonathan A. Singer, Esq.
SAUL EWING, LLP
1001 Fleet Street, Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: (410) 332-8690
Email: Jon.singer@saul.com
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Insurance-Related Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission February 13, 2025, that in January 2024, a
putative class action complaint entitled "California Advocates for
Nursing Home Reform v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
and Pruco Life Insurance Company, et al.," was filed in California
Superior Court, Alameda County, alleging that the company has
failed to comply with California laws requiring that life insurance
policies issued or delivered in California: (i) provide for a
contractual 60-day grace period pre-lapse during which a policy
must stay in force; (ii) provide policyholders and designees with
notice of payment default within 30 days and a 30-day advance
written notice of pending lapse; and (iii) notify policyholders
annually of their right to designate additional recipients for
lapse notices.
The complaint asserts claims for violation of California's Unfair
Competition law and seeks unspecified damages along with
declaratory and injunctive relief. In February 2024, defendants
removed the action from California state court to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff
filed a motion to remand the action to the California Superior
Court, Alameda County, and in December 2024, the motion was
granted.
Prudential Financial, Inc. is a global financial services company
and premier active global investment manager with approximately
$1.450 trillion of assets under management as of December 31, 2023,
has operations in the United States, Asia, Europe and Latin
America.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settlement in Stewart Suit Denied Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andrew G. Schopler of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California denied the
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement in the class action lawsuit captioned as Pamela STEWART,
et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees of Defendants in the State of California, Plaintiffs, v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No.: 19-cv-2043-AGS-DDL (S.D. Cal.) without prejudice.
In this case, the Court is left guessing as to whether the proposed
agreement seeks approval for the previously certified class or one
of two new class definitions that plaintiff offers.
Stewart acknowledges that this Court previously certified the
following class: "All of Defendant's non-exempt California Patient
Service Representatives who were not compensated with one hour of
pay for all instances where they did not receive a duty-free and
uninterrupted 10-minute rest period consistent with California law,
any time between September 13, 2015, and the date of judgment." She
refers to this class in her: (1) motion's "procedural summary"; (2)
attorney's declaration; (3) settlement agreement; (4) proposed
settlement notice; and (5) argument that this "class has previously
been certified" and thus that "there is no need to re-establish
class certification or request provisional certification."
But elsewhere Stewart defines the class as "All current and former
non-exemptPatient Service Representatives of Defendant during the
Class Settlement Period." She references this class in both the
motion's introduction and the settlement agreement.
Stewart also defines a third class in her proposed second amended
complaint, which accompanies her settlement papers: "All current
and former non-exempt Patient Service Representatives of Defendant
who were employed at any time in the State of California from 4
years from the date of filing this Complaint through the present."
The Court emphasizes that the differences between these three
definitions are significant. For example, some of the proposed
classes include only California workers. Another includes no
geographical limitation to California. And the more recent
definitions include "all" non-exempt patient service
representatives, while the initially certified version included
only those "who were not compensated with one hour of pay for all
instances where they did not receive a duty-free and uninterrupted
10-minute rest period."
Although there is a "strong judicial policy that favors
settlements, particularly where complex class action litigation is
concerned," the Court cannot proceed without a clear class
identification. Until then, it cannot determine whether to rely
upon its previous certification or engage in a "settlement-only
class certification" analysis, the Court concldues.
If the parties so choose, they may correct the deficiencies
identified in this order and submit an amended request no later
than April 1, 2025.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OliNHm from PacerMonitor.com.
RETINA GROUP: Court Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Retina Group of Washington Data
Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 8:24-cv-00004-LWW (D. Md.),
the Hon. Judge Lisa Wang entered an order as follows:
1. The Court conditionally certifies, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), and for the purposes of
settlement only, the following Settlement Class consisting
of:
"All natural persons who are residents of the United States
who are identified on the Settlement Class List whose
personal information may have been involved in the Data
Incident and who do not timely elect to be excluded from the
Settlement Class."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are RGW's officers and
directors, and any entity in which RGW has a controlling
interest; the affiliates, legal representatives, attorneys,
successors, heirs, and assigns of RGW; and members of the
judiciary to whom this case is assigned, their families, and
members of their staff.
2. For settlement purposes only, Plaintiffs Mary Vandenbroucke,
Katherine Traynham, Kwame Dapaah-Siakwan, Jennifer Boehles,
Shalane Vance, Sharon Jenkins, Natalia Girard, David
Puckett, and Desiree McCormick are appointed as Settlement
Class Representatives.
3. For settlement purposes only, the Court finds that the
prerequisites to class action treatment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a)—including numerosity, commonality and
predominance, adequacy, and appropriateness of class treatment of
these claims—have been preliminarily satisfied. a. The members of
the class are too numerous for their joinder to be practicable.
There are approximately 450,000 Settlement Class Members.
The Defendant is
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b3VkMi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben Barnow, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 W. Randolph St., Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
The Defendant is represented by:
David Q. Gacioch, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58,
Boston, MA 02116-5021
REVOLUTION GLOBAL: Turek Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bo Turek, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REVOLUTION GLOBAL, LLC, et al., Case
No. 2025-CH-00520 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County
Department, Chancery Division, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 21, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01842.
This is a consumer fraud action filed as a purported class action
on behalf of other similarly situated individuals related to
Revolution's alleged misrepresentation pertaining to its "vapable
oil" products. Plaintiff asserted claims for violation of the
Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; common law fraud; fraudulent
concealment; breach of express warranty; breach of implied
warranty; and unjust enrichment.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Olivia Sullivan, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
71 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-212-4949
Email: osullivan@beneschlaw.com
ROBERT LUNA: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Modified to March 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Stewart, et al. v.
Robert Luna, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04641-ODW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II entered an order modifying scheduling
order as folloews:
-- Deadline for Hearing Motions: June 30, 2025
-- Deadline to Conduct Settlement June 10, 2025
Conference:
-- Close of Expert Discovery: May 30, 2025
-- Close of Fact Discovery: May 30, 2025
-- File Renewed Class March 10, 2025
Certification Motion
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LLPxwe at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROYAL CATERING: Quebraholla Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO PENUELA QUEBRAHOLLA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROYAL CATERING, INC., Case No.
3:25-cv-00308-X (N.D. Tex., February 7, 2025) is a collective
action for damages and other relief for Defendant's violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint asserts that Royal Catering has suffered, required
and permitted Plaintiff and the Collective Members to regularly
work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek without overtime
compensation.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a delivery driver,
server and bartender who was paid an hourly rate and other
compensation from October 2014 to November 2024.
Royal Catering is food service catering company that provides meals
for business meetings, office events, company picnics and school,
church, social and non-profit events.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT: Reyes Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Victor Reyes, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC, Case
No. 2025-CH-00355 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County
Department, Chancery Division, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 20, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01749.
By his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Saia violated the Illinois
Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"), by allegedly requiring,
as part of the "preemployment application," a physical examination
during which genetic information was requested. The Plaintiff
alleges that Saia violated the GIPA "by soliciting and obtaining
Plaintiff's and the Class's genetic information as a precondition
of employment or preemployment application."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lauren J. Caisman
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
161 North Clark Street, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 602-5079
Email: lauren.caisman@bclplaw.com
SALEM MEDIA: Boyd Sues Over Data Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BOYD III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SALEM MEDIA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01288 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2025) is an action seeking to
redress the practices of the Defendant in knowingly disclosing the
Plaintiff's and its other subscribers' identities and the titles of
the prerecorded video materials they purchased to Meta Platforms,
Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal
Video Privacy Protection Act.
Salem Media Group, Inc. operates as a radio broadcasting company
that provides programming targeted at audiences interested in
religious and family issues. The Company owns and operates radio
stations in large metropolitan markets. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
535 Mission Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com
SCHNADER HARRISON: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JO BENNETT, v. SCHNADER
HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00592-JMY
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order
extending the deadline to file any motion for class certification
and motion seeking preliminary approval of the parties' settlement
to March 18, 2025.
Schnader operates as a national law firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WiDcdp at no extra
charge.[CC]
SCHULER SHOES: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Haron Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Schuler Shoes, Incorporated, Case No. 1:25-cv-01693 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 19, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Broken
Trophies provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.schulershoes.com (hereinafter "Schulershoes.com" or
"the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to
its website, and therefore denial of its products and services
offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Schulershoes.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Schuler Shoes' policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Schuler Shoes provides to the public a website known as
Schulershoes.com which provides consumers with access to an array
of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide
selection of footwear, including athletic shoes, boots, casual and
dress shoes, sandals, slippers, as well as clothing and bags.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (630)-478-0856
Email: Dreyes@ealg.law
SELECTQUOTE AUTO: Bid for Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY P. DAVIS, v.
SELECTQUOTE AUTO & HOME INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00185-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge David Keesler
entered an order denying the Defendant's motion for leave to file
sur-reply to the Plaintiff's reply to the Defendant's response in
opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
By the instant motion Defendant seeks leave to "submit a short
sur-reply in response to new arguments and/or factual claims made
by Plaintiff."
In response, Plaintiff asserts, with specific citations to previous
filings, that new arguments were not raised in "Plaintiffs' Reply
To Defendant's Response In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For
Class Certification". The Defendant has failed to file a reply
brief, or a notice of intent not to reply, as required by Local
Rule 7.1(e).
As noted by Plaintiff, "surreplies are neither anticipated nor
allowed by this Rule, but leave of Court many be sought to file a
surreply when warranted." Considering Local Rule 7.1(e), the
Plaintiff's argument, and Defendant's failure to file a reply brief
regarding the instant motion, the undersigned is not persuaded that
a surreply is warranted here.
SelectQuote offers an array of insurance coverage, from auto and
home to renters insurance and RV/ATV.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RmfRVb at no extra
charge.[CC]
SHOPPING PLAZA: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. SHOPPING PLAZA CORP. and
MERCEDES BROTHERS, INC. D/B/A MILLY'S RESTAURANT & CAFETERIA, Case
No. 1:25-cv-20778-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 19, 2025), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the
"Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are
disabled.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses therein.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the commercial property and commercial restaurant business within
the subject restaurant in violation of the ADA and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property and
commercial restaurant. The barriers to access at Defendants'
commercial property and commercial restaurant business have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial
property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property, as prohibited by the
ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
MERCEDES BROTHERS, INC. D/B/A MILLY'S RESTAURANT & CAFETERIA, owned
and operated a commercial restaurant business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
SORMAN & FRANKEL: Abram Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as River Abram, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. SORMAN & FRANKEL, LTD., Case No.
2025CH00094 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Feb. 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01712.
The Plaintiff's claim arises under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, presenting a substantial federal question, as the
Complaint alleges a violation of the FDCPA related to notice of
debt, disputed debts, and unauthorized collection of debt.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bryan J. Kirsch, Esq.
John J. Duffy, Esq.
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
330 N. Wabash Drive, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 321-9100
Email: bkirsch@smbtrials.com
jduffy@smbtrials.com
SPRO LLC: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Cazares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SPRO, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00241-SCD (E.D. Wis., Feb.
19, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Broken
Trophies provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://presscoffee.com (hereinafter "Presscoffee.com" or "the
website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Presscoffee.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in SPRO's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
SPRO provides to the public a website known as Presscoffee.com
which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services, including, the ability to view a rich selection of coffee
blends, brewing equipment, and merchandise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (630)-478-0856
Email: Dreyes@ealg.law
SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: Court OK's $11K Add'l Admin. Fees in Chen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CHRISTINE CHEN, MICHAEL NGUYEN, and all
other similarly situated employees of SS&C, Plaintiffs v. SS&C
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02190-JPC-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York allows the settlement claims
administrator to reimburse itself for an additional $10,736.
On Nov. 13, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the class action
settlement resolving this case. That Order approved, among other
things, fees and expenses actually incurred up to $37,500 for
Strategic Claims Services ("SCS"), the third-party settlement
claims administrator in this matter.
At that time, SCS had incurred fees and expenses totaling
$26,236.78. The Court's Order further stated that additional
approval by the Court would be required for fees and expenses
exceeding $37,500.
On Jan. 20, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a letter seeking for
approval for SCS to reimburse itself from the Qualified Settlement
Fund for an additional $10,736.78. The Plaintiffs support that
request with a declaration signed by Cornelia Vieira, a Project
Manager at SCS. Ms. Vieira's declaration states that since the
Court's Order granting final approval to the settlement, SCS's work
remained ongoing, and additional fees and expenses were charged in
the amount of $8,422.25. The declaration further notes that SCS's
final invoice totaled $13,577.75.
Ms. Vieira states that this amount is discounted by $4,980.05 (28%)
representing a significant reduction of fees and expenses incurred
due to certain factors that were not known at the time the original
estimate was provided. Ms. Vieira's declaration attaches exhibits
reflecting those amounts on an itemized basis.
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs' request, Ms. Vieira's
declaration, and the exhibits attached to that declaration, and
finds the requested amount to be fair and reasonable in relation to
the size of the Qualified Settlement Fund, the size of the
settlement class, and the services rendered by SCS to implement the
settlement.
Accordingly, SCS may reimburse itself from the Qualified Settlement
Fund for an additional $10,736.78.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3w6nxhm5 from PacerMonitor.com.
SUNTRUST FARMS: Davis Sues Over Vapable Oils' THC Content
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER DAVIS and ALAN WARNEKE, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. SUNTRUST FARMS, LLC,
NPI HILLCREST INVESTOR GROUP, LLC, KAML, LLC, KAML II, LLC, KAML
III, LLC, and KAML IV, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01372
(N.D. Ill., February 7, 2025) arises from Defendants' unlawful
manufacturing, marketing, and selling potent "cannabis-infused
products" with excessively high tetrahydrocannabinol content.
Allegedly, the Defendants intentionally or recklessly
misrepresented that their Vapable Oils were cannabis concentrates
when, in fact, they are CIPs. Defendants made this
misrepresentation to deceive regulators and consumers in order to
allow Defendants to sell Vapable Oils using the 5-gram limit
applied to concentrates, instead of the lower 500-milligram CIP
limit imposed on Illinois residents, or the even lower limits
imposed on out-of-state consumers. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now
bring this action individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals to seek redress for violations of the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, as well
as common law torts of fraud and fraudulent concealment,
declaratory judgment, breach of express and implied warranties, and
unjust enrichment, among others.
Headquartered in Grundy County, Illinois, SunTrust Farms, LLC
processes, manufactures, and/or packages Vapable Oils and other
products for third-party brands. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Luisi, Esq.
Jamie Holz, Esq.
LUISI HOLZ LAW
161 N. Clark St., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 639-4478
E-mail: LuisiL@luisiholzlaw.com
HolzJ@luisiholzlaw.com
SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND: Davidson Sues Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Davidson, individually and for others similarly situated v.
SUPERIOR AIR-GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01734
(N.D. Ill., Feb. 19, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and
other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL).
The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more
than 40 hours a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay the
Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their
regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours they
work in excess of 40 a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays the
Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses
that it fails to include in these employees' regular rates of pay
for the purpose of calculating their overtime rates (the
Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant's bonus pay scheme
violates the FLSA and IMWL by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular
rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in
excess of 40 a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff employed by the Defendant as a paramedic from August
2021 until November 2023 in Illinois.
Superior bills itself as "the Midwest Leader in EMS" with "over
3,000 employees and providing EMS in five states."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: 312-419-1025
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SUREFIRE MANAGEMENT: Diamond Sues Over Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
TIFANI DIAMOND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUREFIRE MANAGEMENT, LLC ET AL., Defendants,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00190 (W.D. Pa., February 7, 2025), alleges that
the Defendants systematically and willfully deprived Plaintiff and
tipped employees of minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law, by, among other things,
failing to satisfy the notice requirements of the tip credit
provisions of the FLSA and PMWA.
Plaintiff Diamond was employed by Defendants as a "server" in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. While employed as a tipped employee,
Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff properly for all hours
worked. Due to Defendants' unlawful failure to properly inform
tipped employees of its intention to utilize a "tip credit",
Defendants have improperly applied a "tip credit" against the wages
paid to Plaintiff and current and former Tipped Employees, thus
paying them less than the mandated minimum wage, says the suit.
Surefire Management, LLC is a limited liability company that owns
and operates approximately seven Burgatory restaurant locations in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
steve@lcllp.com
TAPESTRY INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tapestry 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 6, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United Sttes
District Court for the District of Delaware.
On December 23, 2024, a putative securities class actions was filed
by plaintiff shareholders in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against Capri and certain of its officers
and against Tapestry and certain of its officers, alleging that
during the respective class periods (between August 10, 2023 and
October 24, 2024), Capri and Tapestry misrepresented and failed to
disclose adverse facts about Capri's business, operations, market
dynamics, and the prospects for approval of the Capri Acquisition,
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
The complaints, which each allege violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, seek unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses, and equitable relief.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters.
Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company.
TAPESTRY INC: Continues to Defend Shareholders Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Tapestry 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 6, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from a shareholders' securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
On January 28, 2025, a putative securities class actions was filed
by plaintiff shareholders in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against Capri and certain of its officers
and against Tapestry and certain of its officers, alleging that
during the respective class periods (between August 10, 2023 and
October 24, 2024), Capri and Tapestry misrepresented and failed to
disclose adverse facts about Capri's business, operations, market
dynamics, and the prospects for approval of the Capri Acquisition,
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
The complaints, which each allege violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, seek unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses, and equitable relief.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters.
Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company.
TETHER LIMITED: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by May 2
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset
Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-09236-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting the Defendants'
letter motion regarding the schedule for class certification
briefing and expert reports:
-- Defendants' deadline to depose April 4, 2025
Plaintiffs' class certification
experts is:
-- The Defendants' opposition to May 2, 2025
class certification and supporting
expert reports are due on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to depose June 6, 2025
Defendants' class certification
experts is:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of July 8, 2025
class certification is due on or
before:
The Court agrees with B/T Defendants that the scheduling order does
not contemplate the filing of rebuttal expert reports with
Plaintiffs' reply class certification papers.
B/T Defendants' argument is strengthened by the language in
paragraph 8 of the scheduling order, which expressly provides
the procedure for "Additional Experts," as in those used for
purposes other than class certification.
The Court will also grant B/T Defendants' request for an extension
of the class certification briefing schedule. Because B/T
Defendants have represented that additional time is needed for
their experts to properly respond to the reports of Kenneth Malek
and David DeRamus, the briefing schedule is hereby modified in
accordance with the following:
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at
docket entry 596.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wt1Kat at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laura M. King, Esq.
Andrew R. Dunlap, Esq.
Oscar Shine, Esq.
Philippe Z. Selendy, Esq.
SELENDY GAY ELSBERG PLLC
1290 Sixth Avenue
New York, NY 10104
E-mail: lking@selendygay.com
adunlap@selendygay.com
oshine@selendygay.com
pselendy@selendygay.com
- and –
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
jkim@schneiderwallace.com
mweiler@schneiderwallace.com
THREADBEAST LLC: Ransom Sues Over Illegal Debiting
--------------------------------------------------
Dijon Ransom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THREADBEAST, LLC, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-01465
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA") and the California Automatic Purchase
Renewal Statute ("CAPRS") resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant debiting Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members'
bank accounts on a recurring basis after such consumers request to
cancel their subscriptions.
On June 16, 2024, Plaintiff signed up for a recurring subscription
with Defendant through Defendant's website. Under the terms of this
subscription plan, Defendant charged Plaintiff's debit card
approximately $165.00 each month. On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff
received a shipment of products from Defendant pursuant to his
subscription plan. The Plaintiff decided, at that time, that he was
unhappy with the products he had been receiving from Defendant and
decided to cancel his subscription.
In order to cancel his subscription, Plaintiff was required to
email Defendant's customer service team and request the
cancellation. Plaintiff was not able to cancel his subscription on
his own from Defendant's website. Thus, on December 11, 2024,
Plaintiff sent an email to Defendant's customer support team to
cancel his subscription. Defendant responded by providing Plaintiff
with a membership cancellation form to fill out. The form is
approximately thirteen pages long, required Plaintiff to provide
several pieces of information, attempted to convince Plaintiff not
to cancel his subscription by providing numerous discounts, and
then required Plaintiff to set up a phone call with Defendant's
customer service team in order to finally cancel his subscription.
Plaintiff filled out this form and provided the necessary
information. Defendant, however, did not immediately honor this
request and instead billed Plaintiff for a further $165.00 the
following month.
The Plaintiff alleges such activity to be in violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), and its surrounding
regulations. the Plaintiff alleges such activity to be in violation
of California's Automatic Purchase Renewal Statute Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code ("CAPRS"), and its surrounding regulations, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a "consumer."
THREADBEAST, LLC. was a Delaware company with its principal place
of business in Los Angeles, California, engaged in the business of
selling subscription-based clothing and related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Matthew R. Snyder, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
msnyder@toddflaw.com
TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twist Bioscience Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that it is facing a
putative securities class action lawsuit captioned "Peters v. Twist
Bioscience Corporation, et al.," Case No. 22-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal.)
filed on December 12, 2022. The company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on December 6, 2023 and hearing on the motion
to dismiss was held on November 13, 2024 and the company is now
awaiting the judge's decision.
Said case names the company and certain of its officers as
defendants and asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. It is based in large part on allegations concerning,
among other things, its DNA chip technology and accounting
practices. The initial complaint alleges that various statements
that the defendants made between December 13, 2019 and November 14,
2022 were materially false and misleading in light of said
allegations and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or acquired company securities during an
alleged class period that began on December 13, 2019 and ended on
November 14, 2022, as well as certain other costs.
Twist Bioscience Corporation is a synthetic biology company that
has developed a disruptive DNA synthesis platform.
UNITED SERVICES: Coleman Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EILEEN-GAYLE COLEMAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the
lawsuit entitled Eileen-Gayle Coleman, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United
Services Automobile Association, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00217-RSH-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
The Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants on behalf
of a class of Enlisted Policyholders with collision coverage and a
subclass of Enlisted Policyholders with collision coverage who
qualify as statutory good drivers, for violations of the California
Insurance Code, the California Unfair Practices Act, the Unruh Act,
the Military Non Discrimination Act, and the Unfair Competition
Law.
On July 31, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment. On same day, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On Jan. 9, 2025, Judge Robert S. Huie entered an Order granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment. The motions to exclude were
denied as moot.
The Court concluded that under the clear language of the relevant
statutes, the Insurance Code does not compel United Services
Automobile Association to ignore its placement rules that limit
insurance "to persons who engage in governmental or military
service or segments of categories thereof." Based on this
conclusion, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment, ruled
the Court.
The appellate case is captioned Coleman, et al. v. United Services
Automobile Association, et al., Case No. 25-793, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 6,
2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 11,
2025;
-- Appellant's Transcript Order was due on February 18, 2025;
-- Appellant's Transcript is due on March 20, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 29, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 29, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants EILEEN-GAYLE COLEMAN, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
Michael Lieder, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
2000 K. Street, NW Suite 325
Washington, DC 20006
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON, LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
- and -
Jay Angoff, Esq.
5808 Connecticut Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
- and -
Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG
6330 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 250
Los Angeles, CA 90048
- and -
Bradley L. Powell, Esq.
OLES MORRISON RINKER & BAKER, LLP
600 University Street, Suite 1800
Seattle, WA 98101
Defendants-Appellees UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, et al.
are represented by:
Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq.
Daniel R. Adler, Esq.
James Alexander Tsouvalas, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 5300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
UNITED STATES: Nelson Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene in Wash. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM NELSON, proposed intervenor, is taking an appeal from court
orders in the lawsuit entitled State of Washington, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-00127-JCC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the unjust and discriminatory actions taken by the Utah
High School Activities Association, Inc. (UHSAA), which have
adversely impacted the Plaintiff, an international student-athlete,
and other foreign students.
On Jan. 23, 2025, Movant William Nelson filed a motion to
intervene, which Judge John C. Coughenour denied on Jan. 24, 2025.
On Jan. 27, 2025, Mr. Nelson filed a motion for reconsideration of
the Jan. 24 Order, which Judge Coughenour denied on Jan. 28, 2025.
Judge Coughenour held that Mr. Nelson's motion makes no showing of
manifest error in the Court's prior ruling. Indeed, as with his
motion to intervene, Mr. Nelson's motion for reconsideration fails
to demonstrate why the existing parties do not adequately represent
his interests. Mr. Nelson also neglects to mention any new facts or
legal authority which could not have been brought to the Court's
attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Instead, Mr. Nelson
merely presents broadly stated arguments or allegations
unattenuated to the case at hand.
The appellate case is captioned State of Washington, et al. v.
Trump, et al., Case No. 25-674, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 31, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on March 12, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on April 14, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Colleen M. Melody, Esq.
Daniel Jeon, Esq.
Lane Polozola, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL
800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104
- and -
Joshua Bendor, Esq.
Luci Danielle Davis, Esq.
ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
2005 N. Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
- and -
Rebekah Newman, Esq.
ILLINOIS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
115 S. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (773) 590-6961
- and -
Carla Scott, Esq.
Thomas H. Castelli, Esq.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
100 SW Market Street
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 480-6387
- and -
Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq.
Leila Kang, Esq.
Matt Adams, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Defendants-Appellees DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. are represented by:
Derek Weiss, Esq.
Brett Shumate, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division, Appellate Staff
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 7325
Washington, DC 20530
- and -
Brad Prescott Rosenberg, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division
P.O. Box 883
Washington, DC 20044
- and -
Nancy Canter, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation
P.O. Box 878
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Movant-Appellant WILLIAM NELSON appears pro se.
UNITED STATES: Orr Balks at Reversal of Settled Passport Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASHTON ORR, ZAYA PERYSIAN, SAWYER SOE, CHASTAIN ANDERSON, DREW
HALL, BELLA BOE, and REID SOLOMON-LANE, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his
official capacity as President of the United States; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case
No. 1:25-cv-10313 (D. Mass., February 7, 2025) is an action for
declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of the Trump
Administration's abrupt, discriminatory, and dangerous reversal of
settled United States passport policy.
According to the complaint, the United States previously issued
passports to transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people that
reflected the sex they live as and express, rather than the sex
they were assigned at birth. Under the government's new arbitrary
and unlawful policy (the "Passport Policy"), the United States now
refuses to issue passports to otherwise eligible Americans because
they are transgender, intersex, or nonbinary -- except on terms
that expose them to grievous harms and violate their constitutional
rights to equal protection, travel, privacy, and speech and flout
the Administrative Procedure Act.
This suit seeks a declaration that the Passport Policy and
Executive Order as applied to passports are unconstitutional, a
declaration that the Passport Policy violates the APA, and a
permanent injunction restoring the status quo ante. Declaratory and
injunctive relief are needed to remedy the many constitutional and
statutory violations the Passport Policy inflicts. Relief is needed
on a class-wide basis to prevent class-wide harm to the hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex
people in the United States who need a passport they can use
without suffering harm, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiffs are transgender or nonbinary Americans who have been
harmed, and will continue to be harmed, by the Passport Policy.
Because of the Passport Policy, as noted, one plaintiff had her
passport returned by the State Department with a male sex
designation despite the fact that she lives and expresses herself
as a woman and her other identification documents correctly have a
sex designation of female.
Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States. He is
sued in his official capacity.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessie J. Rossman, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.
One Center Plaza, Suite 850
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 482-3170
E-mail: jrossman@aclum.org
- and -
Jon W. Davidson, Esq.
Li Nowlin-Sohl, Esq.
Sruti J. Swaminathan, Esq.
Malita V. Picasso, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
Facsimile: (212) 549-2650
E-mail: jondavidson@aclu.org
lnowlin-sohl@aclu.org
sswaminathan@aclu.org
mpicasso@aclu.org
- and -
Aditi Fruitwala, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
915 15th St. NW
Washington, DC 20005
E-mail: afruitwala@aclu.org
- and -
Isaac D. Chaput, Esq.
William P. Kasper, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 591-6000
Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
E-mail: ichaput@cov.com
wkasper@cov.com
- and -
Ansel F. Carpenter, Esq.
Gavin W. Jackson, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 332-4758
Facsimile: (424) 332-4749
E-mail: acarpenter@cov.com
gjackson@cov.com
- and -
Jonathan Thompson, Esq.
Sean M. Bender, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
Telephone: (202) 662-5891
Facsimile: (202) 778-5891
E-mail: jthompson@cov.com
sbender@cov.com
- and -
Yuval Mor, Esq.
Alyssa L. Curcio, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
The New York Times Building
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018-1405
Telephone: (212) 841-1000
Facsimile: (212) 841-1010
E-mail: ymor@cov.com
acurcio@cov.com
UNITED TOWER: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Wage and Hour Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMESON CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. UNITED TOWER COMPANY, LLC, TRACY
SINGLETON, and DANNY L. TILLERY, Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-00013-CDL (M.D. Ga., February 7, 2025) arises from
Defendants' wage and hour practices that allegedly violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Plaintiff Campbell began his employment with Defendants on or about
July 18, 2022, as a Tower Climber, which position he held until he
resigned on January 13, 2025. Throughout his employment, the
Plaintiff regularly do work more than 40 hours per week. However,
Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat annual salary, without regard to
the number of hours he worked a day or week. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff now seeks all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for Defendants’ failures
to pay his wages and overtime premium, in violation of the FLSA,
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. He also seeks
actual damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
caused by Defendants' breach of his employment contract and related
violations of the common law.
United Tower Company builds and maintains telecommunications towers
across the southeastern United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jake Knanishu, Esq.
Justin Scott, Esq.
RADFORD SCOTT LLP
125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 400-3600
E-mail: jscott@radfordscott.com
jknanishu@radfordscott.com
VECTRARX MAIL: Avila Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII
----------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Avila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VectraRX Mail Pharmacy Services, Case No.
4:25-cv-00084-JCH (D. Ariz., Feb. 19, 2025), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network, including, without limitation, date of birth,
Rx number, Rx Information, and Dates of Service (these types of
information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to,
collectively, as "protected health information" or "PHI" and
"personally identifiable information" or "PII").
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and thousands of
other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable
cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on December 13,
2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately
protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII
that was being kept unprotected ("Data Breach").
The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PHI/PII. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendant
knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and Class Members
would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive
data, including highly confidential PHI/PII.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from
HIPAA, other state and federal statutes and regulations, and common
law principles. the Plaintiff does not bring claims in this action
for direct violations of HIPAA but charge Defendant with various
legal violations merely predicated upon the duties set forth in
HIPAA.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent
unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.
As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off
this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in
the future. the Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing
interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe and
are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff's information was among the data an unauthorized
third party accessed in the Data Breach.
VectraRx provides fast and convenient home delivery of medications
for on-the-job and personal injury claims.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin D. Neal, Esq.
Kenneth N. Ralston, Esq.
GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
2575 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
Phone: (602) 530-8000
Facsimile: (602) 530-8500
Email: kevin.neal@gknet.com
ken.ralston@gknet.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
VF OUTDOOR: Court Denies Approval of Settlement in Valencia Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kirk E. Sherriff of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California denied the plaintiff's unopposed
motion for judicial approval of her settlement with defendant VF
Outdoor, LLC, of her California Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, Cal. Labor Code Sec. 2698 et seq. claims in the case
captioned as BRIANA VALENCIA, an individual, Plaintiff, v. VF
OUTDOOR, a California limited liability corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01795-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.) without prejudice.
Defendant VF Outdoor is an apparel and footwear company that owns
numerous clothing brands such as Vans, North Face, Dickies, and
Jansport. VF Outdoor has four distribution centers in California
that are independently managed, and each employs many hourly,
non-exempt employees. Plaintiff Briana Valencia is an hourly,
non-exempt employee at VF Outdoor's warehouse in Visalia,
California.
As required by PAGA, on June 20, 2019, Valencia provided notice to
VF Outdoor and to the California Labor & Workforce Development
Agency, the agency charged with enforcing the relevant provisions
of the California Labor Code, that she intended to sue based on VF
Outdoor's alleged violations. On Aug. 27, 2019, Valencia filed this
putative class and representative action in Alameda County Superior
Court, asserting various state law causes of action.
Valencia alleges that each of VF Outdoor's four distribution
centers required all hourly, non-exempt employees to go through a
security check and then walk to their assigned workstations before
they could “clock in” for work. Then, whenever those employees
left the distribution centers, after finishing their shifts or to
take a meal or rest period, they were required to “clock out”
at their workstations and go through the security check again
before leaving the distribution center. Valencia's claims are based
on her assertion that VF Outdoor was required to pay employees for
the time spent going through the security checks. Valencia asserts
causes of action for:
(1) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of California
Labor Code Secs. 1194, 1197, and 1198;
(2) failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of
California Labor Code Secs. 510, 1194, and 1198;
(3) failure to provide meal periods in violation of California
Labor Code Secs. 226.7, 512, and 1198;
(4) failure to provide rest periods in violation of California
Labor Code Secs. 226.7 and 1198;
(5) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of
California Labor Code Sec. 226 and 1198;
(6) failure to pay wages owed in a timely manner in violation of
California Labor Code Sec. 204;
(7) unfair business practices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq.; and
(8) penalties under PAGA. Each claim arises from the
uncompensated time that employees spent going through the security
check.
On Oct. 28, 2019, VF Outdoor removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d)(2). The action was subsequently transferred to this Court.
Thereafter, the Court denied class certification twice. Nearly two
years after the last denial of her motion for class certification,
the parties entered into a settlement agreement in this action.
Valencia provided the required notice of settlement to the LWDA.
Although no class was certified, Valencia is able to maintain her
PAGA claim as a representative of the State of California and to
seek civil penalties pursuant to PAGA.
Valencia now moves for judicial approval of the settlement, as
required by PAGA, Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2699(l)(2).
The parties' settlement agreement provides for a non-reversionary
settlement fund of $175,000, which Valencia asserts would cover
72,088 pay periods and affect 2,213 employees. Those 72,088 pay
periods occurred between June 20, 2018, and the date of the
settlement, Nov. 19, 2024.
From this settlement fund, Valencia requests $57,750 for attorneys'
fees, $7,500 for litigation expenses, $10,000 for a plaintiff
enhancement payment to Valencia, and $15,000 for the settlement
administrator. This leaves remaining PAGA penalties of $84,750. The
settlement allocates seventy-five percent of those penalties,
$63,562.50, to the LWDA and twenty-five percent of those penalties,
$21,187.50, to the aggrieved employees
The settlement operates as a release of the aggrieved employees'
PAGA claims and is binding on both the LWDA and the aggrieved
employees
The Court finds Valencia fails to provide sufficient explanation
of, or support for, the facts and assumptions on which the proposed
settlement is based. Valencia's motion also contains factual
discrepancies and appears to be inconsistent in certain respects
with the parties' settlement agreement. On this record, the Court
cannot determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
accurate. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qtKp52 from PacerMonitor.com.
VITACOST.COM INC: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitacost.com Inc. The
case is styled as Clarence Frost, Tammy Frost, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vitacost.com Inc., Case
No. 0:25-cv-00679-JWB-LIB (D. Minn., Feb. 21, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vitacost.com, Inc. -- https://www.vitacost.com/ -- is an American
e-commerce company based in Boca Raton, Florida, that sells
vitamins, supplements and organic grocery products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
Chad Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street
55402, Suite 101
St. Michael, MN 55330
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
- and -
Patrick W Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE, LLC
222 South Ninth Street, Ste. 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Fax: (763) 226-2515
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Villatoro Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Obed Villatoro and Clemencia Martinez,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C24-03450 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra
Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on Feb. 21, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-01870.
The Complaint brings putative class claims for an alleged: Failure
to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure
to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay
All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; Failure to
Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Maintain
Required Records; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary
Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; Unfair and Unlawful
Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
Melis Atalay, 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: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
melis.atalay@ogletree.com
- and -
Mitchell A. Wrosch, 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: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
WALMART INC: Bonkowski Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robert Bonkowski and Alex Merkel,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Walmart
Inc., Case No. 25STCV01308 was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 20,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01462.
The Plaintiffs allege that Walmart "violates [the California
Information Privacy Act ('CIPA') by aiding and permitting third
parties to receive its patients' online communications through its
website without their consent." The Plaintiffs further allege that
Walmart is "violating the [California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act ('CMIA') by disclosing its patients' medical
information with Facebook along with the patients' Facebook ID."
Finally, Plaintiffs assert "invasion of privacy claims under
California's Constitution."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert E. Dunn, Esq.
EIMER STAHL LLP
1999 South Bascom Avenue, Suite 1025
Campbell, CA 95008
Phone: (408) 889-1690
Email: rdunn@eimerstahl.com
WARDEN WILKENS: Larez, et al. Prisoner Civil Rights Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable David Urias of the United States District Court for
the District of New Mexico dismissed all claims in the case
captioned GARY LAREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WARDEN WILKENS, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-0324-DHU-LF (D.N.M.) without
prejudice. All pending motions are denied without prejudice.
This matter is before the Court on the Prisoner Civil Rights
Complaints and supplemental filings in this case, which were filed
by or on behalf of the following inmate-plaintiffs: Gary Larez;
Brandon Stone; Dewayne Clements; Matthew Alarcon; Cameron Rakers;
Matthew Howell; Cody Macias; Euriah Marquez; Andres Munoz; Manuel
Calvillo; Christopher T. Rodriguez; and Brandon Delgarito. The
pleadings raise 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claims challenging the inmates'
confinement at the Central New Mexico Correctional Facility. As a
threshold issue, the Court must determine whether it is feasible
for the inmate-plaintiffs to prosecute this case.
The Court finds the inmate-plaintiffs did not all sign one
pleading, nor did they each sign their own pleading limited to
their specific claims. Instead, different subsets of
inmate-plaintiffs filed different pleadings, making it impossible
to discern the scope of the joined claims. The Court also cannot
discern which inmate-plaintiffs still seek to prosecute claims. Of
the twelve individuals who filed claims in this case, six have
severed contact with the Court. The opening pleading also indicates
the inmate-plaintiffs wish to proceed as a class. It is well
settled that class representatives may not appear pro se.
Judge Urias says that there is no primary filer in this case. Gary
Larez, Matthew Alarcon, and Manuel Calvillo have all submitted or
signed multiple pleadings. Moreover, dismissing the claims and
requiring each inmate-plaintiff to file their own case will not
result in any prejudice. The claims arose in 2024 and are not
time-barred.
None of the inmate-plaintiffs have paid a fee in this case, as the
Court deferred collecting any initial partial filing fees until
after making a determination on the proposed joinder.
The Court will therefore dismiss this case and each pleading
without prejudice. Each inmate-plaintiff may file a new case
limited to their own claims if they wish to continue litigating. If
any inmate-plaintiff continues to file amended pleadings in this
closed case, the Court may direct the Clerk's Office to open a new
case for that individual. Finally, the Court will deny all pending
motions as moot and without prejudice to refiling in the new case.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QhzUAZ from PacerMonitor.com.
WELLS FARGO: Brickman Investments Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brickman Investments Inc., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo &
Company, Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC, dba Wells Fargo
Advisors, Case No. 1:24-cv-07751 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 20,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01786-LJC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Rees, Esq.
Rene Alan Gonzalez, Esq.
Scott Dion, Esq.
Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 750-3000
Fax: (561) 750-3364
Email: arees@rgrdlaw.com
rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com
sdion@rgrdlaw.com
sastley@rgrdlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David Grant Hille, Esq.
Gregory M. Starner, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP (NY)
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 819-8200
Fax: (212) 354-8113
Email: dhille@whitecase.com
gstarner@whitecase.com
WELLS FARGO: Christner Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Christner, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells
Fargo Clearing Services, LLC, dba Wells Fargo Advisors, Case No.
1:24-cv-08953 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Feb. 20, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01785-KAW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Rees, Esq.
Rene Alan Gonzalez, Esq.
Scott Dion, Esq.
Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 750-3000
Fax: (561) 750-3364
Email: arees@rgrdlaw.com
rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com
sdion@rgrdlaw.com
sastley@rgrdlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David Grant Hille, Esq.
Gregory M. Starner, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP (NY)
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 819-8200
Fax: (212) 354-8113
Email: dhille@whitecase.com
gstarner@whitecase.com
WLCC LENDING: Rainey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WLCC Lending JEM, et
al. The case is styled as Tyana Rainey, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. WLCC Lending JEM doing business
as: Explore Credit, Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation, Wakpamni
Lake Community, Case No. 3:25-cv-00224-DNH-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 19,
2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
WLCC Lending JEM doing business as Explore Credit --
https://explorecredit.com/ -- offer short-term installment loans
with no hidden fees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
48 Wall Street-Suite 1100
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (732) 588-8688
Email: ross@kazlg.com
WYNN RESORTS: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
Wynn Resorts, Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 13, 2025, that on August 22, 2024 a
putative securities class action filed against the company and
certain current and former officers of the company in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York (which was
subsequently transferred to the United States District Court,
District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018, reached an agreement to
settle the action for the amount of $70.0 million, of which the
company contributed $9.4 million.
The court preliminarily approved the settlement on October 10,
2024, and issued its final approval of the settlement on January
27, 2025.
The complaint, files on February 20, 2018, alleges, among other
things, certain violations of federal securities laws and seeks to
recover unspecified damages as well as attorneys' fees, costs and
related expenses for the plaintiffs. On April 15, 2019, the company
filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on May 27, 2020,
with leave to amend. On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.
On August 14, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On July 28, 2021, the court granted in part, and
denied in part, the company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, dismissing certain of plaintiffs' claims, including all
claims against current CEO Craig Billings and the individual
directors, and allowing other claims to proceed against the Company
and several of the company's former executive officers, including
Matthew Maddox, Stephen A. Wynn, Kimmarie Sinatra, and Steven
Cootey.
On March 2, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and appointed lead counsel.
Wynn Resorts, Limited, a Nevada corporation (together with its
subsidiaries), is a designer, developer, and operator of integrated
resorts featuring luxury hotel rooms, high-end retail space, an
array of dining and entertainment options, meeting and convention
facilities, and gaming.
XTO ENERGY: Wins Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Hystad Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel L. Hovland of the United States District Court for the
District of North Dakota granted the XTO Energy, Inc.'s motion to
strike class allegations in the Hystad Ceynar Mineral, LLC, on
behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, vs. XTO Energy, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-030
(D.N.D.).
The Plaintiff, Hystad Ceynar Minerals, LLC, is a North Dakota
limited liability company. Hystad has two members, both of whom are
citizens of North Dakota. The Defendant, XTO Energy, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas.
XTO operates numerous oil and gas wells in North Dakota. As the
operator of those wells, XTO produces and markets oil, gas, and
related hydrocarbons. XTO then remits sales proceeds to parties who
own interests in a given well, including royalty owners who are
entitled to a share of production under an oil and gas lease.
Hystad owns interests in oil and gas produced from wells XTO
operates in North Dakota.
On Jan. 10, 2023, Hystad brought an action in state court on behalf
of itself and a class of similarly situated royalty owners. On Feb.
13, 2023, XTO removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). Hystad alleges XTO made untimely payments to
the Plaintiff and the members of a proposed class without paying
18% interest as required by N.D.C.C. Sec. 47-16-39.1. The Plaintiff
defines the class as:
All persons and entities owning mineral interests in North Dakota
wells operated by XTO who, at any time since Nov. 8, 2016, have:
(1) received one or more royalty payments or other mineral interest
payments from XTO on a date which was more than one hundred fifty
days after the oil or gas produced by XTO from a North Dakota well
subject to the mineral owner's interest was marketed; and (2) as to
any such payment, XTO did not pay the eighteen percent per annum
interest required under N.D.C.C. Sec. 47-16-39.1.
Hystad asserts more than 10,000 members belong to the proposed
class.
On Oct. 18, 2024, XTO filed a motion to strike class allegations.
XTO requests the Court strike the class allegations made by Hystad
in its First Amended Class Action Complaint.
Hystad brings a claim on behalf of itself and a proposed class of
similarly situated persons for 18% interest under N.D.C.C. Sec.
47-16-39.1, which governs the obligation of an operator arising
under an oil and gas lease to pay royalties to a mineral owner and
a mineral owner's assignees.
The Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
XTO contends the Plaintiff's statutory interest class allegations
fails to meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Specifically, XTO argues Hystad cannot meet the
typicality, predominance, and ascertainably requirements because
the proposed class definition would require an individual
examination for each and every class member and payment. The
Plaintiff argues the proposed class definition meets all of Rule
23's requirements.
XTO cites to three recent orders by this Court that struck
substantively similar class allegations. This Court concluded that
classes seeking interest under Section 47-16-39.1 could not satisfy
Rule 23's typicality and predominance requirements in Hystad Ceynar
Mins., LLC v. Whiting Oil & Gas Corp., 2023 WL 3467461 (D.N.D. May
15, 2023), Colton v. Lime Rock Res. GP V, L.P., 2024 WL 1637480
(D.N.D. Apr. 16, 2024), and Penman & Adelante Oil & Gas, LLC v.
Hess Bakken Invs. II, LLC, 2024 WL 3792011 (D.N.D. Aug. 13, 2024).
Specifically, the Court found that the class allegations required
an individual examination of each class member. In this case, the
Plaintiff's statutory interest class allegations present similar
typicality and predominance issues as the classes in Whiting,
Colton, and Penman. In this case, the proposed class allegations
require an individual examination of each class member and payment,
which prevents class certification. Based on the pleadings in this
case and the relevant case law, the Court finds no reason to depart
from its recent rulings.
Typicality
The Plaintiff contends the safe harbor exemptions and the need to
verify class members' property interests do not defeat the
requirements of Rule 23 because members can be identified through
discovery. According to the Court, even if the class members are
ascertainable through XTO's business records, the class lacks
typicality because of the numerous individual inquiries necessary
to complete a payment-by-payment analysis. Therefore, the Court
concludes the proposed class definition does not meet the Rule
23(a)(3) typicality requirement.
Predominance
The Court's holdings regarding the required individualized
determinations that preclude a finding of typicality also preclude
a finding of predominance under Rule 23(b)(3). Individual
examinations for every class member are a necessary prerequisite to
determine whether a particular mineral owner is a class member and
whether N.D.C.C. Sec. 47-16-39.1 applies and was violated. The
verification of leases and ownership interests, the determinations
of the existence of safe harbor provisions, and the determinations
of proper notice regarding title disputes are individual questions
that would require every proposed class member to present evidence
for every payment that allegedly falls within the class allegations
in this case. These individual inquires would be time-consuming and
inefficient. The individualized issues in this case predominate
over the common claim for relief by the proposed class.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to strike the
class allegations.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wohXFz from PacerMonitor.com.
ZACKS INVESTMENT: Eggert Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zacks Investment
Research, Inc. The case is styled as Allyson Eggert, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Zacks Investment
Research, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01755 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 20, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Zacks -- https://www.zacks.com/ -- is the leading investment
research firm focusing on stock research, analysis and
recommendations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.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 ***