/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250327.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, March 27, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 62
Headlines
5.11 INC: Class Certification Bid Filing in Tate Suit Due Oct. 14
ABM GENERAL: Garcia Wage Suit Remanded to State Court
ADVANCE MAGAZINE: Discloses Consumers' Info to Meta, Lewis Says
ALCLEAR LLC: Turner Wage-and-Hour Suit to Remain in Federal Court
AMERICAN NTN: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
AMERICAN ONCOLOGY: Scott Suit Seeks Unpaid OT for Phlebotomists
AMERIS BANK: Rogers Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Court Consolidates Two Class Actions
ASCEND LOANS: Faces Wood Suit Over Predatory, Unlawful Loans
ATLAS REAL ESTATE: Court Awards $215,000 in Attorney Fees, Costs
BENJAMIN & GLORIA: Vega Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Receptionists
BETACOM HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Fling in Lay Extended to July 30
CENGAGE LEARNING: Class Settlement in Bernstein, et al. Suit Okayed
CHEDRAUI USA: Herrera Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Under Labor Code
CHIQUITA FRESH: Lizondro Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CISCO SYSTEMS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Bracalente, et al. ERISA Suit
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Munoz Says
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Rounding of Punch Clock
COMNET COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Logan Says
DAILY HARVEST: Class Settlement in Peni Suit Gets Final Court OK
DAVID J. GLADIEUX: Motion for Summary Judgment Denied Minkosky Suit
DISCOVERY COMMS: Court Rules on Pilon, et al. Arbitration Dispute
DOMINOS PIZZA: District Court Remands Banuelos Suit to State Court
DORMEO NORTH: Pittman Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Faces Patel Securities Suit over Disclosures
EVERGREEN FREEDOM: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Chin Suit
FANATICS INC: Monopolizes Player Trading Card Market, Scaturo Says
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Flowers Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Cir
FORD MOTOR: Salas Sues Over Vehicles' Material Safety Defect
FRAME LA BRANDS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Wee Suit Claims
GEICO INDEMNITY: Loses Bid to Transfer Venue of Shiloah Lawsuit
GEICO INDEMNITY: W.D. New York Refuses to Dismiss Shiloah Suit
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Settlement in Gur-Ravantab, et al. Suit OK'd
GODADDY.COM: Settlement Termination in Drazen, et al. Suit Upheld
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Court Dismisses Allegretti Class Action
HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Seeks to Impound Unredacted Exhibits
HEDONOVA LLC: Standing Order Entered in Securities Class Suit
HEMET, CA: Standing Order Entered in Novak Class Action
HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY: Settlement in Landin Suit Gets Prelim. Court OK
HIGHER EDUCATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Coffey TCPA Class Action
HOME DEPOT: Oleski Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
HORIZON LAND: Lucero Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Employees Under FLSA
HORNE LLP: Court Tosses Chizek, et al. Data Breach Lawsuit
J. DOERER: Judge Wants Class Certification Bid Tossed
JEWELRY BY GARO: Cantwell Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
JOHNSON CONTROLS: New York Court Moves Halfter Suit to Wisconsin
JOHNSON CONTROLS: S.D. New York Moves Pagano Suit to E.D. Wisconsin
JOHNSON CONTROLS: S.D.N.Y. Transfers Riccitelli Suit to Wisconsin
JP WHITE: Hong Bid for Class Certification Tossed
LANE BRYANT: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed w/o Prejudice
LEGENDS OWO: Class Settlement in Puller Suit Gets Final Court OK
LEXINGTON NATIONAL: Court Denies Clawback Motion in Bail Bond Suit
LONDON BOY: Underpays Store Salespersons/Assistants, Roque Alleges
LOS ANGELES, CA: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Ocean Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Lifts Stay of Berg Action
LUXCLUB INC: E.D. California Dismisses Guerrero Class Action Suit
LYFESTYLE PROPERTIES: Gomez Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code
MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Madero Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
MICHAELS STORES: Class Certification in Vigil Suit Denied in Part
MINX JEWELRY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Alleges
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Certification Granted in Ray, et al. Suit
NESPRESSO USA: Fahey-Ramirez Sues Over Defective Coffee Machines
NEW YORK TEAMSTERS: Carlisle Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
NORTH-EAST DECK: Fails to Properly Pay Crane Operators, Suit Says
ONE NEVADA: Settlement Class in Castro Suit Gets Conditional Cert.
PACIFIC UNIVERSITY: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PAPA TEXAS: Files Appeal in Myers Labor Suit to 10th Cir.
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Class Settlement in Zimmerman, et al. Suit Okayed
PIZZA BOY: Librado Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Gifford Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
PREMIER NUTRITION: $8.3MM Statutory Damages Awarded in Montera Suit
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Perkins-Gardner Suit Seeks Minimum Wages
PRIME HYDRATION: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dalewitz Can Amend Class Action Complaint
PROCTORU INC: Perjanik Sues Over Bar Exam Software Malfunction
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Talarico Appeals Labor Suit Ruling to 3rd Cir.
RICHMOND COUNTY: Faces Zougarhi Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
RUGSUSA LLC: Website's Retail Product Sales "Fake," Zastrow Says
SANTA MONICA, CA: Parties in Murcia Seek Class Certification
SCOTT SEMPLE: Blango's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
SCOTT SEMPLE: Bonvie's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
SCOTT SEMPLE: Branch's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
SCOTT SEMPLE: Cator's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
SCOTT SEMPLE: Coleman Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
SECOND CHANCE: Can Answer to Amended Portillo, et al. Complaint
SECURED MARKETING: Class Certification Denied in Heidarpour Suit
SHADE STORE: Court Tosses Certain Claims in Crowder, et al. Suit
SMART ERP: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Wright Suit Alleges
SQUISHABLE.COM INC: Court Certifies California Subclass in Borovoy
STALLION EXPRESS: Court Recommends Dismissal of McCatty Suit
STELLAR WIRELESS: Herrera Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
SULLIVAN COUNTY, NY: Keeps Property's Surplus Proceeds, Pini Claims
TC HEARTLAND: Wins Bid to Dismiss Karabas Splenda Lawsuit
TEAM HEALTH: Must Produce Docs in Buncombe County, et al. Suit
TIER-ONE PROPERTY: Court Certifies Class in De Martinez
UNITED STATES: CCWP Seeks Final OK of Proposed Consent Decree
UNITED STATES: Fails to Issue Student Loan Refunds, O'Brien Says
VENTURA FOODS: Class Settlement in Gramstad Gets Final Nod
VENTURA FOODS: Non-Opt-Out Class in Gramstad Wins Final Cert.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Briggs Balks at Vehicles' Cylinder Head Defect
WALMART INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Shugars Suit
WALMART INC: Plaintiffs Can Amend Navarro, et al. Class Action
WARDEN WILKENS: Murray, et al. Prisoner Civil Rights Suit Tossed
WARDEN WILKENS: Vigil, et al. Prisoner Civil Rights Suit Tossed
WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs' Bid to Redact, Seal in Henzel Suit Denied
WM TECHNOLOGY: Jay Kang Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Ishak Suit
YARDI SYSTEMS: LaFleur Class Complaint Tossed with Prejudice
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2025 -- The Sponsors
*********
5.11 INC: Class Certification Bid Filing in Tate Suit Due Oct. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tyler Tate v. 5.11, Inc.,
Case No. 8:24-cv-02327-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John
Holcomb entered an order
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE Counsel state their appearances. The Court
confers with counsel. For the reasons stated on the record, the
Court ORDERS as follows: The following briefing schedule is SET for
Plaintiff’s anticipated Motion for Class Certification:
Event Date/Deadline
Deadline to file Class Certification Oct. 14, 2025
Motion:
Deadline to file Opposition to Class Nov. 14, 2025
Certification Motion:
Deadline to file Reply re Class Dec. 5, 2025
Certification Motion:
Hearing on Class Certification Motion: Dec. 18, 2025
The Defendant manufactures apparel products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fQEF9K at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
468 N Camden Dr, Ste 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4562
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Younjin Lee, Esq.
Logos professional law corp
2151 Michelson Dr Ste 200
Irvine, CA 92612-1311
Telephone: (949) 660-0020
E-mail: lee@logoslawyers.com
ABM GENERAL: Garcia Wage Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted the
plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as ALEXANDER
GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. ABM GENERAL SERVICES, INC.; ABM INDUSTRIES,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.:
2:24-cv-08713-MEMF-AS (C.D. Cal.) to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court.
Plaintiff Alexander Garcia was employed by Defendants ABM General
Services, Inc. and ABM Industries, Inc. as an hourly non-exempt
employee from in or around 2021 until on or about July 25, 2024.
Garcia and similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees worked
more minutes per shift than ABM credited them with having worked.
ABM failed to pay Garcia and other employees all wages for all
hours worked due to certain policies, practices, or procedures,
including requiring employees to clock out for their meal breaks
while continuing to work throughout that time. This caused ABM to
fail to pay Garcia and other employees required overtime. ABM also
failed to provide employees with required meal periods and failed
to pay them for working through the meal period. Garcia and
similarly situated employees were not given required ten-minute
rest breaks and were not allowed to accrue sick days. Due to the
foregoing violations, ABM ultimately failed to provide accurate
wage and hour statements to Garcia and other employees. Finally,
ABM did not pay unpaid wages after an employee's
employment ended.
Garcia filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on
Sept. 5, 2024. He brings eight causes of action based on California
law:
(1) failure to pay wages for all hours worked;
(2) failure to pay overtime wages;
(3) failure to authorize and permit meal periods;
(4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods;
(5) failure to pay wages for accrued pay sick days;
(6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements;
(7) failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks;
(8) unfair business practices.
Defendants removed the action to this Court on Oct. 9, 2024, under
the jurisdiction of the Class Action Fairness Act. Garcia filed the
instant motion to remand on Jan. 27, 2025. ABM filed their
opposition on Feb. 14, 2025.
In removing the case initially, ABM calculated the amount in
controversy to exceed $5,000,000 through assumptions based on
Garcia's Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action alone. In particular,
by applying a 100% violation rate to the alleged failure to provide
accurate wage statements and failure to timely pay wages upon
separation, ABM calculated the amount in controversy of the two
causes of action alone to be $5,025,613.60. In moving for remand,
Garcia contends that an assumption of the 100% violation rate is
unsupported by the allegations of the Complaint. The Court does not
find a 100% violation rate supported, nor the alternative 20%
violation rate suggested by ABM in opposition. Accordingly, the
Court does not find that ABM has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy has been met.
In connection with the Motion, Garcia seeks attorneys' fees under
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). Although the Court disagrees with ABM that
the particular percentage rates it set forward were supported, it
does not find that ABM lacked an objectively reasonable basis for
the removal. ABM provided technically sound calculations based on
what they believed to be a conservative estimate of the amount in
controversy. Accordingly, the Court denies Garcia's request for
attorneys' fees.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=47yCC2 from PacerMonitor.com.
ADVANCE MAGAZINE: Discloses Consumers' Info to Meta, Lewis Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS INC. d/b/a NJ.COM, Case No.
1:25-cv-02269 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2025) alleges that the Defendant
discloses consumers' identities and video viewing history to Meta
Platforms Inc. in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Accordingly, the Defendant knowingly discloses consumer's
personally identifiable information (PII) -- in particular,
"information which identifies a person as having requested or
obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape
service provider" -- unless the consumer expressly consented to the
disclosure in a standalone consent form. The Defendant shares
consumers' personal information with Meta through the "Meta Pixel,"
a tracking technology embedded in its website. The Meta Pixel is a
snippet of programming code that, once embedded, surreptitiously
transmits user data to Meta, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Neptune, New Jersey. Plaintiff
signed up for an account on NJ.com in or around 2020 or 2021. He
has watched videos on NJ.com, including by using a Google Chrome
browser. He has a Facebook account which he has been logged into at
the same time he watched videos on NJ.com.
NJ.com is a digital news platform that serves as the home, digital
or otherwise, for many New Jersey newspapers, such as The
Star-Ledger, The Times of Trenton, and The South Jersey Times.
These newspapers have transitioned exclusively to digital formats,
requiring readers to access content through NJ.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Janove, Esq.
JANOVE PLLC
500 7th Ave., 8th Fl.
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (646) 347-3940
E-mail: raphael@janove.law
- and -
Ben Travis, Esq.
BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 353-7966
E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com
ALCLEAR LLC: Turner Wage-and-Hour Suit to Remain in Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned as TYONNA TURNER,
Plaintiff, v. ALCLEAR, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00530-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.) to the Sacramento County Superior
Court.
Defendant Alclear, LLC filed an opposition.
The instant action arises out of Defendant's alleged wage and hour
violations. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, a technology
company, as a non-exempt employee with the title of "Sales
Ambassador" out of the Sacramento office. Plaintiff worked for
Defendant from March 27, 2023, to Oct. 12, 2023. Plaintiff and
other nonexempt employees were responsible for all aspects of
Defendant's business in California. Plaintiff alleges she and
non-exempt employees were often not afforded all the protections
and rights conferred under state law. On Jan. 11, 2024, Plaintiff
filed the operative Complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court,
alleging the following claims:
(1) failure to pay all overtime wages;
(2) meal period violations;
(3) rest period violations;
(4) failure to pay sick time;
(5) wage statement violations;
(6) waiting time penalties;
(7) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and
(8) unfair competition.
On Feb. 20, 2024, Defendant removed the action to the District
Court based on the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiff filed the
instant motion to remand on March 21, 2024.
Plaintiff argues Defendant cannot remove this action under CAFA
because it has not proven the requisite amount in controversy by a
preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff contends:
(1) Defendant has not submitted credible evidence that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million;
(2) Defendant's waiting time penalty calculation assumes a 100
percent violation rate;
(3) Defendant did not offer a figure for the overtime, sick pay,
meal and rest period, and reimbursement claims; and
(4) Defendant's attorneys' fees calculations are unsupported and
exaggerated.
Defendant maintains it submitted with its notice of removal
authenticated evidence in the form of a sworn declaration of its
Payroll Manager, Cecilia N. Kwok, who has access to and reviewed
Defendant's current and former employees' records. Defendant also
submitted a supplemental declaration from Kwok with its opposition
to confirm employees are regularly scheduled to work eight-hour
shifts.
In this case, Kwok's declarations establish that there were at
least 1,150 putative class members who separated from Defendant
between Jan. 11, 2020, and Dec. 12, 2023, and that the average
hourly rate for those employees at the time of termination was
$18.48. Kwok avers that, in connection with these declarations, she
reviewed records for Defendant's non-exempt employees during the
period between Jan. 11, 2020, to the present that were created,
maintained, and kept by Defendant in the regular and ordinary
course of business. Based on the content of these declarations--
and in absence of any evidence from Plaintiff to the contrary --
the Court concludes there is a sufficient evidentiary foundation
laid to determine the amount in controversy.
The Court finds Defendant has established by a preponderance of the
evidence the waiting time penalties claim equals an amount in
controversy of $5,100,480.
CAFA provides the District Court with jurisdiction if the
aggregated amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of
interest and costs. Defendant has already established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the waiting time penalties claim
equals an amount in controversy of $5,100,480. Accordingly, even
without calculations for the overtime, sick pay, meal and rest
period, and reimbursement claims, Defendant has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence the amount in controversy in this
case exceeds $5 million as required by CAFA, the Court finds.
Plaintiff argues Defendant has failed to meet its burden in proving
the alleged $1,275,120 amount in controversy for attorneys' fees
because Defendant's purported damages calculations are "highly
exaggerated."
The Court finds the parties do not provide sufficient authority
regarding whether attorneys' fees can be calculated based on a
waiting time penalties claim alone. Nevertheless, Defendant has
already established by a preponderance of the evidence that the
waiting time penalties claim equals an amount in controversy of
$5,100,480. Accordingly, even without calculations for attorneys'
fees, Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence the
amount in controversy in this case exceeds $5 million as required
by CAFA, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F7lz6I from PacerMonitor.com.
AMERICAN NTN: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO GONZALEZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN NTN BEARING MFG. CORP., Case No. 3
1:25-cv-02918 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay
was $25.83. In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant
incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay
into its payment structure. For example, Defendant paid employees
shift differential pay.
Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was
not earning a consistent and properly calculated overtime wage that
included shift differential pay and other remuneration in the
regular rate for proper overtime calculation, asserts the lawsuit.
The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Illinois and was employed by
Defendant as an hourly Facility Maintenance Mechanic from May 2022
through January 2025.
Additional putative Collective members were or are employed by
Defendant in different states as hourly employees during the past
three years and their consent forms will also be filed in this
case, the Plaintiff says.
The Defendant is a manufacturer of bearings and constant velocity
joints that operates facilities in multiple states.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
jyoung@sommerspc.com
AMERICAN ONCOLOGY: Scott Suit Seeks Unpaid OT for Phlebotomists
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ONCOLOGY PARTNERS, PA, Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00261-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, March 17, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt employee in the
position of Phlebotomist at the Defendant's Zangmeister Cancer
Center facility, located at 3100 Plaza Properties Blvd., Columbus,
Ohio from approximately October 10, 2022, to February 14, 2025.
American Oncology Partners, PA is a medical services management
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
AMERIS BANK: Rogers Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIS BANK d/b/a BALBOA CAPITAL, Defendant,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00224 (M.D. Tenn., February 27, 2025) arises from
the Defendant's alleged abusive telephone marketing practices in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy
provisions of the TCPA alleging that Balboa Capital violated the
law by making telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and other putative
class members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without
their written consent.
Ameris Bank, d/b/a Balboa Capital, is a technology-driven business
lender.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC
980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Court Consolidates Two Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York consolidated the following class
action lawsuits:
(1) ADRIAN ALEXANDRU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- APPLIED THERAPEUTICS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-09715 (S.D.N.Y.); and
(2) MOHAMMAD ALI IKRAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- APPLIED THERAPEUTICS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-09973 (S.D.N.Y.)
The Court having conducted a pretrial conference on March 7, 2025
to address the motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in the class action brought against Applied Therapeutics,
Inc., et al., ordered as follows:
1. Martin Dietrich is appointed Lead Plaintiff.
2. Wolf Popper LLP will serve as Lead Counsel for the
plaintiff in this action and the class.
Every pleading filed in this consolidated action, and in any
separate action subsequently included therein, shall bear the
following caption:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE APPLIED THERAPEUTICS
SECURITIES LITIGATION
24cv9715 (DLC)
Lead Plaintiff must file an amended complaint for this action and
any actions subsequently consolidated with it on or before May 2,
2025. Defendants must file an answer to the amended complaint or a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint by May 23.
The parties must by May 16, 2025 submit joint or separate proposals
for the conduct of further pretrial proceedings in this litigation,
including proposed schedules for discovery and briefing on any
motion for class certification. The parties shall also note their
preferences for the forum and timing for settlement discussions.
Any proposed confidentiality order or proposed order concerning
electronically stored information shall be submitted by May 30,
2025.
If a motion to dismiss the amended complaint is filed, Lead
Plaintiff must file a letter by June 6, 2025 indicating a desire to
further amend its complaint in response to the motion. It is
unlikely that Lead Plaintiff will be granted any further
opportunities to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed by June
13. If Lead Plaintiff elects not to further amend, it shall file
its opposition to the motion to dismiss on or before June 13.
Defendants must file their reply to the opposition(s) to the motion
to dismiss on or before June 27.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KjAiW9 from PacerMonitor.com.
ASCEND LOANS: Faces Wood Suit Over Predatory, Unlawful Loans
------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ASCEND LOANS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:25-cv-00018-RGJ (W.D. Ky., February 27, 2025) seeks redress from
alleged predatory and unlawful loans issued and enforced by the
Defendant.
According to the complaint, the Defendant represents that Ascend is
a tribal lending entity that is wholly-owned by the Habematolel
Pomo of Upper Lake tribe, a sovereign nation located within the
United States of America. In reality, the Defendant operates a
rent-a-tribe scheme in order to circumvent state usury laws,
including the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
A rent-a-tribe scheme is a colloquial phrase used to describe the
business practices of non-tribal payday lenders, including Ascend,
hiding behind the guise of a Native American tribe in order to
avoid usury laws by invoking sovereign immunity.
Plaintiff Wood brings this action to secure redress from
Defendant's unlawful conduct. He further seeks a declaratory
judgment that the loans are void under KRS 360.010 (Count I) and
damages pursuant to KRS 360.020 (Count II).
Ascend operates an online lending website,
https://ascendloans.com/, which allegedly makes loans at interest
rates exceeding 600% to consumers in many states, including
Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq.
Amanda M. Lockaby, Esq.
LOCKABY PLLC
476 East High Street, Suite 200
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 263-7884
Facsimile: (859) 406-3333
E-mail: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com
alockaby@lockabylaw.com
- and -
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (773) 554-9354
E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com
ATLAS REAL ESTATE: Court Awards $215,000 in Attorney Fees, Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado recommended that the plaintiff's
unopposed motion for attorney fees, costs, and service award in the
case captioned as JEFFREY PAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ATLAS REAL ESTATE GROUP LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-00910-DDD-KAS (D.Colo.) be granted as
follows:
(1) that a service award of $2,500 for Plaintiff Jeffrey Pan be
approved;
(2) that an award of $8,157 in costs be approved; and
(3) that an award of $206,843 in fees be approved.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Pan filed this action on April 12, 2023,
asserting eight claims against Defendant Atlas Real Estate Group
LLC, which is a property management and real estate brokerage
company active throughout the United States:
(1) negligence,
(2) negligence per se,
(3) breach of implied contract,
(4) breach of fiduciary duty,
(5) unjust enrichment,
(6) violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act,
(7) invasion of privacy, and
(8) declaratory judgment.
In short, these claims are based on Defendant's alleged failure to
protect highly sensitive data, including personal identifiable
information, also known as PII, when cybercriminals infiltrated its
insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The
data of more than 4,500 people was exposed in the breach, including
information such as names, Social Security numbers, financial
account numbers, and driver's license numbers.
After conducting initial discovery in the case, the parties
participated in private mediation and ultimately reached a
settlement.
The Settlement Agreement contemplates Class Counsel seeking an
award of fees and costs in an amount not to exceed $215,000. The
Settlement Agreement also contemplates Class Counsel seeking a
service award of $2,500 to recognize Plaintiff's efforts in the
litigation and commitment to the Settlement Class. Defendant has
agreed to pay for the fees, costs, and service award separate and
apart from the cash compensation provided to the Settlement Class,
and these amounts are subject to approval by the Court.
Based on his involvement in the case, the Court finds that a
service award of $2,500 to the sole named Plaintiff in this action
is fair and reasonable.
Class Counsel asks the Court to approve an award of costs in the
amount of $8,157. There are two components to these costs:
(1) $407.00 in filing fees, and
(2) $7,750.00 in mediation fees for the private mediator,
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.
The Court finds these costs to be reasonable.
The Court also finds that $206,843 is a reasonable amount of fees
to be awarded.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GuQNPo from PacerMonitor.com.
BENJAMIN & GLORIA: Vega Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Receptionists
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BENJAMIN & GLORIA GELLER, DDS, INC.,
BENJAMIN GELLER, DDS, GLORIA GELLER, DDS, and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV07537 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., March 17, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code including
failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit
rest periods, untimely payment of final wages, and failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a receptionist at 402
North Larchmont 22 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California from
approximately January 8, 2022, until September 30, 2024.
Benjamin & Gloria Gellar, DDS, Inc. is an owner and operator of a
dental practice in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy S. Ramsey, Esq.
ADVANTAGE ADVOCATES, P.C.
21 Miller Alley
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (626) 310-0100
Facsimile: (626) 310-0103
Email: aramsey@advantage-law.com
BETACOM HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Fling in Lay Extended to July 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LMAR LAY, Individually and
for Others Similarly Situated, v. BETACOM HOLDINGS, INC., a
Washington for-profit corporation, and BETACOM INCORPORATED, a
Florida for-profit corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01195-RSM (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order granting
the stipulation for extension of time for the Plaintiff to file his
motions for conditional and class certification:
Under the extended schedule, the Plaintiff's deadline to file his
motion for conditional certification will be extended to June 11,
2025. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his class certification
motion will be extended to July 30, 2025.
Lay filed the instant class and collective action lawsuit on Aug.
6, 2024, alleging the Defendants failed to pay him and similarly
situated employees wages and overtime compensation for time worked
off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and Massachusetts Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL").
The proposed extension of deadlines will conserve the Parties’
and the Court’s resources while they work towards a potential
resolution of this matter.
Betacom is a telecommunications equipment service provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1IFwRM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP
705 Second Ave., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa J. White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James E. Breitenbucher, Esq.
Nikki H. Howell, Esq.
Nicholas J. Walker, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: (206) 624-3600
Facsimile: (206) 389-1708
E-mail: jbreitenbucher@foxrothschild.com
nhowell@foxrothschild.com
nwalker@foxrothschild.com
CENGAGE LEARNING: Class Settlement in Bernstein, et al. Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the
class action settlement in the case captioned as DOUGLAS BERNSTEIN,
ELAINE INGULLI, TERRY HALBERT, EDWARD ROY, LOUIS PENNER, and ROSS
PARKE, as personal representative of THE ESTATE OF ALISON
CLARKE-STEWART, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CENGAGE LEARNING, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-7541-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiffs Douglas Bernstein, Edward Roy, Louis Penner, Ross Parke,
as personal representative of the estate of Alison Clarke-Stewart,
Elaine Ingulli, and Terry Halbert, as individuals and on behalf of
all similarly situated, entered a settlement with Defendant Cengage
Learning, Inc.
On Nov. 25, 2024, the Court entered its Order Preliminarily
Approving Class Action Settlement and Certifying Class. Among other
things, the Preliminary Approval Order authorized Plaintiffs to
disseminate notice of the Settlement, the fairness hearing, and
related matters. Notice was provided to the Class pursuant to the
Preliminary Approval Order, and the Court held a fairness hearing
on Feb. 26, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. ET.
On Feb. 26, 2025, the Court entered an Order Approving Class Action
Settlement and Certifying Settlement Class.
The Releasing Parties shall be deemed to have, and by operation of
this Order and Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever
released, relinquished, and discharged the Released Parties of and
from all Released Claims.
The Releasing Parties are permanently barred, enjoined, and
restrained from making any claims against the Settlement Fund, and
all persons, including the Settlement Administrator, Plaintiffs and
Class Counsel, Defendant and its counsel, are released and
discharged from any claims arising out of the administration,
management, or distribution of the Settlement Fund.
The Settlement Fund Account is approved as a Qualified Settlement
Fund pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 468B and the
Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder.
The Action is dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant and, except
as provided in the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Order
Awarding Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards and the Final Approval
Order, without costs to either party.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ixQL8n from PacerMonitor.com.
CHEDRAUI USA: Herrera Seeks Minimum Wages & OT Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA HERRERA, on behalf of himself and current and former
aggrieved employees, v. CHEDRAUI USA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 25SCTV07992 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 19, 2025) seeks civil penalties associated with the
Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code based on the
Defendants' failure to pay wages for all hours at minimum wage and
all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay.
The Plaintiff brings this action as a representative of the Labor
and Workforce Development Agency on behalf of himself and other
current and former employees subject to violations of the Labor
Code.
The Plaintiff and the persons on whose behalf this action is filed
include current, former and/or future employees of Defendants who
work, worked, or will work for Defendants as direct employees as
well as temporary employees.
Chedraui is a grocery retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Colin Mendoza, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
jklein@lelawfirm.com
cmendoza@lelawfirm.com
CHIQUITA FRESH: Lizondro Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO LIZONDRO and other similarly situated v. CHIQUITA FRESH
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 25-003846 (Fla. Cir, Miami Dade Cty.,
March 18, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid
minimum wage and/or overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees performed work
for Defendant as a non-exempt quality control employee from 1999 to
December 2,2024 for approximately 60 hours weekly without overtime
pay.
The Defendant operated as an organization that sells and/or markets
its services and/or goods to customers from throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE &
HOOGERWOERD PLLC
2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd.
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 416-500
E-mail: jremer@rgph.law
CISCO SYSTEMS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Bracalente, et al. ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Cisco Systems, Inc's motion
to dismiss the third amended complaint in the case captioned as
ROBERT BRACALENTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-04417-EJD (N.D. Cal.).
This putative ERISA class action is brought by individual
participants in Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.'s 401(k) Plan and
alleges that Cisco breached its ERISA fiduciary duties by offering
certain BlackRock LifePath Index Funds. On Aug. 11, 2023, the Court
granted Cisco's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to
amend, and on May 20, 2024, the Court dismissed the second amended
complaint, again with leave to amend. Before the Court is Cisco's
Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
The TAC, like the complaints before it, alleges that Cisco breached
its fiduciary duty by failing to appropriately monitor the
BlackRock TDFs. This failure purportedly caused Plan participants
to lose tens of millions of dollars in potential capital
appreciation. Previously, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty claim as plead in the SAC. In that Order, the Court
concluded that the SAC's allegations regarding the allegedly flawed
process and the underperformance failed to sufficiently support a
reasonable inference that Cisco acted imprudently. In particular,
Plaintiffs alleged that the 401(k) Plan Administration Committee of
Cisco's process for monitoring the Plan's investment offerings was
imprudent as demonstrated by the Committee's (1) improper reliance
on custom benchmarks; (2) improper characterization of the
BlackRock TDFs as passive; (3) failure to compare the BlackRock
TDFs to an appropriate peer universe; and (4) failure to perform a
prudent review of the BlackRock TDFs.
Plaintiffs continue to allege that the Committee's process for
monitoring the Plan's investment offerings was imprudent. But
Plaintiffs assert that they have addressed the Court's concerns in
three ways: the TAC (1) identifies a new suite of TDFs it alleges
is an appropriate comparator––the Dynamic TDFs; (2) explains
why it was insufficient to solely assess the BlackRock TDFs by
comparing them to their custom benchmark; and (3) alleges that the
Plan's investment policy statement was deficient for lacking any
standard by which to evaluate the BlackRock TDFs relative to any
alternative investment.
Cisco argues that Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and failure
to monitor fiduciaries and co-fiduciaries claims should again be
dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
The TAC alleges that the Committee acted imprudently by failing to
consider a different, superior suite of funds offered by
BlackRock––the Dynamic TDFs.
The Court finds Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the
Dynamic TDFs funds are meaningful benchmarks against which to
compare that fund's performance with the BlackRock TDFs.
Plaintiffs have not cured the deficiencies identified in the prior
order. Rather, they repeat the same arguments (in some cases
referring to the same authority the Court considered), relies on
the same or slightly revised allegations, and expects a different
result. Nothing in the amended allegations warrant a
reconsideration of the Court's ruling on these issues.
Because the Court finds that TAC has failed to state a claim for
fiduciary breach, Plaintiffs' derivative claim likewise fails to
state a claim. Cisco could not have knowingly participated in
breaches of fiduciary duty by permitting the Plan to offer a menu
of imprudent investment options where the BlackRock TDFs have not
been alleged to be imprudent.
Plaintiffs had two chances to amend their pleadings but failed to
plausibly state a claim. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims are
dismissed with prejudice.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JcGVg4 from PacerMonitor.com.
CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Munoz Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-50125 (N.D.
Ill., March 19, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all
persons impacted by a data breach that Chicago Public Schools
publicly announced on March 7, 2025.
The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard Personal Identification Information
that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility
to store and transfer that information.
Cleo is a software platform that helps businesses manage their
supply chain integration and provides tools to businesses for
automating, integrating, and monitoring business-to-business
transactions, among other services. In the course of providing
these services, Cleo stores an enormous amount of PII and generates
millions of dollars of revenue on a yearly basis. The Defendant had
numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties
and obligations, including those based on their affirmative
representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their PII
confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized
disclosure or access, says the suit.
In late 2024, Defendant Cleo was the victim of a cyberattack on a
server used to store data on current and former Chicago Public
Schools students.
On February 8, 2025, Chicago Public Schools, one of the "spokes" in
this data breach, learned that student data had been
inappropriately accessed during the Data Breach.
In February 2025, the Russia-linked ransomware group Cl0p took
responsibility for a ransomware attack waged against Cleo.3 Cl0p
was purportedly able to exploit a known vulnerability in Cleo's
systems and gain access to and exfiltrate the PII of a yet unknown
number of individuals stored by Cleo's customers, including Chicago
Public Schools, on Cleo's systems and platform, the lawsuit says.
Accordingly, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty
to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the PII
collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant
solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the PII, yet
breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate
security practices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
Mark S. Reich, 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: cmaccarone@zlk.com
mreich@zlk.com
msvensson@zlk.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Rounding of Punch Clock
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALISON M. PLAHITKO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-00520-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., March 19, 2025) challenges
policies and practices including unlawful rounding of Kronos time
clock punch that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Accordingly, all of the Plaintiff's and her similarly situated
coworkers’ compensable work time was recorded on the Defendant's
Kronos time clocks. While all recorded, compensable work hours were
recorded on Defendant’s Kronos time clock, Defendant rounded
those Kronos time punches and did not pay wages for all compensable
and recorded work time.
The Plaintiff and her similarly situated coworkers are and were
common victims of the Defendant's compensation scheme whereby it
illegally and impermissibly rounded time clock punches and log in
entries in its favor and in a manner that failed to pay Plaintiff
and all similarly situated coworkers for significant compensable
work hours.
Plaintiff Plahitko is an adult individual residing in Indianapolis,
Marion County, Indiana. She was employed by Defendant as a nurse in
and around the Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana area from
October 2002 until Defendant involuntarily terminated Plahitkos
employment on Jan. 24, 2025.
In her last position, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a FMLA
Case Manager. Within the three years preceding the filing of this
Action, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt
employee who was paid on an hourly basis.
The Defendant provides healthcare services at approximately 200
locations, including hospitals throughout the State of
Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Hunt, Esq,
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
1905 South New Market Street, Ste 168
Carmel, IN 46032
Telephone: (317) 743-0614
Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com
COMNET COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Logan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK LOGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMNET COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-00394 (D. Conn., March 18, 2025) alleges that the
cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because the
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on
cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents,
contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the
PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security
safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII—rendering it
an easy target for cybercriminals.
On June 11, 2024, ComNet, from outside plant to inside structured
cable installation, discovered it had lost control over its
computer network and the highly sensitive personal information
stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by
cybercriminals (Data Breach).
The Data Breach has impacted several thousands of current and
former employees. Following an internal investigation, the
Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to
employees' personally identifiable information (PII), including but
not limited to name and Social Security number.
On Aug. 23, 2024, over two months later, ComNet finally began
notifying Class Members about the Data Breach (Breach Notice).
Accordingly, the Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of
the breach and the threat it posted—refusing to tell its
employees how many people were impacted, how the breach happened,
when it was discovered, or why Defendant delayed notifying victims
that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private
information.
The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the
victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to
monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent
unauthorized use of their PII, says the suit.
ComNet is a provider of turnkey voice, data and video
infrastructure support.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL: 60611-4501
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 863-1109
E-mail: straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, New York 10151
Telephone: (646) 357-1732
E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com
DAILY HARVEST: Class Settlement in Peni Suit Gets Final Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Denise Cote of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the
class action settlement in the case captioned as BREEANNE BUCKLEY
PENI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. DAILY HARVEST, INC., SECOND BITE FOODS, INC., d/b/a
“STONE GATE FOODS”, SMIRK'S LTD., AND MOLINOS ASOCIADOS,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-05443 (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
came on for hearing before this Court on March 3, 2025, with Class
Counsel Marler Clark, Inc. PS, Dreyer Boyajian LLP, O'Connor &
Partners, PLLC, Heisman Nunes & Hull LLP, and Bowersox Law Firm,
P.C. appearing on behalf of Breeanne Buckley Peni, Haworth Barber &
Gerstman LLC appearing on behalf of Smirk's Ltd., and Bond
Schoeneck & King PLLC, appearing on behalf of Molinos Asociados.
On June 27, 2022, plaintiff Breeanne Buckley Peni filed a Class
Action Complaint alleging Strict Liability, Breach of Warranty, and
Negligence against Daily Harvest, Inc., in the Southern District of
New York in a case styled Breeanne Buckley Peni, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Daily Harvest, Inc.,
et al. Case No. 1:22-cv-05443.
Around this same time, a number of Related Actions were filed
against the Settling Defendants. Those filed in federal court were
transferred to the District Court for the Southern District of New
York and assigned to the Court. Those filed in New York State
Supreme Court have been consolidated for discovery purposes and
remain in that Court; and since that time, they have been following
the directives of the Hon. Denise Cote of the Southern District of
New York in these proceedings.
On April 28, 2023, the District Court for the Southern District of
New York entered a Coordination Order for all Related Actions in
the Daily Harvest Litigation.
The Parties have submitted their Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement and supporting documents, which this Court
preliminarily approved on Oct. 9, 2024.
The Preliminary Approval Order established an Opt-Out deadline of
Dec. 11, 2024, and a Claims Deadline and Objections Deadline of
Jan. 21, 2025.
In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Members
have been given notice of the terms of the Settlement and the
opportunity to object to or exclude themselves from its
provisions.
Having received and considered the Settlement, all papers filed in
connection therewith, including Plaintiff's Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the evidence and argument
received by the Court at the hearing before it entered the
Preliminary Approval Order and at the final approval hearing on
March 3, 2025, the Court orders and makes determinations as
follows:
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action
and over the Parties, including all members of the following
Settlement Class certified for settlement purposes in this Court's
Preliminary Approval Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
All persons in the United States (including its territories) who
purchased, received, or consumed French Lentil + Leek Crumbles and
directly suffered personal injuries caused by consumption of the
Crumbles, and all persons in the United States (including its
territories) who suffered consequential monetary damages arising
from or related to another person's personal injuries arising from
consumption of the Crumbles.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the presiding judges in
the Actions; (2) any member of those judges' immediate families;
(3) the Settling Defendants: (4) any of the Settling Defendants'
subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and officers, directors, current
employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns;
and (5) counsel for the Parties. Also excluded are the three
individuals who validly opted out of the Settlement Class: Linda
Hallquist, Dominique Ingram, and Bob Nabati.
The Court finds and determines that the Settlement Class, as
defined in the Settlement Agreement meets all of the legal
requirements for class certification for settlement purposes under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), and it is ordered that the Class
is certified for settlement purposes.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and for settlement purposes
only, the Court finds as to the Settlement Class with respect to
all aspects of the Settlement Agreement that the prerequisites for
a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) and (b)(3) have been
satisfied in that:
a. The Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable;
b. There are questions of law or fact common to the Settlement
Class;
C. The claims of the Class Representative are typical of the
claims of the Settlement Class;
d. The Class Representative has fairly and adequately protected
the interests of the Settlement Class and is, therefore, appointed
as Class Representative; Marler Clark, Inc. PS, Dreyer Boyajian
LLP, O'Connor & Partners, PLLC,
Heisman Nunes & Hull LLP, and Bowersox Law Firm, P.C. have fairly
and adequately protected the interests of the Settlement Class and
are qualified to represent the Settlement Class and are, therefore,
appointed as Class Counsel;
f. The questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class
predominate over the questions affecting only individual members;
and
g. A class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
The Court orders that Class Representative Breeanne Buckley Peni be
appointed as Representative Plaintiff and as the Class
Representative. It also orders that Marler Clark, Inc. PS, Dreyer
Boyajian LLP, O'Connor & Partners, PLLC, Heisman Nunes & Hull LLP,
and Bowersox Law Firm, P.C. be appointed Class Counsel. The Class
Representative and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately
represented and protected the interests of the absent Settlement
Class Members, both with respect to litigation of the Action and
for purposes of negotiating, entering into, and implementing the
Settlement. Class Counsel and the Settlement Class Representatives
have satisfied the requirements of Rules 23(a)(4) and 23(g) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court finds that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate based on the value of the Settlement, and the relative
risks and benefits of further litigation. The Settlement was
arrived at after sufficient investigation and discovery and was
based on arms-length negotiations, including three mediations.
The Court finally approves the Settlement and finds that the terms
constituted, in all respects, a fair, reasonable, and adequate
settlement as to all Settlement Class Members in accordance with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and direct consummation pursuant to its terms
and conditions.
The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement provides substantial
and meaningful monetary benefits and other consideration to the
Settlement Class as follows: Settling Defendants agreed to provide
cash benefits with a gross potential payout value of $7,671,000
(seven million, six hundred and seventy-one thousand dollars) in
the aggregate. $767,100 of the cash benefit was held back by the
Settling Defendants, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. The balance of the Class Action Hold Back Amount shall
be deposited into the Settlement Fund after the Settling Defendants
litigate to conclusion or otherwise resolve the claims of those who
have opted out of the Settlement, or by Dec. 31, 2026, whichever is
later.
The Court finds that the settlement treats Settlement Class Members
equitably relative to one another, and that the Settlement Benefits
to be paid to each Settlement Class Member as provided for by the
Settlement are fair and reasonable.
The manner of distribution of the Settlement Fund as described in
the Settlement Agreement and in the Class Notice is approved,
subject to modification by further order of this Court, which may,
at the discretion of the Court, be entered without further notice
to the Settlement Class. Any order or proceedings relating to the
manner of distribution of the Settlement Fund, so long as they are
not materially inconsistent with this Final Judgment, shall not
operate to terminate or cancel the Settlement or affect the
finality of this Final Judgment approving the Settlement.
This Action is dismissed with prejudice, on the merits, by
Plaintiffs and all members of the Settlement Class as against
Settling Defendants on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Settlement Agreement without costs to any party, except as
expressly provided for in the Settlement Agreement.
Upon the Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement, the
Plaintiff and each and every one of the Settlement Class Members
unconditionally, fully, and finally releases and forever discharges
the Released Parties from the Released Claims. In addition, any
tights of the Class Representative afforded under Section 1542 of
the California Civil Code and any other similar, comparable, or
equivalent laws, are terminated.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6873P0 from PacerMonitor.com.
DAVID J. GLADIEUX: Motion for Summary Judgment Denied Minkosky Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Susan Collins of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Indiana denied Keith Matthew
Minkosky's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned as
KEITH MATTHEW MINKOSKY, Plaintiff, v. DAVID J. GLADIEUX, Sheriff,
Defendant, CAUSE NO. 1:22-cv-00300-SLC (N.D. Ind.).
Keith Matthew Minkosky, a prisoner without a lawyer, is proceeding
in this case on two claims against Sheriff David J. Gladieux in his
official capacity:
(1) for a policy or practice of housing him in overcrowded
conditions for more than a year, starting on April 20, 2021, that
resulted in inadequate recreation, sleep, classification of
inmates, and sanitation in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;
and
(2) for denying him the ability to practice his religion from
April 20, 2021, through May 3, 2022, in violation of the First
Amendment and [the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act (RLUIPA).
In this case, Minkosky is a member of the class in Morris v.
Sheriff of Allen County, No. 1:20-CV-34-DRL, 2022 WL 971098, at *1
(N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2022), defined as "all persons currently
confined, or who would in the future be confined, in the Allen
County Jail." That class action was certified under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) for injunctive and declaratory relief, and
the Court found at summary judgment that certain conditions of
confinement at the jail violated the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution: "The overcrowding problem at the
jail -- which in turn has spawned an increased risk of violence,
unsanitary and dangerous conditions in cells, insufficient
recreation, and classification difficulties -- has deprived this
class of inmates ‘the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities.'"
By virtue of Minkosky's membership in this class, liability is
undisputed. What is left for Minkosky to prove is that he suffered
damages as a result of the unconstitutional conditions. This means
he must show more than he suffered an injury. He must connect that
injury to the unconstitutional conditions identified in Morris or
provide another basis for liability. Because this is a claim
against Sheriff Gladieux in his official capacity, Minkosky must
prove that he was injured and the unconstitutional overcrowding was
the "moving force" behind his injuries.
Minkosky argues summary judgment is warranted in his favor because
he was never given any opportunity to exercise while in the Allen
County Jail.
The Court finds in this case, a reasonable jury could credit the
Jail Commander's attestations and conclude that Minkosky's movement
was not denied to the point his health was threatened and therefore
was not injured by the effects the overcrowding had on his ability
to exercise. Because disputed material facts exist regarding
whether Minkosky was injured by a lack of exercise, summary
judgment must be denied on this sub-claim.
Minkosky argues summary judgment is warranted in his favor because
he was unreasonably denied adequate sleep in the Allen County Jail,
as he was exposed to twenty-four hour lightning and overcrowded
inmates sleeping on the floor.
In this case, Sheriff Gladieux has provided evidence documented by
Minkosky's medical providers, indicating that he had no issue with
his sleep hygiene and that he slept with regular bedding/mat.
According to the Court, a reasonable jury could credit this
evidence and conclude that Minkosky's sleep was not impacted by the
overcrowding to the point where he suffered a constitutional
injury. Therefore, because the record contains disputed material
facts regarding whether Minkosky's sleep was affected by the
overcrowded conditions to the point of injury, summary judgment
must be denied on this sub-claim.
Minkosky argues summary judgment is warranted in his favor because
he was housed with dangerous inmates due to the overcrowded
conditions in the prison which caused him to be assaulted on at
least three occasions.
The Court finds in this case, there's insufficient evidence in the
record to allow an irrefutable conclusion that Minkosky was injured
by classification problems due to overcrowding at the Allen County
Jail. Specifically, Minkosky's mere assertion he was assaulted on
three occasions does not show that the inmates who assaulted him
posed a risk to him that would have been remedied by a different
classification system. Therefore, summary judgment must be denied
on this sub-claim.
Minkosky argues summary judgment is warranted in his favor because
he was denied cleaning materials to maintain a safe and healthy
living environment while in the Allen County Jail.
According to the Court, in this case, a reasonable jury could
credit the Jail Commander's attestations and conclude that the
overcrowding did not prevent Minkosky from cleaning his own
personal area. Specifically, a reasonable jury could credit the
Jail Commander's attestations that Minkosky was tasked with
cleaning his own cell and had daily access to cleaning supplies and
was therefore not injured by the effect the overcrowding had on the
jail's sanitation. Thus, because the record contains disputed
material facts regarding whether Minkosky was injured as a result
of inadequate sanitation, summary judgment must be denied on this
sub-claim.
Minkosky argues summary judgment is warranted in his favor because
he was completely denied any meaningful opportunity nor any type of
religious services to practice the free exercise of his religion of
choice during his incarceration in the Allen County Jail.
The Court finds in this case, a reasonable jury could credit the
Jail Commander's attestations that Minkosky had access to religious
reading materials on his tablet, could request further religious
reading materials from the jail's chaplaincy program, could meet
and correspond with religious practitioners of his choice, and
could utilize a religious diet and conclude that Sheriff Gladieux
did not impose a substantial burden on Minkosky's religious
practice within the meaning of the First Amendment or RLUIPA.
Moreover, a reasonable jury could conclude that the jail's conduct
of temporarily halting group worship services during the COVID-19
pandemic was reasonably related to a legitimate penological
interest and was the least restrictive means of serving a
compelling governmental interest to limit the spread of the
COVID-19 virus through the jail facility. Because disputed material
facts exist regarding whether Sheriff Gladieux violated Minkosky's
rights under the First Amendment or RLUIPA, summary judgment must
be denied on this claim.
The Court clarifies Minkosky is proceeding on the following
claims:
(a) against Sheriff Gladieux in his official capacity for
monetary damages for a policy or practice of housing him in
overcrowded conditions for more than a year, starting on April 20,
2021, that resulted in inadequate recreation, sleep, classification
of inmates, and sanitation in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment; and
(b) against Sheriff Gladieux in his official capacity for
monetary damages for denying him the ability to practice his
religion from April 20, 2021, through May 3, 2022, in violation of
the First Amendment and RLUIPA.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2uTANK from PacerMonitor.com.
DISCOVERY COMMS: Court Rules on Pilon, et al. Arbitration Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted petition to compel
arbitration before Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services as
to Russell Stephen and denied as to Brian Pilon in the case
captioned as BRIAN PILON, et al., Petitioners, -v- DISCOVERY
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Respondent, Case No. 24-cv-04760-JPO
(S.D.N.Y.). The cross-motion to compel arbitration before National
Arbitration and Mediation is denied as to Stephen and granted as to
Pilon.
Discovery is a large media company that offers a streaming
platform, Discovery+, featuring an array of real-life, nonfiction
television series and specials. Discovery+ is accessible by users
on its website, smart phone application, and television
application. To access content on Discovery+, users must create
accounts by entering a username and password and accepting a
"Visitor Agreement and Privacy Notice" containing terms governing
the relationship between Discovery+ and its users.
For many years and through several revisions, the Discovery+
Visitor Agreement and Privacy Notice contained arbitration
provisions selecting JAMS as its arbitral forum.
In this case, Petitioners Brian Pilon and Russell Stephen, and
Respondent Discovery Communications, LLC, agree that their dispute
concerning alleged federal and California privacy law violations
belongs in arbitration. But they disagree on where. Before the
Court now are Pilon's and Stephen's petition to compel arbitration
before JAMS and Discovery's cross-motion to compel arbitration
before NAM. Discovery moves also for limited discovery concerning
Stephen's assent to the arbitration agreement selecting NAM.
After the parties' "settlement discussions broke down," on May 2,
2024, Pilon and Stephen filed individual arbitration demands with
JAMS against Discovery, asserting claims under federal and
California law.
On June 21, 2024, Petitioners filed a petition in this Court to
compel arbitration with Discovery pursuant to the First Visitor
Agreement. On Aug. 19, 2024, Discovery filed a cross-motion to
compel arbitration pursuant to the Second Visitor Agreement. The
Second Visitor Agreement contains several new arbitration
provisions, including selecting NAM as the arbitral forum, rather
than JAMS.
Discovery objected to arbitrating before JAMS, contending that the
arbitration should proceed before NAM according to the Second
Visitor Agreement. JAMS, under the impression that the Second
Visitor Agreement had taken effect before the filing of Pilon's and
Stephen's arbitration demands and thus controlled, indicated that
it would not proceed with arbitration in the absence of a court
order.
Petitioners argue that the Second Visitor Agreement's arbitration
clause is unconscionable because, in part, of the substantive
unfairness of the arbitration procedure it selects and because of
California state law prohibiting class action waivers in consumer
contracts. Because both challenges turn not on any agreement as a
whole, but on the specific provisions for arbitrating disputes,
they are properly before the Court.
Judge Oetken holds, "Discovery's request for discovery as to
Stephen's assent to the Second Visitor Agreement is denied, because
Discovery's allegation that Stephen never subscribed after
receiving notice of the Second Visitor Agreement (assuming even
that he did receive such notice) renders any further discovery
futile. And because Stephen did not assent to that agreement, he is
not bound by its arbitration provisions. Thus, the petition to
compel arbitration consistent with the First Visitor Agreement—to
which Discovery mounts no legal objections other than
supersession—is granted as to Stephen. Discovery's cross-motion
is likewise denied as to him."
The Court concludes that the arbitration procedures specified by
the Second Visitor Agreement are not unconscionable and may be
enforced as to Pilon.
Discovery's request for discovery is denied. The action is stayed
until such arbitrations have been had in accordance with the
parties' agreements.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8JQLVf from PacerMonitor.com.
DOMINOS PIZZA: District Court Remands Banuelos Suit to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BENJAMIN BANUELOS, Plaintiff v. DOMINOS PIZZA
LLC, A MICHIGAN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-07085-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division, grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand to state
court.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Benjamin Banuelos's Motion to Remand
Action to State Court. Defendant Domino's Pizza LLC opposes the
motion, and the Plaintiff filed a reply brief in support of his
motion. The Court previously found that this motion is suitable for
disposition without oral argument, and vacated the hearing set for
Feb. 20, 2025.
For reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants the
Plaintiff's motion. Because the Court orders that this matter be
remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Santa Clara, the Court terminates without prejudice the
Defendant's pending Motion to Compel Arbitration and vacates the
Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for March 20, 2025.
On Aug. 27, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action
for violations of California wage and hour laws against Defendant
Domino's Pizza LLC in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Santa Clara. Banuelos is a resident of Chino, California,
who worked for Domino's in California as a non-exempt employee
between approximately November 2023 and December 2024. He alleges
that during this time, the Defendant, at times, failed to pay him
for all hours worked and failed to provide the requisite meal
periods and rest periods, among other employment-related
violations.
The Complaint includes nine causes of action: (1) failure to pay
minimum and straight time wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages;
(3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and
permit rest periods; (5) failure to timely pay final wages at
termination; (6) failure to provide and maintain accurate and
compliant wage statements; (7) failure to indemnify employees for
expenditures; (8) failure to produce requested employment records;
and (9) unfair business practices.
Mr. Banuelos seeks to represent a class of: all persons who worked
for any Defendant in California as an hourly-paid or non-exempt
employee at any time during the period beginning four years before
the filing of the initial complaint in this action and ending when
notice to the Class is sent.
Domino's was served on Sept. 9, 2024, and timely removed the action
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on Oct. 9, 2024. Removal jurisdiction was based on the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA")
The next day, Banuelos moved to remand the action to the state
court, challenging the Defendant's ability to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds the minimum required to invoke CAFA jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of 19
court filings. Judge Freeman grants the Plaintiff's request for
judicial notice as to the existence of the Court filings attached
to the request.
Mr. Banuelos accuses Domino's of "making unsupported assumptions"
in its Notice of Removal in order to arrive at the minimum amount
in controversy for establishing federal CAFA jurisdiction. To
address this challenge, the Defendant submits two declarations: one
from a company employee, and one from an outside consultant.
On reply, the Plaintiff does not submit his own evidence, instead
focusing on critiquing the reasonableness of the Defendant's
assumptions.
Judge Freeman opines that not only did the Defendant fail to
provide any evidentiary support for its assumed frequency of
straight time and overtime wage violations, the Defendant also
selected a violation frequency that is high relative to many other
cases. The Defendant effectively suggests that 25 percent of class
members worked an hour of unpaid straight time and/or an hour of
unpaid overtime every day during an average work week. In total,
Judge Freeman finds the Plaintiff's straight time and overtime wage
claims add $882,050.40 to the amount in controversy in this
action.
Judge Freeman finds the estimated value of the Plaintiff's
liquidated damages claim is $193,693.50 (29,799 workweeks x 2
hours/workweek x .25 x $13.00/hour), and that the total assumed
amount in controversy for the Plaintiff's meal and rest break
claims is $352,820.16.
The Court also finds, among other things, that the Complaint in
this action does not support an assumption that all non-exempt
employees during the available limitations period would receive the
maximum wage statement penalties. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's wage
statement claim adds $98,000 to the amount-in-controversy
calculation and the waiting time penalty claim adds $369,112.80 to
the amount-in-controversy calculation.
The Defendant argues that the amount in controversy calculation for
attorneys' fees should use a "benchmark" of 25 percent of the total
damages, because the Ninth Circuit has confirmed that, in class
actions, such an attorneys' fees award is reasonable.
Judge Freeman holds that the Plaintiff is correct that it does not
make sense to assume a benchmark 25 percent attorneys' fee in this
case. Assuming only for the sake of this remand motion that the
Plaintiff could recover attorneys' fees on all of the claims
discussed here, Judge Freeman finds the total anticipated
attorneys' fees would be $379,135.37.
Based on the Court's calculations, the total amount in controversy
is $2,274,812.23. Judge Freeman points out that this amount is well
below the CAFA minimum, and the Defendant has not provided
competent evidence of other amounts that the Court may take into
account in calculating the full assumed amount in controversy.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to remand.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand. This case is remanded to the Superior Court of California
for the County of Santa Clara.
In light of this remand order, the Court terminates without
prejudice the Defendant's pending Motion to Compel Arbitration and
vacates the Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for March
20, 2025.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycy6fmpj from PacerMonitor.com.
DORMEO NORTH: Pittman Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DORMEO NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-02795 (N.D. Ill., March 17, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.
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://dormeousa.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: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts,
changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for
interactive elements, lack of descriptive alt-text on graphics,
inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for
some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
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.
Dormeo North America, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
Email: Dreyes@ealg.law
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Faces Patel Securities Suit over Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------------
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that on
October 14, 2024, a purported stockholder of Edwards filed a
putative securities class action complaint against the company and
certain of its executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, captioned "Patel v.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, et al.," No. 24-cv-02221.
The complaint alleges violations of various securities laws based
on alleged false or misleading statements regarding its business
prospects. The complaint seeks damages, interest, costs and other
fees.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation is into structural heart
innovation encompassing both surgical and transcatheter therapies
with a portfolio of repair and replacement technologies for both
mitral and tricuspid heart valves provides a broad set of treatment
options.
EVERGREEN FREEDOM: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Chin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION is taking an appeal from a court order
denying its motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Levi Chin, et
al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Defendant,
Case No. 5:24-cv-01473-AH-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of sending
unsolicited emails with misleading subject lines in violation of
the California Anti-Spam Law.
On Oct. 22, 2024, the Defendant filed motions to dismiss the
complaint, which Judge Anne Hwang denied on Jan. 30, 2025.
The appellate case is captioned Chin, et al. v. Evergreen Freedom
Foundation, Case No. 25-1323, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 3, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 10,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 14, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 12, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees LEVI CHIN, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas Gallucci, Esq.
Ronald Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
- and –
Jason Wojciechowski, Esq.
BUSH GOTTLIEB
801 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 950
Glendale, CA 91203
Defendant-Appellant EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION is represented
by:
Shella Sadovnik Alcabes, Esq.
FREEDOM FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 552
Olympia, WA 98507
- and –
Ravi Ajay Prasad, Esq.
FREEDOM FOUNDATION
2403 Pacific Avenue, SE
Olympia, WA 98501
FANATICS INC: Monopolizes Player Trading Card Market, Scaturo Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SCATURO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FANATICS, INC.; FANATICS, LLC; FANATICS
COLLECTIBLES INTERMEDIATE HOLDCO, INC.; FANATICS SPV, LLC; MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL; MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES, INC.; MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; MLB PLAYERS, INC.; NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE; NFL PROPERTIES LLC; NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; NFL PLAYERS, INC.; NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION; NBA PROPERTIES, INC.; NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION
PLAYERS ASSOCIATION; ONETEAM PARTNERS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-02202 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendants for conspiracy in restraint of trade and
monopolization in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act
and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant Fanatics, in a conspiracy
involving all the Defendants, has engaged in a campaign to
monopolize the market for National Basketball Association (NBA)
player trading cards, National Football League (NFL) player trading
cards, and Major League Baseball (MLB) player trading cards
beginning in August 2021 and continuing through the present.
Fanatics has done this by first inducing those leagues and players
associations to join its anticompetitive conspiracy by securing
long term exclusive licensing contracts with all major sports
leagues by promising them a share of the future trading card
monopoly profits; and then weaponizing its resulting market
dominance even before those agreements took effect to coerce market
participants in an expansive scheme to systematically exclude from
the market its only remaining competitor. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
purchasers of NBA player trading cards, NFL player trading cards,
and MLB player trading cards are left with fewer choices, lower
quality, and higher prices products.
Fanatics, Inc. is a manufacturer of player trading cards, with its
principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida.
Fanatics, LLC is a manufacturer of player trading cards, with its
principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida.
Fanatics Collectibles Intermediate Holdco, Inc. is a manufacturer
of player trading cards, with its principal place of business in
Jacksonville, Florida.
Fanatics SPV, LLC is a manufacturer of player trading cards, with
its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida.
Major League Baseball (MLB) is an unincorporated association of the
30 Major League Baseball teams based in New York, New York.
Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. is a company responsible for
licensing the names, marks, and logos of each of the MLB's teams
based in New York, New York.
Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) is the labor
union representing Major League Baseball players based in New York,
New York.
MLB Players, Inc. is the affiliate of MLBPA based in New York, New
York.
National Football League (NFL) is an association of the 32 National
Football League teams in the United States based in New York, New
York.
NFL Properties LLC is a company responsible for licensing the
names, marks, and logos of each of the NFL's teams based in New
York, New York.
National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) is the labor
union representing National Football League players based in
Washington, D.C.
NFL Players, Inc. is the affiliate of NFLPA based in Washington,
D.C.
National Basketball Association (NBA) is an association of the 30
National Basketball Association teams in the U.S. based in New
York, New York.
NBA Properties, Inc. is a company responsible for licensing the
names, marks, and logos of each of the NBA's teams based in New
York, New York.
National Basketball Association Players Association is the labor
union representing National Basketball Association players based in
New York, New York.
OneTeam Partners LLC is a joint venture between MLBPA and NFLPA,
with its principal place of business in Santa Monica, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Radice, Esq.
Kenneth Pickle, Esq.
Daniel Rubenstein, Esq.
A. Luke Smith, Esq.
Kenneth Walsh, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
kpickle@radicelawfirm.com
drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com
lsmith@radicelawfirm.com
kwalsh@radicelawfirm.com
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Flowers Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY FLOWERS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment in the
lawsuit entitled Gary Flowers, et al., individually and on behalf
of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Flywheel
Energy Production LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-00330-LPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Conway County Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, is brought
against the Defendants for breach of contract.
On Nov. 20, 2024, Defendant Flywheel Energy Production LLC filed a
motion for summary judgment.
On Nov. 22, 2024, Defendant Riverbend Oil & Gas VIII LLC filed a
motion for summary judgment.
On Dec. 16, 2024, Defendant Merit Energy Company LLC filed a motion
for summary judgment.
On Jan. 29, 2025, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky granted the Defendants'
motions for summary judgment. The Court concludec that none of the
Plaintiffs' arguments are novel or persuasive. Accordingly, the
Defendants did not violate any statute, and they did not breach
their lease agreement. The Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on all of the Plaintiffs' claims.
The appellate case is captioned Gary Flowers, et al. v. Flywheel
Energy Production LLC, et al., Case No. 25-1428, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 3,
2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appendix is due on April 22, 2025;
-- Appellant's brief is due on April 22, 2025; and
-- Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants GARY FLOWERS, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
THRASH LAW FIRM
1101 Garland Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 374-1058
- and –
Melvin Edward Morgan, Esq.
Nathan St. John Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN LAW FIRM
244 Highway 65 North, Suite 5
Clinton, AR 72031
Telephone: (501) 745-4044
Defendants-Appellees FLYWHEEL ENERGY PRODUCTION LLC, et al. are
represented by:
Julie DeWoody Greathouse, Esq.
Samuel McLelland, Esq.
Gregory Alan Perkins, Esq.
PPGMR LAW, PLLC
P.O. Box 3446
Little Rock, AR 72203
Telephone: (501) 603-9000
- and –
Michael Bailey Heister, Esq.
Robert Ryan Younger, Esq.
QUATTLEBAUM & GROOMS
111 Center Street, Suite 1900
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 379-1700
- and –
Douglas Morrison Carson, Esq.
Carl Michael Daily, Esq.
Colby T. Roe, Esq.
DAILY & WOODS
58 S. Sixth Street
P.O. Box 1446
Fort Smith, AR 72902
Telephone: (479) 782-0361
- and –
Andrew Wilson Myers, Esq.
Joel S. Neckers, Esq.
Judith Pace Youngman, Esq.
WHEELER & TRIGG
370 17th Street, Suite 4500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 244-1800
FORD MOTOR: Salas Sues Over Vehicles' Material Safety Defect
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SALAS and FRANCISCO XAVIER GONZALEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01701 (C.D. Cal., February 27,
2025) arises from a material safety defect of Ford Mustang Mach-E
vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company from the 2022 model
year to the present in violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act.
According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles contain
electronically latched doors, called E-Latch, that upon battery
failure or loss of power to the vehicle, require the batteries to
be jump started in order for the driver and passenger doors to open
from outside the vehicle that presents a significant safety risk.
The Defendant has long known about this defect and/or at a minimum
the inherent risks associated with utilizing electronically latched
doors in eclectic vehicles that utilize keyless entry, without
providing a hard key or manual way to open the driver and passenger
doors in the event of battery failure, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and the Class suffered an economic injury as a
result of the defect and Defendant's concealments about the safety
of the Class Vehicles at the time of purchase. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and other
similarly situated individuals against Defendant regarding the
defect.
Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Pamela Prescott, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800)400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
pamela@kazlg.com
- and -
Edward S. Diab, Esq.
DIAB CHAMBERS LLP
10089 Willow Creek Rd, Ste 200
San Diego, CA 92131
Telephone: (619) 350-6155
E-mail: ed@dcfirm.com
FRAME LA BRANDS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Wee Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELCHION WEE-ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRAME LA BRANDS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-01477 (E.D.N.Y., March 17, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.
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://www.frame-store.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: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without
advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL
address, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
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.
Frame La Brands, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (917) 437-3737
Email: mcohen@ealg.law
GEICO INDEMNITY: Loses Bid to Transfer Venue of Shiloah Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Colleen D. Holland of the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York denied GEICO Indemnity Company's
motion transfer venue of the case captioned as RENATA SHILOAH, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-06447-EAW-CDH
(W.D.N.Y.) to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.
Plaintiff Renata Shiloah brings this putative class action suit
against defendant GEICO Indemnity Company, alleging breach of
contract. She claims that Defendant has systematically underpaid
not just her but thousands of other putative Class members by
failing to pay Actual Cash Value or ACV for total loss vehicles
insured with comprehensive and collision coverage.
Defendant has moved to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1404(a), arguing that this lawsuit has no connection to the Western
District of New York and the Eastern District of New York is the
District within which Plaintiff and all relevant witnesses reside
and all facts giving rise to Plaintiff's Class-Action Complaint
occurred.
Plaintiff opposes Defendant's request, arguing that because a
related putative class action, Marcelletti v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.,
No. 6:23-CV-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y. 2024), has already been filed
in this District, a transfer would only create inconvenience,
foster duplication and waste judicial resources.
The Court finds that Defendant has not shown by clear and
convincing evidence that the balance of convenience and the
interests of justice weigh in favor of transfer to the Eastern
District of New York. Defendant's motion to transfer venue is
accordingly denied.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ue2hBc from PacerMonitor.com.
GEICO INDEMNITY: W.D. New York Refuses to Dismiss Shiloah Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled RENATA SHILOAH, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-06447-EAW-CDH
(W.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Renata Shiloah brings this putative class action against
Defendant GEICO Indemnity Company asserting a claim for breach of
contract based on the Defendant's failure to pay sales tax for
total loss vehicles that are leased.
The Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The pending motion raises
the same issues that the Court previously addressed in Marcelletti
v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 720 F. Supp. 3d 243 (W.D.N.Y. 2024). That
case involves the same attorneys as involved in the present
litigation.
Yet, surprisingly, Judge Wolford says, GEICO's counsel avoided any
reference to the Marcelletti decision in its motion to dismiss.
Appropriately, the Plaintiff's counsel highlighted this failure in
its opposition papers. But in reply, GEICO's counsel persisted with
the tactic of largely ignoring the Marcelletti decision, simply
stating in a footnote that it disagreed with the decision and it
was "not controlling."
Of course, Judge Wolford points out, the Defendant is free to
disagree with the Court's prior decision. But to ignore it and
then, when confronted with that failure, to dismiss it in a cursory
footnote, is to say the least not persuasive advocacy. In any
event, for the same reasons that the Court already addressed in
Marcelletti, it finds that the Plaintiff's proffered interpretation
of the policy is not unreasonable--to require actual cash value to
include the payment of sales tax on a leased vehicle. As a result,
the motion to dismiss must be denied.
In other words, Judge Wolford opines, while GEICO takes a somewhat
different tactic in crafting some of its arguments as compared to
the way they were presented in Marcelletti, in the end it makes no
difference in the resolution of the motion to dismiss. That is
because even if New York law is correctly interpreted as argued by
GEICO to not require the payment of sales tax on leased total loss
vehicles, this does not mean that GEICO was prohibited from
contractually agreeing to pay sales tax.
And again, the Plaintiff's proffered interpretation of the policy
as requiring the payment of sales tax is not unreasonable, Judge
Wolford says. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/522xmcdj from PacerMonitor.com.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Settlement in Gur-Ravantab, et al. Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia granted final approval of the class action
settlement in the case captioned as EMIR GUR-RAVANTAB, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01038-TNM (D.C.).
Plaintiffs Emir Gur-Ravantab and Emily Lama sued Georgetown
University, arguing the school's move to virtual instruction during
the pandemic violated its implied contract with its students and
led to unjust enrichment. Following successful settlement
negotiations, they move to certify the proposed settlement class
and obtain approval of the settlement agreement. The settlement
class satisfies Rule 23(a) and (b). So the Court will certify the
class. And the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. Thus the Court approves the settlement.
The proposed class contains thousands of students, well beyond the
rough baseline of forty that courts impose for the numerosity
requirement. And it remains true that common contentions abound in
this case, as all of the class members are alleging a breach of the
identical contracts they entered into with the University. Thus,
commonality is satisfied, the Court finds.
The Court confirms what it previously held was probable: Kazmi and
Morrison are typical and adequate class representatives. Typicality
is satisfied if the claims of the named plaintiffs arise from the
same practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of
the proposed class members, such that the class representatives
suffered injuries in the same general fashion as absent class
members. Kazmi and Morrison were undergraduates at Georgetown in
the spring of 2020. So they were unexpectedly barred from on-campus
instruction and facilities after the onset of the pandemic. They
accordingly allege a breach of the contract they had with the
University. This theory of liability mirrors that of the rest of
the class, since Georgetown's contract is the same for all
students. So Kazmi and Morrison are typical.
Adequacy poses no problem for Kazmi and Morrison. There is no
evidence that their interests are hostile to that of the unnamed
class members. On the contrary, Kazmi and Morrison have taken an
active role to help make this case successful, participating in
discovery and the settlement negotiations.
The Court had raised two concerns with the proposed settlement for
the parties to address. First, it noted that the settlement
agreement only allotted $1.5 million dollars to a class of up to
7,300 students. With roughly one-third of that going to class
counsel, each member would only recover about $137 on average. The
Court instructed counsel to discuss whether that was an adequate
award for the class members.
At the November fairness hearing, and in its motion for final
approval of the settlement, counsel addressed this concern. They
estimated an average award of $141 for the 6,303 class members,
with a median award of $180 and a maximum award of $227. Such an
award fits within the range of settlements found reasonable by
courts in this jurisdiction, the Court finds.
Second, the Court questioned the incentive award to Lama. Counsel
has since justified this bounty, although it is a bit unusual. But
sometimes, incentive awards can be offered to non-class members,
provided those non-class members also release their claims against
the defendants. This justifies the award to Lama, as well as the
award to GurRavantab. Under the settlement agreement, both
Plaintiffs agreed to release their claims against Georgetown. And
although neither individual ultimately represented the class, both
contributed significant time and resources to ensuring settlement
came to fruition. Thus these service awards are justified in this
unique circumstance, the Court concludes.
The Court likewise approves the incentive awards to class
representatives Kazmi ($2,500) and Morrison ($2,500). Each named
Plaintiff provided significant services to the class. These awards
are thus reasonable in light of their investments of time, money,
and effort on part of the class.
The requested attorney's fee award of $500,000 represents one-third
of the sum of the common fund. Such an award is reasonable
considering the factors courts in this district have found
pertinent, including the size of the fund and class; the lack of
objections to the fee request; the skill and efficiency of class
counsel; the complexity of the litigation; the risk of nonpayment;
the resources devoted to the case by class counsel.
Class counsel seek reimbursement in the amount of $23,028.86. No
objections were raised to this request, and it appears reasonable.
The expenses reflect costs reasonably incurred in furnishing
effective and competent representation, such as filing fees, travel
costs, and mediation expenses. The costs will be reimbursed.
The Court authorizes disbursement of $75,000 to the Settlement
Administrator, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc, to be
paid in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, to compensate the
Settlement Administrator for the tasks performed in connection with
class notice and administration of the settlement.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4uEuyO from PacerMonitor.com.
GODADDY.COM: Settlement Termination in Drazen, et al. Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama denied the motion filed by the
plaintiffs in the cases captioned as SUSAN DRAZEN, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GODADDY.COM,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-00563-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), JUAN PINTO,
Objector, and JASON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-00094-KD-B (S.D. Ala.) to reconsider the Court's
February 6, 2025 Order allowing Godaddy to terminate the class
action settlement agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Plaintiffs argue that the Court made a manifest error of law when
it decided that the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
vacated the Final Approval Order in its entirety which consequently
provided grounds for Godaddy to terminate the Settlement Agreement.
They argue that reconsideration and a ruling that only the
attorney's fees portion of the Final Approval Order was vacated and
remanded, is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice to the class
and class counsel. Specifically, the Court's decision precludes
their recovery of any damages or compensation, respectively, from
this litigation.
While Plaintiffs argue that the Court committed manifest error, the
arguments as to why and how the Court erred are substantially the
same as those previously before the Court and heard on January 31,
2025. Since a Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old
matters, Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider is denied.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BOVRYY from PacerMonitor.com.
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------------
Graftech International Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2025, that on January 25,
2024, a stockholder of the company filed a class action complaint
on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of GrafTech
common stock between February 8, 2019 and August 3, 2023 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
The complaint, as amended, names the company, certain past and
present executive officers, and three entities associated with the
tax receivable agreement that provides Brookfield Corporation and
its affiliates the right to receive future payments of 85% of the
amount of cash savings. It alleges that certain public filings and
statements made by the company contained material
misrepresentations or omissions relating to the circumstances
before and after the prior temporary suspension of its graphite
electrode manufacturing facility located in Monterrey, Mexico, in
September 2022. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses, and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief.
On May 15, 2024, the court appointed the University of Puerto Rico
Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On October 7, 2024, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On December 6, 2024, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
GrafTech International Ltd. is a manufacturer of graphite electrode
products essential to the production of electric arc furnace steel
and other ferrous and non-ferrous metals with manufacturing
facilities in Calais, France; Pamplona, Spain; Monterrey, Mexico
and St. Marys, Pennsylvania.
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Court Dismisses Allegretti Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the class
action lawsuit captioned as EMILY ALLEGRETTI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GRIMMWAY
ENTERPRISES, INC., doing business as Grimmway Farms, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01454-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.) without prejudice.
On Nov. 27, 2024, Plaintiff Emily Allegretti initiated this action
with the filing of an unverified putative class action complaint
against Defendant Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., doing business as
Grimmway Farms.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action against Defendant, filed on March 10, 2025.
The notice of dismissal is signed by all parties and otherwise
comports with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) &
(ii) and Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss her individual claims (at
least) without a court order. In a class action, however, court
approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the
class has been certified. Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides that
any claims arising out of either a (1) certified class or (2) class
proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement may be settled,
voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's
approval.
In this case, it appears Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the entire
action, including her putative class claims under Rule 41(a)(1),
without prejudice. No class has been certified in this action nor
is there a class proposed to be certified for purposes of
settlement. Because no class has been certified in this case, and
because any dismissal would not affect putative class members'
possible claims, Rule 23(e) does not mandate either Court approval
of the parties' settlement or notice to putative class members.
In light of Plaintiff's filing, the Court finds that Rule 23(e)
does not require the Court's approval of the dismissal. This action
shall be terminated by operation of law without further order of
the Court.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and
adjust the docket to reflect dismissal without prejudice as to
Plaintiff's individual claims and the claims of the putative class
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) & (ii), with each party
to bear that party's own attorney's fees and costs.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ytzPYd from PacerMonitor.com.
HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Seeks to Impound Unredacted Exhibits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES THERRIEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HEARST TELEVISION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998-RGS (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting requests that
the unredacted Exhibits to the Kopel Declaration and portions of
Plaintiff's brief that cite thereto be impounded until further
order of the Court.
The Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order impounding:
(i) certain Exhibits of the Declaration of Yitzchak Kopel in
Support of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class
Certification or, Alternatively, to Reopen Discovery; and
(ii) portions of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law In Support of
the Motion that rely on or cite to the aforementioned
documents.
Hearst is a broadcasting company in the United States owned by
Hearst Communications.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h4LEpH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria X. Zhou
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
- and -
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
HEDONOVA LLC: Standing Order Entered in Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED STATES SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. HEDONOVA LLC, et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-05293-CV-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a standing
order as follows:
The parties may consent to have a Magistrate Judge preside over the
entire civil case, including trial, rather than just discovery.
The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local
Rule 5-3.1. Any defendant not timely served under Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m), including "Doe" or fictitiously named defendants, shall be
dismissed from the action.
All documents filed in state court, including documents appended to
the complaint, answers, and motions, must be re-filed in this Court
as a supplement to the notice of removal.
The Plaintiff must identify and serve any fictitiously named or Doe
defendant(s) before the deadline set forth in the Court’s Order
Setting Scheduling Conference.
All discovery matters are hereby referred to the assigned
Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes.
Notwithstanding Local Rule 23-3, the deadline for the filing of a
motion for class certification will be set pursuant to the
parties’ stipulation during the Scheduling Conference or in a
Scheduling Order.
Unless otherwise ordered, motions for default judgment shall be
filed no later than 14 days after the later of (1) entry of default
against the last remaining defendant, or (2) resolution of all
claims against all defendants who have not defaulted.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aO4tGj at no extra
charge.[CC]
HEMET, CA: Standing Order Entered in Novak Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL NOVAK, v. CITY OF
HEMET, et al. Case No. 5:25-cv-00269-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jesus Bernal entered a standing order as follows:
The Court and litigants bear joint responsibility for the progress
of litigation in the Federal Courts. To secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action, all counsel are
ordered to become familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central District of
California.* The Court further orders as follows:
The Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to L.R.
5−3.1.
Any answers filed in state court must be re−filed in this Court
(separately) as a supplement to the petition. Any pending motions
must be re−noticed in accordance with L.R. 6−1.
Under 28 U.S.C. section 636, the parties may consent to have a
Magistrate Judge preside over all proceedings. The Magistrate
Judges who accept those designations are identified on the Central
District's website, which also contains the consent form.
As of Jan. 1, 2008, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California implemented mandatory electronic
filing ("e−filing") of documents in all new and pending civil
cases. Information about the Court's Electronic Case Filing system
is available on the Court's website at
www.cacd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.
No party may file more than one motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56 regardless of whether such motion is denominated as a motion for
summary judgment or summary adjudication
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zWkw6B at no extra
charge.[CC]
HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY: Settlement in Landin Suit Gets Prelim. Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington granted preliminary approval of
the class action settlement in the case captioned as SHAYNA MARIE
LANDIN, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY
SERVICES, LLC, and HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-05115-TMC (W.D. Wash.).
Plaintiff Shayna Marie Landin, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and Defendants Hi-School Pharmacy
Services LLC and Hi-School Pharmacy, Inc., have entered into a
Settlement Agreement that settles the litigation and provides for a
complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted against
Defendant in the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in
the Settlement Agreement, subject to the approval of the Court.
Plaintiff has made an application, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, certifying the Settlement Class for purposes of the
Settlement only, appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative,
appointing Class Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class,
appointing Simpluris as Settlement Administrator, and allowing
notice to Settlement Class Members.
For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e), the Court certifies, solely for purposes of
effectuating the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class in this
matter defined as follows:
All U.S. residents whose Personal Information was compromised in
the Data Incident disclosed by Defendant, on or about December 5,
2023.
The Settlement Class includes approximately 17,662 people. The
Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) Hi-School, and its
officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who
timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class;
(iii) the presiding judge, and his or her staff and family; and
(iv) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or
abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or
who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge.
The Court provisionally finds, for settlement purposes only, that:
(a) the Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all
Settlement Class Members would be impracticable;
(b) there are issues of law and fact common to the Settlement
Class;
(c) the claims of the Class Representative is typical of and
arise from the same operative facts and seek similar relief as the
claims of the Settlement Class Members;
(d) the Class Representative and Settlement Class Counsel will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class
as the Class Representative has no interests antagonistic to or in
conflict with the Settlement Class and has retained experienced and
competent counsel to prosecute this matter on behalf of the
Settlement Class;
(e) questions of law or fact common to Settlement Class Members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members;
and
(f) a class action and class settlement is superior to other
methods available for a fair and efficient resolution of this
controversy.
Shayna Marie Landin is provisionally designated and appointed as
the Class Representative. The Court provisionally finds that the
Class Representatives are similarly situated to absent Settlement
Class Members and therefore typical of the Settlement Class and
that they will be adequate Class Representatives. The Court further
finds that Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryon Phillips
Grossman, PLLC are experienced and adequate counsel and are
provisionally designated as Settlement Class Counsel.
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the
Settlement Agreement, as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to
the Settlement Class, subject to further consideration at the Final
Approval Hearing to be conducted as described below. For the
purposes of preliminary approval, the Court finds the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
A Final Approval Hearing shall be held at 3:00 p.m. on July 31,
2025, in the United States District Court, Western District of
Washington for the following purposes:
a. To determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class and should be approved by the
Court;
b. To determine whether to grant Final Approval, as defined in
the Settlement Agreement;
c. To determine whether the notice plan conducted was
appropriate;
d. To determine whether the claims process under the Settlement
is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved by the
Court;
e. To determine whether the requested Class Representative
Service Award in the amount of $3,000 to Class Representative, and
Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees in the amount of $198,000
should be approved by the Court;
f. To determine whether the settlement benefits are fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and
g. To rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=caeh4U from PacerMonitor.com.
HIGHER EDUCATION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Coffey TCPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida denied Higher Education Loan
Authority of the State of Missouri's motion to dismiss the case
captioned as TRACIE COFFEY, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY
OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, d/b/a MOHELA, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-270-MMH-PRL (M.D. Fla.).
In the motion, Defendant, Higher Education Loan Authority of the
State of Missouri (MOHELA), requests that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff, Tracie Coffey's, class action complaint for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (Rule(s)) and for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6). Coffey opposes the notion.
In Count I of the complaint, Coffey asserts a claim against MOHELA
under the TCPA, alleging that the pre-recorded collection calls
violate 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), entitling her and class
members to statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(3). In
Count II, Coffey asserts that MOHELA's alleged violations of the
TCPA were knowing, entitling her and the class to increased
statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(3)(B) and
227(b)(3)(C). In support, MOHELA contends the Court lacks
jurisdiction over this action because MOHELA enjoys sovereign
immunity granted by the Eleventh Amendment and also under broader
state sovereign immunity principles. MOHELA also contends Coffey
fails to state a claim because MOHELA is not a "person" under the
TCPA.
The Court must turn to the four factors set forth in Manders v.
Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1305–06 (11th Cir. 2003):
(1) how state law defines the entity;
(2) what degree of control the State maintains over the entity;
(3) where the entity derives its funds; and
(4) who is responsible for judgments against the entity.
The Court concludes that of the four Manders factors, only the
first weighs in favor of finding that MOHELA is entitled to
sovereign immunity for its debt-collection activities. On balance,
the Court concludes that MOHELA has not met its burden in a facial
attack under Rule 12(b)(1) to establish that it shares in
Missouri's sovereign immunity. While Missouri law does define
MOHELA in terms that suggest it is an arm of Missouri, MOHELA's
independent finances and decision-making predominate, and MOHELA
has not explained how an adverse judgment against it would threaten
the Missouri treasury. Accordingly, the Motion is due to be denied
to the extent that MOHELA contends the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.
The Court concludes that MOHELA is a "person" for purposes of the
TCPA. MOHELA has pointed to no context within the TCPA that would
suggest Congress intended for some other understanding of the term
"corporation" to apply. As such, MOHELA is a "person" for purposes
of the TCPA, which explicitly defines the term to include
corporations.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=le3Ffv from PacerMonitor.com.
HOME DEPOT: Oleski Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE OLESKI and RUDY
CONDE, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC. and HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01964-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for
extension of the class certification deadline.
Accordingly, the sought extension will not prejudice either party
or unduly delay this lawsuit. To the contrary, the requested
extension will enable this class action lawsuit to proceed in an
orderly fashion, consistent with the manner in which similar
lawsuits are routinely litigated.
The Plaintiffs filed their complaint on Nov. 14, 2024. In this
lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek a class action under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 against Defendant for violations of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek compensation for all time spent
completing mandatory security screenings and COVID screenings
without pay on behalf of themselves and the proposed Class
Members.
Home Depot is a home improvement retailer.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5DGCqa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
Fazila Issa, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
fissa@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5229
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
HORIZON LAND: Lucero Seeks OT Pay for Hourly Employees Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA LUCERO, an individual, Pueblo County, CO, DONOVAN MCCLURE,
an individual, Pueblo County, CO, KARIANE AMPARAN, an individual,
Fremont County, CO, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated v. HORIZON LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC (HLM), a Maryland limited
liability company, and Anne Arundel County, MD, RYAN HOTCHKISS, an
individual, Anne Arundel County, MD, Case No. 1:25-cv-00903-JKB (D.
Md., March 19, 2025) is an action brought on behalf of all hourly
employees holding comparable positions with different titles
employed by HLM in the United States during the last three years,
plus any period of tolling, and who were not properly paid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the FLSA, by failing
to pay Hourly Employees required overtime compensation.
The case is also brought as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
pursuant to the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order
(COMPS Order), and the Colorado Wage Act (CWA). The Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants violated the COMPS Order by failing to pay
Hourly Employees overtime compensation at applicable rates as
required by law.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the CWA by failing
to pay all earned regular and overtime wages. The Plaintiff Sabrina
Lucero, individually, asserts a claim on her own behalf under the
CWA arising from Defendants' (a) failure to pay her final paycheck,
and (b) failure to pay out all accrued, unused vacation time upon
separation of employment.
The Defendants are primarily in the business of owning, operating,
and managing manufactured home communities. Defendants also sell
and rent manufactured homes to buyers and tenants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent Z. Viruni, Esq.
VIRUNI | LAW
137 National Plaza, Suite 300
National Harbor, MD 20745
Telephone: (866) 405-1615
Facsimile: (866) 321-1102
E-mail: vviruni@virunilaw.com
- and -
Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
LEVENTHAL SWAN TAYLOR TEMMING PC
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 710
Denver, CO 80209
Telephone: (720) 699-3000
Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
E-mail: aswan@lstt.law
sengelson@lstt.law
HORNE LLP: Court Tosses Chizek, et al. Data Breach Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kristi H. Johnson of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi granted the motion of Horne, LLP
to dismiss plaintiffs Ebony Hemphill and Terry Chizek's second
amended consolidated class action complaint in the consolidated
case captioned as TERRY CHIZEK, on behalf of himself individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFF V. HORNE,
LLP DEFENDANT, Case No. 3:24-cv-00178-KHJ-ASH (S.D. Miss.).
This putative class action involves a data breach of Horne's
computer network in 2021, which permitted a hacker to access
certain systems containing Hemphill and Chizek's personally
identifiable information. Horne is an accounting firm that serves
many business clients, including University of Mississippi Medical
Center and Memorial Hospital Gulfport (Memorial). Hemphill and
Chizek received medical services from UMMC and Memorial,
respectively. As a result, Hemphill and Chizek supplied certain PII
-- including their Social Security numbers -- to their medical
providers who, in turn, gave it to Horne. From Dec. 8, 2021, to
Dec. 13, 2021, a hacker gained access to certain systems in Horne's
network and managed to extract an unknown amount of PII from the
network.
Hemphill and Chizek both allege they suffered the same six injuries
from the breach:
(1) exposure, theft, and misuse of their PII,
(2) exposure to substantial and imminent risk of identity theft,
(3) lost time and increased anxiety from undertaking mitigation
efforts,
(4) lost privacy,
(5) lost benefit of a bargain with Horne, and
(6) diminished value of their PII.
Horne now moves to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. It first
argues that Hemphill and Chizek lack standing to sue because they
have not established the first two elements of standing: an injury
in fact and a causal connection between an injury and Horne's
conduct. In the alternative, Horne contends that Hemphill and
Chizek have failed to establish Horne's duty to protect them from
the hacker's criminal actions.
The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Hemphill and
Chizek's claims because they lack standing to sue for damages or
injunctive relief. Since Horne does not support its Motion to
Dismiss with evidence, it mounts a facial attack, and the Court
considers only the Second Amended Complaint's allegations.
According to the Court, those allegations do not establish standing
for Hemphill and Chizek's damages' claims: Hemphill has not
suffered an injury in fact, and though Chizek has, he fails to
establish a causal connection between any injury and the data
breach. Both also lack standing to bring their injunctive claims
because they have not shown an immediate threat of another data
breach. As this lack of standing deprives the Court of
subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court grants Horne's Motion to
Dismiss without proceeding to the merits of Hemphill and Chizek's
claims. The Court dismisses Hemphill and Chizek's claims without
prejudice.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0mhfci from PacerMonitor.com.
J. DOERER: Judge Wants Class Certification Bid Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California recommended
that the plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied in
the case captioned as SHELTON BENOITE, Plaintiff, v. J. DOERER, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01407-KES-HBK (E.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner incarcerated at United States
Penitentiary, Atwater, proceeds on his pro se civil rights
complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the Federal Torts Claim Act.
Plaintiff complains that during a 60-day lockdown he was deprived
of meals, clothing, personal property, shower, recreation time,
medical treatment, social contact, commissary, care packages,
radio, reading material, table, television., legal property, and
other necessities. In his motion, Plaintiff asserts there are at
least 27 Plaintiffs that filed substantially the same claims in
this Court and the class extends to approximately one thousand
people.
Judge Barch-Kucht holds, "Plaintiff is a non-lawyer proceeding
without counsel. It is well established that a layperson cannot
ordinarily represent the interests of a class. Indeed, it is plain
error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel
to represent his fellow inmates in a class action."
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NrVLhH from PacerMonitor.com.
JEWELRY BY GARO: Cantwell Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JEWELRY BY GARO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01157 (E.D.N.Y., February 28, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.jewelrybygaro.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and
screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited
to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly
formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for
interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Jewelry by Garo, LLC operates the website that offers handmade
diamond engagement rings and wedding bands.[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
JOHNSON CONTROLS: New York Court Moves Halfter Suit to Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York transfers these lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin: JEFFREY S.
HALFTER, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
24-CV-01047 (MMG) (S.D.N.Y.); FRANCESCO P. PAGANO, Plaintiff v.
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-01020 (MMG)
(S.D.N.Y.); and LINDA RICCITELLI, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-03243 (MMG) (S.D.N.Y.).
The three actions before the Court--Pagano, Halfter, and
Riccitelli--are against Johnson Controls, Inc., a Wisconsin
corporation that sells HVAC, security, and fire and equipment
systems to commercial buildings. The Plaintiffs are commissioned
salespersons, who sold equipment and projects on behalf of Johnson
Controls.
Johnson Controls pays the Plaintiffs commissions under a written
incentive plan, which they received each Fiscal Year. The incentive
plans at issue in each action are the FY 2023 plan, which was
effective Oct. 1, 2022, through Sept. 31, 2023, and FY 2024 plan,
which was introduced in November 2023.
The Plaintiffs allege that, under the FY 2023 plan, they are due
certain amounts of "earned commissions" for projects that were
booked prior to, but not completed by, the conclusion of the FY
2023, i.e., Sept. 31, 2023. However, after implementing the FY 2024
plan, Johnson Controls "retroactively" withheld their FY 2023
"earned commissions" because the FY 2024 plan changed the terms of
the Plaintiffs' compensation.
Mr. Pagano filed his action in this Court on Feb. 12, 2024; Halfter
filed his action in this Court on Feb. 13, 2024; and Riccitelli
filed his action in New York Supreme Court for New York County on
March 26, 2024, which was later timely removed to this Court on
April 29, 2024. There are pending motions to dismiss by Johnson
Controls in each action.
The Court subsequently became aware of an earlier-filed action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
Novin, et al. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00046-PP
("Novin"), filed on Jan. 12, 2024, which purports to be a class
action on behalf of all Johnson Controls employees subject to the
incentive compensation plans.
On Feb. 25, 2025, the Court ordered the parties in all three
actions before it to meet and confer regarding the effect of Novin
on each action, and to file a joint letter setting forth their
views on this question. The parties filed their joint letter on
March 11, 2025.
The Court finds that the balance of convenience weighs in favor of
applying the First-to-File rule here and transferring the cases to
the Eastern District of Wisconsin. As Johnson Controls argues in
the parties' joint letter, Johnson Controls is a Wisconsin
corporation, with its executive offices in Milwaukee. The
compensation policy changes that underlie the Plaintiffs' claims
were implemented there, and the decision-makers responsible are
located there; in other words, most of the relevant evidence and
witnesses necessary to the disposition of these actions, should
they proceed to discovery, are located in Wisconsin.
Further, the Court finds that there are no special circumstances
which counsel against applying the well-established First-to-File
rule in these cases.
While Pagano and Halfter are certainly free to opt out of Novin, or
to object to any consolidation proceedings once the cases are
docketed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Garnett
opines, among other things, that they are not entitled to
adjudicate simultaneous proceedings in this Court where doing so
would cause duplicative litigation and waste resources both for the
parties and the Court.
For these reasons, the Court directs Clerk of Court to transfer the
three actions to the Eastern District of Wisconsin and to terminate
the actions in this Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/22hsj243 from PacerMonitor.com.
JOHNSON CONTROLS: S.D. New York Moves Pagano Suit to E.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York transfers these lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin: FRANCESCO P.
PAGANO, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
24-CV-01020 (MMG) (S.D.N.Y.); JEFFREY S. HALFTER, Plaintiff v.
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-01047 (MMG)
(S.D.N.Y.); and LINDA RICCITELLI, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-03243 (MMG) (S.D.N.Y.).
The three actions before the Court--Pagano, Halfter, and
Riccitelli--are against Johnson Controls, Inc., a Wisconsin
corporation that sells HVAC, security, and fire and equipment
systems to commercial buildings. The Plaintiffs are commissioned
salespersons, who sold equipment and projects on behalf of Johnson
Controls.
Johnson Controls pays the Plaintiffs commissions under a written
incentive plan, which they received each Fiscal Year. The incentive
plans at issue in each action are the FY 2023 plan, which was
effective Oct. 1, 2022, through Sept. 31, 2023, and FY 2024 plan,
which was introduced in November 2023.
The Plaintiffs allege that, under the FY 2023 plan, they are due
certain amounts of "earned commissions" for projects that were
booked prior to, but not completed by, the conclusion of the FY
2023, i.e., Sept. 31, 2023. However, after implementing the FY 2024
plan, Johnson Controls "retroactively" withheld their FY 2023
"earned commissions" because the FY 2024 plan changed the terms of
the Plaintiffs' compensation.
Mr. Pagano filed his action in this Court on Feb. 12, 2024; Halfter
filed his action in this Court on Feb. 13, 2024; and Riccitelli
filed his action in New York Supreme Court for New York County on
March 26, 2024, which was later timely removed to this Court on
April 29, 2024. There are pending motions to dismiss by Johnson
Controls in each action.
The Court subsequently became aware of an earlier-filed action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
Novin, et al. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00046-PP
("Novin"), filed on Jan. 12, 2024, which purports to be a class
action on behalf of all Johnson Controls employees subject to the
incentive compensation plans.
On Feb. 25, 2025, the Court ordered the parties in all three
actions before it to meet and confer regarding the effect of Novin
on each action, and to file a joint letter setting forth their
views on this question. The parties filed their joint letter on
March 11, 2025.
The Court finds that the balance of convenience weighs in favor of
applying the First-to-File rule here and transferring the cases to
the Eastern District of Wisconsin. As Johnson Controls argues in
the parties' joint letter, Johnson Controls is a Wisconsin
corporation, with its executive offices in Milwaukee. The
compensation policy changes that underlie the Plaintiffs' claims
were implemented there, and the decision-makers responsible are
located there; in other words, most of the relevant evidence and
witnesses necessary to the disposition of these actions, should
they proceed to discovery, are located in Wisconsin.
Further, the Court finds that there are no special circumstances
which counsel against applying the well-established First-to-File
rule in these cases.
While Pagano and Halfter are certainly free to opt out of Novin, or
to object to any consolidation proceedings once the cases are
docketed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Garnett
opines, among other things, that they are not entitled to
adjudicate simultaneous proceedings in this Court where doing so
would cause duplicative litigation and waste resources both for the
parties and the Court.
For these reasons, the Court directs Clerk of Court to transfer the
three actions to the Eastern District of Wisconsin and to terminate
the actions in this Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mh8azsba from PacerMonitor.com.
JOHNSON CONTROLS: S.D.N.Y. Transfers Riccitelli Suit to Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York transfers these lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin: JEFFREY S.
HALFTER, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
24-CV-01047 (MMG) (S.D.N.Y.); FRANCESCO P. PAGANO, Plaintiff v.
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-01020 (MMG)
(S.D.N.Y.); and LINDA RICCITELLI, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 24-CV-03243 (MMG) (S.D.N.Y.).
The three actions before the Court--Pagano, Halfter, and
Riccitelli--are against Johnson Controls, Inc., a Wisconsin
corporation that sells HVAC, security, and fire and equipment
systems to commercial buildings. The Plaintiffs are commissioned
salespersons, who sold equipment and projects on behalf of Johnson
Controls.
Johnson Controls pays the Plaintiffs commissions under a written
incentive plan, which they received each Fiscal Year. The incentive
plans at issue in each action are the FY 2023 plan, which was
effective Oct. 1, 2022, through Sept. 31, 2023, and FY 2024 plan,
which was introduced in November 2023.
The Plaintiffs allege that, under the FY 2023 plan, they are due
certain amounts of "earned commissions" for projects that were
booked prior to, but not completed by, the conclusion of the FY
2023, i.e., Sept. 31, 2023. However, after implementing the FY 2024
plan, Johnson Controls "retroactively" withheld their FY 2023
"earned commissions" because the FY 2024 plan changed the terms of
the Plaintiffs' compensation.
Mr. Pagano filed his action in this Court on Feb. 12, 2024; Halfter
filed his action in this Court on Feb. 13, 2024; and Riccitelli
filed his action in New York Supreme Court for New York County on
March 26, 2024, which was later timely removed to this Court on
April 29, 2024. There are pending motions to dismiss by Johnson
Controls in each action.
The Court subsequently became aware of an earlier-filed action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
Novin, et al. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00046-PP
("Novin"), filed on Jan. 12, 2024, which purports to be a class
action on behalf of all Johnson Controls employees subject to the
incentive compensation plans.
On Feb. 25, 2025, the Court ordered the parties in all three
actions before it to meet and confer regarding the effect of Novin
on each action, and to file a joint letter setting forth their
views on this question. The parties filed their joint letter on
March 11, 2025.
The Court finds that the balance of convenience weighs in favor of
applying the First-to-File rule here and transferring the cases to
the Eastern District of Wisconsin. As Johnson Controls argues in
the parties' joint letter, Johnson Controls is a Wisconsin
corporation, with its executive offices in Milwaukee. The
compensation policy changes that underlie the Plaintiffs' claims
were implemented there, and the decision-makers responsible are
located there; in other words, most of the relevant evidence and
witnesses necessary to the disposition of these actions, should
they proceed to discovery, are located in Wisconsin.
Further, the Court finds that there are no special circumstances
which counsel against applying the well-established First-to-File
rule in these cases.
While Pagano and Halfter are certainly free to opt out of Novin, or
to object to any consolidation proceedings once the cases are
docketed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Garnett
opines, among other things, that they are not entitled to
adjudicate simultaneous proceedings in this Court where doing so
would cause duplicative litigation and waste resources both for the
parties and the Court.
For these reasons, the Court directs Clerk of Court to transfer the
three actions to the Eastern District of Wisconsin and to terminate
the actions in this Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2dfwxp6x from PacerMonitor.com.
JP WHITE: Hong Bid for Class Certification Tossed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YINGCAI HONG, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, V. JP WHITE
PLAINS, INC. d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains; HAIKU @ WP INC.
d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains; HAIKU BISTRO 149, INC.
d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains; SOONWAH LEE a/k/a Michael
Lee, Case No. 7:19-cv-05018-NSR-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Nelson Roman entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
The Court says that any party seeking leave to file a dispositive
motion shall file a letter on March 7, 2025, and response thereto
on March 10, 2025.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of:
"all non-managerial and non-exempt workers who were employed
or are currently employed by Defendants during the six years
immediately preceding the initiation of this action, or May
31, 2013, up to the date of the decision on this motion."
The Plaintiff brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") against the
Defendants. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants illegally
deducted wages from its employees as part of a meal and
transportation program that Defendants offered to its employees,
which drove employee wages below the statutory minimum.
The Plaintiff was a delivery driver for the Defendants' restaurant
Haiku Asian Bistro from Nov. 2015 to August 2016 and then again
from February 2017 to May 2018.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZGv8yw at no extra
charge.[CC]
LANE BRYANT: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANIA COLE, v. LANE
BRYANT, INC., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-06714-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order denying without
prejudice the motion for preliminary approval of class action and
PAGA settlement.
Beyond noting that the LWDA has not yet objected to the settlement,
the parties have not addressed whether the other relevant factors
warrant approval of a PAGA settlement representing less than 1% of
the total claim value—likely due to their erroneous calculation
of the claim's potential value.
Without further information regarding these factors the Court
cannot determine whether the parties' settlement of the PAGA claim
warrants preliminary approval. And because "the district court …
[does not] have the ability to delete, modify or substitute certain
provisions" and "[t]he settlement must stand or fall in its
entirety," the Court's inability to evaluate the propriety of the
PAGA claim settlement precludes the Court from approving any other
aspect of the settlement. The motion for preliminary approval is
therefore denied without prejudice.
Cole alleges that Lane Bryant failed to pay minimum wages earned,
failed to provide compliant rest and meal breaks, failed to provide
accurate wage statements, failed to timely pay wages upon
termination, willfully failed to pay wages, and engaged in unlawful
and unfair business practices.
Cole requests certification of a class including any person who
worked for Lane Bryant as a non-exempt, hourly employee in the
State of California at any time from Jan. 1, 2021, through and
including the earlier of: (i) Jan. 25, 2024, or (ii) the Date of
Preliminary Approval, and who does not timely opt-out of the
Settlement (termed "Class Members").
Cole was a stylist for Lane Bryant from approximately June 2021 to
June 2022. She worked three to four days per week for four to six
hours per day greeting customers, assisting customers with shopping
needs, cleaning the store, disinfecting fitting rooms, and
cashiering.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0tyPBs at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEGENDS OWO: Class Settlement in Puller Suit Gets Final Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the
class action settlement in the case captioned as DANIEL PULLER, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
LEGENDS OWO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-00209-RA (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Daniel Puller, and Defendant Legends OWO, LLC have
entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement, which, together
with the exhibits attached thereto, sets forth the terms and
conditions for a proposed settlement and dismissal of the Action
with prejudice as to Defendant upon the terms and conditions set
forth therein.
On Nov. 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, conditionally
certifying a Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) of "all
individuals in the United States who purchased tickets and paid a
processing fee to gain entrance to Defendant's Place of
Entertainment from Defendant's Website from Aug. 29, 2022, and
through the date of Preliminary Approval."
Nothing has occurred since the entry of the Preliminary Approval
Order which causes the Court to alter the findings it made in the
Preliminary Approval Order in support of the approval of the
settlement entered into between the Parties.
The Court has considered the Parties' Class Action Settlement
Agreement, as well as Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the
Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, Expenses, And Service Award, together with all exhibits
thereto, the arguments and authorities presented by the Parties and
their counsel at the Final Approval Hearing held on March 7, 2025.
The Court finds the Notice provided to the Settlement Class
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and order granting Preliminary
approval—including (i) direct notice to the Settlement Class via
email, based on the comprehensive Settlement Class List provided by
Defendant, and (ii) the creation of the Settlement website—fully
complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due
process, and was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to
apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Action, their
right to object to or to exclude themselves from the Settlement
Agreement, and their right to appear at the Final Approval
Hearing.
Two individuals have submitted a timely, valid request for
exclusion and are therefore excluded from the Settlement Class.
The Court now gives final approval to the Settlement Agreement, and
finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate,
and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The settlement
consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement constitutes
fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims
against the Released Parties. The Court finds that the
consideration to be paid to members of the Settlement Class is
reasonable, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members, considering the total value of their claims compared to
(i) the disputed factual and legal circumstances of the Action,
(ii) affirmative defenses asserted in the Action, and (iii) the
potential risks and likelihood of success of pursuing litigation on
the merits. The complex legal and factual posture of this case, the
parties' exchange of relevant information, and the fact that the
Settlement is the result of arms-length negotiations between the
Parties support this finding. The Court finds that these facts, in
addition to the Court's observations throughout the litigation,
demonstrate that there was no collusion present in the reaching of
the Settlement Agreement, implicit or otherwise.
The Court finds that the Class Representative and Class Counsel
adequately represented the Settlement Class for the purposes of
litigating this matter and entering into and implementing the
Settlement Agreement.
Accordingly, the Settlement is finally approved in all respects.
The Court dismisses the Action on the merits and with prejudice.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yS0dtG from PacerMonitor.com.
LEXINGTON NATIONAL: Court Denies Clawback Motion in Bail Bond Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied Defendants Lexington
National Insurance Corporation and American Surety Company's
clawback motion in the case captioned as In re California Bail Bond
Antitrust Litigation Case No. 19-cv-00717-JST.
This is a putative antitrust class action brought by Plaintiffs
against 20 bail bond surety companies and William B. Carmichael,
the President and CEO of ASC, asserting a decades-long conspiracy
to fix prices for bail bonds.
The alleged conspiracy has two parts. First, Defendants conspired
to maintain an artificially high standard bail bond premium rate of
10%. Second, Defendants conspired to suppress rebating by bail bond
agent. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Cartwright Act,
California Business and Professions Code section 16720; Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code section
17200; and Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1.
Lexington and ASC move to confirm that 29 documents they
inadvertently produced in discovery and later clawed back are
protected by the attorney-client privilege. Pursuant to the
parties' stipulated ESI agreement agreement, Plaintiffs Shonetta
Crain and Kira Monterrey have not disclosed the substance of any of
the at-issue communications, but did reference the existence of
this pending clawback dispute in their motion for class
certification. They also planned to introduce the at-issue
communications during their depositions of Carmichael and
Holtschneider but were unable to do so because of the clawback
dispute. The depositions remain open pending the outcome of this
motion. Plaintiffs challenge the assertion of privilege. On Dec. 3,
2024, the Court ordered Moving Defendants to lodge the clawed back
documents for in camera review. Moving Defendants timely lodged the
documents. The Court held a hearing on Feb. 13, 2025. Having
reviewed the documents in camera, the Court denies Moving
Defendants' clawback motion.
Judge Ryu concludes that the primary purpose of the vast majority
of the at-issue communications was not legal in nature. To the
extent there are a few privileged communications, the privilege was
waived when they were shared between Lexington, ASC, and Bankers,
as the three sureties do not share a common legal interest. Moving
Defendants must produce the documents in full.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9COAK0 from PacerMonitor.com.
LONDON BOY: Underpays Store Salespersons/Assistants, Roque Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
YUDELSI ROQUE PAREDES, ADRIANO FRANCISCO, MAXIMO ESPINAL, and
WINSTON ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. LONDON BOY SPORTSWEAR LTD (d/b/a LONDON BOY
STATION), ALI KHALIL, and HASSAN KHALIL, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-02198 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as general
assistants and salespersons at any time between 2004 and 2025.
London Boy Sportswear Ltd, doing business as London Boy Station, is
an operator of a clothing store in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
LOS ANGELES, CA: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Ocean Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. are taking an appeal from court
orders in the lawsuit entitled Ocean S., et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. County
of Los Angeles, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-06921-JAK-E,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed this civil rights lawsuit against the Defendants on Aug. 22,
2023.
On June 11, 2024, Judge John A. Kronstadt denied the County
Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
The appellate case is captioned Ocean S., et al. v. County of Los
Angeles, et al., Case No. 25-1354, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 4, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 10,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on March 17,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on April 17, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on May 19, 2025; and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on June 19, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees OCEAN S., et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Kathryn Ann Eidmann, Esq.
Tara Ford, Esq.
Amelia Piazza, Esq.
Amanda Roman Mangaser Savage, Esq.
610 S. Ardmore Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90005
- and –
Leecia Welch, Esq.
88 Pine Street, Suite 800
New York City, NY 10005
- and –
Peter Gratzinger, Esq.
William D. Temko, Esq.
Grant Davis-Denny, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
350 S. Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. are represented
by:
Farbod Moridani, Esq.
Louis R. Miller, Esq.
Nadia Ann Sarkis, Esq.
Jason Tokoro, Esq.
MILLER BARONDESS, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Lifts Stay of Berg Action
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRIZIA BERG, et al., v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, etc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07870-DMG-PD
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered an order that the
stay of the Berg action is lifted due to remand of the Ninth
Circuit appeal of the class certification order.
The Parties shall file a further joint status by March 14, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dGbCtK at no extra
charge.[CC]
LUXCLUB INC: E.D. California Dismisses Guerrero Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California directs the Clerk of Court
to close the lawsuit captioned ANDREA GUERRERO, Plaintiff v.
LUXCLUB, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00721-JLT-CDB
(E.D. Cal.).
On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff Andrea Guerrero initiated this action
with the filing of a putative class action complaint against
Defendants LuxClub, Inc., Bold Adventures, LLC, and Margaret
Mosseri.
Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action against the Defendants, filed on March 11,
2025. The notice of dismissal is signed by all parties and
otherwise comports with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and the Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss her
individual claims (at least) without a court order.
In a class action, however, Judge Baker explains, court approval of
dismissal may be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the class has been
certified. Specifically, Rule 23(e) provides that any claims
arising out of either a (1) "certified class" or (2) class proposed
to be certified for purposes of settlement may be settled,
voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's
approval.
In this case, the Plaintiff seeks to dismiss her individual claims
with prejudice and the claims of the putative class without
prejudice. No class has been certified in this action nor is there
a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.
Because no class has been certified in this case, and because any
dismissal would not affect putative class members' possible claims,
Judge Baker opines that Rule 23(e) does not mandate either Court
approval of the parties' settlement or notice to putative class
members.
In light of the Plaintiff's filing, the Court finds that Rule 23(e)
does not require the Court's approval of the dismissal. Hence, this
action will be terminated by operation of law without further order
of the Court.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case
and adjust the docket to reflect dismissal with prejudice as to the
Plaintiff's individual claims and without prejudice as to the
claims of the putative class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party to bear that party's own
attorney's fees and costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4vx2bfch from PacerMonitor.com.
LYFESTYLE PROPERTIES: Gomez Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA GOMEZ, an individual; and RONALD MACASKILL, an individual v.
LYFESTYLE PROPERTIES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company;
INVESERVE CORPORATION, a California corporation; NORMAN CHANG, an
individual; PATRICK CHANG, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 25STCV07774 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 19,
2025) is a class action seeking to recover uncompensated overtime,
and unreimbursed expenses incurred in direct consequences of
discharging their employment duties under the California Labor
Code.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants from December 11, 2023, until
they were illegally terminated on or around Feb. 2, 2024.
During employment with Defendants, the Plaintiffs routinely worked
in excess of eight hours in one workday and/or forty hours in one
workweek without being paid overtime wages and also routinely
worked without being provided with duty-free meal and rest periods
or being paid premium wages in lieu thereof, the lawsuit says.
Lifestyle Properties provides vacation, rental management,
consulting, financial, and real estate services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis Benowitz, Esq.
BENOWITZ LAW CORPORATION
8605 Santa Monica Boulevard, PMB 79183
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (818) 839-9610
E-mail: Louis@BenowitzLaw.com
MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Madero Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN OROZCO MADERO, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders
in the lawsuit entitled Jordan Orozco Madero, et al., individually
and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
McLane Foodservice, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:24-cv-00073-KK-DTB, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California
Labor Code, and the Unfair Competition Law in connection with the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages and to reimburse for work
expenses.
On Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and/or
strike class action allegations.
On Feb. 6, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for sanctions
against the Plaintiffs for failure to comply with discovery
obligations.
On Feb. 20, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for leave of
Matthew C. Kane to appear for motion for sanctions hearing remotely
and/or excuse lead counsel from appearing at same.
On Feb. 21, 2025, Judge Kenly Kiya Kato granted the Defendants'
motion to strike.
On Feb. 26, 2025, Judge Kato entered an Order dismissing the case
without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the matter is dismissed without prejudice to refiling
in state court. Additionally, in light of the dismissal, the
Defendants' motion for sanctions and request to appear remotely for
the sanctions hearing were denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Madero, et al. v. McLane
Foodservice, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-1341, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 4, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 10,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 14, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 13, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JORDAN OROZCO MADERO, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Aashish Yadvendra Desai, Esq.
DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Defendants-Appellees MCLANE FOODSERVICE, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Matthew Kane, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
- and –
Sylvia Kim, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
Transamerica Pyramid Center
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94111
MICHAELS STORES: Class Certification in Vigil Suit Denied in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted Michaels Stores Procurement
Company, Inc.'s motion to deny class certification in part in the
case captioned as JOSEPH VIGIL, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. MICHAELS STORES PROCUREMENT
COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation; DAK RESOURCES, INC., a
Florida Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00163-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.). The defendant's motion
for partial summary judgment is granted in its entirety.
Plaintiff filed an opposition.
This action arises out of Defendant's alleged wage and hour
violations. Defendant contends it engaged DAK Resources to provide
temporary workers to its distribution center in Tracy, California.
In October 2021, DAK Resources assigned Plaintiff to work at
Defendant's distribution center. Between approximately Oct. 11,
2021, and Dec. 2, 2021, Plaintiff worked in two different roles:
loading and unloading trucks at the distribution center's loading
docks and as a sorter operator.
On Nov. 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, alleging
Defendant and DAK Resources jointly employed him. He also alleges
claims under the California Labor Code for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, break violations, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses. Based on
these alleged violations, he also alleges a claim under the Unfair
Competition Law. Plaintiff asserts his claims on behalf of a
putative class of hourly non-exempt employees of DAK Resources and
Defendant in California since Nov. 28, 2018.
Motion to Deny Class Certification
Defendant argues the Court should deny certification of the
proposed class because Plaintiff cannot satisfy Rule 23(a)'s
typicality or adequacy requirements. Specifically, Defendant
contends, at all relevant times, it required applicants for
employment to agree to arbitrate claims arising from their
employment if hired. Thus, it argues most of the putative class
members—distribution center workers whom Defendant directly
hired—have entered into agreements to resolve the claims like
those alleged by Plaintiff in arbitration. It further contends that
unlike the majority of the putative class members, Plaintiff is not
bound by any arbitration agreement with Defendant because he did
not apply for work directly with Defendant. As such, Defendant
argues Plaintiff cannot represent individuals who are bound by
agreements requiring arbitration of the claims at issue because
Defendant has defenses against them that he has no basis to oppose.
Defendant contends the divergence of interests between Plaintiff
and these putative class members destroys typicality and renders
Plaintiff an inadequate representative.
The Court finds that because Plaintiff filed a statement of
non-opposition to Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification in
Part, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that
each of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the
requirements of Rule 23(b) are met. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion
to Deny Class Certification in Part is granted.
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for
unpaid overtime and minimum wages, meal break violations, rest
break violations, failure to pay timely wages during his
employment, failure to pay regular wages at the termination of his
employment, wage statement violations and unfair competition.
Defendant argues Plaintiff's claim for unpaid overtime and minimum
wages fails because Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he
never worked off the clock and his pay records demonstrate that no
"time-shaving" occurred.
Plaintiff fails to address his claim for unpaid overtime and
minimum wages in his opposition. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to
explain how evidence it identifies in his response to Defendant's
separate statement of undisputed facts bears on his claim for
unpaid overtime and minimum wages. Thus, Plaintiff has provided no
argument regarding his unpaid overtime and minimum wages claim, and
Plaintiff has abandoned this claim. Accordingly, the Court grants
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff first claim
for unpaid overtime and minimum wages.
Defendant argues Plaintiff's claim for meal break violations fails
because Plaintiff's deposition testimony and time records
demonstrate Plaintiff received a timely, uninterrupted meal break
of at least thirty minutes on all shifts. The Court agrees with
Defendant. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's second claim for meal break
violations.
Defendant argues Plaintiff's claim for failure to provide rest
breaks fails as a matter of law because Plaintiff admits he
consistently received at least the minimum rest breaks required.
Plaintiff has failed to offer any specific evidence that Defendant
fails to provide rest breaks. Accordingly, the Court grants
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's third
claim for rest break violations.
Defendant argues Plaintiff's claims for failure to pay timely
wages, wage Statement violations and unfair competition fail
because they are derivative of Plaintiff's claims for failure to
pay wages and break premiums, which also fail.
In this case, Plaintiff concedes his wage statement and unfair
competition claims are derivative of his break claims. Because the
Court finds Plaintiff's rest breaks claims fail, his wage statement
and unfair competition claims also fail. Moreover, Plaintiff fails
to address Defendant's independent grounds for summary judgment as
to his claims for failure to pay timely wages, inaccurate wage
statements, and unfair competition. Thus, Plaintiff has abandoned
these claims. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's fifth, sixth, seventh, and
eighth claims for failure to pay timely wages, inaccurate wage
statements, and unfair competition.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iMh7qv from PacerMonitor.com.
MINX JEWELRY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Minx Jewelry, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-418 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 19, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://gemsandjewelsforless.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired per-sons under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
When visiting the Website, the Plaintiff contends that using JAWS,
encountered these specific accessibility issues:
-- Images on the website had inappropriate and unclear
alternative text. The Plaintiff could not receive accurate
information from the non-text element of content; and
-- Heading hierarchy was not properly defined, and there were
missing heading levels. As a result, quick navigation through
headings on the website did not help the Plaintiff effectively
find the content and understand the logical structure of the
home page.
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 con-tinue
to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and
seg-regation, 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.
Gemsandjewelsforless.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Minx
Jewelry. Yet, Gemsandjewelsforless.com contains significant access
barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Certification Granted in Ray, et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case captioned as SHANNON RAY, KHALA
TAYLOR, PETER ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBBANE, and RUDY BARAJAS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an
unincorporated association, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.). The defendant's motion to
exclude expert testimony is denied.
Plaintiffs Shannon Ray, Khala Taylor, Peter Robinson, Katherine
Sebbane, and Rudy Barajas brought this putative class action
against defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association,
alleging violation of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1. Plaintiffs have moved for class certification.
Defendant opposes the motion and moves to exclude plaintiff's
expert evidence.
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification relies primarily on an
expert report authored by Dr. Orley Ashenfelter. To formulate his
model, Dr. Ashenfelter relied upon wage data and other
documentation from hundreds of NCAA Division I schools, focusing on
those that expanded their coaching staff beyond the prior limits on
the number of unrestricted coaches following the repeal of the
Volunteer Coach Bylaw.
Defendant seeks to exclude the expert report of Dr. Ashenfelter
pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
579, 580 (1993).
The Court finds Defendant has failed to establish that Dr.
Ashenfelter's methodology is flawed or that there is a likelihood
that he will improperly apply that method to the facts.
Accordingly, defendant's motion to exclude Dr. Ashenfelter's expert
report will be denied.
Motion for Class Certification
The Court finds Plaintiffs present evidence that the putative class
has thousands of members, which defendant does not dispute. The
proposed class therefore satisfies the numerosity requirement.
Because plaintiffs have identified a common question applicable to
the whole class, they have satisfied the commonality requirement.
In this case, each class representative -- like each class member
-- worked as a volunteer coach at an NCAA Division I school, was
subject to the NCAA's Volunteer Coach Bylaw precluding them from
receiving compensation, and alleges antitrust injury under the
Sherman Act. Accordingly, there are no conflicts of interest
precluding class certification.
Plaintiffs are represented by the firms Gustafson Gluek, Kirby
McInerney, and Fairmark Partners. The extensive experience and
strong qualifications of plaintiffs' counsel in litigating complex
antitrust cases, including litigation against the NCAA concerning
allegedly anticompetitive restrictions on coach compensation, are
undisputed. Accordingly, plaintiffs and
their counsel satisfy the adequacy requirement.
Because defendant has not identified any unique defenses which
threaten to become the focus of the litigation that would cut
against these similarities, plaintiffs have satisfied the
typicality requirement, the Court finds.
According to the Court, it is undisputed that there are common
questions concerning the existence of an antitrust violation.
Defendant argues that despite the presence of common questions,
individual issues predominate because plaintiffs have not proffered
a viable form of common evidence on the issue of antitrust impact.
Defendant's expert, Dr. Jee-Yeon Lehmann, contends that Dr.
Ashenfelter's model is incapable of providing common proof because
it does not address:
(1) whether each school would have added an additional paid
coaching position in the absence of the Bylaw rather than choosing
to provide zero pay, and
(2) whether each class member would have been hired for that
additional paid position.
The Court finds Plaintiffs have established that Dr. Ashenfelter's
model is capable of showing that the proposed class members
suffered antitrust impact on a class-wide basis, notwithstanding
Dr. Lehmann's critique, which is all that is necessary at the
certification stage. Accordingly, plaintiffs have established that
common questions of law and fact predominate.
The proposed class contains thousands of individuals, and the
parties have not identified any competing litigation involving
members of the proposed class. It appears unlikely
that the amount of damages each coach suffered is high enough to
make individual litigation an efficient method of resolving their
claims, especially given the complexity of antitrust litigation and
the presence of several common legal and factual questions.
Accordingly, class-wide adjudication of common issues will reduce
litigation costs and promote greater efficiency, and the
superiority requirement is satisfied.
The Court finds the class certification requirements of Rules 23(a)
and 23(b)(3) are satisfied.
The certified class consists of: All persons who, from March 17,
2019, to June 30, 2023, worked for an NCAA Division I sports
program other than baseball in the position of "volunteer coach,"
as designated by NCAA Bylaws.
Plaintiffs Shannon Ray, Khala Taylor, Peter Robinson, Katherine
Sebbane, and Rudy Barajas are appointed as class representatives.
The law firms Gustafson Gluek, Kirby McInerney, and Fairmark
Partners are appointed as co-lead class counsel.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tOIJ8R from PacerMonitor.com.
NESPRESSO USA: Fahey-Ramirez Sues Over Defective Coffee Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE FAHEY-RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESPRESSO USA, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01684 (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2025) seeks redress
for Nespresso's breaches of warranties and violations of the
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, and under common law.
According to the complaint, Nespresso's Vertuo Next coffee machines
develop serious water leakages that impede both the storing and
utilization of liquids for the coffee brewing process. Despite
years of consumer complaints, Nespresso continues to blame consumer
error and/or misuse for the manifestation of the leakage defect.
As a result of Nespresso's unlawful, unfair, fraudulent,
misleading, and deceptive practices, Plaintiff and other consumers
have purchased Nespresso's products under the false pretenses that
the devices were high quality, eco-friendly machines that would
operate to fulfill their essential purpose of brewing coffee. Had
Plaintiff and the Class known the facts regarding the leakage
defect in the devices, they would have paid substantially less for
the Devices or not purchased them at all, says the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased a device for her personal use on December
21, 2021 for $163.71 online via Amazon.com.
Nespresso USA, Inc. markets coffee machines, compatible
coffee-filled capsules, and various coffee-related
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St., NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South Sixth Street #2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
kdennis@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP PLLC
6810 N. State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Telephone: (561) 569-6283
E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
NEW YORK TEAMSTERS: Carlisle Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CARLISLE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Robert Carlisle, individually and as a
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf
of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement
Fund, Plaintiff, v. The Board of Trustees of the American
Federation of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and
Retirement Fund, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-455, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brings this suit against the Defendants for alleged breach of
fiduciary duty in violation of the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
On Feb. 7, 2025, Judge Brenda K. Sannes entered an Order denying
the Defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) but granted
their motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court ruled that
the complaint fails to allege a breach of fiduciary duty. The
co-fiduciary duty claims are also dismissed. The Clerk was directed
to close this case.
The appellate case is captioned Carlisle v. The Board of Trustees
of the American Federation of the New York State Teamsters
Conference Pension and Retirement Fund, Case No. 25-511, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on
March 5, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT CARLISLE, individually and as a
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf
of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement
Fund, is represented by:
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Defendants-Appellees THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND
RETIREMENT FUND, et al. are represented by:
Jeremy Paul Blumenfeld, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2222 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
- and –
Edward Meehan, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006
NORTH-EAST DECK: Fails to Properly Pay Crane Operators, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN E. LIPINSKI and JOHN W. TIBOLLA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NORTH-EAST DECK & STEEL SUPPLY,
LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01467 (E.D. Pa., March 19, 2025) is a class
action against North-East for allegedly engaging in a systematic
and clandestine scheme of wage abuse and wage and benefit shortages
against its hourly paid employees in Pennsylvania.
Accordingly, this scheme involved, among other things, failing to
pay prevailing wages to hourly employees working on prevailing wage
projects by misclassifying such prevailing wage workers and by
paying fringe benefits as though such employees were independent
contractors in violation of the PWA and WPCL.
Through these schemes, the Defendant has misrepresented and falsely
reported that it has complied with its obligations to pay
prevailing wage workers in accordance with the applicable
prevailing wage schedules that it is obligated to pay on the public
works projects it has been contracted to perform, asserts the suit.
In addition, the Defendant has required (or knowingly allowed)
Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers to perform "off-the-clock
work" in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania
Prevailing Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection
Law.
The Defendant also has failed to pay all overtime in violation of
the FLSA and WPCL, among other statutory violations and breaches of
common law duties and obligations.
The Plaintiffs worked for North-East as crane operators on the
Project. In the prevailing wage schedule, a crane operator was
classified as either Operator Class 01 or 01A depending on the size
of the crane used. Despite working as crane operators, Plaintiffs'
pay stubs indicate that they were misclassified as "Iron Workers"
and were paid at the prevailing wage rate for Iron Workers, which
is substantially lower than the rate for crane operators, the
lawsuit contends.
The Defendant is a recipient of various public works contracts,
including the Nueweiler Lofts construction project in Allentown,
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Andrew Lapat, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
alapat@edelson-law.com
ONE NEVADA: Settlement Class in Castro Suit Gets Conditional Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE HERNANDEZ CASTRO, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. ONE NEVADA CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:22-cv-01563-GMN-BNW (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge Gloria Navarro entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's notice of motion and unopposed motion for preliminary
settlement approval.
The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes
only (and for no other purpose and with no other effect upon
the action), the following class, as defined in the
Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Class"):
"The 38 individuals who, according to Defendant's records:
(i) applied for a financial product from Jan. 1, 2020
through the date on which the Court grants preliminary
approval; (ii) were residing in any state in the United
States at the time they applied; and (iii) were denied full
and equal consideration for such financial product solely
because of their immigration or citizenship status at the
time they applied."
The Court provisionally appoints Jorge Hernandez Castro as
the class representative of the Settlement Class.
The Court provisionally finds that the Class Representative
has claims typical of and is an adequate representative of
the members of the Settlement Class he proposes to
represent.
The Court provisionally appoints Luis Lozada and Eduardo
Casas of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund as Class Counsel. The Court provisionally finds that
Class Counsel are capable of fairly and adequately
representing the Settlement Class.
One Nevada Credit Union, headquartered in Winchester, Nevada, is a
locally based federally insured, state-chartered credit union in
Nevada with locations in Las Vegas, Henderson, Reno, and North Las
Vegas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YcIIv3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PACIFIC UNIVERSITY: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS SENIOR, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC UNIVERSITY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01660 (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2025) is a civil
rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.pacificu.edu/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the
New York State General Business Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
January 12, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a White Tank Top with
Pacific University Oregon Logo from Defendant, and to view the
information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied her a shopping and recreational
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues
to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the
discriminatory conditions present on Defendant's website, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Pacific University is an Oregon domestic nonprofit corporation and
private university which operates the PacificU online retail store
as well as the PacificU interactive website and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, 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
PAPA TEXAS: Files Appeal in Myers Labor Suit to 10th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
PAPA TEXAS, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in
the lawsuit entitled Luke Myers, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Papa Texas, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-CV-01096-DHU-JHR, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based
on the Defendants' willful failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
On September 19, 2024, District Judge David H. Urias denied in part
and granted in part a motion to Dismiss and Enforce Settlement
Agreement by the parties. The matter was stayed without prejudice
until the parties determine whether arbitration will be accepted by
the AAA.
On Sept. 27, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the Sept.
19 Memorandum Opinion and Order.
On Oct. 7, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for sanctions
against the Plaintiff to enforce arbitration order for sanctions
and for an Order to show cause why the Plaintiff should not be held
in contempt.
On Feb. 13, 2025, Judge David H. Urias granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to vacate and denied the Defendants' motion for sanctions.
The appellate case is captioned Myers v. Papa Texas, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 25-2020, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, filed on March 3, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee LUKE MYERS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Andrew Biller, Esq.
Laura Farmwald, Esq.
Emily Hubbard, Esq.
Andrew Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 715-8712
(513) 452-3499
(513) 202-0710
- and –
Christopher Murray Moody, Esq.
MOODY & WARNER, PC
4169 Montgomery Boulevard, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Telephone: (505) 944-0033
Defendants-Appellants PAPA TEXAS, LLC, et al. are represented by:
Samantha M. Adams, Esq.
Kylee Jaei Roerick, Esq.
ADAMS & CROW
5051 Journal Center NE, Suite 320
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Telephone: (505) 582-2819
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Class Settlement in Zimmerman, et al. Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary
approval of the class action settlement in the following cases:
(1) JOSEPH ZIMMERMAN, ANTHONY DEVITO, and SEAN DONNELLY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, COMEDY PARTNERS, and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02409-VSB (S.D.N.Y.); and
(2) MICHAEL KAPLAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMEDY PARTNERS, a New
York general partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-9355-VSB
(S.D.N.Y.).
Class Plaintiffs have entered into and executed the Settlement
Agreement with Defendants, which if finally approved by the Court,
will result in the settlement of all claims in the Actions.
In full and final settlement of the claims asserted against them in
the Actions, Defendants have agreed to pay $11,000,000.
Class Plaintiffs, having made an application, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), for an order preliminarily approving
the Settlement Agreement, which sets forth the terms and conditions
of the settlement of the Actions against Defendants and for
dismissal of the Actions against Defendants with prejudice upon the
terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
Class Plaintiffs have sought, and Defendants have agreed not to
object to, the certification of the Settlement Class solely for
settlement purposes.
Class Plaintiffs have requested that Class Counsel be appointed as
counsel for the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g).
Class Plaintiffs have requested that they be appointed class
representatives of the Settlement Class.
The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Agreement
resulted from arm's-length negotiations between highly experienced
counsel, with the aid of an experienced mediator, Hon. Louis M.
Meisinger (Ret.), and falls within the range of reasonableness and
should be preliminarily approved. It preliminarily approves the
Settlement Agreement, subject to further consideration at the
Fairness Hearing described below. It preliminarily finds that the
settlement encompassed by the Settlement Agreement raises no
obvious reasons to doubt its fairness and provides a reasonable
basis for presuming that the Settlement Agreement satisfies the
requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e)
and due process so that an appropriate notice of the Settlement
Agreement should be given, subject to the Court's approval of a
notice plan as provided in this Order.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court preliminarily certifies, solely for settlement purposes, a
Settlement Class defined as follows:
All persons and entities, their agents, successors in interest,
affiliates, assigns, heirs, executors, trustees, and administrators
who are or were parties to Recording Contracts (as that term is
defined in the Settlement Agreement) with Comedy Partners whose
works have been distributed by digital audio transmission via
SiriusXM Radio pursuant to such Recording Contracts between May 19,
2013, up to and including December 31, 2022.
Solely for purposes of the settlement, the Court preliminarily
finds that the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3) have been satisfied, as follows: (a) the members
of the Settlement Class are so numerous that joinder of all members
of the Settlement Class is impracticable; (b) questions of law and
fact common to the Settlement Class predominate over any individual
questions; (c) the claims of Class Plaintiffs are typical of the
claims of the Settlement Class; (d) Class Plaintiffs and Class
Counsel have fairly and adequately represented and protected the
interests of the Settlement Class; and (e) a class action is
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy, considering (i) the interests of
members of the Settlement Class in individually controlling the
prosecution of separate actions; (ii) the extent and nature of any
litigation concerning the controversy already begun by members of
the Settlement Class; (iii) the desirability or undesirability of
concentrating the litigation of these claims in this particular
forum; and (iv) the likely difficulties in managing the Actions as
a class action.
The law firms of Johnson & Johnson LLP, Pearson Warshaw, LLP, and
Nye, Stirling, Hale, Miller & Sweet, LLP are preliminarily
appointed, solely for settlement purposes, as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.
Class Plaintiffs are preliminarily appointed, solely for settlement
purposes, as class representatives for the Settlement Class.
The Court preliminarily finds that the Class Counsel and Class
Plaintiffs are appropriate representatives on behalf of the
Settlement Class.
Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. is appointed as the
Settlement Administrator and is tasked with providing the Notice to
the Settlement Class as set forth in this Order and otherwise
administering the Settlement in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
A hearing shall be held before this Court on July 22, 2025 at 10:00
a.m. to consider whether the Settlement should be given final
approval by the Court. At the hearing, the Court will also consider
any application for an award of Attorneys' Fees an Expenses and/or
an Incentive Award.
All proceedings in the Actions are stayed until further order of
the Court.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U4GRlv from PacerMonitor.com.
PIZZA BOY: Librado Class Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIANO LIBRADO GALVEZ v. PIZZA BOY 2 INC. (d/b/a PIZZA BOY 2),
NICOLA GAMBINO and FRANK GAMBINO, Case No. 1:25-cv-01499 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 18, 2025) is a class action alleging that the Defendants have
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other
employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing
the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs seek a class action under Rule 23 and seek
certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of
themselves, individually, and all other similarly situated
employees and former employees of the Defendants.
Plaintiff Librado is a former employee of Defendants Pizza Boy 2.
The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant,
located at 5819 Woodside Avenue, Woodside, New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Gifford Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and
POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00709-SCR (E.D.
Cal., February 27, 2025) seeks compensatory damages as well as
injunctive relief to remediate PowerSchool's deficient
cybersecurity and provide credit monitoring, identity theft
insurance, and credit repair services to protect Plaintiff and the
other breach victims from identity theft and fraud.
According to the complaint, some point between December 19 and
December 28, 2024, hackers breached the company's vulnerable
systems and exfiltrated the valuable private information stored
within. PowerSchool failed to detect the hackers' actions until the
hacker contacted them on December 28, 2024. Beginning on January 8,
2025, PowerSchool began notifying customers that their data was
accessed and that they were impacted. This Data Breach directly
resulted from PowerSchool's failure to implement reasonable and
adequate cybersecurity controls to protect the Private Information
entrusted to it from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack,
says the suit.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members
suffered concrete injuries-in-fact including: (i) invasion of
privacy; (ii) theft of their private information; (iii) lost or
diminished value of private information; (iv) lost time and
opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the
bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to
mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) nominal
damages; and (vii) the continued and certainly increased risk to
their private information.
Plaintiff 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.
PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a provider of cloud-based software to
the K-12 education market.[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
mht@classlawgroup.com
jgf@classlawgroup.com
seh@classlawgroup.com
jsun@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1554 Polaris Parkway, Suite 325
Columbus, OH 43240
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: mht@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
PREMIER NUTRITION: $8.3MM Statutory Damages Awarded in Montera Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California awarded $8,312,450 in statutory
damages to plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY
BETH MONTERA, Plaintiff, v. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06980-RS (N.D. Cal.).
This long-running dispute over Defendant Premier Nutrition's
discontinued product, Joint Juice, returns on remand from the Ninth
Circuit. After a nine-day trial in 2022, a jury found Premier
liable to a class of New York purchasers for deceptive
advertisement of Joint Juice. In particular, the jury found Premier
had violated New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350,
which impose statutory damages of $50 and $500, respectively, or
actual damages, whichever is greater. N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Secs.
349(h), 350-e. Mary Beth Montera, representing the class, sought an
aggregated statutory damages award based on both statutes,
amounting to $550 per violation, for a total award of approximately
$91 million. Premier raised a substantive due process challenge to
that award. At that point, the Ninth Circuit had not yet addressed
whether aggregated statutory damages awards were subject to
constitutional limits, and if so, how to evaluate those challenges.
Based on the limited appellate guidance and analogizing to cases
reducing punitive damages, Montera's statutory damages award was
reduced to $50 per violation for a total of approximately $8.3
million.
Two months after final judgment was entered in this matter, the
Ninth Circuit decided Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., confirming
statutory damages awards can raise constitutional problems and
clarifying the approach to evaluating such awards. 51 F.4th 1109,
1043 (9th Cir. 2022). Without addressing the merits of the $8.3
million award, the panel in this matter remanded with instructions
to evaluate Premier's due process challenge under the test
articulated in Wakefield. Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 111
F.4th 1018, 1043 (9th Cir. 2024).
Montera now contends she and the other purchasers are entitled to
an award of $83,124,500, or $500 per violation under GBL Sec. 350.
Premier re-raises its constitutional challenge to the award,
advancing a new argument based on the legislative history of the
relevant New York statutes. Because Montera would be barred from
seeking class-wide statutory damages in New York state court,
Premier concludes the class is entitled to only actual damages.
The Court finds the class is entitled to some statutory damages,
but $83 million is so large as to violate Premier's right to
substantive due process. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are awarded
$8,312,450 in statutory damages.
Balancing the clear minimums set by GBL Secs. 349 and 350 against
the constitutional issue posed by a statutory damages award under
Sec. 350, Judge Seeborg concludes that Montera is entitled to $8.3
million or aggregate statutory damages under Sec. 349 alone. $50
per violation more closely hews to the compensatory, deterrence,
and punitive goals of the statutes. Consumers of Joint Juice will
be adequately compensated, far above the purchase price of each
bottle of Joint Juice. As Defendant has vehemently argued, even the
award of actual damages per violation would deter future conduct,
given the loss of revenue from the sale as well as the loss from
producing the product in the first instance. Montera contends
Premier and its parent company are so wealthy as to render such a
punishment ineffective. However, $8.3 million in damages for sales
of $1.4 million of a now discontinued product is a proportionate
penalty, punishing past conduct and deterring future violations.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=shWEpS from PacerMonitor.com.
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES: Perkins-Gardner Suit Seeks Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Perkins-Gardner, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Presbyterian Homes and Service, Case No.
27-CV-25-4731 (Minn. State Ct., March 19, 2025) arises under
various state laws relating to employment and wages, breach of
contract, and Minnesota's common law.
The Plaintiff was a resident of the State of Minnesota. He seeks to
represent himself and all others similarly situated.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as maintenance technician
within the last two years. As maintenance technician, it was the
Plaintiff's job to make repairs to various properties within the
Defendant's property management portfolio, including ones in
Hennepin County.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff was an hourly employee. As an hourly
employee, the Plaintiff was entitled to at least the minimum wage
for each hour worked. The Defendants required Plaintiff, and other
members of the Defendant's on-call team ("class members"), to work
some nights and weekends in an on-call status. The Plaintiff was
scheduled to work approximately 40 hours per week. The Defendant
required the Plaintiff to work in an on-call capacity as condition
of employment, says the suit.
The Defendant is the Plaintiff's employer. The Defendant's
principal business is the management of residential communities and
commercial properties throughout the State of Minnesota and other
states. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A.L. Brown, Esq.
CAPITOL CITY LAW GROUP, LLC
287 East Sixth Street, Suite 20
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 705-8580
E-Mail: Brown@CCLAWG.COM
PRIME HYDRATION: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. PRIME HYDRATION LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02249 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 19, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://drinkprime.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and The
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting discrimination against the
blind.
Accordingly, the Defendant's policy and practice to deny Plaintiff,
along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to
Defendant’s Website, and to therefore specifically deny the goods
and services that are offered thereby.
Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to
its Website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and
are still being denied equal access to Defendant’s numerous
goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the
Website, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software. Plaintiff is, however, a proficient JAWS screen-reader
user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited the
Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.,
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant offers the commercial website,
https://drinkprime.com/, to the public. The Website offers features
which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services
offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such
goods and services throughout the United States including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dalewitz Can Amend Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nelson S. Roman of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the plaintiff's request for
leave to file a second amended complaint in the case captioned as
ALAN DALEWITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, -against- THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-07323-NSR (S.D.N.Y.).
On Aug. 26, 2022, Plaintiff Alan Dalewitz, individually and on
behalf of other individuals similarly situated, commenced this
putative class action against The Procter & Gamble Company
asserting that Defendant's Oral-B Glide Dental Floss products is
marketed in a way that is misleading to consumers due to the
alleged presence of per- and polyfluorinated substances. On
Sept. 22, 2023, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's initial complaint
with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on
Nov. 13, 2023. Both the initial complaint and FAC brought three
causes of action:
(1) violation of New York's General Business Law Sec. 349 (Count
I);
(2) violation of N.Y. G.B.L. Sec. 350 (Count II); and
(3) fraudulent concealment (Count III).
On Feb. 2, 2024, after Defendant served their motion to dismiss the
FAC but before the completion of the full briefing schedule,
Plaintiff submitted a letter motion requesting leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2), which included a proposed amended complaint incorporating
direct PFAS testing results. Defendant subsequently filed a letter
in opposition.
Defendant argues that the Court should deny Plaintiff's motion to
amend because Plaintiff has not demonstrated extraordinary
circumstances or good cause to amend complaint, and allowing
Plaintiff to file a SAC would be futile because it fails to state a
claim or demonstrate that Plaintiff has Article III standing. The
Court finds these arguments unavailing.
This case is still at the pleadings stage. Thus, the Court finds
that amendment of Plaintiff's complaint will not pose undue
prejudice to P&G.
P&G contends that Plaintiff seeks to amend complaint in bad faith
because his strategic choice not to perform specific PFAS testing
before filing suit, and to wait to do so only after dismissal
amount to tactical decisions, in the face of all the information
available to him. The Court finds that Plaintiff's prompt notice to
Defendant regarding the proposed SAC closely following receipt of
the PFAS test results militates against a finding of bad faith in
his pursuit to amend. Further, Defendants' conclusory allegations
of bad faith are insufficient to denying Plaintiff's amendment.
Therefore, the Court does not find that Plaintiff seeks to amend in
bad faith.
The Court cannot conclude at this point that Plaintiff's proposed
amended allegations are futile.
The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file the SAC, denied
Defendant's request to a file a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint without prejudice to renew upon resolution of the
Plaintiff's motion to amend, and set a new briefing schedule for
the instant motion before the Court.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T5HXah from PacerMonitor.com.
PROCTORU INC: Perjanik Sues Over Bar Exam Software Malfunction
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA PERJANIK, SAMUEL MCCLAIN, and VICTORIA TULSIDAS on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PROCTORU, INC. D/B/A MEAZURE LEARNING, Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-02095 (N.D. Cal., February 27, 2025) seeks monetary redress
and injunctive relief for Plaintiffs and the proposed Class who
were allegedly injured when the February 2025 California Bar Exam
fell apart due to the Defendant's failures.
According to the complaint, Meazure failed spectacularly in its
task to administer the Exam because its Meazure Exam Platform
crashed and continually malfunctioned, disrupting the Exam. As a
result of the total technical breakdown that Meazure caused, the
Exam was a disaster for test-takers who were traumatized, who had
their career ambitions delayed, and who paid Meazure a fee for a
defunct Platform.
Meazure's testing software crashed because it had insufficient
infrastructure and/or lack of servers and server space to process
the foreseeable number of exam takers, says the suit. Meazure
failed to design, maintain, and/or improve the infrastructure of
the exam software to sufficiently and adequately service Plaintiffs
and Class Members who had no choice but to pay Meazure's fee to
take the Exam on a computer, it adds.
ProctorU, Inc., d/b/a Meazure Learning, provides an online
proctoring services. The Company enables students to take exams
online.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
- and -
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Talarico Appeals Labor Suit Ruling to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH TALARICO is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Ralph Talarico, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Public Partnerships LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-02165, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks damages in the amount of respective unpaid overtime
compensation, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to New York Labor Laws.
On January 28, 2020, the District Court granted the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment and found the Defendant was not a joint
employer of the Plaintiff or any other direct care worker (DCW). On
appeal, the Third Circuit found that an issue of fact existed as to
whether the Defendant was a joint employer and returned the case to
the District Court for decision. A seven-day bench trial was held;
thereafter, the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
On Jan. 30, 2025, the District Court again found that the Defendant
was not a joint employer of the Plaintiff or any DCWs and therefore
cannot be liable for unpaid overtime. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl
entered judgment in favor of the Defendant.
The appellate case is captioned Ralph Talarico v. Public
Partnerships LLC, Case No. 25-1369, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 3, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant RALPH TALARICO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Richard A. Katz, Esq.
ARNOLD BEYER & KATZ
140A E King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602
Telephone: (717) 394-7204
- and –
Robert L. Schug, Esq.
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER
80 S. 8th Street
4700 IDS Center, Suite 4600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3217
(612) 256-3239
- and –
Christine E. Webber, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
1100 New York Avenue NW
West Tower, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Defendant-Appellee PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS LLC, d/b/a PCG Public
Partnerships, is represented by:
Jason A. Cabrera, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
1650 Market Street
One Liberty Place, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-7267
- and –
Walter M. Foster, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
200 State Street, Suite 1105
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 849-5012
RICHMOND COUNTY: Faces Zougarhi Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
SONIA ZOUGARHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RICHMOND COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01473 (E.D.N.Y., March 17, 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 provide wage notice, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Emergency Medical
Technician from March 1, 2021, to March 1, 2023.
Richmond County Ambulance Service, Inc. is a provider of ambulance
service, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Sara J. Isaacson, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
sara@lipskylowe.com
RUGSUSA LLC: Website's Retail Product Sales "Fake," Zastrow Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRANT ZASTROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00472 (W.D. Wash., March 17, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, breach of contract, breach of express warranty,
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, and intentional
misrepresentation.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of using fake sales
on its website, www.rugsusa.com, to sell and market rugs and home
accessory products. According to the complaint, the Defendant
misled consumers into believing that they are getting a sale price
when in fact they are paying full price. Had the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have
purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says the
suit.
RugsUSA, LLC is a company that sells and markets rugs and home
accessory products online, headquartered in Cranbury, New Jersey.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
20 Sixth Ave. NE
Issaquah WA 98027
Telephone: (425) 395-7786
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
Email: wright@carsonnoel.com
- and -
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon C. Franzini, Esq.
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
Email: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
jonas@dovel.com
- and -
Julian Diamond, Esq.
Matthew Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 32
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Email: jdiamond@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
SANTA MONICA, CA: Parties in Murcia Seek Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA and
SHERMAN A. PERRYMAN, individually and as class representatives, v.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification which was deemed
submitted as of July 3, 2024.
Santa Monica is a city in Los Angeles County, situated along Santa
Monica Bay on California's South Coast.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dmKPKG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christian Contreras, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS, A PROF. CORP.
360 E. 2nd Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (323) 435-8000
Facsimile: (323) 597-0101
E-mail: cc@contreras-law.com
- and -
Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON BARKER
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-3246
Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 fax
E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com
- and -
Donald W. Cook, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 252-9444
Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
E-mail: manncooklaw@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Carol M. Silberberg, Esq.
Joshua C. Stokes
BERRY SILBERBERG STOKES PC
155 North Lake Ave., Ste. 800
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 986-2688
E-mail: csilberberg@berrysilberbeg.com
- and -
Douglas Sloan, Esq.
Susan Y. Cola, Esq.
Ivan O. Campbell, Esq.
Michelle M. Hugard, Esq.
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
1685 Main Street, Rm. 310
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 458-8336
Facsimile: (310) 395-6727
E-mail: douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov
susan.cola@santamonica.gov
ivan.campbell@santamonica.gov
michelle.hugard@santamonica.gov
SCOTT SEMPLE: Blango's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blango v. Scott Semple et
al, Case No. 3:24-cv-00370 (D. Conn., Filed March 18, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SCOTT SEMPLE: Bonvie's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bonvie v. Scott Semple et
al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00616 (D. Conn., Filed April 10, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SCOTT SEMPLE: Branch's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Branch v. Scott Semple, et
al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00467 (D. Conn., Filed March 27, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SCOTT SEMPLE: Cator's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cator v. Scott Semple et
al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00643 (D. Conn., Filed April 5, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SCOTT SEMPLE: Coleman Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Coleman, et al., v. Scott
Semple, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00464 (D. Conn., Filed March 26,
2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SECOND CHANCE: Can Answer to Amended Portillo, et al. Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge George L. Russell, III of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland granted the motion filed by
defendants Second Chance, Inc. and Mark Stephen Foster for leave to
file an amended answer to plaintiffs' first amended complaint in
the case captioned as Portillo et al. v. Second Chance, Inc. et
al., Case No. 24-cv-02660-GLR (D. Md.). The motion filed by
plaintiffs Manuel Portillo and Francis Betancourth to strike the
answer to the amended complaint is denied.
Plaintiffs bring this suit for unpaid overtime wages against
Defendants Second Chance, Mark Stephen Foster, 300 Painting and
Remodeling LLC, and Jose Javier Rivas Mendez. They allege
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201 et
seq.; the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl.
Secs. 3-401 et seq.; the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law,
id. Secs. 3-501 et seq.; and the Maryland Workplace Fraud Act, id.
Secs. 3-901 et seq. on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
employees.
Motion to Amend
The Court finds it is appropriate to grant Second Chance and Foster
leave to amend their answer. They move in good faith to cure the
issues raised by plaintiffs in their motion to strike. According to
the Court, the amendment is neither prejudicial nor futile. This
matter is still in its infancy, so there is no delay that would
prejudice Plaintiffs, the Court adds.
Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs argue that the portions of the answer at issue accuse
Plaintiff Portillo of criminal activity and have no relevance to
the instant litigation and as such should be stricken as
impertinent, immaterial, and scandalous. They contend that because
they do not seek to certify a class or collective on the August
2023 non-payment of wage claims, the information about Portillo's
alleged criminal activity is both immaterial and prejudicial.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs do not clear Rule 12(f)'s high bar
and will not strike the language at issue. It is not evident to the
Court from the face of the Amended Complaint that Plaintiffs do not
seek to certify a class or collective on the August 2023
non-payment of wage claims. Those non-payment of wage claims are
repeated and incorporated by reference in both the collective and
class action allegations. As such, the Court cannot say that the
statements at issue are impertinent or immaterial. Rule 12(f)
motions will be denied unless the matter under challenge has no
possible relation to the controversy and may prejudice the other
party. It cannot be said that there is no possibility the alleged
criminal activity by Portillo will be relevant to class
certification at a later date, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qOEnGp from PacerMonitor.com.
SECURED MARKETING: Class Certification Denied in Heidarpour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Krissa M. Lanham of the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona denied the plaintiff's motion for
default judgment and class certification in the case captioned as
Fred Heidarpour, Plaintiff, v. Secured Marketing Concepts
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. CV-24-00239-PHX-KML (D. Ariz.).
Plaintiff Fred Heidarpour filed this putative class action in
February 2024. The complaint alleged a single claim under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act against defendant Secured
Marketing Concepts Corp., d/b/a Pacific One Lending. The complaint
alleged Pacific One made (and continues to make) unsolicited
telemarking calls without the prior express written consent of all
call recipients. The complaint identified a proposed class of all
persons in the United States who received unauthorized
telemarketing calls from Pacific One.
Heidarpour had some difficulty in completing service of process but
eventually served Pacific One in Delaware. After Pacific One failed
to appear, Heidarpour applied for entry of default and filed a
motion for default judgment. That motion for default judgment
requests an unusual form of relief, asking the Court to certify a
class, immediately enter default judgment in favor of the class,
and allow Heidarpour to pursue discovery regarding the issue of
damages.
Heidarpour seeks certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class because
Pacific One has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply
generally to the class. He also seeks certification of a Rule
23(b)(3) class because questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and a class action is superior to other available methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
Heidarpour argues Pacific One's default requires the court accept
as true the allegations in the complaint. That is correct. But
Heidarpour then argues those allegations should be deemed
sufficient to certify a class.
The Court finds Heidarpour's request is substantively and
procedurally flawed: class certification is not proper here and
expedited discovery is not merited.
Judge Lanham explains, "Even if certification-by-default might be
appropriate in some cases, it would be particularly inappropriate
in this case based on one type of class Heidarpour seeks to
certify. A Rule 23(b)(3) class requires the court direct to class
members the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances. Heidarpour presently has no idea who the class
members are or where they are located. Without such information,
Heidarpour cannot provide notice reasonably calculated, under all
the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of
the action and afford them an opportunity to present their
objections. And without notice, no Rule 23(b)(3) class is
permissible."
A final flaw in Heidarpour's approach is his belief that he can
obtain class certification and judgment at the same time.
Certifying a class and immediately entering judgment defeats that
purpose. Heidarpour's request for class certification is denied,
the Court holds.
Judge Lanham concludes that Pacific One chose not to appear and
only Pacific One has the evidence that would be necessary for
Heidarpour to obtain class certification or to determine class
damages. There does not appear to be a viable path for Heidarpour
to obtain class certification and a judgment in favor of that
class. Heidarpour may be entitled to judgment in his favor on an
individual basis and if he wishes to seek such a judgment, he may
file a renewed motion to that effect. Alternatively, Heidarpour may
determine he no longer wishes to pursue this suit. In that
situation, Heidarpour may file a notice of voluntary dismissal.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pDiFNp from PacerMonitor.com.
SHADE STORE: Court Tosses Certain Claims in Crowder, et al. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California denied The Shade
Store, LLC's motion to dismiss certain claims from the plaintiffs'
third amended complaint in the case captioned as SHARON CROWDER, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
23-cv-02331-NC (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Sharon Crowder, Joel Lumian, Robert Smith, Amanda
Goldwasser, and Mark Elkins bring a putative class action alleging
Defendant The Shade Store deceptively advertises its products as
discounted through false strike through pricing and purported
time-limited sales. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims
for violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition
Law, and for quasi-contract/unjust enrichment from the third
amended complaint for lack of equitable jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a putative nationwide and
California class of consumers who "purchased one or more The Shade
Store Products advertised at a discount." The Court granted in part
and denied in part Defendant's motions to dismiss the initial,
first, and second amended complaints. Plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint, adding Elkins as a named plaintiff. TAC.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.
Plaintiffs opposed.
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' FAL, CLRA, UCL, and
quasicontract/unjust enrichment claims for equitable relief,
arguing the Court lacks equitable jurisdiction because Plaintiffs
fail to sufficiently allege they lack adequate legal remedies for
past or future harms.
Plaintiffs seek equitable remedies in the alternative because they
have no adequate remedy at law. They allege legal damages are
inadequate to redress their past harms because they are not as
certain, equally prompt or otherwise efficient as
restitution. Defendants argue Plaintiffs' allegations that
restitution is more certain, prompt, and efficient are insufficient
to establish equitable jurisdiction, and that Plaintiffs' equitable
and legal claims seek the same amount of money for the exact same
harm. The Court disagrees and finds that, at the pleading stage,
Plaintiffs plausibly allege they lack an adequate legal remedy to
establish equitable jurisdiction over their claims for restitution
for past harm and injunctive relief for future harm. This is
especially so at this stage of the case where Plaintiffs do not yet
need to provide evidence demonstrating that Defendant's failure to
change its practices could produce harm for which legal relief is
inadequate.
Defendant also argues Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege a
claim for quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs allege Defendant's false advertising, pricing, and sales
induce customers to make purchases they otherwise would not have
and artificially increase consumer demand for Defendant's Products.
These forces allegedly put upward pressure on the prices that
Defendant can charge for its products such that "Defendant can
charge a price premium" and receives a direct and unjust benefit at
Plaintiffs' expense.
The Court finds Plaintiffs adequately allege Defendant's price
discounts resulted in payment of a price premium by Plaintiffs.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ROa1CQ from PacerMonitor.com.
SMART ERP: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Wright Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMART ERP SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:25-cv-02588 (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach between July 3 and July 13, 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.
Smart ERP Solutions, Inc. is a provider of enterprise resource
planning software and services, headquartered in Pleasanton,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
SQUISHABLE.COM INC: Court Certifies California Subclass in Borovoy
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE BOROVOY, an
individual, and on behalf of classes of similarly situated
individuals, v. SQUISHABLE.COM, INC., a New York, Case No.
1:23-cv-03660-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered
an
final approval order and judgment:
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 Final Order and Judgment only, the Court
finally certifies the following Settlement Class:
"All persons residing in the United States whose PII was
involved in the Data Incident."
Furthermore, the Court certifies the following California
Subclass:
"All persons residing in the State of California whose PII
was involved in the Data Incident."
Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class and
California Subclass are (i) all Persons who timely and
validly request exclusion from the Class; (ii) the Judge
assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement; and
(iii) any other Person found by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating,
causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence
of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any
such charge.
2. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of
Plaintiff Christine Borovoy as Class Representative. The
Court concludes that the Class Representative has fairly and
adequately represented the Settlement Class and will
continue to do so.
3. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and in recognition of
her efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court
approves a payment to the Class Representative in the amount
of $1,500.00 as a Service Award. Such payment shall be made
by Squishable in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
4. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Kiley
Grombacher of Bradley Grombacher LLP and Mason A. Barney of
Siri & Glimstad LLP as Class Counsel. The Court concludes
that Class Counsel has adequately represented the Settlement
Class and will continue to do so.
Squishable.com, Inc. is a manufacturer and ecommerce retailer of
crowdsourced designer plush toys and lifestyle products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R98DCa at no extra
charge.[CC]
STALLION EXPRESS: Court Recommends Dismissal of McCatty Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXWELL MCCATTY, v.
STALLION EXPRESS, LLC and PHARMSCRIPT LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-10224-MRG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge David Hennessy
recommends that the motion to dismiss be allowed.
In light of the recommendation and the court's separate ruling on
Stallion's motion to dismiss and compel individual arbitration,
Judge Hennessy further recommended that the motion to certify class
be denied as moot.
On Jan. 29, 2024, McCatty, who worked as a courier for Stallion
until August 2022, filed a putative collective and class action
complaint alleging that he was improperly classified as an
independent contractor and should have been classified as an
employee of both Stallion and Pharmscript.
Stallion Express offers a comprehensive range of medical supply
delivery services.
A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated March 14,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TIgm4J at no extra charge.[CC]
STELLAR WIRELESS: Herrera Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Herrera, Stephanie Michaelle Medina Sarita, Rebecca
Castillo Prenza, Jamilka Vargas Alcantara, Nicole Hidalgo, Emeka
Raymond Obi, and Emily Feliciano, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated employees, v. Stellar Wireless Retail, LLC,
Stellar Wireless Retail NY Inc., Stellar Wireless Group Retail,
LLC, Stellar Wireless Retail, LLC, Stellar Wireless Metro Retail,
LLC, Portables Unlimited, Inc., Portables Unlimited NY, LLC,
Portables Unlimited USA, LLC, The Portables Choice Group LLC, and
The Portables Choice Group AZ, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02272
(S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2025) alleges that the Defendants are liable
to Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The lawsuit seeks to recover on behalf of Plaintiffs and all
similarly situated employees unpaid minimum wages; unpaid overtime
wages; untimely wage compensation; unpaid spread of hours pay;
unpaid commissions) and statutory penalties for failure to provide
compliance wage notice and wage statements.
The Plaintiffs each bring a claim for pregnancy discrimination and
retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.
The various Stellar entities were created to operate retail
locations for major cell phone carriers like MetroPCS and T-Mobile
in New York City. For instance, Stellar Wireless Group was formed
as a separate business entity, with Stellar Wireless Retail LLC
established in June 2016 and Stellar Wireless Group Retail LLC
established in June 2017.
The owners of the Stellar enterprise sold their business to the
owners of the Portables enterprise, which was (and is) party to
agreements with major cell phone carriers, whereby it operates as
an authorized dealer for MetroPCS and T-Mobile.
Under these agreements, the authorized dealer is bound to assume
and maintain full responsibility for supervising and controlling
all employees working at the retail locations, including those
where Plaintiff worked, says the suit.
The Defendants sell cell phones, phone plans for MetroPCS and Metro
by T-Mobile, offer financing contracts through Smartpay, as well as
sell cell phone accessories sourced from Avelex, SSX/Side by Side,
and from MetroPCS or Metro by Mobile directly.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
Eliseo Cabrera, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
SULLIVAN COUNTY, NY: Keeps Property's Surplus Proceeds, Pini Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID M. PINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SULLIVAN COUNTY, New York, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendant, Case No.
7:25-cv-02194 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the United States Constitution's
Fifth Amendment and Eighth Amendment and the New York Constitution,
declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, money had and received,
and inverse condemnation.
The class action complaint seeks relief from the Defendant's
practice of unconstitutionally taking the Plaintiff's and similarly
situated residents' property for public use without providing just
compensation. According to the complaint, after the Defendant
foreclosed on a property for taxes owed, it sold, retained, or
transferred the property. However, the Defendant unconstitutionally
took all the property, meaning the full amount of the sale proceeds
including the full equity of the property above and beyond what was
owed in taxes and associated fees rather than keep only the amount
owed in taxes and reimburse the taxpayer the remaining balance. As
a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class
suffered losses, says the suit.
Sullivan County is a government entity in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George F. Carpinello, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
30 South Pearl Street, 12th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 434-0600
Facsimile: (518) 434-0665
Email: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com
TC HEARTLAND: Wins Bid to Dismiss Karabas Splenda Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted TC Heartland LLC's motion to
dismiss the the case captioned as METE KARABAS, Plaintiff, –
against – TC HEARTLAND LLC, Defendant, Case No.
24-cv-02722-AMD-VMS (E.D.N.Y.) under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The defendant manufactures, markets, and sells "Splenda Naturals
Stevia Zero Calorie Sweetener", a sugar alternative which the
defendant labels "100% Natural."
The plaintiff brings this putative class action against the
defendant alleging it deceptively marketed its stevia-based
sweetener as "100% Natural." According to the plaintiff, the
sweetener's two ingredients -- stevia leaf extract and erythritol
-- are synthetic because of the process through which the defendant
produced the ingredients, which the plaintiff says is not natural.
The plaintiff alleges violations of the following state laws:
(1) New York's General Business Law Secs. 349 and 350
(Counts 1 and 2);
(2) New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Secs. 56:8–1, et
seq. (Count 3);
(3) New Jersey's Breach of Express Warranty, N.J. Stat. Ann.
Sec. 12A:2–313 (Count 4); and
(4) Intentional Misrepresentation (Count 6).
The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint. It maintains that the
plaintiff has not established that its labeling was deceptive, or
that it would have misled a reasonable consumer.
In addition, the defendant says that the plaintiff has not
sufficiently alleged that he suffered any injury. The plaintiff
opposes.
According to the Court, the plaintiff's "generalized" discussion
about the manufacturing process is not sufficient to show that the
defendant's product is synthetic. The defendant's motion to dismiss
the General Business Law deception claims is granted.
The Court finds that the plaintiff has not established a cognizable
injury under the out-of-pocket loss theory or the
benefit-of-the-bargain theory. Accordingly, the New Jersey CFA
claim is dismissed.
As the Court has already found, the plaintiff has not sufficiently
pled that the labeling on the defendant's product would mislead a
reasonable customer acting reasonably. For the same reason, his
breach of express warranty claim must be dismissed. The plaintiff's
misrepresentation claim is also dismissed.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fRKWlK from PacerMonitor.com.
TEAM HEALTH: Must Produce Docs in Buncombe County, et al. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Clifton L. Corker of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee granted in part and denied in part
Buncombe County's motion to compel the production of certain
discovery responses from defendants in the case captioned as
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA and CITY OF PLAQUEMINE,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., AMERITEAM SERVICES, LLC, and HCFS
HEALTH CARE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-CV-00420-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.).
In these consolidated putative class actions, Plaintiffs Buncombe
County and City of Plaquemine assert claims for unjust enrichment
and civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, U.S.C. Sec. 1962. In a general sense, they
allege that Defendants sent bills for emergency room services to
third party administrators and other payors that were inflated due
to upcoding, i.e., assigning a Current Procedural Terminology code
at a higher level than what the patient's medical chart supported.
The Court consolidated both cases for purposes of discovery
relative to class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.
The County initiated this action to recover damages and
disgorgement reflecting the wrongful overbilling and to seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, on behalf of itself and a
putative class of others similarly situated.
From July 8, 2024 to Nov. 4, 2024, the County served TeamHealth
with four different requests for production of documents and
electronically stored information pursuant to Rule 34. TeamHealth
produced numerous documents and a substantial volume of data but
objected to a handful of the requests.
The County seeks to compel the production of:
(1) nationwide claims data;
(2) contracts with TPAs, insurers, or payors;
(3) documents reflecting prior similar claims of upcoding for ER
services;
(4) testimony and expert reports from prior lawsuits;
(5) the sampling protocol referenced in United Healthcare
Services, Inc., et al. v. Team Health Holdings, Inc., et al., 3:21-
CV-364 (E.D. Tenn.).
The County asserts that each of the requests are relevant to its
ability to establish commonality, typicality, predominance, and
other Rule 23 requirements.
The Court finds the County's request for nationwide claims data is
not unduly burdensome. Considering the requested data is relevant
to the County's ability to satisfy the Rule 23 requirements and
would not unduly burden TeamHealth, the County's motion is granted
to the extent it seeks to compel production of nationwide claims
data.
The County, however, represented that production of the nationwide
claims data would obviate the need for the requested contracts with
TPAs, insurers, or other payors. Thus, the County's request
regarding contracts with payors is denied without prejudice.
The County takes the position that if TeamHealth is going to use
previously resolved upcoding claims to refute the predominance
requirement for class certification, then it should have access to
the universe of those prior claims. However, the County also
recognizes that the national claims data may reveal prior
settlements and obviate the need for the instant request. Thus, the
motion is denied without prejudice. To the extent the national
claims data does not reflect prior similar claims of upcoding, the
County may renew the request.
The County's motion is denied to the extent it seeks production of
testimony and expert reports from prior lawsuits. The Court finds
the County has failed to demonstrate how the requested information
is proportional to the needs of the case. It has presented no
reason why it cannot obtain the requested information, which would
be more narrowly tailored to the instant matter, by deposing the
individuals itself.
The Court finds the requested sampling plan is not relevant to
County's damages methodology in this case. The County's motion is
denied to the extent it requests to compel production of the
sampling plan.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fBQSGM from PacerMonitor.com.
TIER-ONE PROPERTY: Court Certifies Class in De Martinez
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLANCA CASTILLO DE
MARTINEZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. TIER-ONE PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02339-LLA (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Loren Alikhan
entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to certify
class and for preliminary approval of settlement:
-- The Plaintiffs, Blanca Castillo De Martinez, Vilma Somoza De
Cienfuegos, Richard Cienfuegos, and Armida Garcia, are
approved as the class representatives for the settlement
class.
-- Michael K. Amster, Esq. and Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. of the law
firm Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC are approved as class
counsel.
-- ILYM Group, Inc. is approved as the Settlement Administrator.
The Plaintiffs seek the provisional certification of the following
class:
"All Tier-One employees performing "Public Work" in the
District of Columbia who performed more than 40 hours of work
in a workweek and/or were paid below the rate promised and
owed pursuant to District of Columbia law during the "Class
Period."
Tier-One is a minority-owned facility services provider of
commercial janitorial, building maintenance and specialty property
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qlfPnk at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: CCWP Seeks Final OK of Proposed Consent Decree
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
WOMEN PRISONERS et al., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL BUREAU
OF PRISONS et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs, on Feb. 25, 2025, will move the Court pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) for entry of an Order
granting final approval of the proposed Consent Decree and finding
its terms to be fair, adequate, and reasonable.
The motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion; the
accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the attached
Declaration of Luma Khabbaz; all pleadings and papers on file in
this action; and any oral argument this Court permits.
The Court should grant final approval of the parties' agreed-upon
Consent Decree because it provides much needed and hard-won
injunctive relief to the certified class of individuals who were
formerly incarcerated at FCI Dublin, the Plaintiff contends.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the Proposed Consent
Decree on Dec. 20, 2024.
Federal Bureau of Prisons is a federal law enforcement agency of
the United States Department of Justice that is responsible for all
federal prisons in the country and provides for the care, custody,
and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9m56sN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ernest Galvan, Esq.
Kara j. Janssen, Esq.
Adrienne Spiegel, Esq.
Luma Khabbaz, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
E-mail: egalvan@rbgg.com
kjanssen@rbgg.com
aspiegel@rbgg.com
lkhabbaz@rbgg.com
- and -
Susan M. Beaty, Esq.
CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR
IMMIGRANT JUSTICE
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800
Oakland, CA 94612-4700
Telephone: (510) 679-3674
E-mail: susan@ccijustice.org
- and -
Oren Nimni, Esq.
Amaris Montes, Esq.
RIGHTS BEHIND BARS
416 Florida Avenue N.W. #26152
Washington, D.C. 20001-0506
Telephone: (202) 455-4399
E-mail: oren@rightsbehindbars.org
amaris@rightsbehindbars.org
- and -
Stephen S. Cha-kim, Esq.
Carson D. Anderson, Esq.
Natalie Steiert, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019-9710
Telephone: (212) 836-8000
E-mail: stephen.cha-kim@arnoldporter.com
carson.anderson@arnoldporter.com
natalie.steiert@arnoldporter.com
UNITED STATES: Fails to Issue Student Loan Refunds, O'Brien Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN O'BRIEN on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LINDA MCMAHON, in her official capacity as Secretary of
the United States Department of Education, and THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-10641-RGS (D. Mass.,
March 19, 2025) arises under the Administrative Procedure Act and
the Higher Education Act.
From March13, 2020, the Department implemented an administrative
forbearance in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, automatically
pausing payments for eligible loans and setting borrower interest
rates to 0% under the CARES ACT. Payment suspension was extended
several times, up to Sept. 1, 2023.
The Department represented that borrowers would face no risks on
making payments during the suspension period, as they would be
eligible to have such money refunded to them upon request. The
refund benefit ended on September 1, 2023. Payments on student
loans restarted on Oct. 1, 2023.
Accordingly, the Department failed to issue refunds for timely
received request until at least Dec. 21, 2023. The Department's
action and inaction have caused and continue to cause class members
harm both directly and indirectly, with impaired credit restricting
their options regarding housing, employment, and transportation,
among other damages, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Marshfield, located in Plymounth
County, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of
himself and all other individuals similarly situated. He seeks to
represent a class consisting of:
"All people who borrowed money under a federal loan program to
pay of higher education, who made payments against such loans
during the COVID-19 payment pause, who requested some or all of
those payments be refunded to them before Aug. 28, 2023, and
who continued to be charged interest on such payments before
the funds were actually refunded."
The Defendant is the Secretary of Education.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
VENTURA FOODS: Class Settlement in Gramstad Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jim Gramstad et al., v.
Ventura Foods, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-02290-MWC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for final approval of class action settlement.
Specifically, the Court entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval
and approves settlement of the action between Plaintiffs and
Defendants, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, as fair,
just, reasonable, and adequate and directs the parties to
perform their settlement in accordance with the terms set
forth in the Settlement Agreement;
-- granting an award to Class Counsel for $500,000 in attorneys'
fees and $75,000 in costs;
-- granting an incentive award of $7,500 to each Class
Representative; and
-- retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement and
resolve any disputes that might arise during its term.
The Plaintiffs commenced this action in December 2022. The
Plaintiffs brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
In April 2023, the Plaintiffs filed the operative amended complaint
("FAC").
Ventura produces and markets food products. The Company offers
custom and branded dressings, sauces, mayos, oils, shortenings,
margarines, bases, and pan coatings. Ventura Foods supplies its
products to customers throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Aj39Hv at no extra
charge.[CC]
VENTURA FOODS: Non-Opt-Out Class in Gramstad Wins Final Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIM GRAMSTAD and AISAN
ROUHANINIA ATHARI, individually and as representatives of a
Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of all
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the
VENTURA FOODS, LLC PROFIT SHARING 401(K) PLAN, v. VENTURA FOODS,
LLC and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 8:22-cv-02290-MWC-JDE (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order
finally certifying the following non-opt-out class:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Ventura Foods,
LLC Profit Sharing 401(k) Plan beginning Oct. 1, 2016, and
running through March 31, 2024."
The Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement is
granted, the Settlement of the Class Action is approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Plan and the Settlement Class, and
the Parties are directed to take the necessary steps to effectuate
the terms of the Agreement.
The Plaintiffs' motion for Attorneys' fees, reimbursement of
expenses, and Class Representatives' case contribution awards, is
approved. Attorneys' fees in the amount of $500,000 is awarded,
with $325,000 to be distributed to Christina Humphrey Law, P.C. and
$175,000 to be distributed to Tower Legal Group, P.C. Expenses in
the amount of $75,000 shall be reimbursed to Class Counsel, with
$22,075.55 distributed to Christina Humphrey Law, P.C. and
$52,924.45 to be distributed to Tower Legal Group, P.C. Case
contribution awards in the amount of $7,500 each shall be
distributed to the Class Representatives.
Ventura produces and markets food products. The Company offers
custom and branded dressings, sauces, mayos, oils, shortenings,
margarines, bases, and pan coatings.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oh2Mul at no extra
charge.[CC]
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Briggs Balks at Vehicles' Cylinder Head Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA BRIGGS, CHRISTOPHER GASTALL, SHANNON MILLER, and DUSTIN
OLSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey
Corporation, d/b/a VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., and VOLKSWAGEN AG,
a German Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01540-SDW-JBC
(D.N.J., February 28, 2025) is a consumer class action arising from
a latent defect found in model year 2018-2021 Volkswagen Atlas
vehicles that were imported and distributed across the United
States and Puerto Rico by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
This action arises from the Defendants' failure, despite its
longstanding knowledge since at least November 25, 2018, to
disclose to Plaintiffs and other consumers that the Class Vehicles
contain a defectively designed and/or manufactured cylinder head
and cylinder head gasket that causes it to prematurely fail. When
the Defect manifests, it can cause the engines in the Class
Vehicles to overheat, mix engine coolant and oil, lose power, idle
roughly and misfire, and leak engine coolant. If not quickly
identified and fixed, the defect may cause sudden and catastrophic
engine failure, says the suit.
This case seeks protection and relief for Plaintiffs and other
owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles for the harm they have
suffered, and the safety risks they face, from Defendants' breaches
of express and implied warranties and Defendants' unfair, unlawful,
and deceptive trade practices.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., d/b/a Volkswagen of America,
Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, one of the
world's automobile manufacturers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
Juliette T. Mogenson, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (610) 200-0581
E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
jtm@sstriallawyers.com
WALMART INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Shugars Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eumi K. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in the lawsuit titled CRYSTAL SHUGARS, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-02765-EKL
(N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Niccol Le'Roy and Crystal Shugars, two Walmart "Spark
Drivers," allege that Defendant Walmart Inc. willfully
misclassified them as independent contractors. The Plaintiffs
assert violations of the California Labor Code and the California
Unfair Competition Law.
Walmart moves to compel arbitration of all claims except for
Shugars' representative Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")
claim, which Walmart requests to stay pending arbitration. The
Court reviewed the parties' briefs and heard oral argument on Nov.
6, 2024. For reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants the
motion to compel arbitration and stays the action while arbitration
is pending.
Walmart is a national retailer known for offering "Everyday Low
Prices on a huge assortment of groceries and more." Walmart also
owns and operates the Spark Driver delivery platform. The Spark
Driver platform allows Walmart customers the ability to order
groceries and other goods from local Walmart stores through
Walmart's site or app. The Spark Driver app allows anyone with a
car and a smartphone to shop for and deliver groceries and goods to
Walmart customers.
Spark Drivers, including the Plaintiffs, fulfill same-day delivery
orders customers place with Walmart. The drivers either fulfill the
order (shop) at Walmart or pick up a prepared order curbside or
in-store and then deliver the order to the customer.
Plaintiffs Le'Roy and Shugars both work as Spark Drivers in the
state of California. They allege that Walmart misclassified them
and other Spark Drivers as independent contractors and failed to
pay them full compensation in violation of various provisions of
the California Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law. Shugars
asserts a PAGA claim based on the Labor Code violations. Le'Roy
seeks to represent a class of Spark Drivers, who have worked for
Walmart in California.
Plaintiffs Le'Roy and Shugars each signed a Non-Disclosure and
Dispute Resolution Agreement with Walmart that includes an
arbitration provision. The introductory paragraph to the Agreement
indicates that Spark Drivers agree to arbitrate claims against
Walmart unless they opt out of the arbitration provision.
Walmart moves to compel arbitration of all claims on an individual
basis, except for Shugars' representative PAGA claim, which it asks
the Court to stay pending arbitration. The Plaintiffs oppose the
Motion.
In this case, the parties do not dispute the two threshold issues
of the existence of an arbitration agreement and its scope. The
Plaintiffs acknowledge that they signed the Agreement, which
contains an arbitration provision. The Plaintiffs do not dispute
that the arbitration provision covers all claims asserted in this
action, except for Shugars' representative PAGA claim -- which
Walmart also acknowledges.
Instead, the Plaintiffs contend that Walmart may not enforce the
arbitration provision for two primary reasons. First, the
Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision is exempt from the
Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the Plaintiffs are
transportation workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.
Second, the Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision is
procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California
law.
Judge Lee finds that the transportation worker exemption does not
apply. Judge Lee explains that Spark Drivers are not a class of
workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. The Court
concludes that Spark Drivers belong to a class of workers that
perform personal shopping and courier services for Walmart
customers, and that Spark Drivers are not engaged in foreign or
interstate commerce.
In sum, the Court concludes that Walmart may compel arbitration
because the Agreements between Walmart and Spark Drivers is not
exempt from the FAA.
The Plaintiffs contend that Walmart may not enforce the arbitration
agreement because it is unconscionable under California law.
The Court finds that the arbitration provision is not a contract of
adhesion because it was not a mandatory condition of employment, as
Spark Drivers had the right and ability to opt out of it. The Court
also finds that Walmart's superior bargaining power does not render
the arbitration provision procedurally unconscionable. Finally, the
Court finds that there was no unfair surprise because Walmart
provides Spark Drivers remarkably conspicuous notice of the
arbitration provision and its terms.
Because the arbitration provision is enforceable, the Court grants
Walmart's motion to compel arbitration, except with respect to
Shugars' representative PAGA claim. All claims subject to
arbitration will proceed to individual arbitration, as required by
the arbitration provision and the class action waiver.
The Court holds that it must stay this action with respect to all
Plaintiffs' claims, except for Shugars' representative PAGA claim,
as those claims are "referable to arbitration." After balancing the
competing interests, the Court concludes that a discretionary stay
would conserve judicial and party resources given the substantial
overlap between the arbitrable claims and the non-arbitrable
representative PAGA claim.
For these reasons, the Court grants Walmart's motion to compel
individual arbitration as to all claims, except for Shugars'
representative PAGA claim. Additionally, the Court grants Walmart's
motion to stay this action in its entirety until arbitration
concludes.
The parties will file an initial joint status report regarding
arbitration by Oct. 15, 2025, and updated joint status reports
every six months thereafter. If the parties resolve the claims at
issue, through arbitration or otherwise, the parties will notify
the Court within seven days of the resolution.
In light of the stay, the initial case management deadlines set
forth in the Court's Dec. 31, 2024 Order are vacated.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ej7z6m8w from PacerMonitor.com.
WALMART INC: Plaintiffs Can Amend Navarro, et al. Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted plaintiff's
motion for leave to file a first amended consolidated class action
complaint in the case captioned as GRACE NAVARRO, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00288-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.).
The Court finds that granting leave to amend implicates none of the
Forman factors. Indeed, Defendant Walmart, Inc. has filed a
non-opposition, which demonstrates that it will not be prejudiced
by the granting of the motion.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BIH9Kf from PacerMonitor.com.
WARDEN WILKENS: Murray, et al. Prisoner Civil Rights Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable David H. Urias of the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico dismissed all claims in the case
captioned as CHRISTOPHER E. MURRAY, et al, Plaintiffs, v. WARDEN
WILKENS, et al, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-0412-DHU-KRS (D.N.M.)
without prejudice. All pending motions are denied without
prejudice.
This matter is before the Court on the Prisoner Civil Rights
Complaints and supplemental filings submitted by two
inmate-plaintiffs: Christopher E. Murray and Derrick J. Castillo.
The pleadings purport to raise class action 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983
claims challenging the inmates' conditions of confinement and/or
the prison classification system. As a threshold issue, the Court
must determine whether it is feasible or permissible for multiple
inmate-plaintiffs to prosecute this case.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 governs the joinder of multiple plaintiffs. The
Court, in its discretion, may permit a joinder where all claims
arise from the same transaction/occurrence and share at least one
question of law or fact.
The Court finds joinder is impractical in this case.
Judge Urias holds, "There is no primary filer in this case. Murray
and Castillo both submitted or signed multiple pleadings. Moreover,
dismissing the claims and requiring each inmate-plaintiff to file
their own case will not result in any prejudice. The claims arose
in 2024 and are not time-barred. Neither of the inmate-plaintiffs
have paid a fee in this case, as the Court deferred collecting any
initial partial filing fees until after making a determination on
the proposed class action joinder. The Court will therefore dismiss
this case, and each pleading herein, without prejudice."
Each inmate-plaintiff may file a new case limited to their own
claims, if they wish to continue litigating. If any
inmate-plaintiff continues to file amended pleadings in this closed
case, the Court may direct the Clerk's Office to open a new case
for that individual.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t8q9wb from PacerMonitor.com.
WARDEN WILKENS: Vigil, et al. Prisoner Civil Rights Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable David H. Urias of the United States District Court
for the District of New Mexico dismissed all claims in the case
captioned as ALEJANDRO VIGIL, et al, Plaintiffs, v. WARDEN WILKENS,
et al, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-0522 DHU-GBW (D.N.M.). The motion
to proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied without prejudice.
This matter is before the Court on the Prisoner Civil Rights
Complaints and supplemental filings in this case, which were filed
by or on behalf of the following inmate-plaintiffs: Alejandro
Vigil; Victor Montano, Jr.; Isaiah Ulibarri; and Manuel Trujillo.
The pleadings purport to raise class action 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983
claims challenging the inmates' conditions of confinement and/or
the prison classification system. As a threshold issue, the Court
must determine whether it is feasible or permissible for multiple
inmate-plaintiffs to prosecute this case.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 governs the joinder of multiple plaintiffs. The
Court, in its discretion, may permit a joinder where all claims
arise from the same transaction/occurrence and share at least one
question of law or fact.
The Court finds joinder is impractical in this case.
Judge Urias holds, "There is no primary filer in this case. At
least two inmate-plaintiffs (Vigil and Trujillo) submitted multiple
filings after the opening pleading. Moreover, dismissing the claims
and requiring each inmate-plaintiff to file their own case will not
result in any prejudice. The claims arose in 2024 and are not
time-barred. None of the inmate-plaintiffs have paid a fee in this
case, as the Court deferred collecting any initial partial filing
fees until after making a determination on the proposed class
action joinder. The Court will therefore dismiss this case, and
each pleading herein, without prejudice."
Each inmate-plaintiff may file a new case limited to their own
claims, if they wish to continue litigating. If any
inmate-plaintiff continues to file amended pleadings in this closed
case, the Court may direct the Clerk's Office to open a new case
for that individual.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ymhPeH from PacerMonitor.com.
WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs' Bid to Redact, Seal in Henzel Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada denied the motion to redact and seal
filed by the plaintiffs in relation to their motion for class
certification in the case captioned as Henzel v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. (In Re J&J Investment Litigation), Case No.
2:22-cv-00529-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.).
Sealing and redaction requests are analyzed under either the "good
cause" standard or the "compelling reasons" standard, depending on
the nature of the underlying matter in conjunction with which
secrecy is sought.
The Court finds in seeking application of the lower "good cause"
standard, the pending motion simply refers to the "non-dispositive"
nature of class of certification with no analysis or cited legal
authority addressing the particular issue.
Wells Fargo's response similarly relies baldly on the
"non-dispositive" nature of class certification.
In light of the guidance provided in Center for Auto Safety v.
Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016), the Court
joins the numerous other district courts within the Ninth Circuit
in finding that the "compelling reasons" standard applies to
secrecy requests filed in conjunction with a motion for class
certification.
As the parties fail to address the proper legal standard in their
briefing, Plaintiffs' motion for redaction and to seal is denied
without prejudice, the Court holds. The Clerk's Office is
instructed to maintain the subject documents under seal at this
juncture.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y3RclU from PacerMonitor.com.
WM TECHNOLOGY: Jay Kang Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Ishak Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California granted Jay Kang's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit captioned
as SERET ISHAK, Plaintiff, v. WM TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al.,
Defendants, Case № 2:24-cv-08959-ODW-PVC (C.D. Cal.). Lawrence M.
Jaramillo, and Vanderlei Melchior's motions for appointment are
denied.
Plaintiff Seret Ishak brings this putative class action for
securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against Christopher Beals, Arden Lee, Douglas
Francis, Susan Echerd, Mary Hoitt, Scott Gordon, William Healy, and
Gregory M. Gentile and WM Technology, Inc. Kang, Jaramillo, and
Melchior each seek appointment as lead plaintiff and their
respective counsel as lead counsel.
Because Melchior concedes she does not have the largest financial
interest, the Court denies Melchior's motion for appointment at the
outset and considers only Kang's and Jaramillo's motions.
Having determined that Kang holds the greatest financial interest
between the two competing movants, the Court next considers whether
Kang makes a prima facie showing of adequacy and typicality under
Rule 23. The Court notes Kang's claims arise from the same conduct
as the claims of every other putative class member. Like all class
investors, Kang purchased WM securities when the stock prices were
artificially inflated because of Defendants' alleged
misrepresentations and omissions. Accordingly, Kang makes a prima
facie showing of typicality, the Court finds.
There is no evidence of any antagonism between Kang's interests and
the interests of the proposed class members. Furthermore, Kang's
proposed class counsel, The Rosen Law Firm, is a reputable class
action firm whose attorneys appear to possess the skills,
experience, and resources necessary to prosecute this action.
Accordingly, Kang makes a prima facie showing of adequacy.
Having made a sufficient prima facie showing of typicality and
adequacy under Rule 23, Kang successfully establishes a rebuttable
presumption that he is the most adequate plaintiff, the Court
concludes.
Bearing this burden, Jaramillo attempts to rebut the presumption by
arguing that Kang's methods for calculating his net expenditure and
estimated losses are disqualifying.
Jaramillo offers no additional evidence or facts to cast doubt on
Kang's adequacy and, thus, fails to rebut the presumption, the
Court says.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YvwuWW from PacerMonitor.com.
YARDI SYSTEMS: LaFleur Class Complaint Tossed with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patricia LaFleur, et al.,
individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, v. Yardi Systems, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-01262-PAB
(N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Pamela Barker entered an order granting
the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissing the Plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege
a commercial value to their names and, instead, have alleged only
an incidental use of their names.
Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the ORPS
and Ohio common law upon which relief can be granted, so the Court
does not reach Defendant's First Amendment defenses.
On July 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint
against Yardi. The Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth two counts: (1)
"Violation of ORPS,3 Ohio Revised Code section 2741.01, et seq."
and (2) "Ohio Common Law Tort of Appropriation of Name or
Likeness."
Yardi is an investment, asset and property management software
vendor for the real estate industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2WMmNw at no extra
charge.[CC]
[^] 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 ***