/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250311.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, March 11, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 50
Headlines
ABF FREIGHT: Gomez Action Consolidated with Gaddis Suit
ABLETO INC: Sessa Seeks Leave to File Class Opposition Reply
ACACIA NETWORK: Neor Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply
ACCELLION INC: Parties Seeks Class Certification Amendment
ACE PARKING: Seeks More to File Class Cert Response in Tobey Suit
ADDSHOPPERS INC: Considers Filing Class Cert Under Seal
AGC BIOLOGICS: Lomibao Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
ALGENIST LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pepenella Due Sept. 5
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Can File Confidential Class Cert. Docs Under Seal
ALLEVIATE TAX: Morton Seeks More Time to File Class Certification
AMAZON.COM INC: Court OK's Sealing Stipulation
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties in De Coster Seek Filing Deadline
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: De Jesus Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Filing in Hirsch Extended to March 19
AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Filing in Varney Extended to March 19
AMERICAN FORTUNE: Aragon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMERICAN MIDSTREAM: Interlocutory Review Denied in Thomas Lawsuit
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: N.D. Georgia Narrows Claims in Bracy Suit
AMPAM PARKS: Ramirez Seeks Leave to File Class Exhibits Under Seal
ANTHROPIC PBC: Seeks Case Management Conference in Bartz Suit
APPLE COMMUTER: Abuladze Seeks to Withdraw Class Cert Bid
APPLE INC: Carbon Neutrality Claims Misleading, Dib Suit Alleges
ARBORWORKS LLC: Settlement Class Certification Bid Due May 23
ASPHALT NY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Rule 60(b) Motions Denied in Gaines Lawsuit
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Bid to Distribute Settlement Funds in Poirier OK'd
BALANCED HEALTHCARE: Illegally Collects Debt, Rowe Suit Says
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply Brief
BATTLE CREEK: Parker Suit Seek to Certify Delivery Driver Class
BEST BUY: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Jewel
BH MANAGEMENT: Must Address Settlement Class Issues by March 10
BICHACHI SHOPPES: Disabled Can't Access Property, Brito Alleges
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 30
BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit
BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Faces Taylor Stockholder Suit in Del. Ch.
BOYKIN FARMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
BOZZUTO'S INC: Loiseau Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
BROWN BROTHERS: Alzuarte Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BURLINGTON CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Gibson Suit
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Settlement Approval in Kirsten Suit Affirmed
CAPITAL ONE: Loses to Dismiss Jensen WCEMA Lawsuit
CAPSTONE CYPRESS: Davis Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CARING LLC: Steals Senior Living Community Customers, Cedar Claims
CF EAGLE: Can't Compel Arbitration in Maturo, et al. Lawsuit
CHARLESTON AREA: Failed to Secure Private Info, Bryce Alleges
CLAY FORD: Breshears's Bid for Class Cert Denied w/o Prejudice
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Underwood Suit in NY Court
COINBASE GLOBAL: Has Until March 18 to Respond to Class Action
COLBEA ENTERPRISES: Darden Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
COMERCIA BANK: Sparkman Wins Bid for Class Certification
CONFIRM ID: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Murphy BIPA Suit
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Faces Suits over SEC Filings
COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Moriarty Insurance Claim Suit Ongoing
COSMESIS SKIN: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Duarte Alleges
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Greist, et al. Suit
CVS HEALTH: Artificially Inflated Drugs' Prices, Clements Claims
DISA GLOBAL: Bachman Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
DISA GLOBAL: Failed to Protect Personal Info, Diggs Suit Says
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bloom Suit Alleges
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Crawford Says
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Davidson Suit Says
DUNT AUTO: Court Amends Scheduling Order in EEOC Suit
EAGLE FAMILY: Dinner Mixes' Cheese Amount Ads "False," Daniels Says
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Apr 21
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
EIGHT SLEEP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Alleges
EIGHT SLEEP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Alleges
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Bell Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
EXXON MOBIL: California Plastic Waste Suit Remanded to State Court
FAIRLIFE LLC: Faces Bhotiwihok Over Animal Care Marketing Scheme
FASTAFF LLC: Egan Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class
FEDERAL EMERGENCY: Rouselle Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
FIRST DRIVE: Foreman Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation
FLAGLER 251: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
GEICO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Accident Forgiveness Policy
GEN DIGITAL: C.D. California Grants Bid to Dismiss Conohan Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Settlement Deal in Riley Gets Initial Nod
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Settlement in Jefferson Gets Initial Nod
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Ulrich, et al. Lawsuit
GENTING NY: Denial of Class Certification in Mrijaj Suit Affirmed
GIRL SCOUTS: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GIVAUDAN SA: Court Narrows Claims in Our Own Candle Suit
GLOBE LIFE: Buford Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
GLOBE LIFE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Singletary Alleges
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs File Renewed Class Certification Bid
HARVEST SHERWOOD: Dipasquale Seeks Conditional Collective Status
HENDERSON, NV, : Discovery Cut-Off Deadline in Woodburn Due Sept. 8
HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement in Cruz-Bermudez Suit Gets Final OK
HP INC: Settlement in Carvalho Suit Gets Preliminary Court Okay
INKTEL CONTRACT: Dixon Class Action Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
JACK COOPER: Archie Sues Over WARN Act Violation
KALEIDOSCOPE HAIR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Says
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Wise Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
KM BUILDER: Fuoco Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL
L&W HR: Dufrechou Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
LANGUAGE LINE: Settlement in Oliveira Suit Gets Final Court Nod
LIBERTY MEDIA: Court Grants in Part Bids to Dismiss Diep Suit
LIGHTSPEED CONSTRUCTION: Settlement in English Suit Has Final Nod
MEAZURE LEARNING: Faces Class Lawsuit Over CA Bar Exam Disaster
META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Hearing in Yoon Set for June 24, 2026
MICHAEL GOLDBERG: Court Affirms Automatic Stay in Chamberlin Suit
MONTANA: Superintendent Sued Over Disabilities Education Act
MORGAN STANLEY: Bertonis Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
NAMASTE LABORATORIES: Blind Can't Access to Website, Fagnani Says
NESTLE PURINA: Wentworth Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
NEW ERA ENTERPRISES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stapp Alleges
NEWREZ LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 20
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: WilmerHale Secures Putative Class Suit Dismissal
OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Agrees to False Ads Class Action Settlement
ONDERLAW LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hudson-Bryant Claims
PAM HEALTH: Underpays Licensed Vocational Nurses, Walker Says
PARKLAND AMBULANCE: Desso Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Paramedics
PASSES INC: Faces Rosenblum Suit Over Child Pornography
PENALOZA CONSTRUCTION: Faces Duarte Wage-and-Hour Suit in Texas
PHILADELPHIA AMERICAN: Critchlow Sues Over Leaked Personal Info
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Production Staff, Bodi Suit Claims
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gifford Says
PRATT INDUSTRIES: Comperry Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Adjusters
PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Court Okays Class Notice in Knight Suit
PURPLE INNOVATION: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says
QUANTUM COMPUTING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 28
RAINBOW REHABILITATION: Rogers Sues Over Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
ROCKET LAB: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bray Suit Alleges
SAVAGE ENTERPRISES: Bids to Dismiss Nguyen Suit Granted in Part
SAVOYA LLC: Cuhadar Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers, Subdrivers
SOUNDCLOUD GLOBAL: Shinglot Sues Over Subscription Renewal Charges
STATE OF VIRGINIA: Ruling in Stinnie v. DMV Suit Reversed
STERLING JEWELERS: Walter Wage Lawsuit Remanded to State Court
SURF LINE: Faces Demaio Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages
SUTTER HEALTH: Settles $411-Mil. Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
T-MOBILE US: Faces Class Action Over Unclear Billing Practices
TARGET CORP: Court Grants Davis's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment
TARGET CORP: Court Refuses to Decertify Class in Davis Suit
TIKTOK INC: Brodiski Sues Over Children's Online Privacy
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Curtin-Wilding Says
UNDERDOG SPORTS: Ballentine Alleges Illegal Sports Betting Platform
UNITED OF OMAHA: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
UTAH: Court Orders Spring to File 2nd Amended Suit v. State Workers
VEGAS.COM LLC: Bid to Stay Discovery in Chacon Class Suit Granted
VENTURE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 18
WAYSIDE FARM: Turner Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation
WESTERN DISTRIBUTING: Cisneros Suit Removed to S.D. California
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settles Refrigerator Frost Class Action Lawsuit
YAZOO VALLEY: Doe Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
ZENITH AMERICAN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Rogers Alleges
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2025 -- The Sponsors
*********
ABF FREIGHT: Gomez Action Consolidated with Gaddis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO GOMEZ, an
individual on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-09842-CBM-RAO (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo Marshall entered an order granting
stipulation to consolidate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2), as
follows:
1. The Gomez and Gaddis Actions be consolidated for all
purposes, including to discovery, depositions, class
certification, dispositive motions, pre-trial documents and
motion practice, and trial. Solely for administrative
purposes, the Gaddis Action shall be the lead case and the
parties shall use the case number of the Gaddis Action when
electronically filing or lodging documents. By designating
the Gaddis Action as the lead case, Defendant does not waive
any rights or arguments it may have with respect to either
the Plaintiff or the applicable law.
2. The Court appoints the Lipeles Law Group, APC and the
Voskanyan Law Firm, P.C. as co-counsel for the Plaintiffs in
the combined action with either counsel authorized to speak
on behalf of all Plaintiffs and to enter into stipulations
or agreements with Defendant for purposes of this action,
except that a representative from both firms shall be
involved in any settlement discussions and any settlement
agreement shall require the signature of a representative
from both firms;
3. Within 15 days of the entry of an order consolidating the
actions, the Plaintiffs will file a consolidated complaint
which shall be limited to the claims previously filed and
which shall not seek to extend the statute of limitations
beyond the limitations period currently applicable to the
claims asserted in each case;
4. Within 30 days of filing of the Consolidated Complaint, the
Defendant shall file a response to the Consolidated
Complaint;
5. The Plaintiffs shall be entitled to serve discovery requests
as though they were one party (without leave of court or
agreement of the parties otherwise);
ABF Freight is an American national less-than-truckload freight
carrier.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=smhz5l at no extra
charge.[CC]
ABLETO INC: Sessa Seeks Leave to File Class Opposition Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Sessa,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AbleTo,
Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-02219-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting motion pursuant to Rule
3.01(d) for leave to file a reply to the Defendant's opposition to
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff would like to emphasize he believes that the
requested Reply will greatly assist the Court by directly
addressing contentions in Defendant's Opposition.
The Plaintiff requests a Reply of ten pages be authorized to be
filed within ten days of the Court’s Order granting leave.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has sought class-wide injunctive relief,
and if Defendant's practices are not stopped, large numbers of
consumers will continue to be impacted.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bE0dfq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William ("Billy") Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
401 Tampa East Jackson Street Suite 2340
Truist Building
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
- and -
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
ACACIA NETWORK: Neor Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Neor, et al., v. Acacia
Network, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04814-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline
by 30 days for the Plaintiffs to file their reply to their motion
for conditional collective certification.
In accordance with the Court's directives, the Plaintiffs' Motion
was initially filed on April 1, 2024. After numerous requests for
extensions, the Defendants finally filed their opposition on Feb.
20, 2025, almost a year after Plaintiffs' motion was initially
filed.
The Plaintiffs' reply is currently due by Feb. 27, 2025. The
Defendants have had almost a year to prepare their opposition,
which includes several hundred pages of exhibits and deposition
testimony.
In view of volume of information the Plaintiffs will necessarily be
required to address, the extension requested by the Plaintiffs is
warranted. This is Plaintiffs' first request for an extension to
this deadline. The Plaintiffs requested the Defendants' consent to
the extension, but they refused to consent.
Acacia is a social services provider in New York City.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=82xnzu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
ACCELLION INC: Parties Seeks Class Certification Amendment
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc.
(RE ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No.
5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs delete "well-known" from page 6, line 1 of
their motion for class certification, as reflected in the
amendment attached as Exhibit A;
2. The case schedule shall remain unaffected.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on
December 16, 2024.
Accellion contends a portion of a sentence lacks evidentiary
support. Accellion contends that the words "well known" imply that
the vulnerabilities were "well known" to Accellion prior to the
December Exploits.
Accellion is a provider of on-demand secure file transfer
solutions.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0gmxAK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
kquackenbush@girardsharp.com
- and -
Krysta K. Pachman, Esq.
Michael Gervais, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Kevin R. Downs, Esq.
Madeline M. Yzurdiaga, Esq.
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: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
mgervais@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
kdowns@susmangodfrey.com
myzurdiaga@susmangodfrey.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Fred Norton, Esq.
Bree Hann, Esq.
Emily Kirk, Esq.
Rebecca Kutlow, Esq.
Gil Walton, Esq.
Heather Bates, Esq.
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 450
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 906-4900
E-mail: fnorton@nortonlaw.com
bhann@nortonlaw.com
ekirk@nortonlaw.com
rkultow@nortonlaw.com
gwalton@nortonlaw.com
hbates@nortonlaw.com
- and -
Camilo Artiga-Purcell, Esq.
ACCELLION, INC.
1510 Fashion Island Blvd, Suite 100
San Mateo, CA 94404
Telephone: (415) 515-4724
E-mail: camilo.apurcell@kiteworks.com
ACE PARKING: Seeks More to File Class Cert Response in Tobey Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 (N.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting their agreed motion to extend deadline to
respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and to
stay discovery.
The Plaintiff Robert Tobey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is unopposed.
On Jan. 23, 2025, PRRS filed its Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Compel Arbitration. On February 6, 2025, ACE filed its Motion to
Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration.
On Jan. 24, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an Agreed Motion to Extend
Deadline to Respond to Defendants’ Responsive Motions.
On Jan. 28, 2025, this Court granted the Agreed Motion to Extend
Deadline to Respond to Defendants' Responsive Motions, and
Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendants' responsive motions
is March 15, 20254.
Ace provides a full range of parking services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2wsQ9i at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
- and –
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
The Defendants are represented by:
Shain A. Khoshbin, Esq.
Tracy J. Carson, Esq.
MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP
2000 McKinney Ave., Suite 1900
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (972) 628-3600
Facsimile: (972) 628-3616
E-mail: skhoshbin@munckwilson.com
tcarson@munckwilson.com
- and –
J. David Rowe, Esq.
Robert E. Linkin, Esq.
MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP
807 Las Cimas Parkway, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (737) 201-1600
Facsimile: (737) 201-1601
E-mail: drowe@munckwilson.com
rlinkin@munckwilson.com
- and –
Jason R. Jobe, Esq.
Yesha P. Patel, Esq.
THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P.
Plaza of the Americas
700 N. Pearl Street, Twenty-Fifth Floor
Dallas, TX 75201-2832
Telephone: (214) 871-8200
Facsimile: (214) 871-8209
E-mail: jjobe@thompsoncoe.com
ypatel@thompsoncoe.com
ADDSHOPPERS INC: Considers Filing Class Cert Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABBY LINEBERRY, TERRY
MICHAEL COOK and MIGUEL CORDERO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. ADDSHOPPERS, INC. and PEET'S COFFEE,
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01996-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider
whether another party's material should be sealed
Under Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(f) and pursuant to Judge
Vince Chhabria's Standing Order for Civil Cases, Peet's Coffee,
Inc. submits this Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another
Party's Material Should Be Sealed and files under seal an
unredacted version of Peet's Supplemental Brief in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Peet's submits sealed
and unsealed copies of its Supplemental Brief in Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.
Peet's takes no position on the propriety of sealing these
documents or redacting Peet's Supplemental Brief in Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Peet's files this
Administrative Motion because these documents contain material that
Plaintiffs have designated as "Confidential" under the Stipulated
Protective Order
The documents filed provisionally under seal in connection with
this motion consist of:
Description Portion(s) Designating
to Be Sealed Party
Peet's Supplemental Brief Redactions Defendant
in Opposition to Plaintiffs' in brief Peet's Coffee
Motion for Class Certification
Declaration of Megan A. Entirety Plaintiffs
Suehiro ISO Supp. Brief,
Ex. 1, January 21, 2025,
Deposition of Miguel Cordero
Excerpts
AddShoppers is a social media app building tool focused on
ecommerce websites.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wLQHVq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
Phillip J. Wiese, Esq.
M. Abigail West, Esq.
Alexandra M. Gonsman, Esq.
Ezra D. Church, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
E-mail: megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com
phillip.wiese@morganlewis.com
abigail.west@morganlewis.com
alexandra.gonsman@morganlewis.com
ezra.church@morganlewis.com
AGC BIOLOGICS: Lomibao Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Eufronio Lomibao, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
AGC BIOLOGICS, INC., a Washington for profit corporation, Case No.
2:25-cv-00361 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 26, 2025), is brought to recover
unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation the
Washington Industrial Welfare Act ("WIWA") and related Washington
Dept. of Labor & Industries ("DOLI"), the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Washington Minimum Wage Act ("WMWA") and the
Washington Wage Rebate Act ("WWRA").
Lomibao and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40
hours a workweek. But AGC does not pay them for all their hours
worked. Instead, before and after their shifts, AGC requires
Lomibao and the other Hourly Employees to attend operations
meetings, record production notes, and review standard operating
procedures (SOPs) "off the clock" and without compensation (AGC's
"pre/post shift off the clock policy"). And AGC requires Lomibao
and the other Hourly Employees to record they took a 30-minute
"meal period," regardless of whether they actually received a bona
fide, uninterrupted meal period (AGC's "meal deduction policy").
AGC does not pay them for this time. But Lomibao and the other
Hourly Employees do not actually receive bona fide meal periods.
They likewise do not receive bona fide rest periods.
Instead, AGC requires Lomibao and the other Hourly Employees to
remain on duty and perform their regular job duties throughout
their shifts and/or subjects them to interruptions during attempted
"meal periods" and "rest periods." AGC's failure to provide Lomibao
and the other Hourly Employees with bona fide meal and rest periods
violates the WIWA and related DOLI regulations.
AGC also pays non-discretionary bonuses and shift differential
payments that it fails to include in Lomibao's and the other Hourly
Employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (AGC's "bonus
pay scheme"). AGC's pre/post shift off the clock policy, bonus pay
scheme, and meal deduction policy violate the FLSA and the WMWA by
depriving Lomibao and the other Hourly Employees of overtime wages
of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all
remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek.
Likewise, as a result of its pre/post shift off the clock policy,
bonus pay scheme, and meal deduction policy, AGC willfully
withholds earned wages from Lomibao and the other Hourly Employees
in violation of the WWRA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an in-plant quality
assurance associate from December 2022 until May 2024.
AGC "provides pharmaceutical development and manufacturing services
for protein-based biologics and cell and gene therapies".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
705 Second Ave., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: 206.682.6711
Email: msubit@frankfreed.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
ALGENIST LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pepenella Due Sept. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adelina Pepenella,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Algenist LLC, Tengram Capital Associates II LLC, Algenist Brands
LLC, Tengram Capital Partners LP, and DOES 1-100, Case No.
1:24-cv-08688-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered a
case management plan and scheduling order:
-- Any motion to amend or to join additional April 2, 2025
parties shall be filed no later than:
-- Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule March 17, 2025
26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure shall be completed no later
than:
-- All fact discovery is to be completed July 1, 2025
no later than:
-- All expert discovery, including Aug. 15, 2025
disclosures, reports, rebuttal
reports, production of underlying
documents, and depositions shall
be completed by:
-- Plaintiff's motion to dismiss and Feb. 26, 2025
letter-motion to stay discovery
shall be filed by:
-- The Defendant shall respond to the Mar. 3, 2025
motion to stay discovery by:
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class Sept. 5, 2025
certification shall be due:
-- Tengram's response shall be due: Nov. 5, 2025
-- The Plaintiff's reply shall be due: Jan. 5, 2026
Algenist, founded in 2011, is a skincare company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ek13qj at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Can File Confidential Class Cert. Docs Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY,
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince
Chhabria entered an order granting the Defendant's third amended
administrative motion for leave to file under seal confidential
material in support of the parties' class certification and summary
judgment briefing.
1. The limited portions of the Confidential Material identified
in the Third Amended Sealing Motion shall be sealed as set
forth in this Order.
2. Within ten (10) days of this ruling, Align will compile
master public versions of all filings, reflecting approved
redactions for such filings, and file those master versions
on the public docket. The unredacted version of the
Confidential Material filed under seal shall remain sealed
and is deemed filed with the Clerk of the Court. The Clerk
is instructed to maintain these documents in a sealed
envelope bearing the notation "Filed Under Seal" or other
similar designation, and to keep the contents of these
documents sealed from public viewing as part of the record
in this case.
On Feb. 7, 2025, the Defendant filed a Third Amended Administrative
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal seeking to seal portions of the
parties' Class Certification and Summary Judgment Briefing.
Align is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and
Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics and restorative
workflow.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VR9zdB at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLEVIATE TAX: Morton Seeks More Time to File Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MORTON, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. ALLEVIATE TAX, LLC, Case
No. 3:24-cv-02263-N (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order extending the deadline to move for class
certification by 60 days, up to and including April 23, 2025, to
allow the Plaintiff the opportunity to conduct discovery necessary
to satisfy Rule 23's requirements for class certification.
The deadline to move for class certification is February 24, 2025.
However, the Plaintiff requires additional discovery to obtain
documents from Defendant, complete the parties’ discovery
conferral, and to obtain amended responses and/or move to compel
better discovery responses as appropriate.
No party will be prejudiced by the requested extension. To the
contrary, Plaintiff will be prejudiced if not permitted to complete
class certification discovery prior to seeking class
certification.
Granting the extension will not impact any other case deadlines as
Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's class certification
motion is still months away.
Despite failing to produce a single document to date, Defendant
opposes the requested extension but does not oppose a 30 day
extension.
This putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act was filed on Sept. 4, 2024.
On Nov. 19, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, motion
to strike Plaintiff's class allegations, motion to stay discovery
pending ruling on its motions to dismiss and to strike, and, in the
alternative, a motion to bifurcate discovery requesting that, even
if the Court doesn't stay all discovery, it stay class discovery.
Alleviate Tax provides tax relief services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=22J6qp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq.
539 W. Commerce St. 1899
Dallas, TX 75208
Telephone: (972) 767-9099
E-mail: nayeem@nnmpc.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Court OK's Sealing Stipulation
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an
order granting the Parties' stipulation regarding sealing of class
certification briefing:
-- The Parties shall have 28 days after the filing of the
Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion to certify class to (1)
file public versions of the parties' class certification
papers, with necessary redactions, and (2) file corresponding
motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3).
-- The Parties shall have 28 days after the filing of the
Plaintiffs' reply in support of Daubert Motion(s) in De Coster
to (1) file public versions of the Daubert briefing, with
necessary redactions, and (2) file corresponding motion(s) to
seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3).
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kiKaAC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
Kelly Fan, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
kellyf@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Aseem Chipalkatti, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
aseemchipalkatti@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
Meredith R. Dearborn, Esq.
Yotam Barkai, Esq.
Mark A. Weiner, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
ybarkai@paulweiss.com
mweiner@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties in De Coster Seek Filing Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order as follows:
1. The deadline for filing (1) public versions of the parties'
class certification papers, with necessary redactions, and
(2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3)
shall be 28 days after the filing of the Plaintiffs' reply
in support of motion to certify class in each case.
2. The deadline for filing (1) public versions of the parties'
Daubert papers in De Coster, with necessary redactions, and
(2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3)
shall be 28 days after the filing of the Plaintiffs' reply
in support of Daubert Motion(s) in De Coster.
3. All other provisions in the stipulated motion and order
regarding sealing of class certification briefing in Frame-
Wilson; De Coster; and Brown, and the stipulated motion and
order regarding expert deposition(s) and Daubert motion(s)
in De Coster remain unchanged.
On July 31, 2024, the Court granted the parties' motion stipulating
and agreeing to a procedure for filing and sealing in connection
with the class certification briefing.
The Court has since granted motions and stipulations extending the
class certification briefing deadlines in the above-captioned
actions.
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XPi2yM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
Kelly Fan, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
kellyf@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Aseem Chipalkatti, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
aseemchipalkatti@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
Meredith R. Dearborn, Esq.
Yotam Barkai, Esq.
Mark A. Weiner, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
ybarkai@paulweiss.com
mweiner@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: De Jesus Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Adriana Yarelis De Jesus, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 2025CUOE037385 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Ventura, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 26, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01620.
The Complaint asserts twelve causes of action: Failure to Pay All
Hours Worked; Failure to Pay Overtime; Wage Statement Violations;
Waiting Time Penalties; Unfair Competition; PAGA Allegations;
Pregnancy Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; Failure to
Accommodate in Violation of FEHA; Failure to Engage in Interactive
Process in Violation of FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of FEHA;
Retaliation for Requesting Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; and
Wrongful Termination.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lindsay E. Hutner, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415.655.1300
Facsimile: 415.707.2010
Email: Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com
- and -
Samuel S. Hyde, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.442.1111
Facsimile: 916.448.1709
Email: hydes@gtlaw.com
AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Filing in Hirsch Extended to March 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hirsch et al v. American
Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-04005 (W.D. Mo.,
Filed Jan. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an
order granting joint motion to further extend briefing deadlines
related to class certification.
1. Plaintiffs' motion for class March 19, 2025
certification shall be due on
or before:
2. Defendant's opposition brief to April 29, 2025
Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be due on
or before:
3. Plaintiffs' Reply Brief shall be May 21, 2025
due on or before:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
AmFam is an American private mutual company that focuses on
property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers commercial
insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage.[CC]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Filing in Varney Extended to March 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Varney v. American Family
Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-04004 (W.D. Mo., Filed
Jan. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order
granting joint motion to further extend briefing deadlines related
to class certification.
1. Plaintiffs' motion for class March 19, 2025
certification shall be due on
or before:
2. Defendant's opposition brief to April 29, 2025
Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be due on
or before:
3. Plaintiffs' Reply Brief shall be May 21, 2025
due on or before:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
AmFam is an American private mutual company that focuses on
property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers commercial
insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage.[CC]
AMERICAN FORTUNE: Aragon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Fortune
Foods, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Adan Aragon,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Fortune Foods, Inc., Rongcheng Trading, LLC, Case No.
25STCV05469 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 26, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
American Fortune Foods Inc is an active carrier in City Of
Industry, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seung Lyun Yang, Esq.
THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC
355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 1450
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152
Phone: 213-985-1150
Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com
AMERICAN MIDSTREAM: Interlocutory Review Denied in Thomas Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justices Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Karen L. Valihura and Gary F.
Traynor of the Delaware Supreme Court held that an interlocutory
review is not warranted in the appealed case captioned as AMERICAN
MIDSTREAM GP, LLC n/k/a THIRD COAST MIDSTREAM HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendant Below, Appellant, v. CRAIG W. THOMAS, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff Below,
Appellee, No. 22, 2025 (Del.).
American Midstream, GP, LLC n/k/a Third Coast Midstream Holdings,
LLC seeks interlocutory review of the Court of Chancery's order
denying its motion for summary judgment.
American Midstream Partners, LLC was a Delaware master limited
partnership. GP, which was wholly owned by affiliates of ArcLight
Capital Partners, LLC, was the Partnership's general partner. In
2018, ArcLight proposed a merger whereby it would acquire all
issued and outstanding Partnership units that it did not already
own. Because the offer presented a conflict of interest, GP
appointed a conflicts committee of independent directors to obtain
Special Approval, which would shield the Merger from judicial
review under Section 7.9(a) of the Partnership's limited
partnership agreement. The Conflicts Committee was charged with
negotiating with ArcLight on behalf of the Partnership, but it did
not have the authority to approve of the Merger on GP's behalf.
In connection with its negotiations with ArcLight, the Conflicts
Committee enlisted the aid of a financial advisor, Evercore Group
LLC, to provide it with a fairness opinion for the Conflicts
Committee's use in evaluating the Merger. The finalized engagement
letter provided, in relevant part, that "The Partnership and the
Conflicts Committee agree that any information or advice rendered
by Evercore in connection with this engagement is for the
confidential use of the Conflicts Committee only." After Evercore
delivered a thorough presentation on its Fairness Opinion to the
Conflicts Committee, the Conflicts Committee granted Special
Approval and, thereafter, GP's board of directors approved the
Merger.
In 2019, the plaintiff-below/appellee, Craig Thomas, a former
minority Partnership unitholder, filed a four-count class action
against GP in the Court of Chancery. Count I, which alleges that GP
had breached Section 7.9(a) of the LPA, survived GP's motion to
dismiss because the Court of Chancery found that it was reasonably
conceivable that the Conflicts Committee had not granted Special
Approval in good faith as required by the LPA.
In February 2024, GP moved for summary judgment on Count I under
Section 7.10(b) of the LPA, which provides for a conclusive
presumption of good faith to GP's actions when GP relies on the
advice or opinion of professionals with whom it has consulted. GP
argued that this conclusive presumption of good faith should
applied to either GP or the Conflicts Committee. On Dec. 17, 2024,
the Court of Chancery issued the Opinion denying GP's motion for
summary judgment.
The Court of Chancery found that:
(i) Section 7.10(b) does not apply to conflicted transactions;
(ii) even if Section 7.10(b) applied to conflicted transactions,
GP was could not avail itself of the presumption because GP had not
established that GP relied on the Fairness Opinion, that Evercore's
Fairness Opinion redounds to GP, or that the Conflicts Committee
was acting for GP (to the contrary, the Court of Chancery noted
that the Conflicts Committee was negotiating on behalf of the
Partnership against GP); and
(iii) the Conflicts Committee could not avail itself of the
presumption because the Conflicts Committee was not acting on
behalf of GP.
On Dec. 27, 2024, GP asked the Court of Chancery to certify an
interlocutory appeal of the Opinion. Thomas opposed the
application.
On Jan. 9, 2025, the Court of Chancery denied the application for
certification. As an initial matter, the court disagreed with GP
that the Opinion had decided a substantial issue of material
importance -- a threshold consideration under Rule 42. To the
contrary, the Court of Chancery found that the Opinion had merely
interpreted the contractual language of the LPA in a manner
consistent with Delaware case law. Nevertheless, and for the sake
of completeness, the Court of Chancery considered the Rule
24(b)(iii) factors cited by GP -- Factor A (the Opinion resolved a
question of law for the first time in this State), Factor B (trial
court decisions are conflicting on the question of law at issue),
Factor G (interlocutory review may terminate the litigation), and
Factor H (interlocutory review would serve the considerations of
justice) -- and concluded that they did not warrant the
certification of an interlocutory appeal.
The Supreme Court Justices agree with the Court of Chancery that
interlocutory review is not warranted in this case. Applications
for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of
the Court. Exercising their discretion and giving due weight to the
Court of Chancery's analysis, they have concluded that the
application for interlocutory review does not meet the strict
standards for certification under Rule 42(b). Exceptional
circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of the Opinion
do not exist, and the potential benefits of interlocutory review do
not outweigh the inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs
caused by an interlocutory appeal.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OKUS8F
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: N.D. Georgia Narrows Claims in Bracy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, grants in part and
denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
captioned LAMONT BRACY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05743-TWT (N.D. Ga.).
The lawsuit is a data breach case. The case involves the allegedly
improper handling of the putative class's personal data. Defendant
Americold Logistics LLC is a limited liability company and a
"global leader in temperature-controlled warehousing and
logistics." Six of the seven named Plaintiffs are individuals, who
either have been employed by the Defendant or applied for
employment with the Defendant. One of the named Plaintiffs receives
employee benefits through her father's employment with the
Defendant.
On April 26, 2023, the Defendant discovered that cybercriminals had
infiltrated its network servers and exfiltrated private information
of over 129,600 individuals. The Cactus cybercriminal ransomware
gang ("Cactus Gang") claimed responsibility for the cyberattack.
The Cactus Gang's modus operandi is to sell unencrypted private
information on the dark web.
All of the Plaintiffs provided their private information to the
Defendant and subsequently received a notice letter stating that an
unauthorized party accessed and removed data from the Defendant's
network. The Cactus Gang has posted on the internet that
information from the Defendant's networks would be coming soon. It
has already leaked a 6-gigabyte archive of accounting and financial
documents--including sensitive private information--that it
allegedly stole from the Defendant's network.
Based on these facts, the Plaintiffs have filed this putative class
action against the Defendant for allegedly failing to properly
secure and safeguard their private information.
The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in its entirety. The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims and--even if they
had standing--that they fail to state any of their claims.
The Court finds that their allegations are sufficient for the
Plaintiffs to meet their burden at this stage as to all claims and
all forms of relief. Accordingly, the Court need not consider other
possible theories of standing. The Court holds that at this stage
of the litigation all of the Plaintiffs have met their burden of
establishing standing.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' negligence claim (Count
I) should be dismissed because they fail to allege any cognizable
damages proximately caused by the cyber-attack.
Because the Defendant issued notice letters to the Plaintiffs
stating there had been a data breach that may have affected their
personal information and because the Cactus Gang took credit for
the Americold breach and announced that it would be posting the
information from it soon, the Court finds that the allegations
sufficiently assert that the Plaintiffs' information is in the
hands of criminals because of this data breach. Thus, the Court
will not dismiss the Plaintiffs' negligence claim for lack of
causation or cognizable damages.
The Plaintiffs base their negligence per se claim (Count II) on an
alleged violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act
(FTC Act). The Defendant asserts that this claim fails because the
Plaintiffs do not--and cannot--allege that they fall within the
class of persons Section 5 was intended to protect.
The Court agrees. Judge Thrash explains that the Plaintiffs are
neither consumers nor competitors. They are current and former
employees, as well as one beneficiary of an employee. Courts have
largely held that plaintiffs, who are not consumers or competitors,
are not within the class of persons protected by Section 5 of the
FTC Act.
Because the Plaintiffs are neither consumers nor competitors of the
Defendant, the Court concludes that they are not in the class of
persons protected by Section 5 of the FTC Act. The Court will,
therefore, dismiss Count II of the Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.
The Defendant argues that none of the Plaintiffs plausibly allege a
meeting of the minds. Without a showing of mutual assent, all of
the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of implied contract
(Count III), and the Court will dismiss the Count as such.
With respect to their unjust enrichment claim (Count IV), the
Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs fail to allege any benefit
that they conferred on the Defendant. The Plaintiffs counter that
the conferral of their private information and the savings the
Defendant enjoyed by not implementing adequate data security are
each cognizable benefits.
The Court disagrees with the Plaintiffs and will dismiss this
claim. Since the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that they
conferred a benefit to the Defendant, the Court will dismiss their
unjust enrichment claim.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged bad
faith and will, accordingly, deny the Motion to Dismiss as to Count
V (Litigation Expenses).
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have not alleged their
Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("GUDTPA") claim in
compliance with Rule 9(b).
Judge Thrash finds the Plaintiffs cite to no cases supporting that
as a cognizable form of damages. Nor do they provide any
explanation as to how their risk of future harm is any different
based on whether or not they know the scope of the data breach or
the subsequent remedial actions taken. Without doing so, the Court
cannot find that they have plausibly alleged a likelihood of future
damages stemming from the alleged unfair trade practice. Thus, the
Court will dismiss Count VI (GUDTPA claim) of the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' request for
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief (Count VII) on several
grounds. The Court rejects all of them. The Court, therefore, will
not dismiss this Count as duplicative at this time.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss as to Counts II, III, IV, & VI and denies the Motion as to
Counts I, V, & VII.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/z9pbc6d3 from PacerMonitor.com.
AMPAM PARKS: Ramirez Seeks Leave to File Class Exhibits Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfredo Ramirez, Ramon
Santos Castro and Ivan Fernandez, individually and as
representatives of a class of all others similarly situated and on
behalf of the AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (the "AMPAM ESOP" or the "ESOP"), v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical,
Inc., Charles E. Parks III, John D. Parks, John G. Case No.
5:24-cv-01038-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their application for leave to file under
seal certain exhibits in support of their motion for class
certification, and related citations in their supporting reply
memorandum.
The Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal only the exhibits and
related citations in their reply memorandum that were designated as
Confidential.
The AMPAM Defendants produced and designated as Confidential the
document submitted as Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Ryan Wheeler
dated February 20, 2025, and the Plaintiffs designated as
Confidential the documents submitted as Exhibits 4, 5 and 7 to the
Wheeler Declaration.
The Plaintiffs seek leave to file unredacted copies of these
exhibits, the Wheeler Declaration, and Plaintiffs' reply memorandum
under seal, and to file public versions with redactions applied.
AMPAM Parks provides mechanical contracting services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y2Pfpu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Ryan A. Wheeler, Esq.
Allison C. Pienta, Esq.
Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
Eleanor Frisch, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com
apienta@cohenmilstein.com
jschutz@cohenmilstein.com
efrisch@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Shaun P. Martin, Esq.
5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 260-2347
Facsimile: (619) 260-7933
E-mail: smartin@sandiego.edu
ANTHROPIC PBC: Seeks Case Management Conference in Bartz Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA BARTZ, ANDREA
BARTZ, INC., CHARLES GRAEBER, KIRK WALLACE JOHNSON, and MJ + KJ,
INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
ANTHROPIC PBC, Case No. 3:24-cv-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order setting a case
management conference so that the Parties and the Court can discuss
adjusting the case schedule to provide for consideration of a
motion for summary judgment before consideration of Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification
On Feb. 10, 2025, Anthropic presented a proposal to the Plaintiffs
for a revised case schedule to re-order the class certification and
dispositive motion deadlines, without changing the Dec. 1, 2025,
trial date.
After Plaintiffs refused that request, on February 19, 2025,
Anthropic requested that Plaintiffs stipulate to this request for a
case management conference to discuss this issue with the Court.
The Plaintiffs also did not agree with that request.
Deciding the merits of Anthropic's fair use defense before the
Plaintiffs move to certify the class is a more efficient way for
the case to proceed.
Finally, the Plaintiffs would not suffer prejudice from an
adjustment in the schedule. If Anthropic's motion for summary
judgment on fair use is denied, Plaintiffs may still seek class
certification. And, if Anthropic's summary judgment motion is
granted, absent members of the putative class remain free to file
suit against Anthropic.
Anthropic is an AI safety and research company based in San
Francisco.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hbHJaw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Douglas A. Winthrop, Esq.
Joseph Farris, Esq.
Jessica L. Gillotte, Esq.
Estayvaine Bragg, Esq.
Angel T. Nakamura, Esq.
Oscar Ramallo, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
Telephone: (415) 471-3100
Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
E-mail: Douglas.Winthrop@arnoldporter.com
Joseph.Farris@arnoldporter.com
Jessica.Gillotte@arnoldporter.com
Estayvaine.Bragg@arnoldporter.com
Angel.Nakamura@arnoldporter.com
Oscar.Ramallo@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Joseph R. Wetzel, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
E-mail: joe.wetzel@lw.com
APPLE COMMUTER: Abuladze Seeks to Withdraw Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAKHA ABULADZE, et al., v.
APPLE COMMUTER INC., et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
withdrawing motion to certify class.
The Plaintiffs include ERKEGUL ALSHIMBAY, TEMURBEK AMONOV, ALBERT
ARTABAEV, OLESYA BALAKIREVA, PARVIZ BASHIROV, KETEVAN CHACHUA,
TATIANA DAVID, SAYANA DOMSHOEVA, NATIA DUDUCHAVA, GIORGI GABISONIA,
ALISHER JABBAROV, ILYA KALPAKBAYEVA, NADEZHDA KHALTANOVA, BEKA
KHIPASHVILI, NATALIA LAPINA, ANUKI LOMIDZE, GVANTSA MIERZEJEWSKI
A/K/A CHRISTINA MARGALITASHVILI, CHINGIZ MIRZAMSEITOV, IRINA
MITROKHINA, AIDAR ORYNBEKOV, VALENTINA POKROVSKAIA, NURSULU
TAUKEBAYEVA, ANNA TCEBEKOVA, DZERASSA TEMIRAEVA, AKZHARKYN
YEDRISSOVA, and TAMAR ZABAKHIDZE.
Apple Commuter is a transportation service provider.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V35yAa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vano Haroutunian, Esq.
BALLON STOLL P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 405
New York, NY 10019
Telephone (212) 575-7900
Facsimile (212) 764-5060
E-mail: vharoutunian@ballonstoll.com
APPLE INC: Carbon Neutrality Claims Misleading, Dib Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
OTHAME DIB, JESUS GUERRERO, LUCA DELA CRUZ, JEANETTE PORILLO, PETER
GHANEM, RITA CRANE, NATHANIEL SANSOM, individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v. APPLE
INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-02043 (N.D. Cal.,
Feb. 26, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against Apple on behalf of
all persons in the United States who purchased the Apple Watch
Series 9, Apple Watch SE (2nd generation), or Apple Watch Ultra 2.
In September 2023, Apple announced the Products as what it claimed
were its first-ever "carbon neutral" products. Apple has
prominently marketed these Products as "carbon neutral," dedicating
substantial portions of its product launch events and marketing
materials to highlighting this purported environmental achievement.
According to Apple's representations, its carbon neutrality
strategy involves reducing around 75% of these Products’
emissions through various initiatives, while offsetting the
remaining percentage through what it calls "high-quality carbon
credits from nature-based projects."
However, Apple's carbon neutrality claims are false and misleading
because both projects fail to provide genuine, additional carbon
reductions. The Chyulu Hills Project purports to generate carbon
credits by preventing deforestation on land which has been legally
protected from deforestation since 1983, while the Guinan Project
claims to have planted trees on "barren land" that was already
heavily forested before the project began.
Apple charges and maintains premium prices for its smartwatch
products. Apple's ability to maintain these premium prices depends
heavily on brand differentiation and perceived product superiority,
including claims of environmental leadership. Research shows that
approximately 70% of consumers consider environmental
sustainability crucial in their purchasing decisions, with this
percentage being even higher among premium product consumers who
comprise Apple's target market, says the suit.
As a result of Apple's alleged misleading claims, consumers have
suffered economic injury in multiple ways: they paid a price
premium based in part on false environmental claims; the deceptive
marketing distorted the marketplace by falsely differentiating
Apple's products on environmental grounds; and, consumers did not
receive the benefit of their bargain—they paid for watches
marketed as environmentally superior but received products whose
environmental claims rely on ineffective and redundant offset
projects that fail to provide genuine carbon reductions.
The action seeks to remedy Apple's deceptive conduct and obtain
compensation for consumers who paid premium prices for Products
that failed to deliver their promised environmental benefits.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated consumers for violations of state consumer
protection laws, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust
enrichment, and fraud.
Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law
- and -
Fletch Trammell, Esq.
TRAMMELL PC
3262 Westheimer, #423
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (800) 405-1740
Facsimile: (800) 532-0992
E-mail: fletch@trammellpc.com
- and -
Don Bivens, Esq.
Teresita T. Mercado, Esq.
DON BIVENS, PLLC
15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ, 85254
Telephone: (602) 762-2661
E-mail: don@donbivens.com
teresita@donbivens.com
ARBORWORKS LLC: Settlement Class Certification Bid Due May 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gonzalez v. ArborWorks,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01030 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 15, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order that, by no later than
May 23, 2025, the parties shall file their motion for certification
of the settlement class and preliminary approval of the class
action settlement, to be heard by the presiding district judge.
All other deadlines and hearings are vacated. Failure to comply
with this order may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions on
any and all counsel as well as any party or parties who cause
non-compliance with this order, the Court says.
On Feb. 20, 2025, the parties filed a "Joint Stipulation to Extend
Deadline to File Motion for Class Certification."
In the Stipulation, the parties indicate that they were able to
"reach a global settlement" of this case and others and indicating
that a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement is
forthcoming.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Arborworks operates as a tree care services. The Company offers
storm cleanup, tree pruning and removal, and vegetation
management.[CC]
ASPHALT NY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ASPHALT NY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01094 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
26, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.asphalt-nyc.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times,
most recently on Sept. 24, 2024, to access the Defendant's Website
from the Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for the Defendant's
products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal
access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services.
Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner
that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was
unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and
was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the bed, asserts the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant offers products and services for online sale and
general delivery to the public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Rule 60(b) Motions Denied in Gaines Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York denied the plaintiff's motions
for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, seeking to vacate the dismissal of his third
amended complaint in the case captioned as ERNEST EDWARD GAINES,
Plaintiff, -against- ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICAL, Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-05323-LTS (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in French Robertson
Correctional Facility in Abilene, Texas, filed this action pro se.
On July 14, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed
in forma pauperis.
By order dated Aug. 28, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Third
Amended Complaint.
The civil judgment dismissing Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint
was entered on the docket on Sept. 3, 2024. Plaintiff's motions,
seeking relief under Rule 60(b), were given to prison officials for
mailing on Dec. 17, 2024, and the Court received the motions on
Jan. 2, 2025. Because Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motions were filed on
Dec. 17, 2024, more than 28 days after entry of judgment, the
pendency of the appeal deprives the Court of authority to grant the
motions.
The facts alleged in Plaintiff's pleadings are that, for a
six-month period (from Dec. 21, 2005, to June 12, 2006), while he
was at the Dallas County Jail in Texas, he was prescribed Seroquel
for his schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Plaintiff participated
in a class action suit brought in New York state court against
Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Astrazeneca LP, and
Astra USA, Inc. Two law firms acted as counsel for the class
action: Ferrer, Poirot & Wansbrough, which Plaintiff described as a
Dallas, Texas, law firm, and the Law Firm of Howard L. Nations, for
which Plaintiff provided an address in Houston, Texas.
In 2012, the class action suit settled. Counsel notified Plaintiff
and other class members that recovery for the suit was less than
expected because "the Seroquel team was never able to offer
sufficient scientific proof that Seroquel causes diabetes-related
injuries." Plaintiff's share of the settlement was $11,214.95 and,
after deduction of attorney's fees and costs, he received a
settlement payment of $6,336.71. At some point thereafter,
Plaintiff read in a Bloomberg News article that the average payout
for settlement of claims that Seroquel caused diabetes was $25,000.
In 2014, Plaintiff was diagnosed with diabetes.
Plaintiff, who remained incarcerated in Texas at the time of
bringing this action, gave his original 153-page complaint to
prison officials on June 9, 2021, for mailing. He sued the two law
firms that acted as class counsel and Astrazeneca Pharmaceutical.
The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should
not be dismissed on the ground that he had not met his burden of
demonstrating that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction of the
action.
In Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, he named only Astrazeneca
Pharmaceutical. He asserted that:
(1) non-party counsel "shorted him" $14,000 by paying him less
than the average reported payout in other Seroquel class action
suits; and
(2) he had reported to his attorneys in 2009, before settlement
in 2023, that he was "pre-diabetic", presumably suggesting that his
2012 settlement compensation should have been greater.
The Court understands Plaintiff to be making three arguments in
support of his motions to vacate the judgment:
(1) he should be permitted discovery to show that representation
by the class counsel in the state court action was inadequate;
(2) Astrazeneca's headquarters are in New York, and thus the
Court has diversity jurisdiction of his claims against it; and
(3) his complaint should be deemed filed as of April 2, 2020,
the date that he first filed in state court an application
regarding the class action suit, which was captioned for the
"United States Supreme Court for the State of New York" and was
returned to him unfiled.
Even under a liberal interpretation of his motion, the Court finds
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any of the grounds listed
in the first five clauses of Rule 60(b) apply. Therefore, the
motions under any of these clauses are denied.
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the
motions are also denied, the Court holds.
The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that
extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant relief under Rule
60(b)(6).
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nNRVHG from PacerMonitor.com.
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Bid to Distribute Settlement Funds in Poirier OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York grants the unopposed Motion for
Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds in the lawsuit
captioned SUZANNE POIRIER, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAKKT HOLDINGS, INC.
f/k/a VPC IMPACT ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, JOHN MARTIN, OLIBIA
STAMATOGLOU, GORDON WATSON, KAI SCHMITZ, and KURT SUMMERS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02283-PK (E.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Suzanne Poirier brought this action against the
Defendants on behalf of herself and a putative class consisting of
investors in Bakkt Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of federal
securities laws. Co-Lead Plaintiffs Tse Winston Win Kuen, James
Liner, and Rachna Mehrotra have filed an unopposed Motion for
Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds (the "Motion").
The parties previously negotiated and executed a proposed
settlement agreement with a total payment amount of $3 million. On
Aug. 3, 2022, the Court appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs Rachna
Mehrotra, Tse Winston Wing Kuen, and James Liner as class
representatives, and Pomerantz LLP and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as
class counsel ("Co-Lead Counsel").
On Sept. 21, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved the parties'
proposed class settlement, finding that it would likely be able to
approve the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and preliminarily certified a class for settlement purposes only
("Settlement Class"); and approved A.B. Data, Ltd., to act as
Claims Administrator for the class settlement and execute the
proposed notice program, including distributing the Notice and
Claim Form to Settlement Class members.
On April 16, 2024, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement as memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, approved
service awards to Co-Lead Plaintiffs, approved an award of
attorneys' fees and costs, and entered final judgment, dismissing
the case with prejudice but retaining jurisdiction until all
installments have been paid by the Defendants as provided for in
the Settlement Agreement.
The Plaintiffs now request approval to disburse settlement funds
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Motion is unopposed, and
the Defendants do not object to the request for disbursement. 6,016
Proofs of Claims were received, 4,198 of which the Plaintiffs
contend should be rejected "for reasons other than inadequate
documentation."
The Plaintiffs request that 1,818 valid and properly-documented
claims, representing a total loss of $14,215,574.99, be accepted
and receive a distribution. This total is comprised of 1,050 claims
received by Jan. 9, 2024 ("Timely Valid Claims"), and 768
late-filed claims that were postmarked after Jan. 9, 2024, but were
received on or before Oct. 17, 2024 ("Late Valid Claims"). The
Plaintiffs contend that the Late Valid Claims should be approved
because they have not caused delay in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund or otherwise prejudiced any Authorized Claimant.
Finally, to effectuate the distribution, the Plaintiffs request
that A.B. Data be awarded $25,549.42, the maximum cost it estimates
necessary to conduct the initial distribution.
Following the Plaintiffs' receipt and analysis of all Proofs of
Claims that were submitted, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds. The distribution
plan for the Net Settlement Fund as set forth in the Walter
Declaration and accompanying exhibits is approved.
The funds that are currently in the Net Settlement Fund (less any
necessary amounts to be withheld for payment of potential tax
liabilities, remaining costs of administering the Settlement, and
related fees and expenses) will be distributed on a pro rata basis
to the Authorized Claimants identified in Exhibits D and E to the
Walter Declaration, at the direction of Co-Lead Counsel, pursuant
to the Settlement Agreement and the Plan of Allocation and the Net
Settlement Fund set forth in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action (see Notice Packet) that was distributed
pursuant to this Court's Order.
Any person asserting any rejected or subsequently-filed claims are
finally and forever banned as of Oct. 17, 2024, the cut-off date
used to finalize the administration and after which date no
additional Proofs of Claim will be processed or considered for
inclusion in the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
The Court finds that the administration of the Settlement and
proposed distribution of the Net Settlement Fund comply with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and that all persons involved in
the review, verification, calculation, tabulation, or any other
aspect of the processing of the claims submitted herein, or
otherwise involved in the administration or taxation of the
Settlement or the Net Settlement Fund, including Class Counsel and
the A.B. Data, are released and discharged from any and all claims
arising out of such involvement.
The checks for distribution to Authorized Claimants will bear the
notation "CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION 120
DAYS AFTER DISTRIBUTION DATE." Class Counsel and A.B. Data are
authorized to locate and/or contact any Authorized Claimant, who
has not cashed his, her, or its check within said time.
The Court finds, among other things, the proposed fees and expenses
for A.B. Data to conduct the Initial Distribution, $25,549.42, to
be reasonable. This amount will be paid from the Settlement Fund as
specified in the Settlement Agreement.
At such time as Co-Lead Counsel, in consultation with the Claims
Administrator, determine that no additional distributions are
cost-effective, then the remaining funds, after payment of any
unpaid fees and expenses incurred in administering the Settlement,
will be contributed to a non-sectarian, not-for-profit
organization, to be recommended by Co-Lead Counsel and approved by
the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ynm78zk7 from PacerMonitor.com.
BALANCED HEALTHCARE: Illegally Collects Debt, Rowe Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN ROWE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;
Plaintiff v. BALANCED HEALTHCARE RECEIVABLES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2025LA000234 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., February 21, 2025) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act.
According to the complaint, the BHR violated the law when it
communicated with Plaintiff in an attempt to collect a debt without
providing the name of the current creditor and without informing
Plaintiff that failing to dispute the debt within 30 days will
result in the debt collector assuming the validity of the debt.
BHR overshadowed Plaintiff's rights by failing to send a Dunning
letter informing Plaintiff of his rights while attempting to
collect a debt in violation of FDCPA. The Defendant further
violated the law by failing to comply with the Illinois Fair
Patient Billing Act when it did not include a description of
medical services provided when attempting to collect a debt,
asserts the complaint.
Balanced Healthcare Receivables, LLC is engaged in the business of
a collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect
consumer debts originally owed to others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Liam M. Hayden, Esq.
Todd A. Deger, Esq.
HD Legal, LLC
875 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312) 647-7813
E-mail: lhayden@hd-legal.net
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Seeks to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply Brief
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO MOGOLLON, et al.,
v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Case No. 3:19-cv-03070-N-BV (N.D.
Tex.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting
motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f) to
strike those portions of Plaintiffs' reply brief or, in the
alternative, to grant BNY's request for leave to file the
accompanying sur-reply.
The Court has routinely held that raising new arguments and or
evidence for the first time in reply is inappropriate. Plaintiffs
engaged in just such improper conduct in their reply filing in
support of their motion for class certification.
In their brief they present new evidence and arguments which were
available to them when they filed their motion for class
certification concerning alleged New Jersey contacts for Defendant,
as well as newly-filed exhibits in a reply appendix.
Bank of New York Mellon is an American international financial
services company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z53LXt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas M. Farrell, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Chapman, Esq.
Seth M. Kruglak, Esq.
Melek J. Dunn, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
845 Texas Avenue, 24th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 571-9191
Facsimile: (713) 571-9652
E-mail: tfarrell@mcguirewoods.com
jchapman@mcguirewoods.com
skruglak@mcguirewoods.com
mdunn@mcguirewoods.com
BATTLE CREEK: Parker Suit Seek to Certify Delivery Driver Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Parker and Paul
Adams, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Battle
Creek Pizza, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00277-PLM-RSK (W.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
class action, and designating Mr. Parker and Mr. Adams as the
representative of the following Michigan and Indiana classes,
respectively:
"All non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked at
any of the Hungry Howie's Pizza locations under the ownership
or control of Kevin Hershock at any time from March 27, 2017
to Feb. 21, 2025 in the State of Michigan."
"All non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked at
any of the Hungry Howie's Pizza locations under the ownership
or control of Kevin Hershock at any time from March 27, 2017
to Feb. 21, 2025 in the State of Indiana."
In connection with this certification, the Plaintiffs move this
Court to affirm the selection of counsel by appointing Biller &
Kimble, LLC, and Bos & Glazier P.L.C. as class counsel pursuant to
Rule 23(g).
The Plaintiffs also ask that they be permitted to send notice of
this lawsuit to putative class members pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2).
As set forth in the accompanying memorandum, this action meets each
of the prerequisites for class certification.
The Plaintiffs challenge the uniform pay policies and standards
that Defendants applied to all their delivery drivers.
The Plaintiff Parker worked as a delivery driver at one of
Defendants' Hungry Howie's Pizza franchise locations in Battle
Creek, Michigan from February to May of 2019.
The Defendant is a pizza-delivery company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Hm0j4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
CUNNINGHAM DALMAN PC
940 Monroe Ave NW, Suite 253
Grand Rapids, MI 49422
Telephone: (616) 392-1821
E-mail: brad@cunninghamdalman.com
- and -
Andrew Kimble, Esq.
Laura E. Farmwald, Esq.
Emily Hubbard, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
lfarmwald@billerkimble.com
ehubbard@billerkimble.com
BEST BUY: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Jewel
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jewel Jordan and Michael
Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-01066-DWF-TNL (D. Minn.),
the Hon. Judge Donovan Frank entered an order granting Best Buy's
motion to strike the class allegations.
The Court finds that the class allegations brought by Walsh are not
clearly uncertifiable, so his claims may stand for now. Best Buy's
motion to strike the class allegations as to Walsh is denied.
1. The Defendant Best Buy's motion to compel arbitration of the
claims raised by the Plaintiff Jewel Jordan is granted.
2. The Defendant Best Buy's motion to strike the class
allegations of Plaintiff Jewel Jordan is granted.
3. The Defendant Best Buy's motion to strike the class
allegations of the Plaintiff Michael Walsh is denied.
4. This matter is stayed as to the Plaintiff Jewel Jordan's
individual claims pending resolution via arbitration.
Jordan and Walsh, on behalf of themselves and all other consumers
similarly situated, brought the current action against Best Buy to
recover economic damages associated with the Insignia pressure
cooker.
Best Buy moves to compel arbitration of all disputes raised by
Jordan, arguing that the air fryer purchase bound Jordan to Best
Buy's Terms.
Jewel Jordan purchased a 6-quart model of the pressure cooker from
a store in Illinois in the summer of 2022 for approximately $60.
Best Buy is an American multinational consumer electronics
retailer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lLyVou at no extra
charge.[CC]
BH MANAGEMENT: Must Address Settlement Class Issues by March 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida ordered the parties in the
case captioned as DOUGLAS CHIODINI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-147-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.) to file a
supplement to address concerns with respect to Douglas Chiodini's
ability to adequately represent both proposed settlement classes on
or before March 10, 2025.
Pending before the undersigned on referral is the parties' Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Proposed
Notice Plan. In part, the parties request that the Court
preliminary approve the settlement and find that the parties have
shown that the Court will likely approve the agreement under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and will certify the settlement
class.
Whether a class is certified for settlement or for trial, the Court
must find that the prerequisites for class certification under Rule
23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met.
In the alternative, the parties may within the allotted time file a
renewed joint motion along with a revised proposed order, in which
case the Court would consider only the renewed joint motion and
moot the pending motion.
Chiodini seeks, without opposition, to certify two groups for
settlement purposes:
The Security Deposit Class: All persons in the State of Florida who
(1) leased a dwelling unit in a property managed by BH Management;
(2) did not receive a Fla. Stat. sec. 83.49(3)(a) compliant notice
letter; (3) had any portion of their security deposit retained; and
(4) do not owe an alleged balance to BH Management or to the
property owner. (There are 5,207 members of the Security Deposit
Class).
The Security Deposit Balance Class: All persons in the State of
Florida who (1) leased a dwelling unit in a property managed by BH
Management; (2) did not receive a Fla. Stat. Sec. 83.49(3)(a)
compliant notice letter; (3) had any portion of their security
deposit retained; and (4) allegedly owe a balance to BH Management
or to the property owner. (There are 827 members of the Security
Deposit Balance Class).
A primary distinction, therefore, exists between each class based
on whether Defendant claims the class members still owe a balance.
Chiodini seems to only belong to the Security Deposit Balance Class
but seeks to represent all members. Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the
representative parties fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class.
The Court questions whether Chiodini can provide adequate
representation when his proposed class may have divergent interests
from the individuals who do not purportedly owe money to Defendant.
The parties do not assist the Court in finding an answer to that
inquiry because they provide no analysis on it. Instead, they
include a general citation to authority regarding the class
representation factor and summarily conclude that the named
Plaintiff in this matter has no interests antagonistic to the class
that he seeks to represent. The Court is not sure that statement is
accurate because the issue is simply not briefed.
And the Court is especially hesitant to find that Chiodini can
adequately represent both classes at this juncture based on the
settlement structure and the attorney fee provision.
The parties claim that Defendant agrees to release collection of
certain amounts and the Plaintiff and the Class will therefore
receive non-monetary benefits with a total value of $419,178.47
under the Settlement Agreement.
But the parties are only able to claim that the fee is typical at
28% if they include the $419,178.47 "non-monetary benefit" figure
into the total. Yet the "non-monetary benefit" seems to only
"benefit" the class made up of members who purportedly owe a
balance. By increasing the total "constructive common fund" by
adding in $419,178.47 -- a value that is not extended to the
Security Deposit Class -- to reach $1,409,178.47, the attorney fees
seem reasonable at 28 percent. If the "non-monetary benefit" is
removed, however, from the equation and the $396,148.34 fee is then
reviewed for fairness, the percentage looks quite different.
The point is that if attorney fees can be determined based on the
total settlement fund as the parties contend, and the total fund
includes a "value" or "benefit" that extends to only one class--
Chiodini's class -- the Court is not sure that he can adequately
represent the class that may not need the "benefit" for purposes of
determining an appropriate amount to go to the attorneys.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CI2ZA5 from PacerMonitor.com.
BICHACHI SHOPPES: Disabled Can't Access Property, Brito Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BICHACHI SHOPPES, LLC; and MIAMI LUXURY
CATERING SERVICE, CORP d/b/a EL TAMALITO CUBANO RESTAURANT,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20829 (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated
against the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated mobility
impaired persons, by denying access to, and full and equal
enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of its property, as prohibited by
the ADA. The Defendants' property has architectural barriers in
parking, entrance access and path of travel, and public restrooms.
As a result of the aforementioned discrimination through repeated
exposure to architectural barriers, the Plaintiff has suffered, and
continues to suffer, discrimination, injury and damage, says the
suit.
Bichachi Shoppes, LLC is a commercial property owner and operator
located at 1081 West 29th Street, Hialeah, Florida.
Miami Luxury Catering Service, Corp, doing business as El Tamalito
Cubano Restaurant, is a commercial restaurant owner and operator
located in Miami Gardens, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM CUMALANDER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00176-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis McDonough
entered a class certification scheduling order:
-- Disclosure of rebuttal expert May 12, 2025
testimony on class issues shall
be made by the parties on or
before:
-- All discovery related to class June 2, 2025
certification issues shall be
completed by:
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class June 30, 2025
certification shall be filed on
or before:
-- Defendant's response shall be July 21, 2025
filed on or before:
-- Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall July 28, 2025
be filed on or before:
The Court will convene a case management conference after
resolution of Plaintiff's motion for class certification to set
remaining pretrial deadlines.
Bluecross offers health plan services such as life insurance,
accidental death and dismemberment, short-term and long-term
disability, employee assistance program, long-term care, vision
care, cancer care, and critical care services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e41l1y at no extra
charge.[CC]
BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Blueprint Medicines Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 15, 2025, that on June 7, 2024, a
purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against
the company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, with
the caption "Johnson v. Blueprint Medicines Corporation," Case No.
2024-0625.
Plaintiff claims in the complaint that a "Proxy Access" provision
in the company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective November
30, 2022, is invalid under Delaware law because it allegedly usurps
the right of stockholders to select the members of the board of
directors, and plaintiff seeks declaratory relief invalidating that
provision, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.
On October 7, 2024, the lawsuit was consolidated with twelve other
lawsuits against companies with similar bylaw provisions under the
caption "In re Irrevocable Resignation Bylaw Litigation,"
Consolidated C.A. No. 2024-0538-JTL. On October 11, 2024, the
company, together with the other companies in the consolidated
action, filed an opening brief in support of a motion to dismiss
the complaint. Plaintiff filed an answering brief on November 25,
2024, and the company filed a reply brief on December 20, 2024.
Blueprint Medicines is a global, fully-integrated biopharmaceutical
company focused on allergy/inflammation and oncology/hematology.
BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Faces Taylor Stockholder Suit in Del. Ch.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blueprint Medicines Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 15, 2025, that on November 22,
2024, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action against
the company, the members of the board of directors and certain
executive officers of the company, as well as a derivative action
against the members of the board of directors and certain executive
officers of the company, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in an action captioned "Taylor v. Haviland, et al.," C.A.
No. 2024-1203-JTL.
Plaintiff claims that the record date for the company's 2024 annual
meeting of stockholders, which was the close of business on Friday,
April 12, 2024, did not comply with the 60-day maximum under
Section 213(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL),
because it was 61 days before the date of the 2024 annual meeting.
Plaintiff brings direct claims for violation of Section 213(a) of
the DGCL and breach of fiduciary duty, and derivative claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and seeks a
declaration that certain actions taken in connection with the
company's annual meeting of stockholders are void, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.
Blueprint Medicines is a global, fully-integrated biopharmaceutical
company focused on allergy/inflammation and oncology/hematology.
BOYKIN FARMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTOBAL LOPEZ LOPEZ and
GILBERTO FLORES LOZANO, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons, v. BOYKIN FARMS, INC., RHODES FARMING,
LLC, WILLIE C. BOYKIN, III, MATTHEW Z. RHODES, TONY D. LEE, d/b/a
LEE AND SONS FARMS, TONY CAMERON LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, and
CLINT LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, Case No. 5:22-cv-00491-BO-RN
(E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
them a 30-day extension of time for filing a reply to Defendants'
response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for certification
of North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) and Contract Classes
and Subclasses and to approve class notice, through and including
March 31, 2025.
The Plaintiffs also request an Order granting them a thirty-day
extension of time for filing a response to the Defendants Boykin
Farms, Inc., Willie C. Boykin, III, Matthew Z. Rhodes and Rhodes
Farming, LLC's motion for summary judgment and motion to decertify
conditionally-certified Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective,
Lee Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, and Lee
Defendants' motion to decertify collective action, through and
including April 7, 2025.
Boykin is a family-owned agricultural business based in Wilson, NC,
specializing in the cultivation and distribution of a variety of
crops.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T4gmBw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clermont F. Ripley, Esq.
Carol L. Brooke, Esq.
NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: (919) 856-2144
Facsimile: (919) 856-2175
E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org
carol@ncjustice.org
- and -
Jonathan Wall, Esq.
HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
301 n. Elm St., Suite 800
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 273-1600
Facsimile: (336) 274-4650
E-mail: jwall@greensborolaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
F. Marshall Wall, Esq.
Elizabeth King, Esq.
CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP
Raleigh, NC Carolina 27611-7808
E-mail: mwall@cshlaw.com
eking@cshlaw.com
- and -
Kieran J. Shanahan, Esq.
SHANAHAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
128 E. Hargett Street, Ste 300
Raleigh, NC 27601
E-mail: kieran@shanahanlawgroup.com
- and -
Luther D. Sarling, Esq.
DAUGHTRY, WOODARD, LAWRENCE & STARLING
Smithfield, NC 27577
E-mail: lewstarling@dwlslaw.com
BOZZUTO'S INC: Loiseau Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loiseau v. Bozzuto's Inc.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-01485 (D. Conn., Filed Nov. 21, 2022), the Hon.
Janet C. Hall Judge entered an order granting in part and dying in
part motion for class certification.
The court finds that Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy, as well as the implied
requirement ofascertainability, are satisfied with respect to a
class of hourly warehouse associates, butonly for certain of the
plaintiffs claims.
With respect to the Plaintiffs' disparate impact claims, the motion
is granted with respect to the claims as they apply to the
six-month performance review system and Bozzuto's Bid Policy. The
Motion is denied with respect to the plaintiffs' disparate impact
claims as they apply to promotion policies.
With respect to the Plaintiffs' disparate treatment claims, the
Motion is granted, again only with respect to a class of hourly
warehouse associates.
With respect to the Plaintiffs' hostile work environment claims,
the Motion is denied. The court finds that, with regard to a class
of hourly warehouse associates,common questions predominate over
individual ones, and that a class action is superior to other
methods of adjudicating the controversy on the plaintiffs'
disparate impact and disparate treatment claims.
Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the court certifies the foregoing claims
with respect to a class of hourly warehouse associates. The court
exercises its discretion to modify the class definition to the
following:"
"All black, hourly warehouse associates employed in Bozzuto's
warehouses, who have held the titles or positions of selector,
forklift operator, checker, loader, clerk, slotter, support
associate, cleaner, pallet auditor, wrapper, runner, between
Nov. 21, 2018 and the date of class certification."
Daniel Kotchen, Lindsey Grunert, and Kotchen & Low LLP are
appointed class counsel on behalf of the revised class, with
Nitor Egbarin serving as local counsel.
In light of the date of this Ruling, the court sets the deadline
for dispositive motions to be filed to March 21, 2025.
The nature of suit states civil rights -- discrimination
(employment).
Bozzuto's is a service wholesale distributor of food and household
products to retailers in New England, New York, and New Jersey.[CC]
BROWN BROTHERS: Alzuarte Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LOPEZ ALZUARTE, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. BROWN BROTHERS ASPHALT & CONCRETE, LLC, RAPID MATERIAL
TRANSPORT, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00639-SKC (D. Colo., Feb. 26,
2025) is a class action complaint brought under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, by the Plaintiff on his
own behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons
against the Defendants, his employer for WARN Act purposes.
The Defendants operate a manufacturing plant located at 9190 Monaco
Street, Henderson, CO, where the Plaintiff and those he seeks to
represent worked.
Within 90 days of Dec. 6, 2024, the Defendants abruptly terminated
several groups of employees, unilaterally and without proper notice
to employees or staff, terminating over 50 employees and at least
33% of active full-time employees, including Plaintiff, at the
Facility.
The Plaintiff was terminated on Dec. 6, 2024, as part of a mass
layoff. He was notified on Dec. 2, 2024, that he would be laid off.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendants and
were terminated as part of the foreseeable result of a mass lay off
or plant closing ordered by the Defendants on or around Dec. 6,
2024 and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60
days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendants,
as required by the WARN Act.
The Defendant is a commercial asphalt and concrete contractor
serving Denver and the Front Range.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Ian Bensberg, Esq.
COHENMALAD
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com
ibensberg@cohenmalad.com
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-00742 (D.
Minn., Feb. 26, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's
Website www.buffalowildwings.com (the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are
blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In
addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a
companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act
(MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind.
The Defendant offers dine in and take-out food and beverages for
sale including, but not limited to, wings, appetizers, sandwiches,
burgers, salads, wraps, desserts, sauces, beverages, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
BURLINGTON CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Gibson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSIAH GIBSON, on behalf
of himself and on all others similarly situated, v. BURLINGTON
CAPITAL PM GROUP, INC. and BURLINGTON CAPITAL PROPERTIES, LLC, Case
No. 8:24-cv-00299-RFR-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Robert
Rossiter, Jr. entered an order acknowledging partial dismissal:
The parties request the Court dismiss that part of Gibson's
putative class-action claims under FLSA without prejudice, leaving
the rest of his Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Nebraska Wage
and Hour Act (NWHA), Neb. and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act (WPCA).
FLSA, NWHA, and WPCA claims in tact -- including his state-law
rounding claims. They report that dismissal did not result from any
monetary settlement or compensation between the parties
The FLSA rounding claim set forth in Gibson’s Second Amended
Collective and Class Action Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice pursuant to the parties’ joint stipulation.
On Nov. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff Josiah Gibson filed a Second
Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint against his employer,
defendants Burlington Capital PM Group, Inc., and Burlington
Capital Properties, LLC.
Gibson complains that a number of Burlington's practices and
policies violated employees' rights under FLSA, NWHA, and
Collection Act. Those alleged practices include Burlington's
deduction of pay for meal breaks that employees worked through,
failure to include employees' total remuneration in calculating
overtime pay, management of on-call coverage, and implementation of
a rounding policy on employees’ time entries.
Burlington Capital provides investment management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cTopt9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Settlement Approval in Kirsten Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case captioned as AVIVA KIRSTEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant, KANSAS GILLEO, Plaintiff-Appellee, JEREMY
PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, SYDNEY RUSEN; ESTEBAN MORALES; DOUG
WALLACE; BRETT RIGAS; EVENCIO DIAZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CALIFORNIA
PIZZA KITCHEN, INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 23-55288 (9th Cir.),
Judges Kenneth K. Lee, Richard R. Clifton and Daniel P. Collins of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the approval by the United States District Court for the Central
District of California of a class settlement but reversed the
attorneys' fee award.
California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. is a restaurant chain offering
California-style pizza at about two-hundred locations across the
country. But in November 2021, CPK was not in the news for its
trademark Original BBQ Chicken Pizza or its underrated Thai Chicken
Pizza. Rather, CPK revealed that a cyberattack had compromised the
personal information of over 100,000 former and current employees.
That disclosure spurred lawyers to race to the courthouse and file
competing class action lawsuits against CPK to get a slice of the
action.
One group of plaintiffs' lawyers struck a settlement with CPK. The
monetary value of the class's claims were (at most) around
$950,000, yet the attorneys sought $800,000 in fees. A competing
group of plaintiffs' lawyers challenged that settlement, contending
that they could deliver a deal for the class that would top it.
Despite expressing some reservations, the district court approved
the settlement.
The panel held that district courts may approve claims-made
settlements -- even those that raise indicia of collusion -- so
long as they adhere to procedural requirements and find the
settlement "fair, reasonable, and adequate" under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e). Although the district court's preliminary and final approval
orders were sparse and memorialized little of the district court's
rationale, the panel did not remand because the panel could
reasonably infer the district court's rationale from the record,
which was unusually extensive. The panel held that the district
court properly applied the In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab.
Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011), heightened standard to review
the settlement for collusion. The panel concluded that upon a
review of the record, the district court neither procedurally erred
nor abused its discretion in finding the settlement substantively
acceptable. The panel thus affirmed the approval of the class
settlement.
The panel reversed the fee award because the district court did not
assess the actual value of the settlement and compare it to the
fees requested. The panel remanded for the district court to
determine the settlement's actual value to class members and award
reasonable and proportionate attorneys' fees, consistent with this
opinion.
Judge Collins concurred in the judgment to the extent that the
majority reversed and remanded the district court's approval of the
fee award. He dissented from the majority's decision to affirm the
approval of the underlying settlement because, in approving the
final settlement proposal before class certification, the district
court provided little explanation as to why it approved this
settlement and instead issued a series of perfunctory orders,
despite the fact that:
(1) the final settlement triggers every Bluetooth factor;
(2) the settlement's final value ended up being nearly a fourth
of the estimated "conservative" value presented at the preliminary
approval hearing; and
(3) the settlement's proposed fee award comprises nearly 46% of
the entire settlement.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iyGbpT
CAPITAL ONE: Loses to Dismiss Jensen WCEMA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington denied Capital One Financial
Corporation's motion to dismiss and/or strike the class allegations
in the case captioned as TAMIE JENSEN, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-00727-KKE (W.D.
Wash.).
Plaintiff Tamie Jensen received a text message from a contact
containing content prepared by Defendant Capital One Financial
Corporation as part of its "Refer a Friend" credit card promotion.
Jensen filed this lawsuit against Capital One, claiming that the
transmission of this commercial text message violates Washington's
Commercial Electronic Mail Act and therefore violates Washington's
Consumer Protection Act as well.
Capital One filed a motion to dismiss, contending that Jensen's
claims fail for a number of
reasons:
(1) because Capital One is immune under Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act from liability for text messages it did
not directly send;
(2) because Jensen's claims seek to interfere with Capital One's
power to advertise and market its credit cards and are therefore
preempted by the National Bank Act; and
(3) because Jensen has failed to state a CEMA claim because she
has failed to allege that Capital One either initiated the text
message or substantially assisted in transmitting the message.
The Court rejects each of these contentions and will therefore deny
Capital One's motion to dismiss.
Capital One has not shown that it is entitled to Section 230
immunity for text messages forwarded by its customers that it
authored entirely itself, and thus the Court finds that the CDA
does not provide a basis for dismissing Jensen's claims.
Capital One contends that requiring it to comply with CEMA
effectively forecloses commercial referral advertising to
non-customers via text message and therefore it is preempted under
the NBA.
The Court emphasizes that although Capital One may prefer to
advertise in its chosen manner rather than in a CEMA-compliant
manner, it has not cited authority indicating that CEMA's
restrictions are significant to the degree that they are preempted.
Accordingly, the Court finds that requiring Capital One to comply
with CEMA would not significantly impair its ability to advertise
its credit cards and thus finds no preemption in this case.
The Court also finds that Capital One's incomplete notice in its
mobile app (and complete lack of notice on its website) does not
undercut the sufficiency of Jensen's allegations supporting her
CEMA claim, namely that Capital One provided substantial assistance
as defined in the statute to its customers in the transmission of
commercial text messages. The Court accordingly denies Capital
One's motion to dismiss this claim.
Capital One's motion also contains a request to strike Jensen's
class allegations because the proposed class lacks commonality and
is improperly defined in "fail-safe" terms.
Capital One moves to strike them under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f).
Because the class is defined as people who received a "Refer a
Friend" message without having provided advance clear and
affirmative consent, Capital One contends that the facts regarding
consent for each class member will be different and thus warrant
individualized investigation. Under these circumstances, where
intensely factual questions will dominate each class member's
claim, Capital One argues that the putative class lacks
commonality. In the alternative, it argues that because membership
in the putative class is tied to the ultimate question of
liability, Jensen's complaint creates an
impermissible fail-safe class.
The Court understands Capital One's concerns regarding the
potential need for individualized investigation, the likelihood
that Jensen's class definition is impermissibly fail-safe and/or
circular, and the difficulty of ascertaining class members -- but
finds that these questions should not be resolved now. Rule 12(f)
motions are generally disfavored as a delay tactic, and especially
disfavored with respect to class allegations because the shape and
form of a class action evolves only through the process of
discovery.
The Court therefore declines to find at this time that the class is
uncertifiable as a matter of law and denies Capital One's motion to
strike as premature.
The parties must file an updated class-action joint status report
regarding case scheduling disputes and/or agreements no later than
March 14, 2025.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tic5Wd from PacerMonitor.com.
CAPSTONE CYPRESS: Davis Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. CAPSTONE CYPRESS OPCO, LLC D/B/A CYPRESS PLACE ASSISTED LIVING,
MME CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC AND BEJE FOSTER, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No.
2:25-cv-00235-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Feb. 25, 2025), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime
that is required to be paid by the FLSA.
The Plaintiff routinely worked long hours and consistently worked
more than forty hours per week. Instead of paying the Plaintiff for
all hours worked, Defendants regularly subtracted 30 minutes per
day from the Plaintiff's reported hours, deductions that were
ostensibly for lunch breaks even though the Plaintiff rarely took
lunch. Defendants would also regularly reduce the Plaintiff's
reported hours in an attempt to minimize or even eliminate her
overtime hours.
Although she consistently worked very long hours, well over forty
hours per work week, the Plaintiff was not properly compensated for
her overtime hours. The Defendants have employed and are employing
other individuals who have performed duties for Defendants under
the same pay provisions as the Plaintiff, in that they were hourly
employees who regularly worked more than forty hours per week who
have had their overtime hours improperly reduced by Defendants.
The Defendants have knowingly, willfully, or with reckless
disregard carried out, and continue to carry out, their illegal
pattern or practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff and the Class
Members overtime pay for all hours worked over forty per workweek,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants from January 2024
through January 2025 as an hourly medication technician.
The Defendants operate an assisted living facility in Jefferson,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Phone: (512) 799-2048
Email: doug@welmakerlaw.com
CARING LLC: Steals Senior Living Community Customers, Cedar Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CEDAR COMMUNITIES AT COMMERCE, LLC, d/b/a BROOKSIDE COMMERCE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CARING, LLC, d/b/a CARING.COM, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00922-JPB (N.D. Ga., February 21, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Lanham Act and
Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Fair Business
Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's false advertising and
deceptive and unfair practices of luring in customers, thereby
stealing prospective customers and leads from the Plaintiff and
other senior living communities, while also harming their business
reputation and good will. According to the complaint, the Defendant
exclusively refers potential customers to senior living communities
that pay it a commission, increasing care and rent costs while
excluding high-quality options like the Plaintiff, who decline to
participate in its pay-to-play model. Even more egregiously, the
Defendant leverages the names of the Plaintiff and other senior
living communities in online search results to drive traffic to its
own website, creating the illusion that these communities are part
of its placement and referral network when they are not. As a
result of the Defendant's false advertising and deceptive and
unfair practices, the Plaintiff and similarly situated senior
living communities suffered financial and reputational damages.
Cedar Communities at Commerce, LLC, d/b/a Brookside Commerce, is a
senior living community in Georgia.
Caring, LLC, d/b/a Caring.com, is a web-based senior living
placement and referral service provider, doing business in Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Brent Irby, Esq.
IRBY LAW, LLC
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 936-8281
Email: brent@irbylaw.net
CF EAGLE: Can't Compel Arbitration in Maturo, et al. Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case captioned as DANIEL MATURO and MICHAEL WHITE,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CF EAGLE BROOK ARCIS, LLC, d/b/a Eagle Brook
Country Club, Defendant-Appellant, No. 23-MR-255 (Ill. App. Ct.),
Judges Susan Hutchinson, Mary Seminara-Schostok and Chris Kennedy
of the Apellate Court of Illinois affirmed the decision of the
Circuit Court of Kane County denying Eagle Brook's motion to compel
arbitration.
Plaintiff-Appellees, White and Maturo, filed a lawsuit against
Defendant-Appellant, CF Eagle Brook Arcis, LLC seeking
reimbursement of initiation deposits they paid to join the country
club. Eagle Brook subsequently filed a motion to compel arbitration
pursuant to an arbitration clause added to its Membership Plan in
August 2022. The trial court denied Eagle Brook's motion.
Eagle Brook now appeals the trial court's denial of that motion.
At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly denied
Eagle Brook's motion to compel arbitration. Eagle Brook argues that
the trial court erred for the following reasons:
(1) both federal and state law favors enforcement of arbitration
agreements;
(2) Eagle Brook's 2022 Membership Plan includes an agreement to
arbitrate;
(3) Maturo is subject to the arbitration agreement as Eagle
Brook provided proper notice of the modification adding the
arbitration agreement; and
(4) the arbitration agreement applies to White because he seeks
to assert a claim under the membership plan.
Eagle Brook also argues that any issues of enforceability should be
decided by an arbitrator.
Plaintiffs argues:
(1) Maturo is not subject to the arbitration agreement as he did
not receive proper notice;
(2) White is not subject to the arbitration agreement as he
terminated his membership in 2013;
(3) the default resolution provision is unconscionable; and
(4) the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply.
There are two provisions in the contract between the parties that
govern how the contract may be supplemented. The 2010 Rules and
Regulations provide that they may be supplemented by publication in
the Club's newsletter or by posting at the Club. The trial court
held that that Maturo did not receive proper notice and therefore
could not be bound by the arbitration agreement because:
(1) the contract required a specific form of notice be given to
supplement it; and
(2) Eagle Brook failed to comply with that notice requirement.
Eagle Brook argues that the trial court erred in this holding, as
"may" is a permissive term. The provisions from the 2010 Rules and
Regulations, therefore, authorized, but did not require Eagle Brook
to use its newsletter or physical postings to provide notice.
The Appellate Judges explain that the term 'may' is not immediately
followed by methods of notice. Rather, the term 'may' is
immediately followed by the term 'be supplemented.' So, Eagle Brook
was permitted to supplement the rules, but not mandated to.
The Appellate Court finds the modification clause that was in
effect when Eagle Brook attempted to add the arbitration clause
required notice, in one of two forms, which they did not comply
with.
The Appellate Judges hold that Eagle Brook did not provide proper
notice to Maturo and therefore, he is not bound by the arbitration
agreement.
Eagle Brook argues that White is subject to the arbitration
agreement, despite having resigned nine years prior to the
arbitration agreement being added, because White seeks to assert a
claim under the membership plan.
Eagle Brook is attempting to unilaterally modify the contract terms
between itself and White after the contractual relationship had
ended and the original contract between Eagle Brook and White is
the subject of the dispute. Eagle Brook argues that there still
exists a contractual relationship between itself and White because
the right and privilege White complains about has not yet vested
and he therefore remains under contract with Eagle Brook. However,
it does not cite to any authority to support this contention.
Arguments that are unsupported by citations to relevant authority
are considered forfeited.
The Appellate Judges conclude that the record is replete with
evidence that the contractual relationship between White and Eagle
Brook had ended at the time the contract was modified to add the
arbitration agreement. Accordingly, they reject this argument, and
hold that White was not subject to the arbitration agreement. As we
have determined that the arbitration agreement does not apply to
Maturo and White, they need not address Eagle Brook's final
argument, that an arbitrator should decide any issues of
enforceability.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C1ngjk
CHARLESTON AREA: Failed to Secure Private Info, Bryce Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BRYCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL CENTER INC., Case
No. 2:25-cv-00128 (S.D.W.Va., Feb. 26, 2025) is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with
sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health
Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant
publicly disclosed on Feb. 14, 2025.
The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was
entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and
transfer that information.
On Oct. 2, 2024, the Defendant became aware of a security incident
on its IT Network. Upon detection, the Defendant launched an
investigation with the assistance of third-party cybersecurity
experts to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The
investigation determined that an unauthorized third party gained
access to a single CAMC user's email mailbox between October 2,
2024, and October 3, 2024.5 6. Defendant then launched a
comprehensive review of the affected mailbox, CAMC determined that
certain individuals’ sensitive information may have been
compromised.
The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and
personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed
to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to
the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained
for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, says the suit.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has experienced an
uptick in spam call, emails, and text messages, and has been forced
to, and will continue to, invest significant time monitoring his
accounts to detect and reduce the consequences of likely identity
fraud, the lawsuit says.
Plaintiff Bryce is a resident of Henrico, Virginia. Plaintiff is a
Patient of the Defendant. On Feb. 14, 2025, the Defendant sent
Plaintiff a notice letter informing him that his Private
Information was compromised in the Data Breach.
The Defendant operates multiple hospitals, including CAMC General
Hospital, CAMC Memorial Hospital, and CAMC Teays Valley Hospital,
providing a wide range of medical services, including emergency
care, surgery, cardiology, cancer care, and maternity services. The
hospital system serves the people of Charleston and the surrounding
regions, with a focus on advanced medical technology and
patient-centered care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Scott Long, Esq.
Raj A. Shah, Esq.
Stephen E. Hastings, Esq.
HENDRICKSON & LONG PLLC
214 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-5500
Facsimile: (304) 346-5515
E-mail: scott@handl.com
rshah@handl.com
shastings@handl.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Mark Svensson, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: ek@zlk.com
msvensson@zlk.com
CLAY FORD: Breshears's Bid for Class Cert Denied w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD RAY BRESHEARS, et
al., V. CLAY FORD, District Court Judge, et al., Case No.
4:24-cv-00872-KGB-BBM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Benecia Moore
entered an order that:
1. The Breshears's motion to certify class is denied without
prejudice as premature.
2. The Breshears's Motion to appoint counsel is denied without
prejudice.
3. The Breshears's motions for status update and motions for
copies are granted in part. The Clerk is directed to mail
Breshears an updated copy of the docket sheet. All other
relief requested that is unrelated to the status of the case
or requests for copies is denied.
4. The motions for joinder are denied without prejudice as
premature.
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to stop mailing copies of
docket entries to the non-parties who filed the Motions for
Joinder.
6. Ruperto Muniz's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, Motions
for Copies and Motion for Leave to Amend, James Lane Sr.'s
Motion to Enter Document Evidence and Statement of Facts and
Motion to Add Defendant, and Alvin Pugh's Motion for Status
Update, are denied without prejudice.
7. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel, is denied without
prejudice.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1zfT15 at no extra
charge.[CC]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Underwood Suit in NY Court
-------------------------------------------------
Coinbase Global, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that an October 2021 purported class
action captioned "Underwood et al. v. Coinbase Global, Inc.," filed
against the company alleging claims under Sections 5, 15(a)(1) and
29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
violations of certain California and Florida state statutes, is
currently ongoing.
On March 11, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
Coinbase, Inc. and Brian Armstrong as defendants and adding causes
of action. Among other relief requested, the plaintiffs sought
injunctive relief, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
Subsequently, on February 9, 2023, the plaintiffs appealed that
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and
filed their opening brief on May 25, 2023. On February 1, 2023, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
all federal claims (with prejudice) and state law claims (without
prejudice) against Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc. and its
CEO Brian Armstrong. Subsequently, on February 9, 2023, the
plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, and the parties completed briefing the appeal
on September 13, 2023. Oral argument took place on February 1, 2024
and on April 5, 2024, the Court of Appeals issued a Summary Order
affirming the District Court's dismissal order with respect to the
claims alleging violations of the Exchange Act, and reversing the
District Court's dismissal order with respect to the claims
alleging violations of the Securities Act and violations of the
state statutes. On June 27, 2024, defendants filed an answer to the
amended complaint, and on July 29, 2024, the defendants filed a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings requesting the District Court
dismiss the remaining claims. On February 7, 2025, the District
Court denied defendants' Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings and
allowed the case to proceed to bifurcated discovery, followed by
summary judgment motions.
Coinbase, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Coinbase Global, Inc.
operates globally and is a leading provider of end-to-end financial
infrastructure and technology for the crypto-economy offering
consumers the primary financial account for the crypto-economy,
institutions a state of the art marketplace with a deep pool of
liquidity for transacting in crypto assets, and developers
technology and services that enable them to build crypto-based
applications and securely accept crypto assets as payment.
COINBASE GLOBAL: Has Until March 18 to Respond to Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John P. Cronan of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ordered the defendants in the case
captioned as GERARDO ACEVES, et al., Plaintiffs, -v- COINBASE
GLOBAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-01486-JPC
(S.D.N.Y.) to answer, file a pre-motion letter in accordance with
Individual Civil Rule 6.A, or otherwise respond to the consolidated
class action complaint by March 18, 2025.
Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, all prior orders,
dates, and deadlines shall remain in effect notwithstanding the
case's transfer. Any currently scheduled conference before the
Court is adjourned pending further order of the Court.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fd9npF from PacerMonitor.com.
COLBEA ENTERPRISES: Darden Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHALYN DARDEN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. COLBEA
ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. and, ANDREW DELLI CARPINI, Case No.
1:23-cv-11540-BEM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
1. Certifying the following class under Mass. R. Civ. P. 23:
"all individuals currently or formerly employed by Colbea
Enterprises, L.L.C. in Massachusetts as hourly cashiers or
assistant managers who were subject to the company's
practice of rounding recorded work time and were not paid
for all of their recorded hours within seven days of the
corresponding pay period on at least one occasion between
June 8, 2020 and July 1, 2023";
2. Appointing Ms. Darden as class representative and
undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;
3. Setting a hearing regarding the issuance of class notice;
and
4. Granting any other relief the Court deems just.
Colbea was founded in 1999. The company's line of business includes
selling gasoline and lubricating oils.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O5ud3d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
ORTIZ & MOESLINGER, P.C.
One Boston Place, Suite 2600
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 338-9400
E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com
COMERCIA BANK: Sparkman Wins Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA SPARKMAN, v.
COMERCIA BANK, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01206-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff is appointed as class representative and Plaintiff's
counsel is appointed as class counsel.
The Court finds that a class action is the superior form for
adjudicating Plaintiff's UCL claims over Defendants IVR fees.
The Plaintiff, a Way2Go card user, was allegedly charged fees for
calling the IVR line. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that in
June 2023, she was charged $1.00 in fees for five calls she made to
the IVR line. The Plaintiff claims that the fee for using the IVR
line is a "junk fee" and an unfair practice in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class with the following
definition:
"All persons issued a California Way2Go Card (TM) Prepaid
Mastercard (TM) whose accounts the Defendants charged at least
one $0.50 fee for calling Defendants' IVR telephone system."
Comerica offers saving and current account, investment, financial
services, online banking, and online services
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ym3a0M at no extra
charge.[CC]
CONFIRM ID: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Murphy BIPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted Confirm ID, Inc.'s
motion to compel and stay the case captioned as RYAN MURPHY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CONFIRM ID, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00527-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.) pending arbitration. The
defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
The instant action arises out of Defendant's alleged unlawful
collection, obtainment, use, store, and disclosure of biometric
information in connection with an adult dating website called Adult
Friend Finder. Plaintiff Ryan Murphy alleges he opened an account
on AFF within the five years immediately preceding the filing of
this action and Defendant processed his biometric information as
part of the process of signing up for an account. Plaintiff
alleges he was required to upload a picture of a valid state-issued
identification and a real-time portrait of his face (i.e., a
"selfie") as part of the process of signing up. Utilizing
Defendant's services, AFF then scans the "selfie" photograph,
creates a biometric template of the user's face, and compares the
user's facial biometrics to the photograph on the identification
document to confirm whether they match.
AFF invites users to engage in verification (through Defendant's
services) by awarding a 500 point bonus and a special check mark
icon to those users who choose to engage in the process, signaling
to other users they are verified. Plaintiff alleges Defendant,
acting as a processor for AFF, collects, stores, possesses,
otherwise obtains, uses, and disseminates its users' facial
geometry scans, categorized as biometric data to, among other
things, further enhance AFF and its online app-based platform. He
further alleges Defendant's unlawful collection, obtainment,
storage, and use of its users' biometric data exposes them to
serious and irreversible privacy risks.
On Feb. 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant action, alleging
claims for violations of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy
Act, 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. On April 22, 2024, Defendant filed the
instant motion to compel arbitration.
The parties disagree at the outset about whether AFF's Arbitration
Agreement is enforceable.
Defendant argues:
(1) it is a party to the Agreement as an affiliated entity;
(2) the Agreement delegates all questions, including those on
scope and validity of the Agreement, to the arbitrator; and
(3) the Agreement is valid and enforceable and encompasses
Plaintiff's claims.
Plaintiff contends:
(1) the Court decides whether an arbitration agreement was
formed, not the arbitrator;
(2) Defendant is not a party to the Agreement; and
(3) the sign-up screen did not provide Plaintiff with
conspicuous notice of the terms of use.
The Court finds that Defendant is a party to the TOU and, by
extension, the Agreement.
The Court finds that the TOU and Privacy Policy on the sign-up
screen for the AFF membership provides reasonably conspicuous
notice because the notice is in such a font size and format that "a
reasonably prudent Internet user would have seen it" and the
hyperlinks are readily apparent. The parties also do not dispute
that Plaintiff clicked the button to unambiguously manifest his
assent to those terms. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff
was on notice of the TOU and Privacy Policy on AFF's website and
can be bound by the Agreement.
The delegation provision clearly and unmistakably provides that the
enforceability of the arbitration agreement is a question for the
arbitrator, not the Court. Accordingly, the Court grants
Defendant's motion to compel to allow the arbitrator to decide
these gateway issues, and, if permissible, to arbitrate the
substantive claims.
The Court stays the litigation to permit an arbitrator to decide
the gateway issues and then, if permissible, to arbitrate the
substantive claims. If it is determined by the arbitrator that
certain claims are not subject to arbitration, Plaintiff may file a
request to lift the stay, and the Court will do so immediately.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vO629y from PacerMonitor.com.
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Faces Suits over SEC Filings
----------------------------------------------
ContextLogic Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 15, 2025, that beginning in May
2021, four putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
company, its directors, certain of its officers and the
underwriters named in its initial public offering (IPO)
registration statement alleging violations of securities laws based
on statements made in its registration statement on Form S-1 filed
with the SEC in connection with its IPO and seeking monetary
damages.
In May 2022, the court appointed lead plaintiffs, who subsequently
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint pursuant to
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 10, 2023, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint and assert only claims made under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act.
In December 2023, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint. In February 2024,
plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which the
defendants have moved to dismiss. In August 2024, the court granted
the motion to dismiss without leave to amend and with prejudice. In
September 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to alter judgment noticed
for hearing in January 2025.
ContextLogic Inc. is a mobile ecommerce company that connects
merchants' products to users based on user preferences.
COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Moriarty Insurance Claim Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corebridge Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 15, 2025, that its subsidiary
American General Life Insurance Company (AGL) was sued on July 18,
2017 in a putative class action captioned "Moriarty v. American
General Life Insurance Company," No. 17-cv-1709 (S.D. Cal.)
Plaintiff's complaint argues that policies issued and delivered
prior to January 1, 2013, like the $1 million policy issued to her
husband, do not lapse—despite nonpayment of premiums—if the
insurer has not complied with California's AB 1747's terms. On
August 30, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in
McHugh v. Protective Life Insurance, 12 Cal. 5th 213 (2021), ruling
that AB 1747 applies to all policies in force on January 1, 2013,
regardless of when the policies were issued.
On February 7, 2022, plaintiff filed motions for summary judgment
and class certification; AGL opposed both motions and filed its own
motion for partial summary judgment. On July 26, 2022, the District
Court granted in part and denied in part AGL's motion for partial
summary judgment, and on September 7, 2022, the District Court
denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
In the summary judgment decisions, the District Court declined to
adopt plaintiff's theory that a failure to comply with AB 1747
necessitates payment of policy benefits or to make a pre-trial
determination as to AGL's liability. On September 27, 2022, the
District Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification
without prejudice. The District Court declined to certify
plaintiff's proposed class consisting of claims for monetary
damages and equitable relief, but indicated that plaintiff could
seek the certification of a narrower class consisting only of
claims for monetary damages. The District Court indicated, however,
that it has "substantial concerns" as to whether individual issues
such as actual damages and causation would predominate, precluding
class certification. While the District Court had initially set a
trial date for February 7, 2023, it vacated the date and indicated
that it would set a new trial date in due course, following
consultation with the parties. Subsequently, the case was
reassigned to a new District Court judge, who requested additional
briefing on certain issues addressed by the summary judgment
decisions and heard additional oral argument on those issues on
July 19, 2023.
On September 26, 2023, the District Court decided that good cause
exists to allow the plaintiff to file a third motion for class
certification. At the same time, however, the District Court
certified its August 14, 2023 order for interlocutory appeal to the
Ninth Circuit and stayed trial court proceedings pending the
outcome of AGL's appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted AGL's petition
for interlocutory appeal on November 21, 2023, which remains
pending. AGL filed its opening brief on April 15, 2024. Plaintiff
filed its answering brief on July 22, 2024, and AGL filed its reply
on September 11, 2024. On August 13, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion
with the Ninth Circuit to certify a question regarding the
interpretation of the California statute – namely, whether an
insured can terminate an insurance policy without having complied
with the notice and grace period requirements of the California
statute. AGL opposed plaintiff's motion on August 23, 2024, arguing
that there was no basis for certification and disagreeing with
plaintiff's claimed issue for review. The plaintiff's motion for
certification remains pending.
Corebridge Financial is one of the largest providers of retirement
solutions and insurance products in the United States. Its primary
business operations consist of sales of individual and group
annuities products, life insurance products to individuals and
institutional markets products. Subsidiaries of Corebridge Parent
includes American General Life Insurance Company (AGL).
COSMESIS SKIN: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Duarte Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANAMARIA DUARTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COSMESIS SKIN CARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. CACE-25-002532 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty.,
February 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant transmits telephonic
sales calls to the telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or
services without obtaining prior express consent. As a result of
the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff and the Class are
harmed.
Cosmesis Skin Care, Inc. is a provider of skincare services, doing
business in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Greist, et al. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied CrossCountry
Mortgage, LLC's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case
captioned as BARBARA GREIST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LENDUS, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-02411-AMO (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Barbara Griest, Susan Schell, and Melanie Green bring
this proposed collective and class action against LendUS LLC and
CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC. In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs
assert eleven claims for relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and California law. CrossCountry moves to dismiss the operative
complaint with prejudice. It contends that Plaintiffs have not
adequately alleged that CrossCountry can be held liable for
LendUS's wage and hour law violations as a successor-in-interest.
A successor-in-interest may be liable for its predecessor's labor
law violations, depending
on whether:
1) the subsequent employer was a bona fide successor,
2) the subsequent employer had notice of the potential
liability, and
3) the extent to which the predecessor is able to provide
adequate relief directly.
Specifically, CrossCountry argues Plaintiffs' allegations as to the
second factor are wholly conclusory and speculative and that they
allege no facts at all with respect to the third factor.
As to the second factor, the Court finds the allegations in the
operative complaint plausibly establish that CrossCountry had
notice of the wage and hour violations that are the subject of this
suit while it was (or should have been) conducting due diligence in
connection with its acquisition of LendUS. It is plausible that as
part of its acquisition of a thriving company, CrossCountry would
have or should have reviewed records as part of its due diligence,
which would have given it a picture of LendUS's operations,
including any liabilities possibly stemming from the manner in
which those operations were conducted. The Court does not find
these allegations conclusory or speculative given the alleged scope
of the merger.
As for the third factor, the Court finds Plaintiffs plausibly
allege that CrossCountry acquired LendUS's assets and has been
wholly subsumed by or rolled over into CrossCountry. Given the
successorship doctrine's policies and at this early stage in the
case, this is sufficient to allege CrossCountry may be liable as
LendUS's successor-in-interest, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tNuBBg from PacerMonitor.com.
CVS HEALTH: Artificially Inflated Drugs' Prices, Clements Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON CLEMENTS and SKYE CLEMENTS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK RX, L.L.C.; CAREMARK,
L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, L.L.C.; ZINC HEALTH VENTURES, LLC; ZINC
HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; CAREMARK ARIZONA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, L.L.C.;
CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, L.L.C.; CAREMARK FLORIDA
SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC; CAREMARK ILLINOIS SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC;
CAREMARK KANSAS SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC; CAREMARK MASSACHUSETTS
SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC; CAREMARK MICHIGAN SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC;
CAREMARK NEW JERSEY SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC; CAREMARK NORTH
CAROLINA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC; CAREMARK TENNESSEE SPECIALTY
PHARMACY, LLC; EVERNORTH HEALTH, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.;
EXPRESS SCRIPTS ADMINISTRATORS, LLC; MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.;
ESI MAIL PHARMACY SERVICE, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS PHARMACY, INC.;
ASCENT HEALTH SERVICES LLC; ACCREDO HEALTH GROUP, INC.;
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.; OPTUM, INC.; OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.; OPTUMRX,
INC.; OPTUMRX HOLDINGS, LLC; and EMISAR PHARMA SERVICES LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00126-GAF (W.D. Mo., February 22,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 2(c) of the
Robinson-Patman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants sought, and continue to
seek, exorbitant rebates and administrative fees from drug
manufacturers, serving as kickbacks, bribes, and other unearned
sums. Under this kickback and commercial bribery scheme, the
Defendants condition favorable formulary placement of specific
drugs on drug manufacturers payment of excessive rebates and
administrative fees to Pharmacy Benefit Managers. Drug
manufacturers who offer even larger rebates may receive exclusive
placement on PBMs' formularies. As a result, drug manufacturers are
forced to raise their list prices to afford the rebates and
administrative fees. Through this scheme, the Defendants have
created illegal inducements that has resulted in artificially
inflated drug prices and has prevented patients from obtaining the
drugs they are prescribed, says the suit.
CVS Health Corporation, formerly known as CVS Caremark Corporation,
is a healthcare services provider, headquartered in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a subsidiary of CVS Health, with a principal
place of business in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
Caremark Rx, L.L.C. is a wholly owned subsidiary of CVS Pharmacy,
with a principal place of business in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
Caremark L.L.C., formerly known as Caremark Inc., is a pharmacy
benefits management services provider, headquartered in Woonsocket,
Rhode Island.
CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CVS Health
Corporation, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
Zinc Health Ventures, LLC is a subsidiary of CVS Health
Corporation, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
Zinc Health Services, LLC is a subsidiary of CVS Health
Corporation, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
Caremark Arizona Specialty Pharmacy, L.L.C. is a pharmacy benefits
management services provider in Arizona.
Caremark California Specialty Pharmacy, L.L.C. is a pharmacy
benefits management services provider in California.
Caremark Florida Specialty Pharmacy, LLC is a pharmacy benefits
management services provider in Florida.
Caremark Illinois Specialty Pharmacy, LLC is a pharmacy benefits
management services provider in Illinois.
Caremark Kansas Specialty Pharmacy, LLC is a pharmacy benefits
management services provider in Kansas.
Caremark Massachusetts Specialty Pharmacy, LLC is a pharmacy
benefits management services provider in Massachusetts.
Caremark Michigan Specialty Pharmacy, LLC is a pharmacy benefits
management services provider in Michigan.
Caremark New Jersey Specialty Pharmacy, LLC is a pharmacy benefits
management services provider in New Jersey.
Caremark North Carolina Specialty Pharmacy, LLC is a pharmacy
benefits management services provider in North Carolina.
Caremark Tennessee Specialty Pharmacy, LLC is a pharmacy benefits
management services provider in Tennessee.
Evernorth Health, Inc. is a pharmacy benefits management services
provider based in Missouri.
Express Scripts, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Evernorth
Health based in Missouri.
Express Scripts Administrators, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Evernorth Health based in Missouri.
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. is a pharmacy benefits management
services provider based in Missouri.
ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Evernorth Health based in Missouri.
Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Evernorth Health based in Missouri.
Ascent Health Services LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Evernorth Health based in Switzerland.
Accredo Health Group, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Evernorth Health based in Missouri.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. is a healthcare company in Minnesota.
Optum, Inc. is a health services company based in Minnesota.
OptumInsight, Inc. is a subsidiary of Optum, Inc. based in
Minnesota.
OptumRx, Inc. is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of UnitedHealth
Group based in Minnesota.
OptumRx Holdings, LLC is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of
UnitedHealth Group based in Minnesota.
Emisar Pharma Services LLC is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of
UnitedHealth Group based in Ireland. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
Ruth Anne French, Esq.
Jennifer Salva-Cushing, Esq.
Hammons P. Hepner, Esq.
SHARP LAW LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
idiel@midwest-law.com
rafrench@midwest-law.com
jsalvacushing@midwest-law.com
hhepner@midwest-law.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Kyle Oxford, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Email: wburns@burnscharest.com
koxford@burnscharest.com
- and -
Korey Nelson, Esq.
Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
Ellen E. Short, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 2900
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
Email: knelson@burnscharest.com
aklevorn@burnscharest.com
eshort@burnscharest.com
- and -
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C.
201 California Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 697-1509
Facsimile: (415) 230-5310
Email: swilliams@stevenwilliamslaw.com
- and -
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
Bailey Twyman-Metzger, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
Email: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
btwymanmetzger@gustafsongluek.com
DISA GLOBAL: Bachman Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Bachman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00828
(S.D. Tex., Feb. 25, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's
failure to protect highly sensitive data.
As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII") about its customers' current,
former, and prospective employees. But Defendant lost control over
that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently
protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach").
Between February 9, 2024 and April 22, 2024--for more than ten
weeks--
cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach
was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to
prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its
systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to
the PII that Defendant maintained.
Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed
the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy
targets for cybercriminals.
The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot
be unrung. Before this Data Breach, individuals' private
information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their
private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach
notice.
The Defendant is a Texas-based company that provides "full-service
employee screening solutions" including drug and alcohol testing,
background screening, occupational medicine and testing, safety
training and transportation compliance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: 305.479.2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
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: raina@straussborrelli.com
DISA GLOBAL: Failed to Protect Personal Info, Diggs Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHAVONNE DIGGS, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00878
(S.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2025) alleges that DISA failed to properly
secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected
personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's
information network including, without limitation, names, Social
Security numbers.
The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief from DISA. The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for not ensuring that the PII was maintained in a
manner consistent with industry standards.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered
significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to
occur by DISA, and the resulting misuse of their Personal
Information and fraudulent activity, including monetary damages
including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with
the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and
other damages.
The Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk
of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive
Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals
because of the tortious conduct of Defendant. 5. On behalf of
themselves and the Class preliminarily defined below, Plaintiff
brings causes of action for: (I) Negligence and Negligence Per Se;
(ii) Implied Breach of Contract; (iii) Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
(iv) Intrusion Upon Seclusion/Invasion of Privacy; (v) Unjust
Enrichment and (vi) Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.
The Plaintiff seek damages and injunctive and declaratory relief
arising from DISA's failure to adequately protect their highly
sensitive Personal Information. According to the DISA's own
website, DISA is a leading provider of background screening, drug
and alcohol testing, and compliance solutions, with
industry-leading expertise. The Plaintiff and Class Members'
sensitive personal information --which they entrusted to Defendant
on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect against
disclosure was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed due
to the Data Breach.
The Defendant states on its website that: On April 22, 2024, DISA
discovered that it was the victim of a cyber incident that impacted
a limited portion of its network.
On Feb. 21, 2025, the Defendant's Data Breach was reported in the
news media: "Reported on February 21st, nearly a year after the
"cyber incident" took place, DISA filed a breach notification with
the Maine Attorney General's office last Friday, revealing that the
personal information of 3,332,750 individuals was compromised in
the hack – including social security numbers, credit card account
numbers and more."
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to
implement and to follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information now appears to be in the hands
of cybercriminals, the Plaintiff contends.
DISA provides background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and
compliance solutions, with industry-leading expertise.
As part of its business, Defendant collects a treasure-trove of
data from their clients, including highly sensitive Private
Information.
Drug screening providers that handle Private Information have an
obligation to employ reasonable and necessary data security
practices to protect the sensitive, confidential and personal
information entrusted to them.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
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
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bloom Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL BLOOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:25-cv-00899 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2025) is an action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves, says the suit.
DISA Global Solutions, Inc. provides workplace safety and
compliance services. The Company offers employee background and
occupational health screening, alcohol testing, transportation
compliance, and substance abuse training. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
jdeters@msdlegal.com
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Crawford Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ZENITRA CRAWFORD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
4:25-cv-00892 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2025) alleges that DISA failed
to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
protected personally identifiable information stored within the
Defendant's information network including without limitation,
names, Social Security numbers.
The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief from DISA. The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for not ensuring that the PII was maintained in a
manner consistent with industry standards.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered
significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to
occur by DISA, and the resulting misuse of their Personal
Information and fraudulent activity, including monetary damages
including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with
the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and
other damages.
The Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk
of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive
Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals
because of the tortious conduct of Defendant. 5. On behalf of
themselves and the Class preliminarily defined below, Plaintiff
brings causes of action for: (I) Negligence and Negligence Per Se;
(ii) Implied Breach of Contract; (iii) Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
(iv) Intrusion Upon Seclusion/Invasion of Privacy; (v) Unjust
Enrichment and (vi) Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.
The Plaintiff seek damages and injunctive and declaratory relief
arising from DISA’s failure to adequately protect their highly
sensitive Personal Information
According to the DISA's own website, DISA is a leading provider of
background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and compliance
solutions, with industry-leading expertise.
The Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal information
--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding
that Defendant would protect against disclosure was targeted,
compromised, and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach.
The Defendant states on its website that: On April 22, 2024, DISA
discovered that it was the victim of a cyber incident that impacted
a limited portion of its network.
On Feb. 21, 2025, the Defendant's Data Breach was reported in the
news media: "Reported on February 21st, nearly a year after the
"cyber incident" took place, DISA filed a breach notification with
the Maine Attorney General's office last Friday, revealing that the
personal information of 3,332,750 individuals was compromised in
the hack – including social security numbers, credit card account
numbers and more."
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to
implement and to follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff’s
and Class Members' Private Information now appears to be in the
hands of cybercriminals, the Plaintiff contends.
DISA provides background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and
compliance solutions, with industry-leading expertise.
As part of its business, Defendant collects a treasure-trove of
data from their clients, including highly sensitive Private
Information.
Drug screening providers that handle Private Information have an
obligation to employ reasonable and necessary data security
practices to protect the sensitive, confidential and personal
information entrusted to them.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
T. J. Jesky, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF T. J. JESKY
205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60601-5902
E-mail: tj@jeskylaw.com
Telephone: (312) 894-0130
Facsimile: (312) 489-8216
- and -
J. Gerard Stanch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranchstranchlaw.com
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Davidson Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR DAVIDSON, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00879
(S.D. Tex., Feb. 27, 2025) alleges that DISA failed to properly
secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected
personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's
information network including, without limitation, names, Social
Security numbers.
The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief from DISA. The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for not ensuring that the PII was maintained in a
manner consistent with industry standards.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered
significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to
occur by DISA, and the resulting misuse of their Personal
Information and fraudulent activity, including monetary damages
including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with
the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and
other damages.
The Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk
of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive
Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals
because of the tortious conduct of Defendant. 5. On behalf of
themselves and the Class preliminarily defined below, Plaintiff
brings causes of action for: (I) Negligence and Negligence Per Se;
(ii) Implied Breach of Contract; (iii) Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
(iv) Intrusion Upon Seclusion/Invasion of Privacy; (v) Unjust
Enrichment and (vi) Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.
The Plaintiff seek damages and injunctive and declaratory relief
arising from DISA's failure to adequately protect their highly
sensitive Personal Information
According to the DISA's own website, DISA is a leading provider of
background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and compliance
solutions, with industry-leading expertise.
The Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal information
--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding
that Defendant would protect against disclosure was targeted,
compromised, and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach.
The Defendant states on its website that: On April 22, 2024, DISA
discovered that it was the victim of a cyber incident that impacted
a limited portion of its network.
On Feb. 21, 2025, the Defendant's Data Breach was reported in the
news media: "Reported on February 21st, nearly a year after the
"cyber incident" took place, DISA filed a breach notification with
the Maine Attorney General's office last Friday, revealing that the
personal information of 3,332,750 individuals was compromised in
the hack – including social security numbers, credit card account
numbers and more."
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to
implement and to follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information now appears to be in the hands
of cybercriminals, the Plaintiff contends.
DISA provides background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and
compliance solutions, with industry-leading expertise. As part of
its business, Defendant collects a treasure-trove of data from
their clients, including highly sensitive Private Information. Drug
screening providers that handle Private Information have an
obligation to employ reasonable and necessary data security
practices to protect the sensitive, confidential and personal
information entrusted to them.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
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
DUNT AUTO: Court Amends Scheduling Order in EEOC Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EEOC v. Discount Auto
Parts LLC, et al., Case No. 9:24-cv-81200 (S.D. Fla., Filed Sept.
30, 2024), the Hon. Judge Robin L Rosenberg entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's motion for additional pretrial deadline.
-- The Plaintiff shall identify additional class members to
Defendants by June 9, 2025.
-- The Court's Scheduling Order is amended to remove the deadline
for class certification motions.
The nature of suit states Job Discrimination (Employment).
Discount Auto specializes in the retail sale of automotive
replacement parts and accessories.[CC]
EAGLE FAMILY: Dinner Mixes' Cheese Amount Ads "False," Daniels Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEYONNA DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EAGLE FAMILY FOODS GROUP LLC D/B/A EAGLE
FOODS, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00616-SCR (E.D. Cal., February
21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law, and breach of express warranty under California
law.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of dry dinner
mixes, Hamburger Helper and Tuna Helper. The Defendant advertises
and sells the products as "Made with Real Cheese," which gives the
impression that they are made with more than a de minimis amount of
real cheese. In reality, the products contain a de minimis amount
of cheese, less than 2 percent. Had the Defendant not breached the
express warranty by making the false representations alleged
herein, the Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased
the products or would not have paid as much as they did for them,
says the suit.
Eagle Family Foods Group LLC, doing business as Eagle Foods, is an
American food company with its corporate in Cleveland, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
Email: jmacpherson@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Apr 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against Edison International ("Edison") (NYSE: EIX)
on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Edison
securities between February 25, 2021, and February 6, 2025,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lead plaintiff deadline is
April 21, 2025.
CONTACT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:
If you suffered Edison losses, you may copy and paste the following
link into your browser:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/edison-international?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=eix&mktm=r
You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484)
270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com.
DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT:
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Edison's claim that Southern California Edison Company
used its Public Safety Power Shutoffs program to "proactively
de-energize power lines to mitigate the risk of catastrophic
wildfires during extreme weather events," was false; (2) this
resulted in heightened fire risk in California and heightened legal
exposure to Edison; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements
about Edison's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
times.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS:
Edison investors may, no later than April 21, 2025, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the
investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial
interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed
class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent
the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved
by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in
any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Edison investors who
have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to
acquire more information.
CLICK LINK TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE OR GO TO:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/edison-international?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=eix&mktm=r
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Jonathan Naji, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against Edison International ("Edison") (NYSE: EIX) on behalf
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Edison securities
between February 25, 2021, and February 6, 2025, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lead plaintiff deadline is April 21, 2025.
CONTACT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:
If you suffered Edison losses, you may copy and paste the following
link into your browser:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/edison-international?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=eix&mktm=r
You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484)
270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com.
DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT:
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Edison's claim that Southern California Edison Company
used its Public Safety Power Shutoffs program to "proactively
de-energize power lines to mitigate the risk of catastrophic
wildfires during extreme weather events," was false; (2) this
resulted in heightened fire risk in California and heightened legal
exposure to Edison; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements
about Edison's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
times.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS:
Edisoninvestors may, no later than April 21, 2025, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the
investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial
interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed
class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent
the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved
by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in
any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Edison investors who
have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to
acquire more information.
CLICK LINK TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE OR GO TO:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/edison-international?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=eix&mktm=r
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.
May be considered attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Jonathan Naji, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
EIGHT SLEEP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Eight Sleep, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02009 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 26, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://www.eightsleep.com www.asphalt-nyc.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a
mattress on Eightsleep.com. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff
was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual
due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access
barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class members will
continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and
complete a purchase on Eightsleep.com, the lawsuit says.
Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner
that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was
unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and
was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the bed, asserts the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is a commercial website that offers products and
services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view
high-tech sleep systems and accessories, make purchases, and
perform a variety of other functions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
EIGHT SLEEP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. EIGHT SLEEP INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01656
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://smileactives.com/pages/hp-core3, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on n
Feb. 21, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Ultimate Whitening &
Probiotic Kit from the Defendant and to view the information on the
Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a
sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services
offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and
segregation, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Plaintiff Fagnani is a visually-impaired and legally blind person
who requires screen-reading software to read website content using
her computer.
The Defendant develops sleep fitness products that feature
hydro-powered cooling technology and a health tracker.[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
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Bell Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Denys Bell, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-01644
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2025), is brought seeking recovery against
Defendant for violations of the prompt payment provision of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") to recover unpaid wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a maintenance associate
and performed custodial duties. Plaintiff performed manual labor
for more than 25% of his work hours and was a manual worker
entitled to payment of his wages within seven calendar days after
the end of the workweek as required by NYLL. The Defendant failed
to timely pay Plaintiff's wages and instead paid Plaintiffs' wages
bi-weekly pursuant to its company-wide payroll policy in violation
of NYLL. Each time that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff his
wages earned within seven days of the end of the workweek,
Defendant deprived him of the use of money to which he was legally
entitled. As a result of Defendant's failure to timely pay their
wages, Plaintiff lost the time value of money, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as maintenance associates at Defendant's
fitness clubs in the State of New York,
The Defendant operates more than 40 fitness clubs in the State of
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Phone: (631) 257-5588
Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com
EXXON MOBIL: California Plastic Waste Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the State of California's
motion to remand the case captioned as THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ex rel. ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiffs, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-07594-RS (N.D. Cal.) to the state
court. The Nonprofit Plaintiffs' remand motion is denied.
The State of California sued Exxon Mobil Corporation in California
state court, averring that the company bears responsibility for the
global plastic waste and pollution crisis due to its allegedly
deceptive public messaging about plastic recycling.
California asserts six state law claims. As relief, California
seeks the following:
(i) an order compelling Defendant to abate the public nuisance
it allegedly created;
(ii) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering
Defendant to cease and desist allegedly deceptive public statements
about its plastic operations, including topics such as "advanced
recycling" and "chemical recycling";
(iii) temporary and permanent equitable relief as needed to
protect and/or prevent further pollution;
(iv) various monetary penalties authorized by state statutes; and
(v) fees and costs.
A group of nonprofit organizations including Sierra Club, Inc.,
Surfrider Foundation, Inc., Heal the Bay, Inc., and Baykeeper, Inc.
filed a substantially similar suit in the same state court.
Declaring that single-use plastics are harmful, toxic products that
cannot be safely disposed through recycling or by other means, they
aver that Exxon created a single-use plastics pollution crisis in
California by concealing these facts for decades to sell more
plastics. Because their organizations have missions to prevent the
harms caused by plastic pollution, Nonprofit Plaintiffs say they
have had to divert significant resources to combat the impact of
Exxon's activities.
Nonprofit Plaintiffs' complaint raises two state law claims that
mirror two of those alleged in the State's suit. They seek
injunctive relief (including abatement), compensatory
damages plus interest, and fees and costs.
Exxon removed both California's complaint and Nonprofit Plaintiffs'
complaint to the Northern District of California. It first removed
Nonprofit Plaintiffs' complaint, citing diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a). It also argued for jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act, contending that the complaint is a
de facto class action since the claims are on
behalf of Plaintiffs and the California public. Exxon then removed
California's complaint, asserting the presence of maritime
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333, federal question
jurisdiction (via the federal enclave doctrine) under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1331, and federal officer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1442(a)(1).
The Court finds because neither federal enclave nor federal officer
jurisdiction extends over California's claims, Exxon cannot show
the independent basis required for maritime jurisdiction to apply
pursuant to the saving to suitors clause. Moreover, maritime
jurisdiction would be inapplicable anyway. California's motion to
remand is therefore granted.
Federal jurisdiction over Nonprofit Plaintiffs' complaint is on
sure footing, given their concession that diversity jurisdiction is
proper. Nonprofit Plaintiffs nevertheless urge the Court to remand
their case alongside the California action, arguing for either
Younger abstention or a creative application of the Colorado River
doctrine.
The Court concludes because no binding authority exists for a
Colorado River remand, and because the only relevant precedent is
both distinguishable and possibly incorrect, Nonprofit Plaintiffs
fail to persuade that Colorado River is applicable in the instance
context. A factor-by-factor analysis is therefore unwarranted, and
the motion to remand is denied.
At oral argument, Exxon's counsel requested a short stay of any
remand order so as to sort out whether a longer stay pending appeal
might be warranted. California's counsel apparently stipulated to
that idea. A short administrative stay is therefore appropriate,
and the remand order as to California's case is stayed until 42
days after this ruling.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eecs3w from PacerMonitor.com.
FAIRLIFE LLC: Faces Bhotiwihok Over Animal Care Marketing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARYOUT MICHAEL THOMAS BHOTIWIHOK, an individual; JEREMIAH
CORNELIUS, an individual; RANDY PAUGH, an individual; and all those
similarly situated v. FAIRLIFE, LLC, an Illinois limited liability
corporation; THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; MIKE
MCCLOSKEY, an individual; SUE MCCLOSKEY, an individual; SELECT MILK
PRODUCERS, INC., a New Mexico corporation; and DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:25-cv-01650 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2025) alleges false and
misleading claims and omissions regarding animal care and
sustainability marketing scheme.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative civil class action to obtain
injunctive relief to stop Defendants' deceptive and unlawful
practices, to stop Defendants' cruel and unsustainable farming and
packaging practices, and to recover monetary relief for the
Plaintiffs and the members of the Class caused by reason of the
Defendants' misconduct related to their false and misleading animal
care claims and sustainability claims.
The Defendants produce a "premiumized" line of milk and milk
products under the brand name "fairlife." The price premium, growth
and consolidation, and overall profitability of the brand is driven
in large part by an advertising and marketing practice and scheme
claiming high levels of animal care and environmental
sustainability, both of which have been pillars of the brand's
strategy and marketing practice since the brand's inception. The
fairlife brand has been phenomenally successful in terms of rapid
growth and profitability, garnering a multibillion-dollar
investment by the Defendant Coca-Cola, which co-founded the
fairlife brand and became its whole owner in 2020, says the suit.
The animal care marketing practices that drive the fairlife brand
include, but are not limited to: the "fairlife" name itself and
cartoon calf logo, claims indicating industry-leading standards and
auditing, promising better and great care for animals as a top
priority at fairlife, touting their investments in animal care,
zero tolerance for animal cruelty in their supply chain, and
similar such claims, all communicating a message to consumers of
high levels of care for the animals in the fairlife supply chain,
including freedom from abusive and neglectful acts and practices.
The sustainability marketing practice that underpins and drive the
fairlife brand include, but are not limited to: claims on renewable
energy including for manure handling, claims their farms are top in
the industry for environmental sustainability, and claims that
their plastic packaging is recyclable. The current animal care and
sustainability claims are an escalation in strength, scale, and
scope of earlier iterations of the brand's marketing, with the
level of the current animal care and sustainability marketing
claims at an all-time high for the brand. Video evidence from
multiple undercover investigations conducted by the Animal Recovery
Mission reveals systemic widespread egregious animal cruelty, cruel
standard practices, and extreme neglect, including at the hands of
and with the awareness of management, the suit further alleges.
Plaintiff Bhotiwihok is a consumer who purchased fairlife's milk
products for himself and his children regularly from approximately
2019 through 2025.
Fairlife sells so-called "premiumized" milk and milk products at a
higher price than traditional milk and milk products and milk
alternatives such as almond and oat milk.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald R. Pepperman, Esq.
Brian E. Klein, Esq.
Sam S. Meehan, Esq.
WAYMAKER LLP
515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (424) 652-7800
Facsimile: (424) 652-7850
E-mail: dpepperman@waymakerlaw.com
bklein@waymakerlaw.com
smeehan@waymakerlaw.com
- and -
Cheryl L. Leahy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHERYL LEAHY
cherylleahylaw@gmail.com
2215 Artesia Blvd., No. 1185
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Telephone: (773) 259-7760
FASTAFF LLC: Egan Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Egan, et al., v. Fastaff,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03364 (D. Colo., Filed Dec. 30,
2022), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
motion for class certification of state law overtime claim filed by
Plaintiff Theresa Egan.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
FEDERAL EMERGENCY: Rouselle Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM ROUSSELLE, SR., v.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) and COR3 (Central Office
for Recovery, Reconstruction, and Resiliency) Case No.
1:24-cv-03198-LLA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting certification of the following class:
"All residents of Puerto Rico who have been harmed by FEMA's
failure to process hazard mitigation and public assistance
applications under the Stafford Act and Bipartisan Budget Act,
resulting in financial and infrastructural harm."
This class definition encompasses individuals whose lives and
businesses have been affected by FEMA's refusal to act, including
those who rely on Puerto Rico's electrical grid and infrastructure
improvements that have been delayed due to FEMA's inaction.
FEMA is an independent U.S. government organization dedicated to
disaster relief.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g9jKKz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se:
Adam Rousselle, Sr.
FIRST DRIVE: Foreman Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
similarly situated v. FIRST DRIVE LOGISTICS, INC. and MONJED
HUMEIDAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00182-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 26,
2025), is brought against Defendants, who were his joint employers,
in order to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act of 1939 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act (the "Ohio Wage Act"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act
("OPPA"), (the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be collectively
referred to herein as the "Ohio Wage Laws").
The Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs were not employed in a
sales capacity nor did they receive commissions. During all times
material to this Complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative
Plaintiffs were paid at an hourly rate, not on a salary or fee
basis and thus were non-exempt employees entitled to be paid at
least the minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime at 150% of
their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The
Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs almost always worked over 40
hours in a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a delivery driver
beginning on November 14, 2024.
First Drive Logistics, Inc. is a domestic corporation for profit
licensed to do business in Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Anna R. Caplan, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com
FLAGLER 251: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
----------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. FLAGLER 251, LLC; MARSHALLS OF MA, INC.
d/b/a MARSHALLS #650; SOVEREIGN OF MIAMI LLC d/b/a SOVEREIGN ASIAN
KITCHEN; and DOWNTOWN PIZZA PARADISE, LLC d/b/a D'ORO PIZZA BAR,
Case No. 1:25-cv-20915-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 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 Defendant's discrimination 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 and restaurant and bar
business within the commercial property.
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. The Plaintiff found
the Commercial Property and the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the business located within the commercial property 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
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
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 and business located
therein, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
FLAGLER 251, LLC, owned and operated a commercial property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
GEICO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Accident Forgiveness Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports a proposed class action
lawsuit claims GEICO has failed to honor its accident forgiveness
policy, which promises customers that their insurance premiums will
not increase as a result of their first at-fault accident.
The 14-page GEICO lawsuit alleges that instead of complying with
its policy, the insurance company unlawfully disguises premium
increases for customers with accident forgiveness coverage as
"surcharges" or other misleading terms following an insured's first
at-fault accident.
According to the suit, GEICO offers accident forgiveness coverage
to customers who have been insured by the company for five years
and have clean driving records. The benefit can also be purchased
alongside auto insurance or when renewing a policy, the case says.
The lawsuit was filed by a Dallas resident who claims he and his
wife were covered by GEICO auto insurance that included accident
forgiveness. The plaintiff says he received a policy renewal letter
from GEICO one month after his wife got into a minor fender bender
accident for which she was at fault—the couple's first at-fault
crash, according to the complaint.
Per the filing, the policy renewal letter notified the plaintiff
that his premium had risen from $1,392 to $2,663, an increase of
91.3 percent. After contacting GEICO for an explanation, the man
was told that the company had not increased his premium but had
"merely applied a surcharge," the suit states.
The case alleges the insurer has engaged in an unlawful scheme
"designed to ensure GEICO's customers would still pay higher
premiums due to first at-fault accidents" despite representing
otherwise.
The lawsuit looks to represent any person or entity in Texas
insured by GEICO with accident forgiveness whose premiums increased
following the first at-fault accident caused by an eligible driver
on the policy. [GN]
GEN DIGITAL: C.D. California Grants Bid to Dismiss Conohan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled Conohan v. Gen Digital Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-06894-MCS-PVC (C.D. Cal.).
Defendant Gen Digital Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff
Robert Conohan's first amended class action complaint. The
Plaintiff opposed, and the Defendant replied. The Court deemed the
motion appropriate for decision without a hearing.
The Plaintiff, a California resident, asserts a single claim
against the Defendant, an Arizona corporation, for violation of
California's Trap and Trace Law, California Penal Code Section
638.51. He alleges that the Defendant's website contains software
that identifies website visitors and collects their device and
browser information, including geographic details and other data.
He claims that TikTok owns this software, and the data is instantly
sent to TikTok.
According to the Plaintiff, this software constitutes a trap and
trace device under California law, and the Defendant is collecting
data without his or other putative class members' consent.
Judge Scarsi notes that the complaint contains limited allegations
related to the Plaintiff's interactions with the Defendant's
website. Notably, there are scant allegations about what dates he
visited the website, whether he purchased the Defendant's product,
how he knows that the website captured his data, or which data the
website specifically captured.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The Court only
reaches the first argument.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Court has specific personal
jurisdiction over the Defendant because it has purposefully
directed its activities to California by regularly engaging with
individuals in California through its website. He claims the
Defendant's illegal conduct is directed at and harms California
residents.
The Defendant contends that these allegations are insufficient to
establish specific jurisdiction. The Court agrees and grants the
Defendant's motion.
Judge Scarsi opines that the only allegations that can be
reasonably construed to address the "expressly aimed" element are
barebones allegations that the Defendant "purposefully directed its
activities" to California by "regularly engaging" with California
residents. The Plaintiff's opposition is equally lacking. He
contends that the Defendant "expressly aimed" its efforts at
California because it sold antivirus software on a website that
California residents could access.
The Court is unconvinced and finds that it does not have personal
jurisdiction over the Defendant.
In a footnote, the Plaintiff requests jurisdictional discovery into
the topics the Court finds insufficient, as well as leave to amend.
Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks discovery on the data the
Defendant received and sent to TikTok.
The Court does not believe that the discovery the Plaintiff seeks
is relevant to the issue of whether the Defendant expressly aimed
its conduct at California or whether it did "something more" than
maintain its website. Nor does the Plaintiff provide any persuasive
authority or argument suggesting that the Court should grant such
discovery, especially considering the limited allegations linking
the Defendant's conduct to California.
The Court denies the Plaintiff's request for jurisdictional
discovery. The Court also finds that leave to amend would be
futile.
Based on the Plaintiff's amended complaint, as well as his argument
in his opposition brief, the Court is skeptical that any new
allegations could establish personal jurisdiction in this forum. It
appears the Plaintiff is more interested in obtaining information
on the alleged data exchanged between the Defendant and TikTok than
adding any allegations that the Defendant's website expressly
targeted California residents. Therefore, the request is denied.
The Court grants the Defendant's motion without leave to amend and
without prejudice to refiling in an appropriate jurisdiction. The
Court further denies the Plaintiff's request for jurisdictional
discovery. The Court will issue a judgment consistent with this
Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Civil Minutes is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yp3mndyt from PacerMonitor.com.
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Settlement Deal in Riley Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RILEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02982-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jon
McCalla entered an order granting preliminary approval of parties'
class action settlement agreement:
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement and finds that the
Settlement, including the exhibits attached thereto, is
sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23 to justify
preliminary approval of the Settlement, dissemination of notice to
the Classes, as set forth below and in the Settlement, and to
schedule a Fairness Hearing to determine whether to
grant final approval of the Settlement and enter a final approval
order and judgment.
The Court sets a Fairness Hearing on Friday, August 22, 2025, at
10:00 a.m. CT to consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy
of the proposed Settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) and
whether it should be finally approved by the Court, to rule on
Class Counsel's request for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
Service Awards, and to consider whether to enter the Final Order
and Judgment.
The Court appoints Verita as the Settlement Administrator.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mIzVLs at no extra
charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Settlement in Jefferson Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RILLA JEFFERSON, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02576-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
Jon McCalla entered an order granting preliminary approval of
parties' class action settlement agreement:
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement and finds that the
Settlement, including the exhibits attached thereto, is
sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23 to justify
preliminary approval of the Settlement, dissemination of notice to
the Classes, as set forth below and in the Settlement, and to
schedule a Fairness Hearing to determine whether to
grant final approval of the Settlement and enter a final approval
order and judgment.
The Court sets a Fairness Hearing on Friday, August 22, 2025, at
10:00 a.m. CT to consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy
of the proposed Settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) and
whether it should be finally approved by the Court, to rule on
Class Counsel's request for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
Service Awards, and to consider whether to enter the Final Order
and Judgment.
The Court appoints Verita as the Settlement Administrator.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VO0dS8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Ulrich, et al. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable David M. Lawson of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan granted in part and denied in
part General Motors LLC's motion to dismiss the case captioned as
COLE ULRICH, PAUL AIELLO, ANGELA BAILEY, DALE BLAND, JACOB
BRELLENTHIN, BRITNEY BRELLENTHIN, DANIEL DAVIS, LYNN DAVIS, DUANE
EGGE, PAUL NORTHUP, RYAN VOLMERT, KENNETH JAMES WILKINSON and SEAN
JOSEPH ZIMMETT, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 24-cv-11007-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.).
This case was filed as a companion matter to 19-11044 Speerly v.
General Motors, LLC (E.D. Mich.), which is pending on interlocutory
appeal in the court of appeals
The plaintiffs in this case allege that the automatic transmissions
in their vehicles will "slip, buck, kick, jerk and harshly engage."
They say that, when the transmission causes the vehicle to perform
erratically, such as with sudden or delayed acceleration, the
vehicles may be unsafe to drive. All of the car and truck models
implicated by this suit were made by defendant General Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of putative classes, including
the owners of thousands of vehicles that, they claim, have
defective transmissions, which GM has refused to fix or replace
under its express warranty.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs echo the causes of action
pleaded in Speerly, which sound in breaches of express and implied
warranties; common law fraudulent omissions and statutory consumer
fraud; violations of various state laws governing consumer sales,
deceptive marketing, and unfair trade practices; and unjust
enrichment under the laws of 30 states. Classes were proposed for
certification consisting of domestic buyers and lessors of GM cars
and trucks equipped with its Hydra-Matic 8L90 and 8L45
transmissions.
The class vehicles include the 2015 through 2019 model year
Chevrolet Silverado; 2017-2019 Chevrolet Colorado; 2015-2019
Chevrolet Corvette; 2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro; 2015-2019 Cadillac
Escalade and Escalade ESV; 2016-2019 Cadillac ATS, ATS-V, CTS, CT6,
and CTS-V; 2015-2019 GMC Sierra, Yukon, Yukon XL, and Yukon Denali
XL; and 2017-2019 GMC Canyon.
The complaint in this case was filed on April 17, 2024, around a
year after the Court's class certification decision in Speerly. The
defendant timely filed its motions to dismiss.
GM argues that the plaintiffs have not made allegations in their
complaint sufficient to state a claim for relief. GM invokes
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The defendant argues that several claims are time-barred. Those
include (1) the implied warranty claims under the laws of Indiana
(Count 14), Massachusetts (Count 16), Missouri (Count 19), North
Dakota (Count 22), Oregon (Count 25), and Rhode Island (Count 28);
(2) the express warranty claims under the laws of Connecticut
(Count 9), Indiana (Count 13), Massachusetts (Count 17), North
Dakota (Count 23), Oregon (Count 26), and Rhode Island (Count 29);
(3) the statutory consumer protection claims under the laws of
Connecticut (Count 8), Iowa (Count 10), Massachusetts (Count 15),
North Dakota (Count 21), and Rhode Island (Count 27); (4) any
common law fraudulent omission claims pleaded (or repleaded) under
the laws of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Oregon; and (5) any
unjust enrichment claim under Massachusetts law.
In prior rulings, including in Speerly, this Court repeatedly has
rejected arguments for dismissal of product defect claims at the
pleading stage based on purported untimeliness, on the ground that
adjudication of the limitations defense at the pleading stage is
inappropriate both because avoidance of affirmative defenses need
not be pleaded at the outset, and because the facts produced during
discovery could support various exceptions to the defense. The same
rationale applies in this case, and the defendant's arguments for
dismissal based on its assertion of statutes of limitations
defenses will be rejected.
GM next argues that the express and implied warranty claims under
the laws of Iowa (Counts 11-12), Indiana (Count 13-14), South
Dakota (Count 22-23), and North Dakota (Counts 31-32) must be
dismissed because the plaintiffs from those states failed
adequately to plead the breach of any implied or express warranty.
The Court previously addressed this issue in the companion case and
found that the pleaded facts adequately suggest that the class
vehicles were not fit for the ordinary purpose of providing
reasonably safe transportation, which is the prevailing standard
for assessing merchantability of automobiles under the law of every
jurisdiction surveyed. GM's arguments for dismissal of the implied
warranty claims will be rejected based on the rationale of the
Court's earlier ruling.
GM also argues that the implied warranty claims under the laws of
Connecticut (Count 9), Oregon (Count 26), and Rhode Island (Count
28) must be dismissed because the plaintiffs from those states did
not plead privity with the defendant.
The Court finds the prevailing case law in the jurisdictions in
question does not support dismissal of the warranty claims for lack
of privity.
The defendant argues that the express warranty claim under
Connecticut law (Count 9) must be dismissed because the Limited
Warranty providing for a repair-or-replace remedy does not support
a viable claim under U.C.C. Sec. 2-313.
The Court concludes the balance of authority weighs against
dismissal of the plaintiff's warranty claim under Connecticut law
on the grounds urged by the defendant.
GM argues that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims brought by the
plaintiffs from Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, North
Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Dakota all must be
dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to plead plausible warranty
claims under state law. However, the state law warranty claims
remain viable, so the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim also is
viable, the Court finds.
The defendant contends that the statutory consumer fraud claim
under North Dakota law (Count 21) must be dismissed because the
plaintiff there did not adequately allege any omission or
misrepresentation made to him in connection with his vehicle
purchase.
In its ruling on the defendant's previous pleading challenge in
Speerly, the Court discussed the allegations of fraud in extensive
detail and concluded that the pleadings fully satisfied the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) with respect
to alleging the "who," "what," and "when" concerning the alleged
failure by the defendant to disclose its knowledge of the
transmission defects to buyers of the class vehicles. The same
analysis requires the Court to reject the defendant's argument in
this that the allegations of fraud are insufficient for failing to
identify what was omitted or misrepresented when the plaintiff from
North Dakota bought his vehicle.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aDPNdP from PacerMonitor.com.
GENTING NY: Denial of Class Certification in Mrijaj Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case captioned as PREN MRIJAJ, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, -against-
GENTING NEW YORK LLC doing business as RESORTS WORLD CASINO NEW
YORK CITY, Defendant-Respondent, Case No. 2024-00328 (N.Y. App.
Div.), Judges Cynthia S. Kern, David Friedman, Barbara R. Kapnick,
Julio Rodriguez III, and Kelly O'Neill Levy of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial
Department, affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court, Bronx
County, denying plaintiff's motion for class certification and
granting, in part, defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the
complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that he was detained at defendant's casino on
suspicion of having illegally damaged defendant's video lottery
gaming equipment and was arrested when he refused to pay for the
alleged damage. Plaintiff further alleges that he contacted the
casino over a year later and was told he was cleared to return, but
upon his next visit, defendant detained him a second time and again
threatened to contact law enforcement if he did not pay for the
same alleged damage. He brought a putative class action against
defendant alleging, as relevant to this appeal, that its conduct
was negligent and violated General Business Law Sec. 349.
The Appellate Court says Defendant's conduct in detaining plaintiff
the first time was consistent with its obligations under the
regulations and guidance of the New York Gaming Commission.
Plaintiff's conclusory arguments fail to demonstrate that his due
process rights were violated by any deprivation of liberty arising
from his first detention and authorized by Bulletin 22, the
Appellate Court finds.
The Appellate Court concludes that because defendant's conduct with
respect to plaintiff's first detention was consistent with its
obligations under Bulletin 22, the Supreme Court properly dismissed
plaintiff's General Business Law and negligence claims arising
from that detention. In addition, plaintiff fails to address
whether or how defendant's conduct was "materially misleading," as
is required for a General Business Law Sec. 349 claim, nor has
plaintiff explained how defendant's conduct was unreasonable in
light of Bulletin 22.
As to the first detention, the Supreme Court correctly dismissed
the causes of action for false imprisonment, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, and assault and battery as barred by the
statute of limitations, the Appellate Court finds.
Plaintiff also purports to object to the Supreme Court's dismissal
of his causes of action for unjust enrichment and larceny by
extortion/conversion, but, in fact, it declined to dismiss those
claims as to the second detention, which is when plaintiff alleges
that he paid the restitution.
Class Certification
The Appellate Court Judges hold that the court also providently
exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Plaintiff's only remaining claims arise from his
second detention, which involved unique circumstances during which
defendant arguably acted beyond its obligations and authority under
Bulletin 22. Because the facts underlying plaintiff's remaining
claims do not mirror those underlying the claims of the class,
typicality is lacking. Plaintiff's claims do not derive from the
same course of conduct that gave rise to the claims of other class
members, and the defenses to be asserted against plaintiff are not
typical of the defenses asserted against class members.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ODYzgB
Attorney for Appellant:
Andrew St. Laurent, Esq.
HARRIS ST. LAURENT & WECHSLER LLP
Telephone: 646-248-6010
40 Wall Street, 53rd Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: 646-248-6010
E-mail: andrew@hs-law.com
Attorney for Respondent:
Benjamin D. Greenfield, Esq.
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
150 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: 215-606-2726
E-mail: benjamin.greenfield@wilsonelser.com
GIRL SCOUTS: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. GIRL SCOUTS OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01025 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025), is
brought against the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Girl Scouts provides to their non-disabled customers
through http//:www.Digitalcookie.girlscouts.org/scout/brea499635
(hereinafter "Digitalcookie.girlscouts.org/scout/brea499635" or
"the website"). The Defendants' 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 the Defendant's website,
Digitalcookie.girlscouts.org/scout/brea499635, is not equally
accessible to blind consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Girl Scouts'
policies, practices, and procedures so 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.
Girl Scouts provides to the public a website known as
Digitalcookie.girlscouts.org/scout/brea499635 which provides
consumers with access to a wide range of Girl Scout cookies which
support the Brea's Digital Cookie Store and which can be purchased
on the Website with the click of a mouse, among other
features.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
GIVAUDAN SA: Court Narrows Claims in Our Own Candle Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OUR OWN CANDLE COMPANY,
INC., v. GIVAUDAN S.A. et al. (RE: FRAGRANCE DIRECT PURCHASER
ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 2:23-cv-02174-WJM-JSA (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge William Martini entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaints under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiffs in all three actions filed consolidated complaints.
Each complaint alleges a different mix causes of action but
together, they allege violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.
The Defendants include DSM-Firmenich AG, Givaudan SA, IFF, and
Symerise.
Givaudan S.A. is a Swiss multinational manufacturer of flavours,
fragrances and active cosmetic ingredients.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=exJz91 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GLOBE LIFE: Buford Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Buford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GLOBE LIFE, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00187-ALM (E.D.
Tex., Feb. 25, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure
to safeguard the names, email addresses, phone numbers, postal
addresses, and Social Security numbers, ("Personally Identifiable
Information" and health data and insurance policy information
("Protected Health Information") (together, "Private Information")
of its Customers, which resulted in unauthorized access to its
information systems on October 2024, and the compromised and
unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing
widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class
members.
On October 2024, Globe Life detected unusual activity in its
computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized
third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from
its systems on October 2024. ("Data Breach"). As a result of the
Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private
Information of Defendant's Customers, including Plaintiff and the
proposed Class members, were stolen, including their names, email
addresses, phone numbers, postal addresses, and Social Security
numbers, health data and insurance policy information.
The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private
Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and
other individuals' information (together, "Customers"). The
Defendant's failure to safeguard Customers' highly sensitive
Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the
Data Breach violates its common law duty, Texas law, and
Defendant's implied contract with its Customers to safeguard their
Private Information. The Plaintiff and Class members now face a
lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the
information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be
made private again. The Defendant's failure to protect Customers'
Private Information has harmed and will continue to harm
Defendant's Customers, causing Plaintiff to seek relief on a Class
wide basis, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant.
Globe Life Inc. is an insurance company that offers life insurance
policies with its principle place of business in McKinney,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
lloginov@shamisgentile.com
GLOBE LIFE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Singletary Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD SINGLETARY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBE LIFE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:25-cv-00189-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Feb. 26, 2025) is an action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII," from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves.
Globe Life Inc. operates as an insurance company. The Company
offers term, whole, and children's life insurance, as well as
accidental benefits, mortgage protection, and medicare supplement
plans. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
lloginov@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Joseph H. Kanee, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (786) 933-2775
Email: joseph@edelsberglaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs File Renewed Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 26,
2021), the Consolidated Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting renewed class certification motion and case schedule.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
Google is an American multinational corporation and technology
company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology,
cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
and consumer electronics.[CC]
HARVEST SHERWOOD: Dipasquale Seeks Conditional Collective Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINO DIPASQUALE, v.
HARVEST SHERWOOD FOOD DISTRIBUTORS AND HARVEST MEAT PRODUCTS, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01822-GPG-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
(1) conditionally certifying a collective action on behalf of
all persons who worked for Defendants as IT Site Support
Engineers or in other positions with similar job titles
and/or duties at any time within the three years prior to
June 28, 2024 ("Collective Action Members");
(2) directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's counsel a
list of all of the Collective Action Members identifying
their name, job title, last known mailing address, last
known personal email address(es), last known cell phone
numbers, and dates of employment in a useable electronic
format ("Collective List");
(3) approving issuance of the proposed Notice and Consent forms
notice to the collective action members consent within 14
days after the receipt of the Collective List; and
(4) permitting a 60-day notice period for the Collective Action
Members to determine whether to opt-in to this lawsuit.
The Plaintiff contends that conditional certification and notice
are appropriate because the Collective Members are all similar
situated in terms of their job duties, their salaried pay, and
Defendants' classification of them as exempt under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Collective Members were denied overtime pay as a result of this
corporate policy regarding classification, regardless of
individualized factors such as geographic location, experience, job
duties or hours worked
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an IT Site Support
Engineer from June 19, 2023 to May 8, 2024, and his job duties were
first level IT support for all aspects of Defendants' operations in
Colorado and throughout the U.S.
Harvest Sherwood is in the business of food and beverage
distribution.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nKq7fP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Rowekamp, Esq.
BAKER LAW GROUP, LLC
8301 E Prentice Ave., No. 405
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
HENDERSON, NV, : Discovery Cut-Off Deadline in Woodburn Due Sept. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY WOODBURN, THOMAS
WOODBURN, and JOSHUA RODRIGUEZ; individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF HENDERSON; DOES I through V,
inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through V, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-01488-CDS-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
extending discovery deadlines:
-- The Phase I Discovery cut-off deadline Sept. 8, 2025
shall be extended from May 11, 2025 to:
-- Disclosures (Experts) Deadline: July 10, 2025
-- The Parties agree to and propose a Oct. 8, 2025
deadline to file collective
certification, collective
decertification, and dispositive
motions 30 days after the close
of Phase I Discovery:
Henderson is a city near Las Vegas, in Nevada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wK3hKD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony P. Sgro, Esq.
Alanna C. Bondy, Esq.
Kathleen L. Fellows, Esq.
SGRO & ROGER
2901 El Camino Ave., Suite 204
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (702) 384-9800
E-mail: TSGRO@SgroandRoger.com
ABONDY@SgroandRoger.com
KFELLOWS@SgroandRoger.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew S. Clark, Esq.
Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq.
Ethan D. Thomas, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-1940
Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement in Cruz-Bermudez Suit Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCISBEL CRUZ-BERMUDEZ,
and HELMUT BECKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. HENRY SCHEIN, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00387-BMC
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brian Cogan entered a final approval
order as follows:
1. The Court, having reviewed the terms of the Settlement
Agreement submitted by the Parties pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), grants final approval of the
Settlement Agreement and for purposes of the Settlement
Agreement and this Order and Judgment only, the Court
finally certifies the following Class:
"All individuals whose Personal Information was compromised
in the Data Incident and who do not elect to be excluded
from the Class by filing a timely Request for Exclusion in
accordance with the requirements set forth in the
Preliminary Approval Order and the Notice."
2. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of
Lucisbel Cruz-Bermudez, Helmut Becker, and Randi Grifka as
Class Representatives. The Court concludes that Class
Representatives have fairly and adequately represented the
Class and will continue to do so.
3. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and in recognition of
their efforts on behalf of the Class, the Court approves a
payment to the Class Representatives in the amount of $5,000
each as Service Awards. Such payment shall be made in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
4. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Gary
M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC
and Raina Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli, PLLC as Class
Counsel. The Court concludes that Class Counsel has
adequately represented the Class and will continue to do so.
5. The Court, after careful review of the fee petition filed by
Class Counsel, and after applying the appropriate standards
required by relevant case law, grants Class Counsel’s
application for attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$966,570.00. Reasonable litigation expenses of $16,197.74
are also awarded. Payment shall be made pursuant to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Henry Schein is a distributor of medical and dental supplies
including vaccines, pharmaceuticals, financial services and
equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E9MA05 at no extra
charge.[CC]
HP INC: Settlement in Carvalho Suit Gets Preliminary Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitt of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of the
class action settlement in the case captioned as RODNEY CARVALHO,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. HP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-08015-PCP (N.D. Calif.).
This is a putative class action lawsuit filed by named plaintiffs
Rodney Carvalho and Mark Maher against defendant HP, Inc., alleging
that HP displayed misleading strikethrough and discounted prices on
its website. Plaintiffs allege that they were harmed by HP's
conduct by, among other things, paying more for their products than
they would have paid and being induced to make purchases they would
not have otherwise made absent the false and misleading prices and
discounts. In their operative July 2022 complaint, plaintiffs
asserted violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, as well as a
claim for unjust enrichment.
On Dec. 2, 2024, the parties moved for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement, conditional certification of the
settlement classes, appointment of class representatives
and counsel, approval of the selection of the settlement
administrator, approval of the class notices, and setting of a
final approval hearing.
Plaintiffs submitted their supplemental brief and supporting
evidence on Jan. 2, 2025, and the Court heard argument on the
motion for preliminary approval on Jan. 16, 2025. At the hearing,
the Court inquired whether the parties would consider striking the
preliminary approval order's proposed injunction against litigation
by class members pending final approval. On Jan. 30, 2025, the
parties filed a revised settlement agreement omitting the proposed
injunction and instead permitting HP to withdraw from the
settlement should a specified number of class members opt out.
Under the terms of the revised settlement, HP will contribute a
total gross amount of $4,000,000, which will be used to make
payments to class members, fund class representative services
awards in an amount not to exceed $5,000 per representative,
reimburse class counsel for attorney's fees and costs of no more
than $1,000,000, and pay settlement administration costs currently
estimated at approximately $246,467.20.
Class Certification
Plaintiffs request certification of a settlement class that
consists of all individuals nationwide who purchased HP desktop
computers, laptops, mice, and keyboards between June 5, 2021, and
Oct. 28, 2024, that were offered at a discount more than 75% of the
time the products were offered for sale during that same period.
Excluded from the class are individuals who:
(1) purchased more than two of the same Settlement Class Product
in the same order;
(2) are employees of HP and members of his/her immediate family;
(3) are judicial officers presiding over the action and members
of their immediate family and judicial staff;
(4) are counsel of record for the parties, and their respective
law firms; or
(5) timely and properly exclude themselves from the settlement
class.
The parties estimate that 287,784 individuals fall within the class
definition and will receive notice of the settlement. The parties
predict the opt-out rate for the settlement class will be less than
1%. The parties anticipate at least $2,750,000 will be available to
provide cash benefits to the settlement class members after payment
of settlement administration costs and any court-approved service
awards or attorneys' fees and costs. The parties propose five
different cash benefit amounts based on product type and estimated
per-unit damages. Assuming a claims rate of 15%, the parties
anticipate that each settlement class member who submits a valid
claim is likely to receive a cash payment that at least fully
compensates them for the estimated per-unit damages.
A class action may be certified only if it meets the requirements
of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation.
The settlement class contains approximately 287,784 members.
Accordingly, the numerosity requirement is met.
The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the class because
they arise from HP's same course of conduct.
There are no known conflicts of interest between the proposed class
members and the named plaintiffs or class counsel. The named
plaintiffs and class counsel have vigorously prosecuted the action,
including by conducting intensive discovery and filing this motion
for preliminary approval after extensive settlement negotiations.
Accordingly, the representation of the class by its counsel and the
named plaintiffs is adequate.
The parties seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which imposes
two further requirements: predominance and superiority.
Tthe estimated per-unit damages for each Class Product are $100 or
less, while class counsel's litigation costs incurred to date are
roughly $805,296. If class members had pursued their own actions,
these litigation costs would significantly exceed their recovery.
Accordingly, pursuing the claims in this case as a class action is
superior to other means of adjudicating the dispute.
Because the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied,
the Court grants conditional class certification of the settlement
class for settlement purposes only.
Settlement Agreement
The settlement agreement was reached after extensive informal and
formal discovery suggesting that the parties were "armed with
sufficient information about the case" to broker a fair
settlement.
The Court finds no obvious deficiencies with the proposed
settlement.
Under the proposed settlement, each class member may claim their
distribution of the cash benefits based on their respective product
type(s) and the per-unit estimated damage. The Court is satisfied
that the allocation of the settlement does not unfairly benefit
certain class members over others.
At this stage, there is no indication that the proposed service
award for the named plaintiffs constitutes "preferential treatment"
that would defeat preliminary approval. The Court reserves further
analysis of the proposed service award until final approval.
Plaintiffs estimate the total exposure that HP could face is
approximately $10.4 million. Accordingly, the proposed $4 million
non-reversionary settlement fund represents nearly 40% of HP's
potential exposure. Plaintiffs further estimate that, assuming a
higher-end claims rate of 15%, the settlement will provide class
members with a cash payment that, at minimum, fully compensates
them for their estimated damages. Given the risks attendant to
further litigation, the Court is satisfied that the proposed
settlement falls within the range of possible approval and warrants
comment from class members.
For purposes of preliminary approval, the Court concludes that the
settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The Court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC to serve as
the settlement administrator.
Final Approval Hearing
A final approval hearing will be held on Aug. 21, 2025, at 10:00
AM, in Courtroom 8 of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose,
California 95113, to determine whether the requirements for
certification of the settlement class have been met; whether the
proposed settlement of the action on the terms set forth in the
settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and in the best interest of the settlement class members; whether
settlement class counsels' requests for attorneys' fees and costs
should be approved; whether requests for service awards to
plaintiffs should be approved; whether final judgment approving the
settlement and dismissing the action on the merits with prejudice
should be entered; and to rule upon such other matters as the Court
may deem appropriate. The final approval hearing may, without
further notice to the settlement class members, be continued or
adjourned by order of the Court.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qNLY8V from PacerMonitor.com.
INKTEL CONTRACT: Dixon Class Action Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN A. DIXON, STACIE ALEXANDER, and TASIA PRICE,
individually, and on behalf of the class and all others similarly
situated v. INKTEL CONTRACT CENTER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-20924-JEM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2025) challenges the
Defendant's practices and policies of misclassifying the Plaintiffs
as independent contractors, not paying them overtime compensation,
forcing them to pay a weekly surcharge to access the Inktel system,
and other employment benefits, violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The suit is a class and collective action, brought by the
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of current and
former workers employed by Inktel as customer service and call
center representatives.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated Contractors
regularly performed uncompensated labor, including being denied
overtime pay, attending hours of unpaid meetings, and were denied
pay due to system errors or technical failures.
Inktel provides remote call center services to corporate
clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Wallace, Esq.
Walker D. Moller, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
Scott Haskins, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
20200 W. Dixie Highway, Suite 902
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (888) 747-4529
E-mail: jwallace@sirillp.com
wmoller@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
shaskins@sirillp.com
JACK COOPER: Archie Sues Over WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------
McKinley Archie, and Kenneth Johnson, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. JACK COOPER TRANSPORT COMPANY,
LLC; JACK COOPER HOLDINGS, LLC; and JACK COOPER INVESTMENTS, INC.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01012-MHC (N.D. Ga., Feb. 26, 2025), is brought
under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the
"WARN Act") by the Plaintiffs against Jack Cooper, their employer
for WARN Act purposes.
On January 8, 2025, Jack Cooper lost a key customer when Ford Motor
Company ("Ford") announced publicly it would not be renewing its
contract with Jack Cooper. On or around January 2, 2025, Jack
Cooper issued a WARN Act notice that employees at its 5114
Crittenden Dr, Louisville, KY 40209 terminal (the "Louisville
Terminal") would be terminated effective January 31, 2025.
Approximately 189 drivers and other employees are impacted by this
plant closure. Jack Cooper is an over-the-road car-haul logistics
company which principally transports vehicles from car
manufacturing facilities to dealerships and other customers. Jack
Cooper had a duty under the WARN Act to provide at least 60 days
advance written notice of the Louisville Terminal closure but
failed to do so.
On February 7, 2025, Jack Cooper lost its largest customer when
General Motors Corporation ("GM") publicly announced it was not
renewing its contract with Jack Cooper. On February 8, 2025, Jack
Cooper informed employees of its 1200 Corvette Dr., Bowling Green
KY (the "Bowling Green Terminal") facility that their employment
would be terminated on February 8, 2025. Approximately 92 employees
at the Bowling Green Terminal lost their jobs. Defendants failed to
provide 60 days' advance written notice as required by the WARN Act
to the affected employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Jack Cooper.
Jack Cooper is one of the largest privately owned auto transport
and specialized vehicle logistics providers in the US, with
terminal operations located throughout the Midwest, Pacific
Northwest, Canada, and Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 800-6225
Fax: (615) 994-8625
Email: ben@hsglawgroup.com
KALEIDOSCOPE HAIR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. KALEIDOSCOPE HAIR PRODUCTS GLOBAL, LLC and
KALEIDOSCOPE HAIR PRODUCTS, L.L., Case No. 1:25-cv-01708 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 27, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://iluvcolors.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on n
Feb. 21, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Ultimate Whitening &
Probiotic Kit from the Defendant and to view the information on the
Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a
sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services
offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and
segregation, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Plaintiff Fagnani is a visually-impaired and legally blind person
who requires screen-reading software to read website content using
her computer.
The Defendant offers Black-owned hair-care brands in the United
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Wise Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Frank Wise, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Case No.
250100809 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 26, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-01019.
The Plaintiff seeks overtime compensation, at one-and-one-half
times Plaintiff's regular rate, for all hours worked over 40 per
week pursuant to Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). The
Plaintiff also seeks prejudgment interest, litigation costs, and
attorneys' fees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen M. Scannell, Esq.
R. Nelson Williams, Esq.
Julia Pair, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
One Metropolitan Square
211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
Phone: (314) 259-2000
Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
Email: stephen.scannell@bclplaw.com
nelson.williams@bclplaw.com
julia.pair@bclplaw.com
KM BUILDER: Fuoco Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO ADRIAN FUOCO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KM BUILDER CORP., and PABLO DOMINGUEZ and
HUGO SEGOVIA, as individuals, Case No. 1:25-cv-01109 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 27, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime under the
New York Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages.
Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.
As a direct result of Defendants' violations and failure to provide
proper wage notices and wage statements, Plaintiff suffered a
concrete harm, resulting from Plaintiff's inability to identify
Plaintiff's employer to remedy his compensation problems, lack of
knowledge about the rates of pay he was receiving and/or should
have receiving for his regular hours and overtime hours, terms, and
conditions of his pay, and furthermore, an inability to identify
his hourly rate of pay to ascertain whether he was being properly
paid in compliance with the FLSA and NYLL.
Plaintiff Fuoco was employed by the Defendants at KM BUILDER CORP.,
as a mason, concrete mixer, and demolition worker, while performing
other miscellaneous duties, from September 2019 until September
2022.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and other
employees similarly situated as authorized under the FLSA. The
employees similarly situated are the collective class: All persons
who are or have been employed by the Defendants as masons, concrete
mixers, demolition workers, or other similarly titled personnel
with substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, who
were performing the same sort of functions for Defendants, other
than the executive and management positions, who have been subject
to Defendants' common practices, policies, programs, procedures,
protocols and plans including willfully failing and refusing to pay
required minimum and overtime wage compensation.
KM BUILDER CORP is a family-owned contracting company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
L&W HR: Dufrechou Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA DUFRECHOU, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. L&W HR CONSULTING, LLC, WAYNE WILLIAMS JR.,
and MARC LANDRY, Case No. 6:25-cv-00242 (W.D. La., Feb. 26, 2025)
seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime wages, and liquidated
damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as
seeks claims for breach of contract under Louisiana state law, and
for unpaid medical costs and insurance premiums under the Employee
Retirement Security Income Act of 1974.
The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. During the relevant time
periods, the Defendants have knowingly and deliberately failed to
compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for
all hours worked each week on a routine and regular basis.
Specifically, the Defendants' regular practice including during
weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members
worked recorded hours in excess of 40 was to either not pay the
Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members any wages or to
only pay some of their wages, says the suit.
L&W operated three primary care clinics in and around the State of
Louisiana. Williams and Landry are owners and managing members of
L&W.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
LANGUAGE LINE: Settlement in Oliveira Suit Gets Final Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned
as SHARON OLIVEIRA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-02410-PCP (N.D. Cal.).
The plaintiffs' motion for fees, costs, and service awards is
granted in part.
This is a collective and class action employment lawsuit filed by
named plaintiffs Sharon Oliveira and Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce
against two California-based companies, defendants On Line
Interpreters, Inc. and Language Line Services, Inc. Plaintiffs were
full-time interpreters for defendants, which offer interpreter
services to consumers and hire interpreters throughout the United
States as nonexempt employees who are paid an hourly wage and
entitled to overtime pay. Oliveira was employed in California from
November 21, 2018 to May 31, 2019 and then in Ohio from June 1,
2019 to November 30, 2020. Boyce was employed in California from
March 8, 2020 to December 17, 2021.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to pay them minimum and
overtime wages earned, failed to provide compliant rest and meal
breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements, failed to
reasonably reimburse employees for business expenses, required
impermissible "off-the-clock" work, and engaged in unfair business
practices. In their operative January 2023 complaint, plaintiffs
asserted violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
various California labor laws, California's Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA), and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.
On June 12, 2024, the parties moved for preliminary approval of a
FLSA collective and class action settlement, conditional
certification of the settlement classes, appointment of class
representatives and counsel, approval of class notices, and setting
of a final approval hearing. The Court continued the initial
hearing date and ordered the parties to provide supplemental
briefing addressing several issues. Plaintiffs submitted their
supplemental brief and supporting evidence on July 29, 2024, the
Court heard argument on the motion for preliminary approval on
August 1, 2024, and the Court granted preliminary approval on
August 2, 2024.
As part of the settlement approval process, plaintiffs requested
certification of three classes: (1) the FLSA Collective, which
includes all current and former OLI or LLS employee interpreters in
the United States from April 18, 2020 to April 1, 2024, and those
who opted in after notice was issued; (2) the California Class,
which includes all current and former OLI or LLS employee
interpreters in California from April 18, 2018 to April 1, 2024,
and those who did not opt out after notice was issued; and (3) the
Aggrieved Employees subclass which includes all current and former
OLI or LLS employee interpreters in California who were nonexempt
or hourly-paid employees from November 16, 2021 through April 1,
2024.
Settlement Agreement
Under the terms of the settlement, defendants will contribute a
total gross amount of $3,725,000. The parties propose allocating
$25,000 of that amount to service awards to the named plaintiffs
and certain individuals who have already opted into the FLSA
collective action; $800,500 to the FLSA Collective; $1,332,833.33
to the California Class; $56,250 to the Aggrieved Employees
entitled to a portion of the PAGA recovery; $168,750 to the Labor &
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) for its portion of the PAGA
recovery; $1,241,666.67 to attorneys' fees and $50,000 to
attorneys' expenses; and $50,000 to settlement administration
costs.
The settlement includes a release of claims by members of the
California Class and FLSA Collective.
As of November 27, 2024, out of the 10,608 FLSA Collective members,
4,531 people opted in -- a 42.7% participation rate. Out of the
1,922 California Settlement Class members, no class member objected
and only 6 people opted out -- a participation rate of 99.7%.
On November 27, 2024, plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
FLSA, class action, and representative PAGA action settlement;
attorneys' fees and costs; class representative service awards; and
settlement administrator costs. The Court heard plaintiffs' motions
on January 9, 2024.
Class Certification
The California Settlement Class and the FLSA Collective meet the
requirements for certification.
A class action may be certified only if it meets the requirements
of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation.
The California Settlement Class contains 1,916 members.
Accordingly, the numerosity requirement is met.
Class members share common questions of law and fact pertaining to
whether defendants violated California wage and hour laws by
failing to pay them regular and overtime wages earned, provide
compliant meal and rest periods, provide compliant wage statements,
reimburse expenses, and timely pay wages upon separation of
employment. Accordingly, the commonality requirement is met.
The claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the class,
arising from the defendants' same course of conduct.
There are no known conflicts of interest between the named
plaintiffs and class counsel, on the one hand, and the proposed
class members, on the other. The representation of the class by
class counsel and the named plaintiffs is adequate.
The parties seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which imposes
two further requirements: predominance and superiority.
Plaintiffs contend that the liability questions in this case can be
resolved using the same evidence for all class members because the
common legal and factual issues turn on an alleged common course of
conduct by the defendants. Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown
predominance.
The average payout to members of the California Settlement Class is
$287.12, while class counsel's litigation costs incurred to date
are roughly $40,000. If class members had pursued their own
actions, these litigation costs would significantly exceed their
recovery. Accordingly, pursuing the claims in this case as a class
action is superior to other means of adjudicating the dispute.
Because the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied,
the Court confirms its grant of class certification for settlement
purposes only.
Accordingly, the FLSA Collective members are similarly situated,
and the Court confirms its certification of the FLSA Collective for
purposes of settlement only.
The Court considers "essentially the same" factors in evaluating
settlement of a class action, an FLSA collective action, and a PAGA
action. Accordingly, the settlement of the class, FLSA, and PAGA
claims will be considered together.
During the preliminary approval stage, the Court found that the
settlement met that standard.
With respect to the settlement of the FLSA claims, the Court finds
that there was and continues to be a bona fide dispute in this case
because the defendant contests FLSA liability.
The Court finds that PAGA's requirement that 75% of civil penalties
recovered be allocated to the LWDA and 25% to aggrieved employees
is met.
The Court finds that notice of the proposed settlement was
adequate; the settlement is not the result of collusion; the
settlement is a fair, adequate, and reasonable resolution of a bona
fide dispute; and the settlement meets PAGA's statutory
requirements. Accordingly, the Court grants final approval of the
settlement.
Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Class counsel seeks an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of
$1,241,666.67, which is one-third of the total settlement value and
reflects a 2.2 multiplier of their $558,789.50 lodestar.
After reviewing the results achieved for the class and the risk
counsel incurred in pursuing class members' claims on a contingent
basis, the Court concludes that an award of 30% of the common fund
-- $1,117,500 -- is reasonable. The Court also concludes that the
number of hours expended by counsel on this litigation was
reasonable.
Class counsel also seeks reimbursement of up to $50,000 in
litigation costs. As of the of filing its motion for final
approval, class counsel had incurred approximately $39,841.57 in
costs, including court fees, mediation fees, legal research
charges, and expert fees. At the time, class counsel anticipated
additional expenses related to travel to the final approval hearing
and additional settlement administration costs. The Court has
reviewed counsel's expenses and finds them reasonable. Therefore,
the Court grants the request for reimbursement of costs up to
$50,000.
Service Awards
Named plaintiffs Sharon Oliveira and Simone Franco de Andrade Boyce
each seek a service award of $8,000. The six early opt-in
plaintiffs request service awards of $1,500.
Plaintiffs contend that the named plaintiffs should receive
larger-than-average service awards because they spent "significant
time and effort" assisting litigation.
The assistance that the named plaintiffs contributed to this
litigation is precisely the kind of work on behalf of the class
that service awards are meant to compensate. But it does not reach
the level that would justify departing from the standard award of
$5,000. Accordingly, the Court will approve service awards of
$5,000 to each of the named plaintiffs.
In light of the risks the opt-in plaintiffs took and their
contributions to this litigation, the Court grants service awards
of $1,500 to each of the opt-in plaintiffs.
Settlement Administrator cost
Plaintiffs also request settlement administration fees in the
amount of $50,000 for the settlement administrator CPT Group. The
Court finds this amount reasonable and approves the request.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tTTdTy from PacerMonitor.com.
LIBERTY MEDIA: Court Grants in Part Bids to Dismiss Diep Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada grants in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled JACK DIEP, et al., Plaintiffs v. LIBERTY MEDIA
CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02124-GMN-NJK (D.
Nev.).
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendant Las Vegas Paving Corporation. The Plaintiffs did not file
a Response. Also pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendant Liberty Media Corporation. The Plaintiffs filed
a Response to which Defendant Liberty Media replied. Further
pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial
Notice in Support of their Opposition to Defendant Liberty Media's
Motion to Dismiss, which the Court construes as a Motion. Defendant
Liberty Media filed a Response.
For the reasons discussed in this Order, the Court grants Las Vegas
Paving Corporation's Motion to Dismiss, grants, in part, Liberty
Media's Motion to Dismiss, and denies without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice.
The action arises from a racetrack malfunction that occurred during
the first day of the Formula 1 Grand Prix ("F1") and resulted in a
practice run being rescheduled for after hours. Class action
Plaintiffs were ticket holders for the three-day, 2023 F1 Event
(the "Event"), which was promoted to include practice runs,
qualifying sessions, sprints, and the final race, as well as
entertainment, food, and beverages.
Nine minutes into the First Practice Run ("FP1") of the Event, a
driver struck a manhole or water valve cover on the racetrack. The
impact caused the manhole or water valve cover to become dislodged
and destroyed the underside of the car. The dislodged cover soon
damaged another car and forced race officials to stop the practice
run. Fans in attendance waited for several hours while the
racetrack was inspected for other potential hazards.
After many hours, Defendant Liberty Media removed all spectators
from the viewing areas. FP1 was ultimately cancelled due to the
accident. Moreover, spectators were not able to watch the second
practice run ("FP2") because Liberty Media rescheduled FP2 after
the Event closed to spectators.
The Defendant did not offer refunds to any of the approximately
35,000 invitees that sought to attend the FP1 and FP2 Practice Run
events, even though the FP1 Practice Run was cancelled, and
participants were told to leave before the FP2 Practice Run could
begin.
The Plaintiffs bring the instant class action lawsuit alleging
claims for breach of contract, negligence, and violation of Nevada
Revised Statute ("NRS") Section 598.0903, Nevada's Deceptive Trade
Practice Act ("NDTPA").
The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint ("CC") alleges claims
against Defendant Liberty Media for breach of contract and
violation of the NDTPA. The CC also brings a negligence cause of
action against both Defendants. The Defendants each move to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' CC for failure to state a claim.
As a preliminary matter, the Plaintiffs made it clear in their
Response to Defendant Liberty Media's Motion to Dismiss, that they
do not intend to move forward with their negligence claim against
either Defendant. As such, the Court will not address Plaintiffs'
negligence cause of action and this claim is dismissed.
Moreover, because the only claim alleged against Defendant Las
Vegas Paving was the negligence cause of action, the Court
dismisses Las Vegas Paving as a party to this matter. Thus, the
only remaining party in this action is Defendant Liberty Media and
the two remaining claims to analyze are breach of contract and a
violation of the NDTPA alleged against Liberty Media.
Defendant Liberty Media moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CC for
failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted because
they allege no cognizable legal injury. The Defendant argues that
the Plaintiffs fail to establish the first element of standing and
as such, their CC should be dismissed in its entirety.
Specifically, Liberty Media argues that the Plaintiffs injury is
not cognizable because tickets to entertainment events are
revocable licenses, granting ticketholders nothing more than a
right to enter the event grounds; and the "disappointed fans" line
of caselaw compels dismissal. The Defendants primarily rely on a
Ninth Circuit case to bolster their claims, citing In re
Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View Litig., 942 F.3d 1160
(9th Cir. 2019).
The In re Pacquiao plaintiffs claimed boxers Manny Pacquiao and
Floyd Mayweather, as well as the boxing event's promoters, worked a
"magnificent con" on ticketholders by allegedly concealing
Pacquaio's pre-fight shoulder injury, resulting in a lackluster
event rather than the promised "Fight of the Century."
The Court finds that the present case is distinguishable from In re
Pacquiao because the Plaintiffs do not characterize themselves as
mere "disappointed fans" whose "subjective expectations were not
met" like the In re Pacquiao plaintiffs. Instead, they identify as
a group whose "objective expectations" were not met. Thus, the
Court finds that the Plaintiffs have plead a cognizable legal
injury sufficient to survive the Motion to Dismiss.
Judge Navarro concludes that the Plaintiffs' breach of contract
claim is dismissed because there exists no privity of contract
between the Plaintiffs and Liberty Media but the Court gives the
Plaintiffs leave to amend their CC pursuant to the Court's
discussion because amendment is not clearly futile.
Because no court in Nevada has held that the NDTPA applies to
sports tickets, and because it is likely that the Nevada Supreme
Court would hold that the NDTPA is in fact inapplicable here, the
Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for
relief as to their NDTPA claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' NDTPA
claim is dismissed.
Accordingly, the Court grants in part Defendant Liberty Media's
Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs sufficiently plead that they have
a cognizable injury but fail to sufficiently plead their breach of
contract and NDTPA claim. The Plaintiffs will have 21 days from the
date of this Order to file an amended complaint amending their
breach of contract claim only.
The Court grants Defendant Las Vegas Paving's Motion to Dismiss.
Las Vegas Paving is dismissed as a Party to this action. The
Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of their
Opposition to Defendant Liberty Media's Motion to Dismiss is denied
without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr2beu4b from PacerMonitor.com.
LIGHTSPEED CONSTRUCTION: Settlement in English Suit Has Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BRADLEY ENGLISH, Plaintiff v. LIGHTSPEED
CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01216-TPB-NHA
(M.D. Fla.), Judge Tom Barber of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, issued an Order
adopting Report and Recommendation and granting final approval of
class action settlement.
The matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and
recommendation of Magistrate Judge Natalie Hirt Adams entered on
Jan. 22, 2025. Judge Adams recommends that the Joint Motion for
Approval of the Parties' Settlement and For Dismissal With
Prejudice be granted. No party has objected, and the time to object
has expired.
The Court agrees with Judge Adams's detailed and well-reasoned
factual findings and legal conclusions. Consequently, Judge Barber
holds that the joint motion is granted and the settlement agreement
is approved.
Accordingly, the Court rules that Judge Adams's report and
recommendation is affirmed and adopted and incorporated by
reference into this Order for all purposes, including appellate
review. The "Joint Motion for Approval of the Parties' Settlement
and For Dismissal With Prejudice" is granted to the extent the
Court approves the FLSA Settlement Agreement. The motion is denied
to the extent the Court declines to retain jurisdiction to enforce
the settlement.
The Settlement Agreement is accepted, adopted, and approved by the
Court, and the parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. This action is dismissed with prejudice and
the Clerk is directed to terminate all pending deadlines and close
the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ye27cw8r from PacerMonitor.com.
MEAZURE LEARNING: Faces Class Lawsuit Over CA Bar Exam Disaster
---------------------------------------------------------------
ICLG.com reports that the company responsible for administrating
the state's new bar exam faces legal action over allegations its
malfunctioning online platform left applicants "traumatised" as
they were unable to access or fully complete the test. Students who
took -- or attempted to take -- the California bar exam last week
have filed a against Meazure Learning over allegations it caused an
"unmitigated disaster" after its platform repeatedly crashed and
malfunctioned during the 25-26 February exam. The , filed with the
US District Court for the Northern District California on February
27, Thursday, lists seven claims of relief, including breach of
express and implied warranty under California law; violations of
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law; and
unjust enrichment and negligent infliction of emotional distress
under California Law.
RUSHED DEPLOYMENT
Prior to February 2025, the California bar exam had been
administered at in-person sites across the state. The new exam
format -- which enables applicants to take the test remotely,
including from out of state -- was announced by the California
State Bar in mid-2024 with claims it would save up to USD 3.8
million per year. According to the claimants, Meazure "rushed to
deploy software" in order to establish its position as the sole
vendor for the administration of the new exam. Allegedly, the
company's testing software was not adequately designed, lacking the
appropriate infrastructure and server space to support the
thousands of applicants who had signed up and paid to complete the
exam through the Meazure platform remotely or at in-person testing
sites. As a result, the claimants state that throughout the two day
test they faced "server crashes, instructions to uninstall and
reinstall required software, inability to open and run required
programs on computers that met technical requirements,
malfunctioning copy/paste functionality that prevented users from
entering answers, and lack of access to the exam questions".
GRAVE CONCERNS
Problems had already arisen with the software before the exam
kicked off on 25 February, with both Meazure and the State Bar
receiving numerous reports about various technical issues from
applicants, including technical glitches, unexplained reservation
cancellations and an inability to complete the required mock exam.
According to reporters, several California-accredited law school
deans had also written to the State Bar last year to express their
"grave concerns" about the exam. Despite these communications, the
complaint states that Meazure "failed to address the myriad
technical issues that plagued the rollout of the exam". On 13
February, the State Bar offered applicants the chance to back out
and retake the test in July, and eight days later stated that any
applicant who failed the February exam could retake the July exam
for free. Yet the claimants say this was a "cold comfort", as
retaking the test several months later would require "serious
investments" of time and money and a delay to their admission to
the California Bar. Just days before the exam the State Bar again
communicated that it had received reports about issues with the
platform and had been assured by Meazure that the issues had been
resolved. However, the claimants say that on the day of the test
the software "simply did not work". The filing reads: "Thousands of
test-takers saw their hopes of passing the California Bar Exam
dissolve as Meazure's test platform crashed, and crashed, and
crashed again." Following the exam, the State Bar emailed
applicants and acknowledged that the test conditions were
"unacceptable" and that it "make[s] no excuses for them".
Applicants who were unable to launch the exam on the platform at
all, and those who failed to submit fewer than four written
responses because of technical failures, have been given the option
to retake the exam in March. For those applicants affected by
technical faults but who do not meet the above criteria, the State
Bar stated it is still finalising other remediation plans. The
claimants are represented by Annick Persinger and Katherine Aizpuru
of Tycko & Zavareei. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Class Cert Hearing in Yoon Set for June 24, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY YOON, ET AL., v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-02612-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Nathanael Cousins entered an order setting case schedule
through the hearing on the Plaintiffs' class certification motion
is as follows:
Event Deadline
Motion for class certification and
associated class expert report(s) due: Feb. 26, 2026
Opposition to class certification and
associated class expert report(s) due: May 7, 2026
Class certification reply and reply
expert report(s) due: June 4, 2026
Hearing on class certification motion: June 24, 2026
On June 10, 2024, Meta filed its motion to dismiss.
On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss, and on July 29, 2024, Meta filed its reply in
support of its motion to dismiss.
On Dec. 30, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Meta’s motion to dismiss.
On Jan.15, 2025, following the submission of the parties’ joint
case management statement, the Court set certain deadlines and
instructed the parties to file a "joint proposed order with
proposed case schedule through class certification, by Feb. 21,
2025."
Meta operates as a social technology company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t2sjpn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: 925-300-4455
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
- and -
Yeremy O. Krivoshey, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507
San Francsico, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 839-7000
E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com
joel@skclassactions.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
Darcy C. Harris, Esq.
Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq.
Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-4000
Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com
dharris@gibsondunn.com
emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
abarrera@gibsondunn.com
MICHAEL GOLDBERG: Court Affirms Automatic Stay in Chamberlin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William F. Jung of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, affirms the bankruptcy court's
order granting the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to enforce the
automatic stay in the lawsuit entitled Clark Chamberlin, et al.,
Appellants v. Michael Goldberg, Appellee, Case No.
8:24-cv-01962-WFJ (M.D. Fla.).
This appeal arises from a bankruptcy case, In re: The Center for
Special Needs Trust Administration, Inc., Case No.
8:24-bk-00676-RCT. The Appellants appeal the bankruptcy court's
order granting the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to enforce the
automatic stay, entered on Aug. 5, 2024.
The Appellants' son is the beneficiary of a special needs trust
administered by The Center for Special Needs Trust Administration
("Debtor"). On Feb. 2, 2024, the Debtor filed for bankruptcy,
disclosing it used $100 million from special needs trusts to fund a
loan to Boston Financial Group ("BFG").
The Appellants filed a lawsuit class action status on Feb. 18,
2024, alleging 13 counts and naming BFG and other associated
persons, entities, and subsidiaries. Thereafter, the Appellee was
appointed Chapter 11 Trustee. On April 26, 2024, the Appellee filed
a motion to enforce the automatic stay, which the bankruptcy court
granted on Aug. 5, 2024.
In doing so, the bankruptcy court declared the subject class action
void ab initio. Since then, the bankruptcy court has granted the
Appellee's wind-down motion, transitioning trusts to a third party,
and, in an adversary proceeding, the Appellee obtained a judgment
of $120 million from some of the parties named in the Appellants'
class action.
Additionally, an accounting firm has been unable to trace the funds
loaned to specific trust accounts. The Court affirms the order
granting the Appellee's motion to enforce the automatic stay.
The Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from final bankruptcy
court orders. Judge Jung notes that the order holding the class
action void ab initio ended the proceeding on the stay motion,
making it final and appealable to this Court.
Judge Jung opines that in its Aug. 5, 2024 order, the bankruptcy
court correctly concluded that the Appellants' complaint violates
the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. Section 362, because (1) it
improperly seeks to exercise control over property of the estate,
(2) the Appellee has not abandoned certain claims against the
defendants named in the class action, so it would be a violation of
the automatic stay for the Appellant to pursue them, (3) the class
action has interfered with and jeopardized the Trustee's work and
the administration of this case by attempting to exercise control
over the recovery of the BFG loan proceeds, and (4) the
determination of the claims in the Appellants' complaint will
impact the administration of this bankruptcy, whether through
collateral estoppel, indemnification, or otherwise.
The Appellants' complaint is predicated in part on "impugning the
validity of the Loan Documents," and proving that they are a
"sham," Judge Jung notes. The focus of the Appellants' Amended
Complaint is on the Debtor and its officers and directors, blaming
them for the misappropriation of trust fund assets.
Judge Jung opines that a cause of action for breach of a loan and
against officers and directors of a company is derivative and,
thereby, property of the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of label.
Hence, the bankruptcy court correctly determined that the claims
against the Defendants in the Appellants' complaint are so
intertwined with the claims against the Debtor that they are
effectively claims against the Debtor.
The funds at issue have not been traced, and were voluntarily given
to the Debtor to invest, administer, and pay out when appropriate.
Judge Jung holds that the Appellant's complaint implicates the
automatic stay.
Based on the foregoing, and review of the entire record, Judge Jung
affirms the bankruptcy court's order. The Clerk is directed to
enter judgment for the Appellee, to close the case, and to transmit
a copy of this order to the Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Middle District of Florida.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/565w62k9 from PacerMonitor.com.
MONTANA: Superintendent Sued Over Disabilities Education Act
------------------------------------------------------------
A.H., by and through her parent, L.H., and A.K, by and through his
parent, V.B.; DISABILITY RIGHTS MONTANA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUSIE HEDALEN, in
her official capacity as Montana Superintendent of Public
Instruction; GREG GIANFORTE, in his official capacity as Governor
of the State of Montana, Defendants, is a class action to establish
the rights of the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent
to a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to provide the Plaintiffs and the Class a FAPE until their
respective 22nd birthdays and Defendants' practice of awarding
diplomas to special education students based on alternative
academic achievement standards violate the IDEA.
Montana is a landlocked state in the Mountain West subregion of the
Western United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tal M. Goldin, Esq.
Michelle L. Weltman, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS MONTANA
1022 Chestnut St.
Helena, MT 59601
Telephone: (406) 449-2344
Email: tal@disabilityrightsmt.org
michelle@disabilityrightsmt.org
kristin@disabilityrightsmt.org
- and -
Jason H. Kim, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY, LLP
300 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 835-1550
Email: jkim@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Gerald S. Hartman, Esq.
BARBARA MCDOWELL SOCIAL
JUSTICE CENTER
3607 Whispering Lane
Falls Church, VA 22041
Telephone: (703) 919-0423
Email: ghartmanlaw@gmail.com
- and -
James D. Jenkins, Esq.
P.O. Box 6373
Richmond, VA 23230
Telephone: (804) 873-8528
Email: jjenkins@valancourtbooks.com
MORGAN STANLEY: Bertonis Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Bertonis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, and
E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01598 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25,
2025), is brought to recover damages arising out of Defendants'
unlawful conduct related to their Sweep Programs as breach of their
fiduciary duties.
Under the Sweep Programs, Defendants swept idle customer cash into
interest-bearing accounts at banks selected by and affiliated with
Defendants. The cash sweep accounts were highly lucrative for
Defendants and their banks but paid unreasonably low, below-market
interest rates to customers. As such, Defendants used the Sweep
Programs to generate massive revenue for themselves at the expense
of their customers.
The Defendants' use of the Sweep Programs to enrich themselves by
paying unreasonably low interest rates to customers breached their
fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and violated several
state and federal laws including the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO Statute") and the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act").
Accordingly, Defendants' Sweep Programs have begun to attract
scrutiny from federal and state regulators. In August 2024, for
example, Morgan Stanley announced that it was under investigation
by the SEC for potential violations of the federal statute
governing the conduct of investment advisors concerning the Sweep
Programs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff held both a traditional brokerage account and a Roth
IRA account with E*TRADE.
Morgan Stanley is a financial services company that conducts
business throughout the United States.[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
- and -
Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
Mary Ellen Conner, Esq.
William W. Stone, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
Murray House
40 Power Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Phone: 470/632-6000
Email: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
maryellenc@johnsonfistel.com
williams@johnsonfistel.com
NAMASTE LABORATORIES: Blind Can't Access to Website, Fagnani Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAMASTE LABORATORIES, L.L.C., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01515 (S.D.N.Y., February 21, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General
Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://orshaircare.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that
contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing
alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.
Namaste Laboratories, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [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
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
NESTLE PURINA: Wentworth Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Garrison Wentworth, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated
v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00633 (D. Colo.,
Feb. 26, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other
damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), their implementing regulations (COMPS
Orders), and the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of
Denver, Colorado ("DRMC").
The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more
than 40 hours a workweek and 12 hours a workday. But the Defendant
does not pay them overtime wages at the required rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 a workweek and/or 12 a workday. Instead, the
Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees
non-discretionary bonuses that it fails to include their regular
rates of pay for overtime purposes (The Defendant's "bonus pay
scheme").
The Defendant's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at a rate
of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay, based on all
remuneration, for all hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek. And
the Defendant regularly does not authorize, permit, or make
available uninterrupted and duty-free meal periods to the Plaintiff
and the other Hourly Employees for each workday that exceeds 5
hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a maintenance
technician from January 2024 until September 2024.
Purina operates "20 pet food factories across the U.S." and employs
over 8,500 "factory team members."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
NEW ERA ENTERPRISES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stapp Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN STAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW ERA ENTERPRISES, INC.; and NEW ERA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00845 (S.D. Tex.,
Feb. 26, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the
harms it caused the Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the
preventable data breach of the Defendant's inadequately protected
computer network.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by taking possession
and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information,
Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The
Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff
and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect
their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access,
acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate,
release, steal, misuse, and view it.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members
have already suffered damages. For example, now that their Personal
Information has been released into the criminal cyber domains,
Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of
identity theft, says the suit.
New Era Enterprises Inc was founded in 1996. The Company's line of
business includes the underwriting of life insurance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com
- and -
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
NEWREZ LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 20
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE MOODY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a
SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No. 1:24-cv-05406-ELR-CMS (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Catherine Salinas entered an order extending
the time for Plaintiff to move for class certification until and
including June 20, 2025.
NewRez offers originating and selling mortgage loans and homes on
buying, lending, and rental basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Vr0aa at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: WilmerHale Secures Putative Class Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 27, 2025, WilmerHale obtained a major victory for
Norfolk Southern Corporation and several of its current and former
executives and directors by securing a motion to dismiss in a
putative class action in which Plaintiffs alleged violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The decision
effectively closes the case.
The litigation stemmed from a derailment in East Palestine, Ohio,
on February 3, 2023, involving a Norfolk Southern train carrying
hazardous materials. Plaintiffs alleged that Norfolk Southern made
materially false and misleading statements by claiming a strong
commitment to safety while implementing hazardous cost-cutting
measures in operations and staffing. They claimed Norfolk
Southern's adoption of precision scheduled railroading in 2019
increased the risk of accidents and derailments and that the
company failed to disclose allegedly illegal conduct relating to
safety issues.
Norfolk Southern moved to dismiss on various grounds, including
that the challenged statements were too general to be actionable
and Plaintiffs had not identified any misleading statements by
omission. The company also argued it had adequately disclosed the
risk of a catastrophic derailment involving hazardous materials.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave recommended the Court deny the motion
to dismiss in principal part. However, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the
Southern District of New York issued an order dismissing the
amended complaint in its entirety, adopting the majority of Norfolk
Southern's arguments. The Court held that the company's statements
concerning safety were either nonactionable "puffery" or not
adequately alleged to be false. Judge Kaplan also rejected
Plaintiffs' argument that Norfolk Southern failed to disclose an
increased rate of accidents during the Class Period. The Court
further held that Plaintiffs did not allege plausibly that Norfolk
Southern violated any law or regulation.
The WilmerHale team representing Norfolk Southern in the securities
litigation includes Mike Bongiorno, Tamar Kaplan-Marans, Peter
Spaeth, Denise Tsai, Jeremy Adler, Ripley Shiarella, Samuel Frizell
and Matthew Lewis. [GN]
OLAPLEX HOLDINGS: Agrees to False Ads Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Olaplex has agreed to a class action
lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it falsely advertised its hair
products as "Made in the USA."
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased one or more Olaplex
products labeled "Made in USA" between Feb. 7, 2019, and Sept. 6,
2024.
The class action lawsuit alleged Olaplex falsely advertised its
products, specifically the Olaplex Hair Perfector No. 3, as being
"Made in the USA" when they actually contained foreign-made
ingredients. The lawsuit states the "Made in USA" label is
misleading and violates California's Made in USA Statute, Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising
Law.
Olaplex is a hair care brand that offers a variety of products for
different hair types and conditions. The brand's products are often
used in salons, but consumers can also purchase Olaplex products
for home use.
Olaplex has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the allegations.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a $5
voucher to use on Olaplex's website. The voucher can be combined
with other offers on Olaplex's website but cannot be combined with
another promotional code. The voucher will expire 12 months after
issuance.
Class members are only entitled to one voucher regardless of the
number of Olaplex products purchased during the class period.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 12, 2025.[GN]
ONDERLAW LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hudson-Bryant Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY HUDSON-BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONDERLAW, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:25-cv-00244-HEA (E.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2025) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
OnderLaw is a personal injury law firm with attorneys handling
complex injury and dangerous drug cases nationwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mount Carmel Avenue
Glenside, PA 19038
Telephone: (215) 225-5529
Email: a@perronglaw.com
PAM HEALTH: Underpays Licensed Vocational Nurses, Walker Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TYKIESHA WALKER, individually and for others similarly situated v.
PAM HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00318-JPW (M.D. Pa., February 21,
2025) is a collective action to recover unpaid wages and other
damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, Walker and the other straight time
workers regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek for PAM. But
Walker and the other straight time workers are not paid required
overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours a workweek for
PAM. Instead, PAM misclassifies Walker and the other straight time
workers as independent contractors, says the suit.
Plaintiff Walker worked for PAM as a licensed vocational nurse at
its Kyle and Round Rock, Texas facilities.
PAM Health, LLC operates approximately 50 hospitals and
rehabilitation centers across U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
William F. Goodrich, Esq.
3634 California Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 766-1455
Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
bill@goodrichandgeist.com
- 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
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PARKLAND AMBULANCE: Desso Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Paramedics
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EVAN DESSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARKLAND AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00238-MAD-PJE (N.D.N.Y., February 21, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay timely wages, and failure to pay
comply with wage statement requirements.
The Plaintiff worked for Parkland as an emergency medical
technician and paramedic from approximately July 2021 to October
2024 in and around upstate New York.
Parkland Ambulance Service, Inc. is an ambulance service provider
with its principal place of business in Schenectady, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- 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
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
PASSES INC: Faces Rosenblum Suit Over Child Pornography
-------------------------------------------------------
ALICE ROSENBLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PASSES, INC.; NOFHOTOS GROUP LLC; WLM
MANAGEMENT LLC; LUCY GUO; ALEC CELESTIN; and LANI GINOZA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20899-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 2025)
is an action against the Defendants, who financially benefited
from, or otherwise participated in, the production, possession,
sale and distribution of child pornography, that is, images and
videos of the Plaintiff and the Class members, all of whom were
under 18 years old at all times relevant, engaged in sexually
explicit conduct.
According to the complaint, between July 2024 and September 2024,
Celestin and Ginoza, acting as agents for Passes and Guo, directed
and induced Plaintiff, a then-17-year-old minor, to create images
and videos of herself engaged in sexually explicit conduct and to
upload them to the Passes data storage known as "the Vault" (the
"Passes Vault").
Each of the Defendants knew that Plaintiff was a minor and knew
that they produced, possessed, sold and distributed images and
videos of Plaintiff engaged in sexually explicit conduct at all
times relevant.
Starting in or around July 2024, the Defendants conspired to
recruit and groom Plaintiff, a 17-year-old female minor, so that
the Defendants could knowingly produce, market, sell and distribute
child pornography; namely, the lascivious exhibition of the anus,
genitals, or pubic area of herself, a minor, Between July 2024 and
September 2024, Celestin and Ginoza, acting as agents for Passes
and Guo, conspired to market, sell and distribute images and videos
of Plaintiff engaged in sexually explicit conduct through the
Passes internet messaging system to Passes customers, including
those known as "big spenders" and "whales," in exchange for money,
says the suit.
Passes, Inc. is a platform designed for creators to monetize their
brands and connect with their audiences. It offers customizable
memberships, direct messaging, livestreaming, and a marketplace for
merchandise and content. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Noah Schwartz, Esq.
Jerry Breslin, Esq.
SCHWARTZ BRESLIN PLLC
The Alfred I. DuPont Building
169 E. Flagler Street, Suite 700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 577-4626
- and -
Christopher J. Clark, Esq.
Rodney Villazor, Esq.
Natalia Lima, Esq.
CLARK SMITH VILLAZOR LLP
666 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 377-0850
Email: clark@csvllp.com
rodney.villazor@csvllp.com
natalia.lima@csvllp.com
PENALOZA CONSTRUCTION: Faces Duarte Wage-and-Hour Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEOPOLDO DUARTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PENALOZA CONSTRUCTION LLC and FILIBERTO
PENALOZA DUARTE, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00772 (S.D. Tex.,
February 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and reporting false information on Federal tax forms
in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7434.
Mr. Duarte worked for the Defendants as a laborer/construction
worker from July 2024 until February 2025.
Penaloza Construction LLC is a construction company doing business
in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
PHILADELPHIA AMERICAN: Critchlow Sues Over Leaked Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON CRITCHLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHILADELPHIA AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-00453 (M.D. Fla., February 23,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory
judgment for injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personal information of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals stored within its computer system following a
data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties.
Philadelphia American Life Insurance Company is an insurance
products provider based in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Theodore A. Corless, Esq.
CORLESS LAW GROUP
12031 Brewster Drive
Tampa, FL33626
Email: service@corlesslawgroup.com
- and -
Kyle Kyman, Esq.
COHEN LAW GROUP
350 North Lake Destiny
Maitland, FL 32751
Telephone: (407) 478-4878
Facsimile: (407) 478-0204
Email: khyman@itsaboutjustice.law
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES: Underpays Production Staff, Bodi Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
KURT BODI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00358 (N.D. Ohio, February 21, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to timely pay
wages in violation of the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly,
non-exempt employee in one or more roles, including as a production
associate/sorter and in shipping/receiving, in Bowling Green, Ohio
from approximately March 2022 until the end of January 2025.
Phoenix Technologies International, LLC is a wholly owned
subsidiary of APG Polytech USA Holdings, Inc., doing business in
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
4400 N. High St., Suite 310
Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Esther E. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
Toledo, OH 43606
Telephone: (419) 824-4439
Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
Email: Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308
Strongsville, OH 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gifford Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA GIFFORD, on behalf of herself and as parent and guardian of
her minor children, J.M., C.M., J.S.M, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL
GROUP LLC., Case No. 2:25-at-00288 (W.D. Mo., Feb. 27, 2025)
alleges that Defendant failed to secure and safeguard the
personally identifiable information of over 60 million individuals
who are customers of the company.
PowerSchool headquartered in Folsom, California is one of the
school data software companies, providing database and data storage
goods and services to both current and former schools, students,
parents, and teachers worldwide.
In the regular course of its business, PowerSchool is required to
maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect, and safeguard their customers’ PII against unauthorized
access and disclosure. The Defendant required its customers to
provide it with their sensitive PII and failed to protect it.
Defendant had an obligation to secure their customers’ PII by
implementing reasonable and appropriate data security safeguards.
This was part of the bargain between Plaintiffs and Class Members
and Defendant, says the suit.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant could have prevented the
Data Breach by properly monitoring their file software.
Plaintiff K.I. is a parent of a former student of the Liberty
School District in Missouri and is a resident of Kansas City, Clay
County, Missouri, whose Personal Information was compromised in the
Data Breach.
Ms. Gifford, is the parent and legal guardian of minors J.M., C.M.,
J.S.M., who are students in the Commercial Township School
District, which is based in Port Norris, New Jersey.
The Defendant has operated at various school districts and schools
throughout the state of North Carolina, including schools within
Forsyth County, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Berger, Esq.
Jane Farrell, Esq.
Sarah E. Hillier, Esq.
Jennifer Sun, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Ste. 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com
jgf@classlawgroup.com
seh@classlawgroup.com
jsun@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &
GRAIFMAN, P.C.
135 Chestnut Ridge Road
Montvale, NJ 07645
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
ggraifman@kgglaw.com
PRATT INDUSTRIES: Comperry Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Adjusters
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER COMPERRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRATT INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00052-MJN-CHG (S.D. Ohio, February 21, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
employee in the position of adjuster at a facility in Vandalia,
Ohio from approximately July 2024 to January 2025.
Pratt Industries, Inc. is a corrugated packaging company based in
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Court Okays Class Notice in Knight Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James M. Moody, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas granted the plaintiff's motion to
approve its notice plan for the certified class in the case
captioned as ERIK KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, PLAINTIFF vs. PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN
INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT, Case No. 3:22-CV-203-JM (E.D. Ark.).
Before the Court is the parties' proposed plan for publishing
notice to the certified class.
The form and notice to the class as set forth in the proposed plan
is approved with minor modifications.
The Court appoints Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. as
the class administrator. The class notice must be sent no later
than March 28, 2025. Class members will have until May 12, 2025 to
opt out of the class action.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uv3pS6 from PacerMonitor.com.
PURPLE INNOVATION: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURPLE INNOVATION, LLC, D/B/A
PURPLE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01093 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2025)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.purple.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Purple Innovation, LLC operates as a technology company. The
Company designs and manufactures cushions, pillows, and other
comfort products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
QUANTUM COMPUTING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a leading national shareholder rights
law firm, announces that a securities fraud class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Quantum Computing Inc. ("QCI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
QUBT) securities between March 30, 2020 and January 15, 2025,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). QCI investors have until April 28,
2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
What Happened?
On November 27, 2024, Iceberg Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that QCI's statements regarding its thin film
lithium niobate ("TFLN") foundry, as well as purchase orders for
TFLN quantum computing chips, were a sham. On December 9, 2024,
Iceberg Research published another report, stating that the photos
that QCI had share of "what it claim[ed] to be its foundry . . .
look[ed] more like a laboratory" and was "a far cry from a foundry
ready for ‘mass production.'"
On this news, QCI's stock price fell $0.46, or 5.8%, to close at
$7.47 per share on December 9, 2024, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on January 16, 2025, Capybara Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that QCI had overstated its ties to
NASA and had fabricated revenues through multiple related-party
transactions. The report further alleged that QCI's products were
fake, that it was pumping its stock price with false and misleading
press releases, and that the Company had never purchased the
five-acre parcel at Arizona State University's Research Park for
its TFLN foundry, as it had claimed it would.
On this news, QCI's stock price fell $1.72, or 14.9%, over two
consecutive trading days to close at $9.83 per share on January 17,
2025, thereby injuring investors further.
What Is The Lawsuit About?
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Defendants overstated the capabilities of QCI's quantum
computing technologies, products, and/or services; (2) Defendants
overstated the scope and nature of QCI's relationship with NASA, as
well as the scope and nature of QCI's NASA-related contracts and/or
subcontracts; (3) Defendants overstated QCI's progress in
developing a TFLN foundry, the scale of the purported TFLN foundry,
and orders for the Company's TFLN chips; (4) QCI's business
dealings with Quad M Solutions, Inc. and millionways, Inc. both
qualified as related party transactions; (5) accordingly, QCI's
revenues relied, at least in part, on undisclosed related party
transactions; (6) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to
have a significant negative impact on QCI's business and
reputation; and (7) as a result, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired QCI securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 28, 2025
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit.
Contact Us To Participate or Learn More:
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact us:
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224
Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224
Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
Visit our website at: www.glancylaw.com. [GN]
RAINBOW REHABILITATION: Rogers Sues Over Nurses' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE ROGERS and KRISTINA RILEY, Individually and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees, Plaintiffs v. RAINBOW REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE
CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02193 (W.D. Tenn.,
February 21, 2025) is brought against the defendant as a
multi-plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA by
failing to pay Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for all
hours worked over 80 within weekly pay periods at one and one-half
times their regular hourly pay rates.
Plaintiff Rogers has been employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid
nurse at all times material to this action.
Rainbow Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center, LLC is a
rehabilitation facility located in Bartlett, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
jbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
ROCKET LAB: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bray Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS BRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKET LAB USA, INC.; PETER BECK; and ADAM
SPICE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01733 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 27,
2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Rocket Lab securities between
November 12, 2024 and February 25, 2025, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to pursue claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's
plans for three barge landing tests were significantly delayed; (2)
a critical potable water problem was not scheduled to be fixed
until January 2026, which delayed preparation of the launch pad;
(3) as a result of the foregoing, there was a substantial risk that
Rocket Lab's Neutron rocket would not launch in mid-2025; (4)
Neutron's only contract was made at a discount with an unreliable
partner; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
Rocket Lab's stock price fell $2.21, or 9.8 percent, to close at
$20.28 per share on February 25, 2025, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Rocket Lab USA, Inc. manufactures guided missiles and space
vehicles. The Company develops and launches advanced rocket
technology to provide rapid and repeatable access to orbit for
small satellites. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
SAVAGE ENTERPRISES: Bids to Dismiss Nguyen Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian S. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, grants in part motions to
dismiss the lawsuit styled DIANE NGUYEN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFF v. CHRISTOPHER G. WHEELER,
et al., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:24-cv-00815-BSM (E.D. Ark.).
The Court holds that Savage Enterprises's motion to dismiss is
granted on Diane Nguyen's Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
claim and denied on Nguyen's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, product liability,
and rescission claims; Christopher Wheeler's motion to dismiss is
granted; and Nguyen's motion for jurisdictional discovery is
denied.
The Clerk is directed to terminate Christopher Wheeler as a party
and to update the case style to Nguyen v. Savage Enterprises, et
al. Additionally, Nguyen has seven days to show cause why she
should not be sanctioned for citing nonexistent authority in her
brief.
Ms. Nguyen alleges that the Defendants operate a coordinated
enterprise that knowingly produces, markets, and distributes vape
pens that contain illegal levels of Delta-9 THC in violation of
federal and state law. Nguyen is suing the following Defendants:
(1) Christopher Wheeler, a California individual and former CEO of
Savage Enterprises; (2) Savage Enterprises, a California
corporation and manufacturer of the vape pens; (3) Pur Iso Labs, a
Texas limited liability company who provides distillate for the
vape pens; (4) Kunal Manmeet d/b/a Vapor Planet, an Arkansas
limited liability company who is a retailer of the vape pens; and
(5) Marin Analyics, a California limited liability company, who
conducts testing and certification for the vape pens.
Ms. Nguyen alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(MMWA), the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), state
product liability law, and state contract law.
Savage Enterprises moves to dismiss the claims against it because
Nguyen has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Wheeler moves to dismiss the claims against him because:
(1) this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him; (2) Nguyen
failed to properly serve him; and (3) Nguyen has failed to state a
claim against him. Nguyen requests jurisdictional discovery to help
establish the scope and nature of Wheeler's contacts with
Arkansas.
Judge Miller opines that the motion to dismiss the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) claim is granted because
Nguyen has no private right of action under the ADTPA. Savage's
motion to dismiss Nguyen's substantive RICO claims is denied
because Nguyen has sufficiently alleged RICO violations.
The motion to dismiss the conspiracy claim is denied. Judge Miller
explains that Nguyen meets the first standard as set out in the
previous section, and she meets the second standard by alleging
that Savage manufactured the vape pens despite its knowledge of the
pens' illegality and that it was aware of the scope of the
enterprise and intended to participate in it. Although this
allegation is thin, Judge Miller finds it is enough to survive
dismissal.
The motion to dismiss Nguyen's Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA)
claim is denied because she has sufficiently alleged a MMWA claim,
Judge Miller holds. The motion to dismiss the product liability
claim is denied because Nguyen sufficiently alleges her claim,
including alleged damages in the form of economic harm.
The motion to dismiss the rescission claim is denied. Nguyen
alleges that she was duped into buying vape pens that contained
illegal levels of Delta-9 THC and that she would not have bought
the vape pens if she knew otherwise. Based on these allegations,
Judge Miller finds Nguyen can seek rescission and restitution.
Mr. Wheeler's motion to dismiss is granted because service was
deficient, Judge Miller holds. Judge Miller opines that Nguyen's
insufficient service of process is unacceptable and, therefore,
jurisdiction cannot be exerted over Wheeler. Because Wheeler's
motion to dismiss has been granted based on insufficient service,
Judge Miller says his arguments regarding personal jurisdiction and
Nguyen's failure to state a claim against him do not need to be
addressed for purposes of dismissal.
The Court denies Nguyen's request for jurisdictional discovery
because it is unnecessary.
Because the Court is bound to take all of the factual allegations
in the complaint as true, Judge Miller disagrees with Savage that
Nguyen fails to state certain claims against it. Judge Miller,
however, does greatly appreciate the effort Savage went through to
address Nguyen's brief. Strikingly, in addition to the many
misstatements of authority and inaccurate citations to her own
complaint, Nguyen cites to four cases that do not exist. This is
deeply concerning, Judge Miller points out. Therefore, Nguyen has
seven days to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for
citing nonexistent authority.
For these reasons, the Court grants Savage's motion to dismiss on
Nguyen's ADTPA claim and denied on Nguyen's RICO, MMWA, product
liability, and rescission claims; Wheeler's motion to dismiss is
granted; and Nguyen's motion for jurisdictional discovery is
denied.
The Clerk is directed to terminate Christopher Wheeler as a party
and to update the case style to Nguyen v. Savage Enterprises, et
al. Additionally, Nguyen has seven days to show cause why she
should not be sanctioned for citing nonexistent authority in her
brief.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ywfzax6 from PacerMonitor.com.
SAVOYA LLC: Cuhadar Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Drivers, Subdrivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY HUSEYIN CUHADAR and GURHAN ERGEZER, individually and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAVOYA, LLC and DOES 1
THROUGH 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00443-X (N.D.
Tex., February 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
State Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
pay overtime wages, illegal kickback resulting in failed
reimbursement of expenses, failure to pay spread of hours pay,
unlawful deductions, improper kickback of wages, failure to comply
with notice and recordkeeping requirements, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.
Mr. Cuhadar worked for the Defendants as a driver throughout the
New York metropolitan area from March 2019 to May 2023, while Mr.
Ergezer worked as a subdriver from June 2022 to December 2022.
Savoya, LLC is a provider of chauffeured transportation services,
with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew McCarley, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
11300 North Central Expressway, Suite 550
Dallas, TX 75243
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Email: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com
- and -
Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW, P.C.
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 444-9300
Email: Bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
SOUNDCLOUD GLOBAL: Shinglot Sues Over Subscription Renewal Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
RUTIK SHINGLOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUNDCLOUD GLOBAL LIMITED & CO. KG,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01518 (C.D. Calif., February 21, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition
Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act arising from
SoundCloud's conduct of illegally charging Plaintiff and other
consumers an increased price for their SoundCloud Go+
subscription.
According to the complaint, subscribers are told that the plan will
automatically renew at a price (e.g. $4.99 or $9.99, depending on
the tier) every 30 days. So, Plaintiff and other subscribers think
they will be charged that disclosed price, each month, until they
cancel. These disclosures don't tell consumers that SoundCloud may
increase the price and increase the automatic charges. Thus, it
misleads reasonable consumers about the price of those
subscriptions, says the suit.
SoundCloud offers a subscription service, SoundCloud Go, that
enables ad-free listening, unlimited offline listening, greater
catalogue access, and other streaming benefits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Christin Cho, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
christin@dovel.com
STATE OF VIRGINIA: Ruling in Stinnie v. DMV Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as GERALD F. LACKEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
PETITIONER v. DAMIAN STINNIE, ET AL., No. 23–621 (U.S.), the
United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holding that drivers
qualify as prevailing parties eligible for attorney's fees under 42
U. S. C. Sec.1988(b) even if the case becomes moot before final
judgment. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
Respondents are Virginia drivers whose licenses were suspended due
to their failure to pay court fines or costs. The drivers sued the
Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983, arguing that the Virginia statute requiring
suspension of their licenses was unconstitutional. The District
Court preliminarily enjoined the Commissioner from enforcing the
statute. But before the case reached final judgment, the Virginia
General Assembly repealed the challenged law, rendering the action
moot. The question presented is whether the drivers are prevailing
parties who qualify for an award of attorney's fees under Sec.
1988(b).
Until recently, a Virginia statute directed the state courts to
suspend the license of any driver who failed to pay "any fine,
costs, forfeitures, restitution, or penalty lawfully assessed
against him" for violation of a federal, state, or local law. The
suspension remained in force until the amount due was paid in full
or the driver entered into a court-approved payment plan.
Virginia drivers -- whose licenses were suspended under the law and
who asserted that they could not afford to pay the fines or costs
or keep up with a payment plan -- sued the Commissioner of the
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles on their own behalf and on
behalf of a putative class. The drivers alleged that the statute
facially violated the Due Process Clause by "failing to provide
sufficient notice or hearing to any driver before license
suspension" and violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses "as applied to people who cannot afford to pay due to their
modest financial circumstances." The drivers sought declaratory
relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and attorney's
fees under Sec. 1988(b).
In December 2018, the District Court granted a preliminary
injunction, prohibiting the Commissioner from enforcing the statute
against the drivers or future class members. The court explained
that the drivers had made "a clear showing that they were likely to
succeed" on their procedural due process claim, though it noted
that they need not "establish a certainty of success." The court
also determined that the remaining preliminary injunction factors
-- the risk of irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the
public interest -- weighed in the drivers' favor. The Commissioner
did not appeal the grant of the preliminary injunction.
In April 2019, about four months before a bench trial was scheduled
to begin, the Commissioner moved to dismiss as moot or, in the
alternative, stay the case. The Virginia General Assembly had
recently adopted Budget Amendment No. 33, which eliminated the
suspension of drivers' licenses for failure to pay court fines and
costs through July 1, 2020, but did not repeal Sec. 46.2–395. The
Commissioner represented that the General Assembly was likely to
repeal the law during the next legislative session. The District
Court granted a stay, reasoning in part that doing so served the
interests of judicial economy and enabled the court to avoid
"weighing in on sensitive constitutional questions about license
suspension schemes about which other courts had disagreed."
In April 2020, the Virginia General Assembly repealed §46.2–395
and required the permanent reinstatement of licenses suspended
under the law. See 2020 Va. Acts ch. 965. As a result, the parties
agreed that the action had become moot and stipulated to dismissal.
The drivers, however, asserted that they were entitled to
attorney's fees under §1988(b), so the parties jointly requested
that the court retain jurisdiction to resolve that dispute.
The District Court declined to award attorney's fees to the drivers
under that section on the ground that parties who obtain a
preliminary injunction do not qualify as "prevailing parties." A
Fourth Circuit panel affirmed, but the Fourth Circuit reversed en
banc. The en banc court held that some preliminary injunctions can
provide lasting, merits-based relief and qualify plaintiffs as
prevailing parties, even if the case becomes moot before final
judgment.
The Supreme Court holds that Section 1988(b) permits courts to
award attorney's fees to a 'prevailing party.' A party 'prevails'
when a court conclusively resolves his claim by granting enduring
relief on the merits that alters the legal relationship between the
parties. Critically, both the change in relationship and its
permanence must result from a judicial order.
The Supreme Court explains that a preliminary injunction, which
temporarily preserves the parties' litigating positions based in
part on a prediction of the likelihood of success on the merits,
does not render a plaintiff a 'prevailing party.' Nor do external
events that moot the action and prevent the court from conclusively
adjudicating the claim. Because the drivers in the present case
gained only preliminary injunctive relief before this action became
moot, they do not qualify as 'prevailing parties' eligible for
attorney's fees under Sec. 1988(b).
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1iVQse
STERLING JEWELERS: Walter Wage Lawsuit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted the
plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as Jennifer J.
Walter v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., Case No. 24-cv-05581-MWF-PVC
(C.D. Cal.), to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Sterling
Jewelers Inc.'s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
Plaintiff commenced this putative class action in Los Angeles
County Superior Court on April 17, 2024.
The Complaint alleged that Plaintiff was employed by Defendant
sometime between March 2, 2023, and the time the Complaint was
filed.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in a systematic pattern of
wage and hour violations.
Plaintiff accordingly brought causes of action for the following:
(1) failure to pay minimum wages;
(2) failure to pay overtime;
(3) failure to provide meal periods;
(4) failure to permit rest breaks;
(5) failure to reimburse business expenses;
(6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
(7) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment;
and
(8) violation of California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200, et seq.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, unpaid compensation, economic
and/or special damages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties,
restitution, disgorgement, pre-judgment interest, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.
On the basis of these allegations, Defendant removed this action on
July 1, 2024. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant stated its
position that removal was proper under the Class Action Fairness
Act because the proposed class contains more than 100 members,
minimal diversity exists, and the Complaint placed more than $5
million in controversy.
Defendant assumed that Plaintiff would be entitled to attorneys'
fees at 25% of the amount of damages put in controversy in the
Complaint, for a total of $2,995,545.25. In total, Defendant
calculated $14,977,726.25 as the ultimate amount in controversy.
Plaintiff argues in the Motion to Remand that Defendant's assumed
40% violation rate for meal and rest breaks is unsupported; that
Defendant is not permitted to separately apply calculations for
overtime and minimum wage violations; that Defendant significantly
inflated the value of the overtime claim by calculating the
overtime figure by reference to all workweeks rather than weeks in
which employees were eligible for overtime pay; and that 25% is an
inappropriate assumption for attorneys' fees.
Defendant's removal of this action, at bottom, rests on the notion
that it can place fixed values on Plaintiff's vague claim that
Defendant engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour
violations. Regarding the minimum wage and overtime claims,
Defendant uses the systematic pattern language as the basis to
assume that each putative class member experienced a violation each
workweek. Regarding the meal and rest break claims, Defendant
assumes that this language justifies a 40% violation rate. And
Defendant's figures regarding the inaccurate wage statements,
waiting time penalties, and attorneys' fees are downstream of these
initial assumptions.
However, the Court finds Defendant provides no legal citation
establishing that the systematic pattern language supports these
assumptions. Instead, it stretches case law about other, arguably
related, but non-identical allegations made by plaintiffs in other
wage and hour matters that appear to support Defendant's assumed
violation rates.
The Court finds Defendant has failed to meet its burden to prove
that more than $5 million is in controversy in this action.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DiFK2r from PacerMonitor.com.
SURF LINE: Faces Demaio Suit Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE DEMAIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SURF LINE HAWAII, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-25-002547 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty.,
February 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant transmits telephonic
sales calls to the telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or
services without obtaining prior express consent. As a result of
the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff and the Class are
harmed.
Surf Line Hawaii, Ltd. is an online retail company, doing business
in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
SUTTER HEALTH: Settles $411-Mil. Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Muoio, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that shortly
before returning to the courtroom, Sutter Health has reached an
"agreement in principle" to settle a long-running and recently
revived antitrust class-action lawsuit, according to a Sunday
evening legal filing and statement from the legal counsel for the
plaintiffs shared Monday morning, March 3, 2025.
The case, Sidibe et al v. Sutter Health, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California back in 2012
and claimed about $411 million in damages from 2011 to 2020. In it,
plaintiffs alleged that the system had used its power in an
uncompetitive healthcare market to force health plans into
contracts that only included inpatient services at
Sutter-affiliated hospitals.
A jury had unanimously ruled in favor of Sutter Health in March
2022; however, following multiple appeals, the case was revived
last June after a 2-1 reversal and remand for new trial from the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That new trial was set to begin
March 3, 2025. [GN]
T-MOBILE US: Faces Class Action Over Unclear Billing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priya Ahluwalia, writing for msn.com, reports that T-Mobile is
under fire as it faces a new class action lawsuit filed by 23
plaintiffs. The lawsuit, filed earlier this week, accuses the
telecommunications giant of misleading its customers with unclear
billing practices. At the center of the controversy is the
company's Regulatory Programs and Telco Recovery Fee (RPTR Fee),
which consumers claim is deceptively presented as a
government-mandated charge.
The plaintiffs argue that the fee is portrayed as a required
expense when it is, in fact, a discretionary charge. They allege
this misrepresentation violates consumer protection laws and
unfairly increases user costs.
T-Mobile facing class action lawsuit; Details of the allegations
The lawsuit contends that T-Mobile's billing practices
intentionally blur the distinction between operational costs and
government-imposed taxes. According to the plaintiffs, the RPTR Fee
appears on customer invoices as a mandatory charge, misleading
consumers into believing it is a tax. However, the lawsuit claims
the fee is actually designed to boost the company's profits under
the guise of regulatory compliance.
The plaintiffs call this a clear case of deceptive pricing and lack
of transparency. The class action could have wide-reaching
implications, as these alleged practices may affect millions of
T-Mobile customers.
T-Mobile has pushed back against the accusations, emphasizing that
the RPTR Fee is clearly outlined on its website as an operational
cost. The company maintains that the fee covers expenses related to
network infrastructure and is not a government-imposed tax.
Broader implications
This isn't the first time T-Mobile has faced legal scrutiny.
Previous disputes over data practices have also drawn criticism and
a $60 million penalty . . . However, with the tech company facing
this class action lawsuit, the stakes are higher. A favorable
ruling for the plaintiffs could force the company to reevaluate its
pricing structure.
The court proceedings will likely attract significant attention.
For now, the battle between the smartphone carrier and its
consumers continues to unfold, drawing national focus to the issue
of pricing transparency.
The post T-Mobile is facing a class action lawsuit over allegedly
hidden fees appeared first on Android Headlines. [GN]
TARGET CORP: Court Grants Davis's Bid for Partial Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John F. Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment in the lawsuit styled TIMOTHY DAVIS v. TARGET
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00089-JFM (E.D. Pa.).
Target is a corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It
operates distribution centers in various locations in the United
States, including a center in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. From Feb.
10, 2022, through March 18, 2022, Timothy Davis was employed at
Target's Chambersburg distribution center as a Progression Team
Member (PTM).
PTMs, such as Mr. Davis, are warehouse workers, packers, and
seasonal employees, who work at the distribution center and advance
based on seniority. Target classifies PTMs as "non-exempt" from the
mandates of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) and pays them
an hourly wage.
Target's Chambersburg distribution center is a warehouse facility
spanning more than 1.3 million square feet. All employees,
including class members, enter and exit the warehouse at the same
location.
Mr. Davis brings this wage-and-hour class action on behalf of
himself and all PTMs employed at the Chambersburg distribution
center at any time since Nov. 29, 2019. The class members seek
overtime compensation for the time it takes them to walk from the
warehouse entrance to their assigned work departments, and vice
versa. Federal law has long barred claims for walking time. But the
Plaintiff brought this case under PMWA.
Both parties move for summary judgment.
Mr. Davis moves for partial summary judgment on liability but not
damages. He argues that as a matter of law, walking time is
compensable under the PMWA. Relying on Heimbach v. Amazon.com,
Inc., 255 A.3d 191 (Pa. 2021), he contends that the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court has endorsed an expansive definition of "hours
worked" that includes time during which an employee "is required by
the employer to be on the premises of the employer." He argues that
there is no genuine dispute that walking time falls within this
definition and is, thus, compensable.
Target raises similar arguments in its cross-motion for summary
judgment. Target argues that the Heimbach decision is not
controlling, and that the PMWA regulation defining "hours worked"
is unconstitutionally vague. Target also argues that summary
judgment is proper as to the 2,195 class members, who worked no
overtime, and thus, suffered no damages, during the relevant class
period.
The Court held oral argument on the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment, and other pending motions, on Nov. 14, 2024. For
reasons set forth in this Memorandum, the Court grants Mr. Davis's
motion for partial summary judgment, deny Target's motion for
summary judgment as to liability, and grant in part Target's motion
for summary judgment as to the class members without overtime
damages.
Despite Target's efforts to call into question controlling
Pennsylvania law -- including a squarely on-point Pennsylvania
Supreme Court case and longstanding PMWA regulations -- the law
here is clear, Judge Murphy opines. And the material facts before
the Court are undisputed. Pennsylvania has adopted an expansive
definition of compensable "hours worked" that includes all time
during which employees are "required by the employer" to be on the
employer's premises, Judge Murphy explains.
When class members walk between the warehouse entrance and their
assigned home departments before shift start and after clocking
out, they are required by Target to be on Target's premises. Judge
Murphy holds that this walking time is compensable under the PMWA,
as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held in a nearly
identical case about mandatory security-screening time.
Judge Murphy notes that Target asks some reasonable questions about
the implications of this result, but those questions are for a
different audience.
As the parties point out, the Court certified the class
anticipating that some class members may have no overtime damages.
Because the Court does not know whether the parties intend to
update the payroll data again before trial, the Court grants
Target's motion in part. The 2,195 class members identified as
having no overtime damages through Dec. 30, 2023, are dismissed
without prejudice.
For these reasons, the Court grants Mr. Davis's motion for partial
summary judgment as to liability. The time during which class
members spend walking between the distribution center entrance and
their assigned home departments before shift start, and between
their home-department time clocks and the distribution center
entrance after clocking out, is compensable under the PMWA. The
damages case will proceed.
Accordingly, the Court denies Target's motion for summary judgment
as to liability. The Court grants in part Target's motion for
summary judgment as to the 2,195 class members without overtime
damages through Dec. 30, 2023. These 2,195 class members are
dismissed without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n7b28t3 from PacerMonitor.com.
TARGET CORP: Court Refuses to Decertify Class in Davis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge John F. Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denies the Defendant's motion to decertify
class in the lawsuit titled TIMOTHY DAVIS v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00089-JFM (E.D. Pa.).
Pending before the Court are Target's motion to decertify the
class, Target's motion to exclude expert testimony and opinions of
Robert Radwin and Liesl Fox, Mr. Davis's motion for partial summary
judgment, Target's motion for summary judgment, and all responsive
briefing. Oral argument was held on Nov. 14, 2024.
Target is a corporation headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It
operates distribution centers in various locations in the United
States, including a center in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. From Feb.
10, 2022, through March 18, 2022, Timothy Davis was employed at
Target's Chambersburg distribution center as a Progression Team
Member (PTM).
Mr. Davis brings this wage-and-hour class action on behalf of
himself and all PTMs employed at the Chambersburg distribution
center at any time since Nov. 29, 2019. The class members seek
overtime compensation for the time it takes them to walk from the
warehouse entrance to their assigned work departments, and vice
versa. Federal law has long barred claims for walking time. But the
Plaintiff brought this case under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(PMWA).
Mr. Davis seeks overtime compensation under the PMWA for unpaid
walking time. On Dec. 1, 2023, the Court certified the following
class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3): All Progression Team Members, who have been employed by
Target at its Chambersburg Distribution Center at any time since
Nov. 29, 2019."
Target argues that the class should be decertified because Mr.
Davis belatedly altered his legal theory of the case. Target
contends, based on Mr. Davis's deposition testimony, that he now
seeks compensation for all time from the moment he entered Target's
parking lot until he left the parking lot and time spent donning a
harness before his shift.
According to Target, Mr. Davis's change in legal theory renders his
claims atypical of the class and makes him an inadequate class
representative. Mr. Davis responds that he seeks compensation for
walking time and nothing else, and Target has not demonstrated a
development in the litigation that justifies decertification.
Judge Murphy notes that Mr. Davis's deposition testimony is not a
factual or legal development justifying decertification. Judge
Murphy finds that Target cites no authority stating that a named
plaintiff can unilaterally expand the scope of a class action
through a few lines of deposition testimony.
Even if that were possible, Judge Murphy points out that Mr.
Davis's deposition testimony does not evince a desire to alter the
legal claims in this litigation. Rather, Judge Murphy read the
cited testimony as an effort by Mr. Davis, a lay person, to
ascertain the meaning of the law, including the term "premises" as
used in PMWA regulations, and to apply the law to his own
experiences at Target. Mr. Davis first testified that his lawsuit
seeks compensation "for the distance walking from coming into the
building to getting clocked in," and that he was not seeking
recovery for time other than walking time.
Mr. Davis's pleadings, including his motion for partial summary
judgment, continue to assert a claim for walking time compensation
only. Class counsel reiterated at oral argument that Mr. Davis has
not altered his claims.
Because Mr. Davis's deposition did not alter his legal claims, the
Court's typicality analysis from class certification remains valid,
Judge Murphy holds. Hence, Mr. Davis continues to satisfy the
typicality requirement.
Target also contends that Mr. Davis's criminal history undermines
his credibility, and thus, adequacy, as a class member. Even if the
Court construes Target's discovery of Mr. Davis's prior retail
theft convictions as a factual development, Judge Murphy opines
that there is no evidence that the prior convictions undermine Mr.
Davis's ability or incentive to represent the class's claims
vigorously or otherwise create a conflict of interest.
Judge Murphy points out that the Court cannot agree that Mr.
Davis's prior retail theft convictions create a conflict between
him and the class in a lawsuit for overtime compensation under the
PMWA. Judge Murphy finds that Mr. Davis remains an adequate class
representative, and decertification is not justified on adequacy
grounds.
Judge Murphy denies Target's motion to exclude expert testimony and
opinions from Robert Radwin and Liesl Fox. Mr. Davis hired Dr.
Radwin to analyze the time that it takes employees to walk between
the entrance and various time clocks within Target's Chambersburg
distribution center. He hired Dr. Fox to calculate overtime damages
associated with the unpaid walking time.
Target moved to exclude Dr. Radwin's and Dr. Fox's testimony and
opinions because they do not "fit" Mr. Davis's new legal theories,
supposedly advanced in his deposition, that he seeks damages for
all time from the moment he entered Target's parking lot and time
spent donning a harness.
Judge Murphy notes that as discussed, Mr. Davis's deposition
testimony did not alter his legal claims. Mr. Davis's lawsuit seeks
overtime damages for unpaid walking time under the PMWA. Dr.
Radwin's analysis quantifies the walking time at issue. Dr. Fox's
analysis calculates the overtime damages owed to class members for
this walking time.
The Court agrees with Mr. Davis that both Dr. Radwin's and Dr.
Fox's opinions directly bear on facts at issue in this litigation.
Both opinions easily meet the standard of Rule 702. Accordingly,
Target's motion is denied.
For the reasons stated in a memorandum, Judge Murphy grants Mr.
Davis's motion for partial summary judgment. Target's motion for
summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The time
during which class members walk from the warehouse entrance to
their assigned home departments before their scheduled shifts, and
from their home-department time clocks to the warehouse exit after
clocking out at the end of their shifts, is compensable as "hours
worked" under the PMWA. Target cannot assert a de minimis defense
to overtime liability under the PMWA. The damages case will
proceed.
For the reasons stated in the Memorandum, Target's motion for
summary judgment as to the 2,195 class members without overtime
damages is granted in that the 2,195 class members identified as
having no overtime damages through Dec. 30, 2023, are dismissed
without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrxa4a8r from PacerMonitor.com.
TIKTOK INC: Brodiski Sues Over Children's Online Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
TATIANA BRODISKI; and STEVEN BURDA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIKTOK INC.; TIKTOK
U.S. DATA SECURITY INC.; and BYTEDANCE INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:25-cv-02097 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 27, 2025) alleges violation of the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and Children's
Online Privacy Protection Rule.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants
routinely collects, stores, and processes data from its users,
including millions of American children under the age of 13. The
Defendants know that children under 13 create and use TikTok
accounts despite TikTok's terms of service requiring users to be at
least 13 years of age. Turning a blind eye to TikTok's age
requirement, the Defendants have collected extensive data from
children under 13 and have failed to comply with parents' requests
to delete their children's accounts and personal information.
The Defendants' conduct in knowingly collecting data from children
under 13 without parental consent violates the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act of 1998 ("COPPA") and Children's Online
Privacy Protection Rule, says the suit.
TikTok Inc. operates as a free service and social media application
for creating and sharing short mobile videos. The Company provides
a fully realized platform for connecting individuals to a vibrant
community of content creators. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chris Springer, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805)456-1497
Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Cari C. Laufenberg, Esq.
Derek W. Loeser, E
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
TRUSTEES OF BOSTON: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Curtin-Wilding Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LYDIA CURTIN-WILDING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10432 (D. Mass., February 21, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for failure to timely pay
wages in violation of Massachusetts Wage Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a lecturer
since August 2015. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fran Rudich, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW PC
1201 Pacific Ave 6th Floor
Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
Email: fmarks@hammondlawpc.com
UNDERDOG SPORTS: Ballentine Alleges Illegal Sports Betting Platform
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN BALLENTINE, JEANCLAUDE LOMINY, LAUREN WOLF, and ISAAC ROTH,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. UNDERDOG
SPORTS, LLC d/b/a/ UNDERDOG FANTASY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01106
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2025) seeks to recover losses from Defendant's
illegal sports gambling operation.
The owns and operates an online and app-based platform that it
falsely markets as an interactive fantasy sports game but in
reality is an unlicensed sports betting platform. By operating
unlicensed sports betting, the Defendant has violated gambling
laws, engaged in illegal deceptive activity, and unjustly enriched
itself at the expense of tens of thousands of consumers, says the
suit.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant offered and offers "games"
that are neither interactive nor fantasy. In fact, they are not
games at all, but illegal sports betting. For example, the
Defendant provides a platform for consumers to place bets on how
particular real-world athletes will perform against performance
metrics set by the Defendant. This is not interactive, because
consumers are not playing against other consumers, but against the
house (Defendant), which sets sophisticated betting lines in order
to profit off of the consumers. It is not fantasy, either, because
consumers are betting on the performance of particular athletes,
rather than the performance of a group of athletes assembled on an
imaginary team. It is sports betting, plain and simple, the
Plaintiffs contend.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a Class of
similarly situated individuals, bring this lawsuit to recover their
losses, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.
Interactive fantasy sports games enable consumers to pick fantasy
teams comprised of real-life athletes and compete against other
consumers who have built different fantasy teams comprised of
real-life athletes. The "winner" is determined based on the
real-world performance of the real-life athletes on the fantasy
teams.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Stellings, Esq.
Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
Jacob S. Miller, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com
wdunlavey@lchb.com
jmiller@lchb.com
UNITED OF OMAHA: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Josh Recamara of Insurance Business reports that Kroll Settlement
Administration has issued a statement announcing that a settlement
has been reached in a class action lawsuit filed in the District
Court of Douglas County, Nebraska.
The case, known as Skinner v. United of Omaha Life Insurance
Company, is about a data incident that occurred between April 21
and April 23, 2024, which may have exposed personally identifiable
information (PII) of current or former employees whose employers
received a quote or group insurance from United of Omaha Life
Insurance Company. The lawsuit alleged that the company failed to
protect the PII it collected.
United of Omaha denied the claims, as well as any wrongdoing. No
court has found the company liable.
Under the settlement, eligible class members who submit claims may
receive reimbursement for documented, unreimbursed out-of-pocket
expenses and compensation for lost time resulting from the data
incident, or up to $1,500 per person.
The settlement also provided two years of credit monitoring and
identity theft insurance. Alternatively, class members who choose
not to submit claims for reimbursement or compensation may receive
a $50 alternative cash payment.
To receive settlement benefits, Kroll said class members must
submit a claim for with supporting documentation.
Class members also have several options regarding their rights
under the settlement. According to the company, those who take no
action will not receive settlement benefits and will waive their
right to sue regarding claims in the case.
Meanwhile, those who exclude themselves from the settlement will
not receive benefits but will retain their right to pursue legal
claims separately. The requests for exclusions must be submitted by
April 25, 2025. And finally, those who do not opt out may file
objections to the settlement, also with a deadline of April 25.
A final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for June 25 at the
Douglas County Hall of Justice. The court is expected to evaluate
the fairness of the settlement, consider any objections and review
the class counsel's request for attorney's fees, costs and
expenses, as well as service awards for each representative
plaintiff.
In 2023, United of Omaha Life Insurance reached a settlement with
the US Department of Labor, mandating the company to modify its
administration of requirement for participants in
employer-sponsored life insurance plans. The settlement came after
the federal agency found that the company frequently accepted
premiums for extended periods without confirming whether
insurability requirements were met. [GN]
UTAH: Court Orders Spring to File 2nd Amended Suit v. State Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BRUCE DEREK SPRING, Plaintiff v. STATE OF
UTAH EMPLOYEES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00004-TC (D.
Utah), Judge Tena Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah, Northern Division, issued a Memorandum Decision
and Order to cure deficient complaint.
Plaintiff Bruce Derek Spring, who is a self-represented inmate at
the Utah State Correctional Facility, brings this civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Court has screened Mr.
Spring's Amended Complaint under its statutory review function.
The Court now orders Mr. Spring to file a Second Amended Complaint
to cure the deficiencies of the Amended Complaint before further
pursuing his claims. The Court notes several deficiencies and
provides guidance concerning specific issues.
Judge Campbell points out that the Amended Complaint names as
Defendants "State of Utah employees," which is too broad, as each
individual defendant must be named separately and separately linked
to each specific claim, and that it improperly alleges civil rights
violations on a respondeat superior theory and names a judge as a
defendant without considering judicial immunity.
The Amended Complaint also purports to bring a class action, even
though Mr. Spring may not represent a class as a pro se litigant,
Judge Campbell says. Because plaintiffs are pro se, the district
court would have abused its discretion if it had certified a class
action, Judge Campbell adds, among other things.
Mr. Spring also moves for appointed counsel. Judge Campbell opines
that Mr. Spring bears the burden of convincing the Court that his
claims have enough merit to warrant the appointment of counsel.
In deciding whether to ask volunteer counsel to represent Mr.
Spring free of charge, the Court considers a variety of factors,
such as the merits of the litigant's claims, the nature of the
factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant's ability to
present his claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised
by the claims.
Considering these factors, the Court concludes that--at this
time--Mr. Spring's claims may not be colorable, the issues in this
case are not complex, and he is not too incapacitated or unable to
adequately function in pursuing this matter. Therefore, at this
time, the Court denies without prejudice Mr. Spring's motions to
appoint counsel.
Accordingly, the Court orders that within 30 days, Mr. Spring must
cure the Amended Complaint's deficiencies as noted by filing a
document titled "Second Amended Complaint" that does not refer to
or include any other document. The Clerk of Court will mail Mr.
Spring the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a blank-form civil rights
complaint which Mr. Spring must use to pursue a Second Amended
Complaint.
If Mr. Spring fails to timely cure the deficiencies according to
this Order's instructions, this action will be dismissed without
further notice.
The Second Amended Complaint will not include any claims outside
the dates and allegations of transactions and events contained in
the Amended Complaint. The Court will not address any such new
claims or outside allegations, which will be dismissed. If Mr.
Spring wishes to raise other claims and allegations, Mr. Spring may
do so only in a new complaint in a new case. If a Second Amended
Complaint is filed, the Court will screen each claim and defendant
for dismissal or an order effecting service upon valid defendants
who are affirmatively linked to valid claims.
Judge Campbell notes that no direct communication is to take place
with any judge. All relevant information, letters, documents, and
papers, labeled with case number, are to be directed to the Clerk
of Court.
Mr. Spring's motions for appointed counsel are denied. But if,
after the case develops further, it appears that counsel may be
needed or of specific help, the Court may ask an attorney to appear
pro bono on Mr. Spring's behalf. The Court will continually
reevaluate the need for counsel; as a result, no further motions
for appointed counsel are needed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wb3p75tf from PacerMonitor.com.
VEGAS.COM LLC: Bid to Stay Discovery in Chacon Class Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada grants the Defendant's motion to stay
discovery in the lawsuit titled RACHEL CHACON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VEGAS.COM,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02088-APG-EJY (D. Nev.).
Defendant Vegas.com, LLC ("VDC") submitted its Unopposed Motion to
Stay Discovery pending the resolution of VDC's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to Dismiss Class Action Complaint.
On Feb. 19, 2025, VDC's counsel conferred with counsel for
Plaintiff Rachel Chacon regarding the relief sought in this Motion,
and the Plaintiff's counsel does not oppose VDC's stay request
pending the resolution of the Motion to Compel
Arbitration/Dismiss.
Judge Youchah notes that because there are presently no pending
discovery requests, VDC is not filing this as an emergency motion
under LR 7-4. VDC reserves the right to file an Emergency Motion to
Expedite a Ruling in the event that discovery is issued.
VDC filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration/Dismiss on Jan. 23,
2025. On Jan. 30, 2025, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation
to extend the Plaintiff's response deadline until Feb. 27, 2025,
and VDC's reply deadline until March 20, 2025.
In its Motion, VDC asserts that it wishes to avoid the time and
cost of discovery until the Court has resolved the issue of the
proper forum for this matter and decided VDC's Motion to Compel
Arbitration/Dismiss. While staying discovery will not cause any
prejudice, VDC will be prejudiced if discovery proceeds due to the
time and expense of discovery.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Unopposed Motion to Stay
Discovery. If the Order addressing the Motion to Compel Arbitration
and to Dismiss Class Action Complaint does not resolve this case in
its entirety, the Court direct the parties to file a notice with
the Court no later than 14 days after such Order is issued
identifying what claims remain to be resolved and any attendant
discovery that must be done.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4376y6b from PacerMonitor.com.
Bradley T. Austin -- baustin@swlaw.com -- SNELL & WILMER L.L.P, in
Las Vegas, NV 89135; Timothy B. Hardwicke -- thardwicke@ggulaw.com
-- Kathryn L. Couey -- kcouey@ggulaw.com -- Miranda E. Wargo --
mwargo@ggulaw.com -- GOODSMITH GREGG & UNRUH LLP, in Chicago, IL
60606, Attorneys for Defendant Vegas.com, LLC.
VENTURE GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against Venture Global, Inc. ("Venture") (NYSE: VG) on behalf
of those who purchased Venture common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to Venture's registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "IPO Documents") for its initial public offering
held on or about January 24, 2025. The lead plaintiff deadline is
April 18, 2025.
If you suffered Venture losses, you may click link or copy and
paste the following link into your browser:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/venture-global-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=vg&mktm=r
You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484)
270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com.
DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT:
The complaint alleges that, in the IPO Documents, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Venture's ability to deliver liquefied natural gas to the world
and to continue development of its five natural gas liquefication
and export projects depended on customer contracts; (2) Venture was
facing legal challenges from existing large clients, such as BP and
Shell, due to delays in supply contracts as it commissioned its
projects; and (3) accordingly, Venture's business and/or financial
prospects were overstated.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS:
Venture investors may, no later than April 18, 2025, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the
investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial
interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed
class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent
the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved
by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in
any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Venture investors who
have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to
acquire more information.
CLICK LINK TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE OR GO TO:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/venture-global-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=vg&mktm=r
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Jonathan Naji, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
WAYSIDE FARM: Turner Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Leslie M. Turner, on behalf of himself and all other individuals
similarly situated v. WAYSIDE FARM, INC. dba WAYSIDE FARM NURSING
AND REHABILITATION, and WAYSIDE FARM, INC. dba NORTHAMPTON MEADOWS,
and MATTHEW POOL, Case No. 5:25-cv-00384 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 27,
2025), is brought against Defendants, who were his joint employers,
in order to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act of 1939 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act (the "Ohio Wage Act"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act
("OPPA"), (the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be collectively
referred to herein as the "Ohio Wage Laws").
The Defendants, based on their companywide policy, willfully failed
to pay the Plaintiffs, and, upon information and belief, Putative
Plaintiffs, at a rate of 150% of her regular rate for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek in violation of the FLSA and the Ohio
Wage Act by excluding non-discretionary bonuses and shift
differentials when calculating the Plaintiffs and Putative
Plaintiffs' regular rate. The Defendants knowingly, willfully, or
with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern or
practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff and the Putative
Plaintiffs for all hours worked, including all hours worked over 40
in a workweek at an amount equal to 150% of their regular rate,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as State Tested
Nursing Assistant ("STNTA").
First Drive Logistics, Inc. is a domestic corporation for profit
licensed to do business in Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Anna R. Caplan, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com
WESTERN DISTRIBUTING: Cisneros Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Juan Cisneros, on behalf of others similarly
situated v. WESTERN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 25CU003794C was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on Feb. 27,
2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00453-BJC-DEB.
The Complaint asserts the following 8 causes of action: Failure to
Pay All Wages Owed; Meal Period Violations; Failure to Pay for
Authorized Rest Periods/Non-Productive Time; Untimely Payment of
Wages; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure
to Reimburse Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition (California
Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven W. Moore, Esq.
Jonathan C. Pearce, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
345 California Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415.364.5540
Facsimile: 415.391.4436
Email: swmoore@foxrothschild.com
jcpearce@foxrothschild.com
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settles Refrigerator Frost Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Whirlpool has agreed to a class
action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that certain Whirlpool,
KitchenAid and Maytag refrigerators are defective and can develop
frost build-up that prevents the appliance from cooling.
The Whirlpool settlement benefits consumers who purchased a
qualifying Whirlpool, KitchenAid or Maytag refrigerator. Consumers
can check their appliance eligibility by checking the item's serial
number on the settlement website.
According to the Whirlpool refrigerator frost buildup class action
lawsuit, certain Whirlpool, KitchenAid and Maytag refrigerators
sold between 2012 and 2019 can suffer from excessive frost build-up
on the evaporator due to a manufacturing defect. This frost
allegedly prevents the refrigerator from properly cooling food and
causes other damages.
Whirlpool, KitchenAid and Maytag are appliance brands owned by the
same parent company, Whirlpool Corp.
Whirlpool hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the Whirlpool refrigerator frost buildup
class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Whirlpool settlement, class members can
receive up to $300 for past refrigerator repairs and replacements.
Exact reimbursement amounts will vary depending on the age of the
refrigerator at the time of the repairs or replacements.
For repairs or replacements within one to three years of the
refrigerator's date of manufacture, class members can receive up to
$300 for repairs and 75% of the original purchase price for
replacements. For repairs or replacements within four to six years,
class members can receive up to $225 for repairs and 45% of the
original purchase price for replacements. For repairs or
replacements within seven to eight years, class members can receive
up to $150 for repairs but will not receive any reimbursement for
replacements.
Class members who experience frost build-up issues after Jan. 31,
2025, can also receive the same benefits as those who experienced
issues before this date.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 21, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
13, 2025.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by June 18, 2025. Claims for post-notice issues
must be made within 90 days of the completion of service or the
purchase of a replacement refrigerator and within eight years of
the refrigerator's manufacture, purchase or delivery date.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased a new Whirlpool, KitchenAid or Maytag
3-door refrigerator manufactured between 2012 and 2019, acquired
the refrigerator as part of a home purchase or remodel or received
the refrigerator as a gift are included in the settlement.
Consumers can check their appliance eligibility by checking the
item's serial number on the settlement website.
Potential Award
$300+
Proof of Purchase
Refrigerator model and serial numbers, proof of obtaining the
refrigerator through a purchase, remodel or home purchase (invoice,
purchase confirmation, etc.), proof of frost issue and related
repairs (repair invoice, etc.)
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
06/18/2025
Case Name
Paperno, et al. v. Whirlpool Corp., Case No. 3:23-cv-05114-RFL, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Final Hearing
05/13/2025
Settlement Website
CoolingSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Paperno v. Whirlpool Corp. Refrigerator Settlement
Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@CoolingSettlement.com
(866) 759-5173
Class Counsel
Alison E. Chase
Laura R. Gerber
Michael Woerner
Andrew N. Lindsay
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
Michael J. Brickman
James C. Bradley
Nina Fields Britt
Caleb M. Hodge
ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN LLC
Kenneth Behrman
BEHRMAN LAW FIRM
Defense Counsel
Andrew M. Unthank
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP [GN]
YAZOO VALLEY: Doe Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YAZOO VALLEY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00131-KHJ-MTP (S.D. Miss., February 21,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
computer system following a data breach detected on or about August
26, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a
result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members
was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to
unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Yazoo Valley Electric Power Association is a rural electric power
association serving parts of six counties in Mississippi. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald J. Diaz, Jr., Esq.
Christopher P. Williams, Esq.
James R. Segars, III, Esq.
DIAZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
208 Waterford Square, Suite 300
Madison, MS 39110
Telephone: (601) 607-3456
Facsimile: (601) 607-3393
Email: joey@diazlawfirm.com
chris@diazlawfirm.com
tripp@diazlawfirm.com
ZENITH AMERICAN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Rogers Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAHLIA ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZENITH AMERICAN SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:25-cv-00471 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 2025) is action arising
out of the 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.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures
allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network
(the "Data Breach") that contained personally identifiable
information ("PII") of Plaintiff and other individuals ("the
Class").
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' PII with which it was
entrusted to protect and maintain.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members are now
at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity
theft, says the suit.
Zenith American Solutions, Inc. provides commercial services. The
Company offers administration, financial accounting, banking,
vendor, and other related services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2025 -- The Sponsors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is ongoing for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY &
ETHICS CONFERENCE (CAME 2025), to be held May 7-8, 2025, at The
Harmonie Club, New York City.
This year's event is sponsored by:
(A) Major Sponsors
Atticus Administration, LLC
Visit at https://www.atticusadmin.com
ClaimScore
Visit https://www.claimscore.ai
Duane Morris LLP
Visit https://www.duanemorris.com
Esquire Bank
Visit https://esquirebank.com
Labaton Keller Sucharow
Visit https://www.labaton.com
Tremendous
Visit https://www.tremendous.com
(B) Patron Sponsors
AB Data
Visit https://www.abdataclassaction.com
Darrow AI
Visit https://www.darrow.ai
Miller Kaplan
Visit https://www.millerkaplan.com
(C) Supporting Sponsors
Verita
(Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC, KCC Class Action Services,
LLC, Gilardi & Co., LLC, and RicePoint Administration Inc. have
rebranded as Verita)
Visit https://veritaglobal.com
(D) Media Partners
Class Action Insights
Visit https://classactionsinsight.com
PacerMonitor, a Fitch Solutions Company
Visit https://www.pacermonitor.com/dashboard
Once a year, the top industry experts gather together to discuss
the latest topics and trends in class action. This value-packed
event features special presentations from keynote speakers and live
panel discussions with industry experts, and provides networking
opportunities with other professionals.
The CAME 2024 edition was attended by the industry's Who's Who.
Last year's conference attendees include:
Firm/Organization Firm/Organization
----------------- -----------------
A.B. Data, Ltd. Lake Avenue Capital
Alvarez & Marsal Levi & Korsinsky LLP
Analytics Consulting LLC Levine Law, LLC
Angeion Group Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Atticus Administration LLC & Bernstein, LLP
Avenue 33, LLC Locke Lord LLP
Beasley Allen Law Firm LTIMindtree
Beer Marketer's Insights Lynch Carpenter LLP
Berger Montague PC MarGrady Research
Blank Rome Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
Bloomberg Law Messing & Spector LLP
Brann & Isaacson Milberg
BRG Miller Kaplan
Broadridge Morgan Lewis
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney New York Law Journal
Butsch Roberts & Associates New York Legal Assistance Group
Cardtable Enterprises New York Times
Certum Group New York University
Citi Law Firm Group O’Melveny & Myers LLP
ClaimScore Orr Taylor
Cohen Milstein Otterbourg P.C.
Cooley LLP PacerMonitor
Cozen O'Connor Parabellum Capital, LLC
CPT Group Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
Darrow & Garrison LLP
DCirrus Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP
Dealpath PJT Partners
Disability Rights Michigan Pollock Cohen LLP
Duane Morris LLP Public Justice
Dukas Linden Public Relations Red Bridges Advisors LLC
EisnerAmper Riverdale Capital
Esquire Bank Sadaka Law
Farra & Wang PLLC Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law
Flexpoint Ford Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Foley & Lardner LLP Simpluris
Foster Yarborough PLLC Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
George Feldman McDonald, PLLC & Flom LLP
Gernon Law Slarskey LLC
Giftogram Steptoe
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Tremendous
Hausfeld Tristate Capital Bank
Hook Point UConn Law
injuryclaims.com - Verus LLC
Typhon Interactive Wall Street Journal
Integrity Administration Western Alliance Bank
Janove PLLC Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
KCC Winston & Strawn LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP
King & Spalding Working Solutions
Kirkland & Ellis X Ante
Register for CAME 2025 at https://www.classactionconference.com
Breakfast and lunch included.
This year's conference will kick off with an OPENING NIGHT COCKTAIL
RECEPTION on May 7 from 5-7 p.m. also at The Harmonie Club. Enjoy
specialty cocktails and hors d'oeuvres with other professionals
attending the conference. There is no additional cost to attend the
opening reception. The reception is included in the cost of
conference registration so join us!
Missed last year's event? Check the CAME 2024 conference agenda at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html Videos of the
conference are available on-demand at
https://www.classactionconference.com/2024-video-replays.html
For sponsorship opportunities, contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.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 ***