/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220701.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 1, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 125 Headlines 1650 BROADWAY: Ray Suit Settlement Admin. Must Pay 19 Class Members ABM INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in Bucio Labor Suit ABSOLUTE TOTAL: Woods Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ADT SOLAR: Schoch Sues Over Automated Telemarketing Calls AKO BUILDERS: Seminara Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ALLWELL BEHAVIORAL: Faces Standish Suit Over Data Breach AMERICAN CITY BUSINESS: Kochanski Files Suit in W.D. Michigan ANCESTRY.COM LLC: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in Wilson Suit ANGEL'S CARE: Allen Sues Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime Pay ASHRO INC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ASSESSOR OF GLEN COVE CITY: Corigliano Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ASSESSOR OF VALLEY STREAM: Miserandino Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Khoshchin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AUTOZONERS LLC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Jonas Suit Claims BARILLA AMERICA: Sinatro Files Mislabeling Suit Over Pasta Products BEND GOODS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BEYOND MEAT: Yoon Files Mislabeling Suit Over Plant-Based Products BIG VALLEY FORD: Rodrigues Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BINA KOROURI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges BLACKBERRY LTD: Net Loss Tripled After Class Action Settlement BLOSSOM KITCHEN: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BODUM USA INC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOLT MOBILE: Barber Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BOSCOVS DEPARTMENT STORE: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOSTIK INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Curry Suit Alleges BOSTON COLLEGE: Imprudently Managed Retirement Plans, Sellers Says BRAINCHECK INC: Sharfman TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Faces TCPA Suit Over Marketing Text Messages BUSH INDUSTRIES: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CABA DESIGN CORP: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAE OXFORD AVIATION: Urquhart Files Suit in S.D. New York CALVERT'S EXPRESS: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to July 1 CAROLINA PET COMPANY: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAT PERSON: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CB HEALTHCARE: Initial Approval of Settlement Sought CEREBRAL INC: Sued Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal of Subscription CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Judge Approves $1-Bil. Settlement Over Collapse CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Does Not Properly Pay Tipped Workers, Suit Says CHILEWICH SULTAN: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL: CA Court OKs Settlement in Likas Suit CHOBANI INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Yogurt Ads CHURCH & DWIGHT: Hong Files Suit Over Mislabeled Detergent Products CIGNA CORP: Stewart Files ERISA Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties CLARIVATE PLC: CI & LJPSN Sues Over Untrue Statements CLEAN REPUBLIC SODO: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CLEVELAND KITCHEN: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CLEVELAND RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gobrogge Suit Says CMHS AND DESIGN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Queen Suit Alleges COFFEE HOLDING: Settles Brodsky Product Liability Suit COLUMBIA BOOKS: Moore Files ADA Suit in W.D. Michigan COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Franchi Securities Suit Dismissed COULTER VENTURES: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CREDENCE RESOURCE: Savir FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Settlement Reached in Palm Tran Suit DANONE NORTH AMERICA: English Files Suit in S.D. New York DEERE & COMPANY: Forest River Files Suit in N.D. Illinois DEL TACO LLC: Settlement Reached in Torrez Labor Suit DENTSPLY SIRONA: Levi & Korsinsky Notifies of Securities Class Suit DIGITAL DIRECT: Fails to Pay Overtime for Packers, Tol Suit Claims DOCUSIGN INC: Faces Weston Securities Suit in California Court DOLLAR TREE: E.D. California Dismisses Snipes Suit With Prejudice EARLY WARNING SERVICES: Fralish Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona ELITE INSURANCE: Does not Properly Pay Sales Agents, Luman Says EMPYREAN SERVICES: Underpays Electrical Planners, Zimbrich Says ESCADA (USA) INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ESSENDANT CO: Underpays Customer Service Advocates, Zidek Claims ETHOS VETERINARY: Removes Sambolin Class Suit to N.D. Illinois EYE CARE LEADERS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Sandvig Says F & R PRODUCE: Fails to Provider Proper Wages, Pena Suit Says FCA US LLC: Faces Norman Suit Over Defective Motor Vehicles FIVE STAR PIZZA: Pierce Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Barnes Files Suit in D. Delaware FORD MOTOR: Franco Files Suit in C.D. California FRASIER STERLING: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FRONTWAVE CREDIT: Ward-Howie Suit Transferred to S.D. California GARDNER RESOURCES: Sogbuyi-Whitney Sues Over Unpaid Wages GLACIER BAY: Ibarra Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HALLMARK CARDS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE: Court Grants Garcia's Bid for Writ of Mandate HARLEM CHICKEN: Faces Leon Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York HAWKEYE ACQUISITION: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Jarvis Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages HEALTH SCIENCES: Class Action Lawsuit Over Breast Imaging Dropped HEIRLUME USA: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HERBS ETC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOME RESERVE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HORIZON REALTY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Rosenberg Class Suit HUBBARD PEANUT: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HUGE LEGAL TECHNOLOGY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York I SEE ME: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York IDT CORPORATION: Court Approves Settlement in Rosales Suit IDT CORPORATION: Faces JDS1 Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court ILLINOIS DOR: Illinois Fuel Suit removed to C.D. Illinois ILLINOIS: Johnson's Bid to Certify Class Action v. Pritzker Denied IMAGE PLAZA: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York IMANI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Says INDEBTED USA: Faces Kemp Suit Over Misleading Collection Letters INFORMA MEDIA: Discloses Customers' Private Reading Info, Suit Says INFORMATION RESOURCES: Santiago Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination INSOMNIA COOKIES: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York INUSA MANUFACTURING: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York IRONNET INC: Faces Grad Securities Suit in E.D. Va. ISHARYA INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JASON WU INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JODI HARPSTEAD: Benson Files Suit in D. Minnesota JOHN DOE CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shapiro Suit Claims JONESBORO, AR: Faces Trullinger Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages KAS PET LLC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KAV HEALTH: McLemore Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: ASEA/AFSCME Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. KROGER CO: Caneer Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Retail Sales Tax LAFAYETTE BAY PRODUCTS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LALA KENT: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Strong Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania LILIUM NV: Faces Maniraj Securities Suit in California Court MANOR MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blanco Suit Alleges MAVIS TIRE: Trentecoste Sues Over Store Managers' Unpaid Overtime MCDONALD'S CORP: Seeks Dismissal of PFAS Class Action Lawsuit MCG HEALTH: Hearst Unit Facing Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach MEAT N' BONE: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MENARD INC: Shoemaker Sues Over Mislabeled Abrasive Wheel Products METRO FRANCHISING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barnes Alleges MIAMI LABS: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MOMOMILK LLC: Faces Dawkins Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Suit in Maryland Court NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Judgment on Pleadings in Stuart Suit Affirmed NATIONAL REVIEW: Disclosed Private Reading Info, O'Shea Says NESTLE PURINA: Fails to Pay All Agreed Wages, Terska Claims NETAPP INC: Settlement in Shareholder Suit Gets Initial Nod NEW YORK TIMES: Perkins Files Suit in S.D. New York NEW YORK, NY: Disability Rights Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NOVITAS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Potts Suit Alleges OMSOM CORPORATION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OSEA INTERNATIONAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PADDED WAGON: Urgiles Sues Over Trash Haulers' Unpaid OT Wages PAWP INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PEAK PERFORMANCE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PEGASYSTEMS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Securities Class Suit POINTSBET NEW YORK: Hogan Sues Over Deceptive Betting Options PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Trejo Files FDCPA Suit in D. Nebraska PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Watkins Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Alabama PPL CORPORATION: Talen Montana Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas PRIMUS MEDICAL: Faces Adams Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Faces Pett Suit Over Private Info Disclosure READY READING GLASSES: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York REDWIRE CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Florida Court RESTAURANT 597: Moran Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ROMAN FINANCIAL: Smith Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania RSG CONSTRUCTION: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. RUSSELL BRANDS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Granado Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma SCHOTT NYC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SCORES HOLDING: De Oliveira Labor Suit in NY Court Discontinued SECURITY SERVICES: Faces Gomez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California SH GROUP OPERATIONS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SHEARER'S FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Moore Suit Says SIERRA HEALTH: Ruboczki Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SOCLEAN INC: Huff Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania SOCLEAN INCORPORATED: Cason Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Woodburn Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Peak Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware SPECTRUM LIFESCIENCES: Bui Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STAFF SUPPORT: Faces Vasquez Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation STITCH FIX INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal TAL EDUCATION GROUP: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Court TAL EDUCATION GROUP: Settles Shareholder Suit in New York Court TARGET CORP: $231K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Garcia Suit TARGET CORP: Class Settlement in Garcia Suit Wins Final Approval TEAM TREATZ: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TELADOC HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Notifies of Securities Class Suit TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme TEVRA BRANDS: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TILLY'S INC: Securities Suit in California Dismissed TOYOTA MOTOR: Vehicle Owners Eligible for Compensation Confirmed TRUE PET FOOD: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRUENERGY SERVICES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Delong Alleges TT OF VOLUSIA: Ryan Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNIFIN INC: Vega Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas UNLIMITED FURNITURE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VANMOOF USA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Notifies of Class Action VIEW INC: Faces Mehedi Securities Suit in California Court VITAMIN SHOPPE: Sued Over Deceptive Dietary Supplements' Ads VODAFONE GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Kimball Sues Over Defective Turbochargers W.F. YOUNG: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WALMART INC: Corpuz Sues Over Mislabeled Fish Oil Supplements WAX RESEARCH INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WHOLESALE IN MOTION: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WIRECO WORLDWIDE: Wampler Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Retaliation WORLD WRESTLING: Two More Law Firms to File Investment Class Suit XTO ENERGY: Underpays Directional Supervisors, Thompson Says YOUTOPIA ENTERTAINMENT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York YUMA REGIONAL: Johnson Files Suit in D. Arizona YUVI INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ZIWI USA: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Defends 1,035 PI Suits at April 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Faces Product Liability Claims ********* 1650 BROADWAY: Ray Suit Settlement Admin. Must Pay 19 Class Members ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KEVIN RAY, BRIAN ESPOSITO, SAMUEL LADD, and JENNA MILLER, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. 1650 BROADWAY ASSOCIATES INC. d/b/a Ellen's Stardust Diner and Kenneth Sturm, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-9858 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, having reviewed the Plaintiffs' letter and affidavit regarding the settlement agreement approved in the class action, issued an order directing the following: a. The Defendants will provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel and the Settlement Administrator the most current mailing address for the following class members: Jennifer Bergum, Zach Carter, Megan Dwinal, Jonathan Fleites, Preston Hammond, Daniel Hersh, Nathan Hilger, Brandy Massey, Gabrielle Saramango, Morgan Smith, Ryan Smith, David Socolar, Paul Williams, Jennifer Agate, Zach Carter, Christopher Mauro, Matt Patterson, Carly Kincannon, and Sabrina Surace (the Nineteen Class Members); b. The Settlement Administrator will mail checks to the Nineteen Class Members for the after-tax amounts still due to them (unless the Settlement Administrator's records show receipt and cashing of both settlement checks), said checks to have a void date 60 days from the date of their being mailed; c. No later than 90 days after the mailing of said checks, the Plaintiffs' counsel will file a letter, supported by an affidavit from the Settlement Administrator, as to whether said checks were received and deposited by the Nineteen Class Members, along with information stating i) how many estimated total members of the class were eligible to receive payments under the settlement agreement; ii) how many class members did receive payments; iii) how much of the settlement fund remains; iv) what steps, if any, could be taken to disburse those settlement funds to the class members; and v) the propriety of making a cy pres distribution of any remaining settlement funds; and d. The Settlement Administration will provide counsel for all parties with confirmation of distribution of the remaining settlement fund. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bd3zd5vy from Leagle.com. ABM INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in Bucio Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2022, that a class action in San Francisco Superior Court alleging that the company failed to provide legally required meal periods and make additional premium payments has been settled. The case captioned "The Consolidated Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services" filed on April 7, 2006 was a class action lawsuit pending in San Francisco Superior Court that alleged the company failed to provide legally required meal periods and make additional premium payments for such meal periods, pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors for travel expenses. There was also a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). In July 7, 2021, the company entered into a class action settlement and release agreement to settle the Bucio case for $140 million and to obtain a release of the certified class claims that were asserted in the Bucio case. The settlement also resolved the PAGA claim. The release of the certified class claims covers the time period from April 7, 2002, through April 30, 2013. The release of the PAGA claim covers the time period from November 15, 2005, through July 18, 2021. ABM Industries Incorporated is a provider of integrated facility solutions based in New York. ABSOLUTE TOTAL: Woods Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- APRIL WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABSOLUTE TOTAL CARE, INC., A South Carolina incorporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-01870-SAL (D.S.C., June 13, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff seeking to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making pre-recorded telemarketing calls to consumers without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant places telemarketing cold calls to prospective consumers, including Plaintiff, to solicit their health insurance products and/or services to the consumers using pre-recorded voice message calls, despite having never obtained the necessary consent required to place the calls. The unauthorized solicitation telephone calls that Plaintiff received from Defendant have harmed Plaintiff Woods in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, occupied her phone line, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phone's hardware (including the phone's battery), the consumption of memory on the phone, says the suit. Absolute Total Care, Inc. is a health maintenance organization that provides healthcare services to the people of South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Wright, Esq. V. ELIZABETH WRIGHT LAW FIRM, LLC 217 E. Park Avenue Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 326-5281 Facsimile: (864) 233-4567 E-mail: bethwrightattorney@gmail.com ADT SOLAR: Schoch Sues Over Automated Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------- LISA SCHOCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADT Solar, LLC f/k/a SunPro Solar, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 151550126 (Fla. Cir., 13th Judicial, Hillsborough Cty., June 15, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for making automated sales calls without "prior express written consent" and in blatant violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never provided the Defendant the required express written consent to call her with their automated system in an attempt to sell solar panels. The Defendant's phone calls have caused Plaintiff and those similarly situated harm, including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy and disturbance of serenity, says the suit. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to protect Florida residents from Defendant's illegal and annoying robocalls, via an injunction, in addition to statutory damages on behalf of herself, and the putative class, plus any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant, the suit added. ADT Solar, LLC, f/k/a SunPro Solar, LLC, is a Florida-based residential solar company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Peerce Howard, Esq. Amanda J. Allen, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com AKO BUILDERS: Seminara Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Seminara, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AKO Builders and Home Improvements Inc., and Arkady Voskanyan, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05079 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022) is a proposed collective action brought by the Plaintiff seeking recovery for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law as well as their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations for unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, untimely pay, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a general laborer, helper and contractor from approximately August 2021 until June 13, 2022. AKO Builders and Home Improvements Inc. is a home improvement and construction company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com ALLWELL BEHAVIORAL: Faces Standish Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY STANDISH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLWELL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02468-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, June 13, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking to recover damages and equitable relief for Allwell's negligence, breach of confidence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Defendant Allwell Behavioral Health Services is a medical services provider that collects and stores vast amounts of protected health information (PHI) and personally identifying information (PII) about its patients and employees. Allwell specializes in the treatment of mental health issues -- including issues with addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide or self-harm. According to the complaint, on March 2, 2022, according to Allwell, a third-party gained access to Allwell's computer network. These wrongdoers accessed patients' "names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, treatment activity, treatment provider, treatment date, treatment location, and payer information." Allwell was aware of the breach by March 5, 2022, but it said nothing until May 20, 2022, says the suit. Plaintiff Jeremy Standish is a victim of the data breach. He was an Allwell patient from 2018–2019, during which time Allwell collected his PHI and PII as a condition of providing services and treatment. As a result of Allwell's failure to take reasonable precautions, wrongdoers accessed Standish's PHI and PII, thereby subjecting him to a severe invasion of privacy. Since Standish's information was exposed, criminals have compromised his bank account, filed false tax returns in his name, locked him out of his Facebook account, and inundated him with hundreds of spam phone calls and text messages every day, the suit alleges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. Jared W. Connors, Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 305 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com mboyle@meyerwilson.com jconnors@meyerwilson.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., #201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com AMERICAN CITY BUSINESS: Kochanski Files Suit in W.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American City Business Journals, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Kochanski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American City Business Journals, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00582 (W.D. Mich., June 23, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. American City Business Journals, Inc. -- https://www.acbj.com/ -- is an American newspaper publisher based in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC 950 W University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: (248) 841-2200 Email: gam@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com epm@millerlawpc.com ANCESTRY.COM LLC: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in Wilson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN WILSON, Plaintiff v. ANCESTRY.COM LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-861 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denies Ancestry's Motion to Stay Discovery. The Motion is filed by Defendants Ancestry.com Operations Inc., Ancesty.com Inc., and Ancestry.com LLC's (collectively "Ancestry"). I. Background The Plaintiff brings the putative class action, alleging that Ancestry used the proposed class members' "names and personas to promote paid subscriptions to the Ancestry website without consent in violation of Ohio's right of publicity statute, Ohio Rev. Code Section 2741, and Ohio common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness. Particularly, the proposed class claims that though they have no relationship with Ancestry and have never used its service, their names and photographs, including from their school yearbooks, have appeared in Ancestry's advertisements. In response, Ancestry moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims "because Ancestry is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Ohio, the Plaintiff has not alleged an Article III injury, Ancestry is immune pursuant to the Communications Decency Act, the Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the federal Copyright Act, and the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged his right of publicity claims." Now, Ancestry asks the Court to stay discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Stay Discovery is fully briefed and ripe for consideration. II. Discussion As is often the case with motions to stay discovery while a dispositive motion pends, "both sides have legitimate concerns: The Plaintiff does not want the case to languish; the Defendants do not want to spend resources unnecessarily." Ancestry argues that a stay is appropriate because it has presented two jurisdictional questions in its motion to dismiss, one of subject-matter jurisdiction and one of personal jurisdiction. It says, "permitting broad, classwide discovery before these threshold issues are resolved would impose a substantial, unnecessary burden on Ancestry." In cases where a stay is granted due to pending jurisdictional motions to dismiss, it tends to be where it is "almost certain" that the "federal court lacks the authority to hear the case in the first instance." But in the present case, Judge Jolson finds that the defense is "fairly debatable." This is especially true given that Ancestry is engaged in similar litigation across the country, and other federal courts have found that subject-matter and personal jurisdiction do exist for those claims. Thus, it is not at all certain that the Plaintiff's claims are jurisdictionally barred. Ancestry further argues that the personal jurisdiction question in particular necessitates a stay, because it "presents a threshold question of law that determines whether a court has the power to bind the defendant." But the Court in Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Wilhelm, No. 2:19-cv-2501, 2019 WL 4885876, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 3, 2019), granted the stay because (1) the threshold question of jurisdiction--whether Defendants had been properly served under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- could not be resolved with additional discovery; (2) the Court had already become embroiled in the parties' highly contested discovery disputes, including whether a key witness was privileged from answering certain deposition questioning. In the present case, however, the question of personal jurisdiction is premised on a broader basis of fact regarding Ancestry's forum contacts, which could be resolved with additional discovery regarding its practices in Ohio. And while Ancestry maintains that the Plaintiff's discovery requests will likely lead to disputes regarding "overbroad and irrelevant discovery requests," Judge Jolson says, this does not "suggest that the parties are unable to proceed with discovery absent judicial intervention." Rather, the parties must explore extrajudicial means of resolving their disputes before resorting to judicial intervention. Finally, the balance of hardships weighs in favor of allowing discovery to proceed. Denial of the stay will result in Ancestry spending "time and money on discovery that may subsequently be moot after a ruling on" the Motion to Dismiss. Judge Jolson recognizes this burden, "but it is the same burden that nearly every defendant in the Court faces in civil litigation." Moreover, were the action to be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, such dismissal would be without prejudice, and the discovery would not be moot, but rather could be used when the action is commenced in a proper forum. Further, staying discovery potentially will prejudice the Plaintiff by delaying the resolution of the case. "As reflected in the Federal Rules," the Plaintiff deserves his case to be heard "in a timely and efficient manner." Staying discovery would undermine this goal. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Jolson denies the Motion to Stay Discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/483b9wat from Leagle.com. ANGEL'S CARE: Allen Sues Over Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- JENIKE ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGEL'S CARE FAMILY HOME, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00358-MRB (S.D. Ohio, June 21, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act nd the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a caregiver since on or about January 2019. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly adopted and implemented a policy whereby the Plaintiff and other similarly situated caregivers were paid straight time only for hours worked up to and including 60 hours per workweek. Despite consistently working more than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit. Moreover, the Defendant has breached the requirement of R.C. 4113.15 by failing to pay the Plaintiff all wages owed to her within 30 days of their regular scheduled semi-monthly payday for each period. Also, the Defendants have been unjustly enriched by the benefits conferred by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated caregivers, the suit added. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from engaging in future overtime violations. The Plaintiff also seeks to recover all unpaid wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the premises. Angel's Care Family Home, Inc. is a residential care facility consisting of three homes for elderly residents who have Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robb S. Stokar, Esq. MINNILLO LAW GROUP CO., LPA 2712 Observatory Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Tel: (513) 723-1600 Fax: (513) 723-1620 E-mail: rss@mlg-lpa.com ASHRO INC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashro, Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ashro, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05163 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ashro, Inc. -- https://www.ashro.com/ -- offers Afrocentric fashion for women and men from women's clothing, caftans, wigs, jewelry and fashion accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com ASSESSOR OF GLEN COVE CITY: Corigliano Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the City of Glen Cove, et al. The case is styled as Dina Corigliano, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the City of Glen Cove, The Board of Assessment Review of the City of Glen Cove, Respondents, Case No. 607892/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., June 21, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Glen Cove -- https://glencoveny.gov/ -- is a city in Nassau County, New York, United States.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP 132 Spruce St Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915 ASSESSOR OF VALLEY STREAM: Miserandino Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the City of Valley Stream, et al. The case is styled as Donald Miserandino, Janet Miserandino, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of Valley Stream, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Valley Stream, Respondents, Case No. 607889/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., June 21, 2022). The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)." Valley Stream -- https://www.vsvny.org/ -- is a village in Nassau County, New York, United States.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP 132 Spruce Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 ATRIA MANAGEMENT: Khoshchin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atria Management Company, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Maryam Khoshchin, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Atria Management Company, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00322277-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 22, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Atria Management -- https://atriaseniorliving.com/ -- has vibrant independent and assisted senior living communities offering opportunities to be active, socialize, participate, and live purposeful lives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com AUTOZONERS LLC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Jonas Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ CORRY JONAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTO ZONERS LLC, AUTOZONE, STORE, INC., and AUTOZONE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03672 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant to recover damages as a result of its alleged violations of New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Team Member from in January 2016 until March 2018 at the Defendants' store located at the corner of Utica and Atlantic Avenue at 1798 Atlantic, Brooklyn, New York 11234. The Plaintiff asserts that throughout her employment with the Defendants, she and other similarly situated employees were paid on a bi-weekly basis that is in violation of the New York Labor Law Section 191. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have been injured in that they have been uncompensated, under-compensated, or untimely compensated due to the Defendants' unlawful common policies, practices, and patterns of conduct. Thus, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court shall deem just and proper, the Plaintiff added. The Corporate Defendants operate auto parts stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 Tel: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com BARILLA AMERICA: Sinatro Files Mislabeling Suit Over Pasta Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW SINATRO, and JESSICA PROST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BARILLA AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-03460-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment as well as violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the alleged false and misleading labels of the Defendant for certain of its Barilla(R) brand pastas as "ITALY'S #1 BRAND OF PASTA(R)," deliberately leading reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, to believe that the products are made in Italy. The Defendant reinforces the representation on the products by replicating Italy's national flag's green, white, and red colors surrounding the representation, further perpetuating the notion that the products are authentic pastas from Italy, says the suit. However, contrary to this labeling, the products are not made in Italy, the products' ingredients are not from Italy, and the products are not manufactured in Italy. Rather, the products are made and manufactured in Iowa and New York, with ingredients (such as the main ingredient, durum wheat) sourced in countries other than Italy, the suit alleges. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop Defendant's unlawful marketing of the products as originating from Italy to avoid or mitigate the risk of deceiving the public into believing that the products conform to the representation, by requiring Defendant to change its unlawful advertising and/or labeling practices, for the benefit of consumers, including Plaintiffs and the Class, the suit further asserts. Barilla America, Inc. offers food products. The Company produces and distributes pastas and sauces. Barilla America serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. Kelsey J. Elling, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com BEND GOODS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bend Goods LLC. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bend Goods LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05206 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bend Goods -- https://bendgoods.com/ -- is a collection of dining chairs, lounge chairs, tables and wall art.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal BEYOND MEAT: Yoon Files Mislabeling Suit Over Plant-Based Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARY YOON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEYOND MEAT, INC., a Delaware Corporation Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00855-MMA-AGS (S.D. Cal., June 10, 2022) is a putative class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law for engaging in widespread false and deceptive conduct by overstating the amount of protein in its products. Beyond Meat manufactures, advertises, and sells plant-based meat substitute products, such as plant-based ground beef, sausages, meatballs, and hamburger patties. According to the complaint, Beyond Meat claims that its products provide "equal or superior protein" as compared to real meat, but two different U.S. laboratories have independently and separately conducted testing on a wide range of Beyond Meat products proving those claims false. The test results were consistent with each other which showed that the products contain significantly less protein than what is stated on the product packaging, says the suit. Ms. Yoon purchased Beyond Meat's Beyond Burger Plant-Based Patties several times starting in approximately January 2020. The Plaintiff and putative class members have suffered an injury in fact and have lost money as a result of Defendant's unjust conduct, the suit asserts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com - and - Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com BIG VALLEY FORD: Rodrigues Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brookfield Property Multifamily, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jeremy Jordon Rodrigues, indivudually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Big Valley Ford, Inc., PJU Automotive Holdings, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0004606 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 6, 2022). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Big Valley Ford Inc. -- https://www.bigvalleyford.biz/ -- is an automotive company based out in Stockton, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 BINA KOROURI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MARISOL GARCIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. BINA, KOROURI, SAGE DENTAL CORPORATION dba PhD DENTAL, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 22STCV19062 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 10, 2022) seeks relief against Defendant for violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act, California Labor Code, for failure to pay all wages due, including minimum, regular, and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; and failure to pay wages upon ending employment of terminated or resigned employees. The Plaintiff was employed and placed to work for Defendant from January 4, 2021, through May 27, 2021. Each of the Plaintiff Class members are identifiable, current and/or formerly similarly situated persons who were employed in non-exempt hourly positions in California for the Defendant during the Class Period. BINA, KOROURI, SAGE DENTAL CORPORATION, doing business as PHD DENTAL, is a dental healthcare provider based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jake D. Finkel, Esq. Joshua Park, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAKE D. FINKEL 3470 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 830 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 787-7411 Facsimile: (323) 916-0521 E-mail: jake@lawfinkel.com josh@lawfinkel.com BLACKBERRY LTD: Net Loss Tripled After Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that BlackBerry Ltd. says its net loss tripled in the first quarter to US$181 million primarily due to the settlement of a 2013 shareholder class action lawsuit over its BlackBerry 10 smartphones. BlackBerry reached a settlement in April to the lawsuit alleging it defrauded shareholders by making misleading claims about its BlackBerry 10 smartphones. The Waterloo, Ont., company says it lost 31 cents per diluted share, compared with a loss of 11 cents per share or US$62 million a year earlier. Excluding one-time items, including the US$165-million legal settlement, it lost US$31 million or five cents per share, compared with a loss of US$27 million or five cents per share in the prior year. BlackBerry, which reports in U.S. dollars, says revenue for the three months ended May 31 dipped to US$168 million from US$174 million in the first quarter of 2021. The company was expected to report a loss of 13 cents per share and adjusted loss of five cents per share on US$160.7 million of revenues, according to financial data firm Refinitiv. "Our performance demonstrates that our operational plans to achieve those goals are starting to deliver results," executive chairman and CEO John Chen said in a news release. Internet of things revenue increased 19 per cent to US$51 million, while cybersecurity revenue rose six per cent to US$113 million. On Wednesday, 55.8 per cent of BlackBerry shareholders rejected the company's executive compensation proposal. [GN] BLOSSOM KITCHEN: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blossom Kitchen & Bath Supply Corp. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Blossom Kitchen & Bath Supply Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-05234 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Blossom -- https://www.blossomus.com/ -- is a luxury Kitchen & Bath brand offering Vanities, LED Mirrors, LED Medicine Cabinets, Faucets, Accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com BODUM USA INC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bodum USA, Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bodum USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05237 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BODUM -- https://www.bodum.com/ -- is a world-renowned for its exceptional Danish design heritage and long history of producing award-winning housewares and kitchen products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. BOLT MOBILE: Barber Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- John Barber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOLT MOBILE FLEET SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02233-MMB (E.D. Pa., June 7, 2022), is brought pursuant to Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Class Members regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But the Class Members never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of receiving overtime as required by the PMWA, these workers received a non-guaranteed salary without overtime compensation. This class and collective action seek to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to these workers. Each of these workers received a salary per week and did not receive overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in accordance with PMWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a field technician. Bolt Mobile is a Roadside Service company that provides on-location repair services that include, truck repair, trailer repair, and snow removal.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: Crodriguez@bm.net - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com BOSCOVS DEPARTMENT STORE: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boscovs Department Store, LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Boscovs Department Store, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05244 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Boscov's Inc. -- https://www.boscovs.com/ -- is a family-owned department store with 49 locations in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Ohio, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com BOSTIK INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Curry Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA CURRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTIK, INC.; and ARKEMA INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02417 (E.D. Pa., June 21, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Curry was employed by the Defendants as maintenance mechanic. BOSTIK INC. develops and manufactures adhesives and sealants for construction, transportation, packaging, personal care and hygiene, and industrial assembly applications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP Shoshana Savett (PA ID 91601) 411 S. State Street Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Tel: (215) 867-2399 Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com ssavett@edelson-law.com BOSTON COLLEGE: Imprudently Managed Retirement Plans, Sellers Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Connie Sellers and Sean Cooper, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of The Boston College 401(k) Retirement Plan I and The Boston College 401(k) Retirement Plan II, Plaintiffs V. TRUSTEES OF BOSTON COLLEGE; PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10912 (D. Mass., June 10, 2022) is a class action complaint brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Trustees of Boston College and all other Defendants to challenge their repeated failure to administer the retirement plans prudently, comply with the plans' duly enacted Investment Policy Statement, or monitor fiduciaries and service providers to the plans. Boston College sponsors two retirement plans -- The Boston College 401(k) Retirement Plan I and The Boston College 401(k) Retirement Plan II. According to the complaint, the Defendants' mismanagement of each Plan has cost participants millions of dollars, leading to their paying excess fees and losing out on retirement income. The Defendants limited Plan I's participants to low-performing, high-cost investment options such as the consistently underperforming CREF Stock Account or the costly Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association and College Retirement Equities Fund Real Estate Account. They also subjected Plan II's participants to dramatically high recordkeeping costs, over a third higher than similar plans. Moreover, many of these options were flagged as imprudent in prior ERISA litigation of which Defendants could and should have been aware, asserts the suit. The Plans' assets under management rank each among the top 0.4% of all 401(k) plans. Plans this large have outsized bargaining power in the marketplace for defined contribution plan services and greater control over the fees and expenses charged against participants' investments. The Defendants, however, did not prudently use this power to reduce the Plans' expenses and ensure participants had access to the best investment options, the suit avers. Each Plaintiff has standing to bring this action on behalf of the Plans because each of them participated in one or both of the Plans and were injured by Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct, notes the complaint. Defendant Trustees of Boston College is the legal entity overseeing a private, Catholic educational institution in Middlesex and Suffolk Counties, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Churchill, Esq. Osvaldo Vazquez, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com oz@fairworklaw.com BRAINCHECK INC: Sharfman TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Marc Irwin Sharfman, M.D., P.A. Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Braincheck, Inc., Case No. 2022-CA-001106 was removed from the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Seminole County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on June 20, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:22-cv-01072 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. BrainCheck -- https://braincheck.com/ -- is a mobile interactive test for cognitive health, allowing users to track their brain health to share results with clinicians.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Christi A. Lawson, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1200 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 244-3235 Email: clawson@foley.com BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Faces TCPA Suit Over Marketing Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2022, that in August 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. The plaintiff amended the complaint during the company's first fiscal quarter in 2022. As amended, the complaint asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) alleging that the company continued to send marketing text messages to mobile phone numbers after those numbers had allegedly opted-out of receiving them. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a retailer where customers could create their own stuffed animals. BUSH INDUSTRIES: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bush Industries Inc. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bush Industries Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05207 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bush Industries, Inc. -- https://bushfurniture.com/ -- designs, manufactures, and sells ready-to-assemble and set up furniture products for business and consumer use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal CABA DESIGN CORP: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caba Design Corp. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caba Design Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-05317 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CABA -- https://www.cabadesign.co/ -- specializes in the design and production of custom furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CAE OXFORD AVIATION: Urquhart Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAE Oxford Aviation Academy Phoenix Inc., et al. The case is styled as James Urquhart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CAE Oxford Aviation Academy Phoenix Inc., JetBlue Airways Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-05248 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. CAE Phoenix -- https://www.cae.com/ -- provides simulator-based training programs for regional aircrafts in the Phoenix area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max Stuart Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Ave., Third Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: mroberts@bursor.com CALVERT'S EXPRESS: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to July 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heitzman v. Calvert's Express Auto Service & Tire, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02001 (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file response as to motion to certify class. The response deadline is extended to July 1, 2022. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Calvert's Express is a full-service shop for brakes, tires, oil changes, and auto repair.[CC] CAROLINA PET COMPANY: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carolina Pet Company, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carolina Pet Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05151 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Carolina Pet Company -- https://carolinapetcompany.com/ -- has the highest quality pet beds and pet products to make sure the animal is comfortable and happy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CAT PERSON: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cat Person Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cat Person Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05099 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cat Person, Inc. -- https://www.catperson.com/ -- delivers better cat care essentials directly to customers' doorstep.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CB HEALTHCARE: Initial Approval of Settlement Sought ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA VASQUEZ-ALVAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CB HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 21-cv-949 (E.D. Wisc.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement; 2. certifying, for settlement purposes only, the proposed Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective; 3. appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as Class Counsel; 4. appointing Plaintiff, Vanessa Vasquez-Alvarez, as representative of the Settlement Class; 5. approving the mailing of the Notice Packet to class members; 6. setting deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to opt out of the case or object to the Settlement Agreement; 7. setting deadlines for members of the Settlement Class to opt in to the FLSA Collective; 8. finding that such Notice process satisfies due process; 9. directing that any member of Rule 23 Class who has not properly requested exclusion and FLSA Collective members who have chosen to participate to the FLSA Collective shall be bound by the Settlement Agreement in the event the Court issues a Final Order Approving Settlement; 10. directing that any member of the Rule 23 Class or FLSA Collective who wishes to object to the Settlement Agreement in any way must do so per the instructions set forth in the Notice Packet; and 11. scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Settlement Agreement. -- The Settlement Agreement Because Plaintiff brought claims under both the FLSA and WWPCL, the case respectively involves both collective action and class action procedures. The Plaintiff's WWPCL claims are governed by class action procedures under Rule 23, while her FLSA claims involve collective action procedures. For settlement purposes only, the Parties have agreed to certify the following Rule 23 Class pursuant to Rule 23: "Any and all current and former hourly-paid, non- exempt employees employed by Defendant between August 12, 2019 and August 12, 2021, who received non-discretionary remuneration, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments in workweeks in which they worked in excess of 40 hours." For settlement purposes only, the Parties have agreed to certify the following FLSA Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "Any and all current and former hourly-paid, non- exempt employees employed by Defendant between August 12, 2018 and August 12, 2021, who received non-discretionary remuneration, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments in workweeks in which they worked in excess of 40 hours." Beginning on January 25, 2022, the Parties began engaging in informal settlement discussion dialogue via their respective counsel. Settlement negotiations began in earnest on February 17, 2022. On April 5, 2022, the Parties reached a settlement agreement in principle. On June 22, 2022, the Parties finalized their Agreement which they now request this Court to approve. On August 12, 2021, the Plaintiff, Vanessa Vasquez-Alvarez, filed her Complaint against the Defendant, on behalf of herself and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiff, herself, was an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee of Defendant within the three years preceding the filing of her Complaint. The Plaintiff alleged violations of the FLSA and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws, to wit, the Defendant failed to include all non-discretionary forms of monetary compensation in hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation and compensation purposes in workweeks when said employees worked in excess of 40 hours during the representative time period for which the non-discretionary remuneration covered. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 23, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NmZ2cI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI LLC 235 North Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert S. Driscoll, Esq. Shannon M. Toole, Esq. REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN SC 1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700 Milwaukee, WI 53202 E-mail: rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com stoole@reinhartlaw.com CEREBRAL INC: Sued Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal of Subscription ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cherie Debono and Victoria Barber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CEREBRAL, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-03378-AGT (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2022), is brought for violations of the California Automatic Renewal Law, False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and various common law claims as a result of Cerebral's concerted pattern of misrepresentations, smokescreens, and omissions with regards to their automatically renewing subscription. Cerebral offers clients several subscription options depending on the conditions for which treatment is sought. These plans can include medication, therapy, coaching, counseling, or a combination of treatments. According to its website, a subscription includes "regular assessments, video/phone appointments with your prescriber, medication management, and medication delivery" as included in the price of a subscription. Cerebral advertises its plans as "FSA/HSA eligible" and leads consumers to believe that they can "cancel anytime" if they are unsatisfied with their subscription. Cerebral lures customers with these deceptive promises only to trap them into a automatically renewing subscription that fails to provide access to adequate prescribers and counselors, makes scheduling mental health appointments unnecessarily tedious, and is virtually impossible to cancel. Customers are thus stuck paying for a renewing subscription they do not want which does not provide the benefits that Cerebral promises. Cerebral's business model is targeted to appeal to individuals suffering from a wide variety of mental health conditions, who need treatment and medication. Yet Cerebral exploits those vulnerabilities by luring customers in with promises for prescription medication and treatment plans, and then fails to deliver on those promises and intentionally customers' ability to cancel the program. While Cerebral's marketing makes it seem as though consumers can "cancel anytime," Cerebral's cancellation process is unwieldy, requiring consumers to send an email to request cancellation, which then has to be reviewed and approved by a Cerebral representative before the cancellation becomes effective. Unlike other apps, and further upending consumer expectations, Cerebral also does not allow customers to cancel by simply deleting the Cerebral app from their phones. Instead, up until very recently, consumers were only able to cancel by going through the cumbersome process of emailing a designated email address and waiting for Cerebral to "approve" the cancellation request, which for many consumers results in a month (or more) of paying fees for an unwanted subscription. Cerebral's concerted pattern of misrepresentations, smokescreens, and omissions, may benefit Cerebral's bottom line, but they are unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent and have benefited Cerebral at the subscribers' expense, says the complaint. The Plaintiff signed-up for a Cerebral membership on March 17, 2022. Cerebral is a subscription-based telemedicine company that provides its customers with access to therapy, counseling, and medication for ADHD, anxiety, depression, and other mental health conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. ERIKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 44 Tehama St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 635-0631 Fax: (415) 599-8088 Email: elizabeth@eko.law - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Fax: (610) 649-3633 Email: bfj@chimicles.com seh@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Judge Approves $1-Bil. Settlement Over Collapse ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adriana Gomez and Curt Anderson of The Associated Press report that a judge gave final approval June 23, 2022, to a settlement topping $1 billion for victims of the collapse of a Florida beachfront condominium building that killed 98 people, one of the deadliest building failures in U.S. history. The decision by Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Michael Hanzman came a day before the one-year anniversary of the Champlain Towers South disaster in the Miami suburb of Surfside. The judge praised the dozens of lawyers involved for averting what could have been years of litigation with no sure outcome for victims. "It will never be enough to compensate them for the tragic loss they have suffered," the judge said. "This settlement is the best we can do. It's a remarkable result. It is extraordinary." The deal sets up a $1.02 billion fund for people who lost family members in the collapse of the 12-story building, as well as those who suffered physical or mental injuries. Attorneys said another $200 million is available from the Champlain Towers condo association itself, including insurance. About $100 million is earmarked for legal fees - that number will be finalized in September - and $96 million set aside for owners who lost one of the 136 units in the building based on the assessed value of each one. They range from more expensive four-bedroom units with ocean views to those of lesser value with just one bedroom. The process of determining the value of claims for the 98 deaths and any injuries will conclude by Aug. 26, Hanzman said. Each person who filed a claim by a July 18 deadline has a right to a private hearing before a judge, but that is not required. The issue will be figuring out how much a life or injury is worth. Compensation claims for loss of life typically involve several factors and could include, for example, the lifetime earning potential of the deceased. "My goal is really to make it as painless as possible," Hanzman said. No victims filed objections to the settlement or decided to opt out, said court-appointed receiver Michael Goldberg. Several people who lost family members or property said in court Thursday that they are grateful for such a swift conclusion to a horrific experience. Raysa Rodriguez, who survived the collapse in a ninth-floor unit that was initially left intact, had nothing but praise for the outcome. "You have no idea what a relief this is to me personally," Rodriguez said. "I am so exhausted. I just want this to be done. I want these souls to rest." Jonah Handler survived the fall from the 10th floor of the building that collapsed a year ago in Florida. His father is sharing his journey as they start a foundation to help families and first responders dealing with PTSD. The ruling came during what's called a fairness hearing, in which anyone with objections to the deal could raise them as the judge determined whether the settlement is "fair, reasonable and adequate," according to court documents. The money comes from 37 different sources, including insurance companies, engineering firms and a luxury condominium whose recent construction next door is suspected of contributing to structural damage of Champlain Towers South. None of the parties admit any wrongdoing. A billionaire developer from Dubai is set to purchase the 1.8-acre (1-hectare) beachside site for $120 million, contributing to the settlement. That transaction is expected to close by the end of July. People could begin receiving checks for their losses in September, the judge said. Champlain Towers South had a long history of maintenance problems and questions have been raised about the quality of its original construction and inspections in the early 1980s. Other possible factors include sea level rise caused by climate change and damage caused by salt water intrusion. A final conclusion on the cause is likely years away. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is leading the federal probe in to the collapse, recently said invasive testing will begin soon on samples of material from the collapse site. The tests will help investigators find potential flaws in structural elements of the building by looking into things such as density of the materials, how porous they were and if there was corrosion, NIST said. Florida will require statewide recertification of condominiums more than three stories tall under new legislation Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law last month in response to the disaster. The death toll in the Champlain Towers collapse ranks among the highest in U.S. history among similar disasters. The 1981 Hyatt Regency walkway collapse killed 114 people and a Massachusetts mill disaster in 1860 killed between 88 and 145 workers. [GN] CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Does Not Properly Pay Tipped Workers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- COREY FISCHER and JAMAL FORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. CV 22 964585 (Ohio Com. Pl., Cuyahoga Cty., June 10, 2022) arises from the practice of the Defendant of failing to properly pay tipped employees, including Plaintiffs, in violation of the Ohio Constitution's minimum wage provision. According to the complaint, the Defendant pays its tipped employees, including Plaintiffs, at an hourly rate below minimum wage. By paying Plaintiffs and Class Members less than the minimum wage per hour, Defendant is taking advantage of a tip credit which allows Defendant to count a portion of the amounts tipped employees receive as tips towards their obligation to pay tipped employees a minimum wage, says the suit. Plaintiffs Fischer and Ford were employed as servers at The Cheesecake Factory's Legacy Village location within the last three years. The Cheesecake Factory operates a chain of restaurants called The Cheesecake Factory, including several restaurants located in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com CHILEWICH SULTAN: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chilewich Sultan LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chilewich Sultan LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05152 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chilewich Sultan LLC -- https://www.chilewich.com/store/ -- manufactures household durables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL: CA Court OKs Settlement in Likas Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its Form Form 20-F/A Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 13, 2022, that the Central District of California approved the settlement in "William Likas v. ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. et al," Civil Action No. 2:2019-cv-06942 filed in August 9, 2019. The action—purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading activities related to the its American Depository Shares from April 10, 2015 to May 17, 2019, alleges that certain of its public statements and filings contained materially false and misleading statements or omissions in violation of U.S. securities laws. O In October 2, 2019, the Central California District Court appointed a group of two purported shareholders of us as the Lead Plaintiff of the class. On December 15, 2020, the parties reached an agreement to a stipulation and agreement of settlement to settle this purported class action. In April 26, 2021, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a settlement hearing on August 27, 2021 and in March 14, 2022, said court entered an order and final judgment approving the agreement of settlement. CHOBANI INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Yogurt Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Shaak of ClassAction.org reports that Chobani, LLC faces a proposed class action that alleges the yogurt maker has misleadingly advertised certain products as beneficial to farm workers and animals alike. The 30-page lawsuit says that although Chobani touts certain yogurts as Fair Trade USA Certified -- and more specifically that the products adhere to the "highest standards" for workers, promote "sustainable livelihoods" and support "safe . . . animal care" -- these representations are false and misleading. Per the case, Chobani buyers are unaware that the Fair Trade USA standards for farm workers are not the highest available under other programs. The suit also contends that consumers are similarly unaware that these standards fail to improve "key factors" for sustainable livelihoods and include "no standards whatsoever" for animal care. "In stark contrast to its marketing representations, Chobani's products do not represent the highest standards for workers, nor do they promote sustainable livelihoods or safe animal care," the complaint alleges. "Far from it. Instead, its representations are false, without basis, and are meant to deceive consumers." The lawsuit states that some of Chobani's yogurt products -- including its 32-ounce Greek yogurt tubs in the Whole Milk Plain, Low Fat Plain, Non-Fat Plain, Strawberry Blended and Vanilla Blended varieties -- claim on their outside labels and beneath each lid that the items are Fair Trade USA Certified. Per the suit, this statement is accompanied by representations that this certification ensures "sweeping benefits" for dairy workers and animals. The case argues, however, that Fair Trade USA standards do "nothing more than follow basic legal requirements," which, in the dairy industry, are particularly weak, the suit says. The complaint notes that farm workers are exempt from key labor laws that guarantee benefits such as overtime pay and certain health and safety protections. Moreover, the lawsuit claims that Chobani's Fair Trade USA standards fall well short of the protections offered to dairy workers under other programs, such as the Milk with Dignity Campaign, and even the Fair Trade organization's own standards for workers outside the U.S. Thus, it is misleading to suggest that Chobani's products adhere to the "highest standards" for workers or "promote sustainable livelihoods," the case argues. From the complaint: "In fact, Chobani's certification scheme was vehemently opposed by the very workers it claims to benefit. Following calls by dairy workers for better working conditions, Chobani initially met with worker-led campaigns to discuss programs that would guarantee such improvements. However, Chobani ultimately decided to instead approach Fair Trade USA to partner on a new certification with lower standards than those developed by worker-led campaigns. Many of the certification's key standards, including on minimum wage and overtime, do no more than enshrine the weak protections for farm workers already existing under U.S. law, which fall short of protections afforded to non-agricultural workers in the United States, and of Fair Trade USA's own standards for workers abroad." The suit also challenges Chobani's claim that its products support "safe . . . animal care" given Fair Trade USA's Agricultural Production Standard is "entirely silent" regarding animal welfare. The lawsuit alleges Chobani has attempted to take advantage of consumers' increasing interest in purchasing ethically produced food by labeling its yogurts as Fair Trade USA Certified. Per the case, consumers would not have paid as much for the yogurt, or would not have bought it at all, had Chobani not made the "false, misleading, and deceptive representations" regarding the treatment of workers and animals. The lawsuit alleges that Chobani has "profited enormously" from the sale of its falsely labeled products. The case looks to cover anyone who purchased the Chobani products highlighted on this page in the U.S. during the statute of limitations period and until the date of class certification. Chobani Statement Chobani has issued the following statement: "Chobani has always prioritized its commitment to dairy farm families and workers – it is part of our heritage as a company, and why we were proud to pilot the industry's first certification program with Fair Trade USA, a highly-regarded independent certifying organization, to drive positive impact for workers, and reward best practices in the dairy sector. Plaintiff does not--and could not--dispute that Chobani pays a premium to farms who meet Fair Trade's audited standards, and those farms, in turn, invest in programs that benefit farm workers. We are disappointed that these efforts now serve as the basis for a frivolous lawsuit. Not only will we zealously defend against these baseless claims, we will continue working alongside our partners to best serve the dairy industry." [GN] CHURCH & DWIGHT: Hong Files Suit Over Mislabeled Detergent Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- Yuzi Hong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Church & Dwight Co. Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03459-ENV-RML (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the New York General Business Law, State Consumer Fraud Acts, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, markets, labels and sells detergent in containers of 144.5 oz that claims to do "2X More Loads" of laundry compared to its 67.5 oz version under the Arm & Hammer brand. The consumers, including Plaintiff, see the "2X More" claim and may see "107 Loads" in smaller print in the lower corner of the label. However, the product's front label does not disclose that the 67.5 oz version provides enough detergent for 50 loads, says the suit. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $8.89 for 144.5 oz, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, the suit added. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is a major American manufacturer of household products that is headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road Suite 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - James Chung, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES CHUNG 43-22 216th Street Bayside, NY 11361 Telephone: (718) 461-8808 E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com CIGNA CORP: Stewart Files ERISA Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------- JILL STEWART, MARIA C. PLUMACHER and JORGE CARDONA (as Attorney-in-Fact and representative of Lady Montoya Marin), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CIGNA CORPORATION and CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00769 (D. Conn., June 10, 2022) arises from the Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Plaintiffs Stewart and Plumacher, and Ms. Montoya Marin, were each members of the Cigna Plans. Each of them received health care services from providers who had entered into MultiPlan Contracts and who were thereby indirectly contracted with Cigna to provide services to Cigna insureds for discounted rates. Rather than applying the rates provided for under the MultiPlan Contracts, however, Cigna caused Plaintiffs' Plans to pay far less in benefits. As a result, Plaintiffs did not receive the benefits to which they were entitled, and Plaintiffs were exposed to the threat of balance billing, the suit says. By engaging in this misconduct, Cigna underpaid Plaintiffs' claims. It also breached its fiduciary duties, including its duty to honor written plan terms and its duty of loyalty, because its conduct serves its own economic self-interest and elevates its interests above the interests of plan member patients, adds the suit. Cigna is in the business of administering health plans, many of which are governed by ERISA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth K. Acee, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON LLP 545 Long Wharf Drive, Ninth Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 672-2659 Facsimile: (203) 654-3260 E-mail: eacee@barclaydamon.com - and - D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-9660 Facsimile: (212) 704-4256 E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckennan.com - and - Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com - and - Leslie Howard, Esq. COHEN HOWARD, LLP 766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 200 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Telephone: (732) 747-5202 E-mail: lhoward@cohenhoward.com CLARIVATE PLC: CI & LJPSN Sues Over Untrue Statements ----------------------------------------------------- Construction Industry & Laborers Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada Plan A, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons and entities v. CLARIVATE PLC, JERRE STEAD, RICHARD HANKS, KAREN MILLS, CHRISTINE ARCHBOLD, SHERYL VON BLUCHER, VALERIA ALBEROLA, USAMA CORTAS, ADAM LEVYN, ROXANE WHITE, BALAKRISHNAN IYER, ANTHONY MUNK, JANE OKUN BOMBA, CHARLES NERAL, RICHARD ROEDEL, MICHAEL KLEIN, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., BOFA SECURITIES, INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, AND PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, Case No. 220601097 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., June 7, 2022), is brought for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to Clarivate's public offering of 44,230,768 million shares of Company common stock1 at $26.00 per share on June 9, 2021 (which included 5,769,230 shares that the Underwriter Defendants sold pursuant to their over-allotment agreement) (the "June 2021 Offering") and Clarivate's September 2021 public offering of 28,750,000 shares of Company common stock at $25.25 per share on September 9, 2021 (which included 3,750,000 shares that two of the Underwriter Defendants sold pursuant to their over-allotment option) (the "September 2021 Offering" and together with the June 2021 Offering, the "Offerings"). The Defendant provides structured information and analytics to facilitate the discovery, protection and commercialization of scientific research, innovations, and brands. On October 1, 2020, the Company acquired 100% of the assets, liabilities, and equity interests of CPA Global, an intellectual property software and tech-enabled services company. Before and after its acquisition of CPA Global, Clarivate assured investors of the core effectiveness of the Company's financial controls and procedures. For example, even after Clarivate disclosed in April 2021 that it had a material weakness in its financial controls related to accounting for certain warrants issued in connection with a 2019 business combination, the Company specifically cabined the scope of that material weakness to its accounting for the warrants at issue, while assuring investors that the remainder of its controls and procedures were effective. Clarivate has now admitted that the Offering Materials contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation. For example, the Offering Materials contained materially false and misleading statements regarding Clarivate's business, operations, and compliance policies. Defendants made false or misleading statements, or failed to disclose, that at the time of the offering: (i) Clarivate maintained defective disclosure controls and procedures as a result of a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting; (ii) the material weakness the Company previously disclosed was not limited to how the Company accounted for warrants; (iii) as a result, Clarivate failed to properly account for an equity plan included in its acquisition of CPA Global; and (iv) accordingly, the Company was going to have to restate its previously issued financial statements following its acquisition of CPA Global. As a result of these undisclosed facts and the false and misleading statements contained in the Offering Materials, as of the date of the filing of this action, Clarivate's common stock traded at $14.93 per share on June 6, 2022, a significant and material decline from the value of the securities at the time of the Offerings, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Southern Nevada Laborers purchased 3,925 shares of Clarivate common stock in the June 2021 Offering for $26.00 per share from an Underwriter Defendant--Citigroup Global Markets Inc.--pursuant and traceable to the Offering Materials, and was damaged thereby. Clarivate is a global information services and analytics company serving the scientific research, intellectual property, and life sciences end-markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Goldman, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C. Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (484) 342-0700 Email: goldman@lawgsp.com - and – Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: jgardner@labaton.com afatale@labaton.com CLEAN REPUBLIC SODO: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clean Republic Sodo LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clean Republic Sodo LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05093 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Clean Republic -- https://www.cleanrepublic.com/ -- is a technology company in Seattle, Washington with investment in electric bikes, lithium batteries & lithium powder, & solar energy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CLEVELAND KITCHEN: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cleveland Kitchen Co. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cleveland Kitchen Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-05217 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cleveland Kitchen -- https://www.clevelandkitchen.com/ -- are a culinary brand bringing the highest-quality fermented foods from the heart of Cleveland to the rest of the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CLEVELAND RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gobrogge Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER GOBROGGE, Plaintiff v. CLEVELAND RESTAURANT OPERATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant, Case No. CV 22 964612 (Ohio Com. Pl., Cuyahoga Cty., June 10, 2022) arises from the practice of the Defendant of failing to properly pay Plaintiff and all other current and former similarly situated employees, in violation of the Ohio Constitution's minimum wage provision. According to the complaint, the Defendant pays its tipped employees, including Plaintiffs, at an hourly rate below minimum wage. By paying Plaintiffs and Class Members less than the minimum wage per hour, Defendant is taking advantage of a tip credit which allows Defendant to count a portion of the amounts tipped employees receive as tips towards their obligation to pay tipped employees a minimum wage, says the suit. Plaintiff Gobrogge was employed as a server by Defendant within the last three years. Cleveland Restaurant Operation Limited Partnership operates several restaurants located in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com CMHS AND DESIGN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Queen Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES QUEEN, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CMHS AND DESIGN, LLC; CENTRAL MOBILE HOME RENTALS, LLC; JAMES C. GOSS; and WAYNE LUTHER MOORE, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01411 (M.D. Fla., June 22, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Queen was employed by the Defendants as laborer. CMHS AND DESIGN, LLC is engaged in the design services business industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards , Esq. Jake Blumstein, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS- JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10the Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com COFFEE HOLDING: Settles Brodsky Product Liability Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Coffee Holding Co., Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2022, that a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on or about December 21, 2020 was settled during mediation. The plaintiffs, Eileen Brodsky and Rhonda Diamond, purported to represent a class of individuals who purchased coffee products at one of its supermarket customers, generally allege that such client sold private label coffee products manufactured by the company and one of its partners, which falsely described the number of cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of product purchased. These parties were also named as defendants in the action. The complaint asserted a variety of claims under New York and California consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, including disgorgement and restitution, as well as other forms of relief including class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and interest. In September 28, 2021, the court entered an order granting its motion to dismiss with prejudice. In said order, the court stated that no reasonable coffee drinker would be deceived by our packaging. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. After the Appeal was filed, the company settled the matter during mediation in late January 2022 and the appeal was dismissed. Coffee Holding Co., Inc. conducts wholesale coffee operations, including manufacturing, roasting, packaging, marketing and distributing roasted and blended coffees for private labeled accounts and its own brands, and it sells green coffee. It also manufactures and sells coffee roasters. COLUMBIA BOOKS: Moore Files ADA Suit in W.D. Michigan ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Books Inc. The case is styled as Laynester Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Columbia Books Inc. doing business as: Columbia Books & Information Services, Case No. 1:22-cv-00583 (W.D. Mich., June 23, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Columbia Books & Information Services -- https://www.columbiabooks.com/ -- is an American company that serves as a publisher of reference works, online databases, and mailing lists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC 950 W University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: (248) 841-2200 Email: gam@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com epm@millerlawpc.com COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Franchi Securities Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Comtech Telecommunications Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2022, that in October 2021, a putative class action filed by a certain Anthony Franchi in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company's current directors, the company, White Hat Capital Partners LP and Magnetar Capital LLC, was fully resolved by the parties and the case dismissed by court order on May 3, 2022. Comtech Telecommunications Corporation is a provider of next generation 911 emergency systems and secure wireless communications technologies based in New York. COULTER VENTURES: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coulter Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Coulter Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05150 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Coulter Ventures, LLC, doing business as Rogue Fitness -- https://www.roguefitness.com/ -- is an American manufacturer and distributor of gym equipment based in Columbus, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com CREDENCE RESOURCE: Savir FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Eyal Savir, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Credence Resource Management, LLC, Case No. 22-008258-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 3, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-21717-JAL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Credence Resource Management, LLC -- https://credencerm.com/ -- is a collection agency located in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ely Robert Levy, Esq. LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC 3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1 Hollywood, FL 33021 Email: elevy@lawlp.com - and - Omar Mauricio Salazar , II MILITZOK, LEVY, P.A. 3230 Stirling Road Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (954) 727-8570 Fax: (954) 241-6857 Email: omar@lawlp.com The Defendant is represented by: Dayle Marie Van Hoose, Esq. Michael Paul Schuette, Jr., Esq. SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC 3350 Buschwood Park Drive, Suite 195 Tampa, FL 33618 Phone: (813) 890-2463 Fax: (866) 466-3140 Email: dvanhoose@sessions.legal mschuette@sessions.legal CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Settlement Reached in Palm Tran Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Credit Acceptance Corporation disclosed in its Form 8-K Report dated June 14, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2022, that the company reached an agreement in principle to settle the putative class action captioned "Palm Tran, Inc. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan v. Credit Acceptance Corporation," Case No. 2:20-cv-12698-LVP-EAS, pending against the company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Executive Officer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on July 22, 2021, as described in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022. Credit Acceptance Corporation is a personal credit institution based in Michigan. DANONE NORTH AMERICA: English Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Danone North America Public Benefit Corporation. The case is styled as Rosita English, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Danone North America Public Benefit Corporation, Case No. 7:22-cv-05105-VB (S.D.N.Y.., June 17, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Danone North America -- https://www.danonenorthamerica.com/ -- is a consumer packaged food and beverage company based in Broomfield, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 268-7080 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com DEERE & COMPANY: Forest River Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deere & Company Repair Services Antitrust Litigation. The case is styled as Forest River Farms, Plum Ridge Farms, Ltd., Daniel Brown doing business as: Ostego Forestry Services, Monty Ferrell, David Underwood, Hapka Farms, Inc., Blake Johnson, Samantha Casselbury, Trinity Dale Wells, Dexter Cronquist, Gary DeLoach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Deere & Company Repair Services Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-50188 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for the Antitrust Litigation. John Deere -- https://www.deere.com/en/index.html -- is the brand name of Deere & Company, an American corporation that manufactures agricultural machinery, heavy equipment, forestry machinery, diesel engines, drivetrains used in heavy equipment, and lawn care equipment.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Justin Nicholas Boley, Esq. Tyler J. Story, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 55 West Monroe, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 346-2222 Email: kaw@wbe-llp.com jnb@wbe-llp.com tjs@wbe-llp.com - and - Adam John Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. James Gerard Beebe Dallal, Esq. Reid Wilson Wayman Gaa, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com jdallal@cpmlegal.com rgaa@cpmlegal.com - and - Daniel E Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C Hedlund, Esq. Kaitlyn Leeann Dennis, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com kdennis@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com - and - Bret Koch Pufahl, Esq. Elizabeth Christine Chavez, Esq. Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq. Matthew J. Herman, Esq. Robert M. Foote, Esq. FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC 10 West State Street, Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 Phone: (630) 232-7450 Email: bkp@fmcolaw.com ecc@fmcolaw.com kcc@fmcolaw.com mjh@fmcolaw.com rmf@fmcolaw.com - and - John James Holevas, Esq. Marc Charles Gravino, Esq. WILLIAMSMCCARTHY 120 West State Street PO Box 219 Rockford, IL 61105-0219 Phone: (815) 987-8900 Email: jholevas@wilmac.com mgravino@wilmac.com - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 150 N Wacker, Ste 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 261-6193 Fax: (312) 275-8174 Email: eaw@wallacemiller.com - and - Timothy Jackson, Esq. WALLACE MILLER 111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 589-6278 Email: tej@wallacemiller.com - and - Hammons P Hepner, Esq. Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Ruth A French-Hodson, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Phone: (913) 901-0505 Email: hhepner@midwest-law.com rsharp@midwest-law.com rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com - and - Kyle B Hadwiger, Esq. HADWIGER & HADWIGER P O Box 306 120 S Grand Ave Cherokee, OK 73728 Phone: (580) 596-3591 - and - Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. Peggy J Wedgworth, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 100 Garden City Plaza Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Email: BYagman@milberg.com pwedgworth@milberg.com - and - Elizabeth McKenna, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E. 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Email: emckenna@milberg.com - and - John D Hughes, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 101 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 951-6600 - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 19 N. Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 821-0656 Email: john@wbmllp.com - and - Michael Acciavatti, Esq. POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD LLC 161 Washington Street, Suite 940 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 941-4204 Email: macciavatti@pbmattorneys.com - and - Greg Frederic Coleman, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Email: gcoleman@milberg.com - and - Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W. 1050 St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (651) 287-2100 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com - and - Walter Alan Davis, Esq. DUNBAR DAVIS, PLLC 324 Jackson Avenue East, Suite A Oxford, MS 38655 Phone: (662) 281-0001 Email: waltdavis@dunbardavis.com - and - Mindee Reuben, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 2626 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 314-7980 Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com - and - Dennis A. Mastando, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC 301 Washington Street, Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Phone: (256) 532-2222 Email: tony@mastandoartrip.com - and - Eric J. Artrip, Esq. WATSON, MCKINNEY & ARTRIP, LLP 203 Greene Street Huntsville, AL 35603 Phone: (256) 536-7423 Email: artrip@watsonmckinney.com - and - Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 152 West 57th Street, 41st Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 447-7060 Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com - and - Richard P. Rouco, Esq. QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP Two North Twentieth Street 2 - 20th Street North, Suite 930 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 870-9989 Email: rrouco@qcwdr.com - and - W. Tucker Brown, Esq. WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLP 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 10647 Birmingham, AL 35202-0647 Phone: (205) 488-1273 - and - David M Cialkowski, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com - and - Bryan John O'Connor, Jr., Esq. WHITESIDE & GOLDBERG, LTD. 155 N. Michigan, Suite 540 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 854-7825 Email: boconnor@wglawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexandra M. Ortiz Hadley, Esq. BUTLER SNOW, LLP (NASH) 150 Third Avenue South, Suite 1600 Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: (615) 651-6728 Email: alexa.ortiz@butlersnow.com - and - Amanda Balos Maslar, Esq. JONES DAY 77 West Wacker Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 269-4151 Email: amaslar@jonesday.com - and - Benjamin L. Ellison, Esq. JONES DAY 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 4950 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 217-8800 Email: bellison@jonesday.com - and - Corey A. Lee, Esq. JONES DAY - CLEVELAND 901 Lakeside Ave. E. Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 586-7171 Email: calee@jonesday.com - and - Harlan Irby Prater, IV, Esq. Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq. LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC 400 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: hprater@lightfootlaw.com wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com - and - Odeshoo S Hasdoo, Esq. JONES DAY 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4800 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 269-4214 Email: ehasdoo@jonesday.com - and - Jeffrey A. Curran, Esq. Motahareh Hajimirzaei Nickel, Esq. GABLE & GOTWALS-OKC 499 W Sheridan Ave BOK Park Plaza, Suite 2200 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 235-5537 Email: jcurran@gablelaw.com mnickel@gablelaw.com DEL TACO LLC: Settlement Reached in Torrez Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Jack In The Box Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for the current report dated June 4, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2022, that Del Taco, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Jack in the Box Inc., entered into a Settlement Memorandum of Understanding providing for the settlement of a certified class action lawsuit entitled "Karolina Torrez v. Del Taco, LLC," Case No. JCCP004904 pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. This litigation challenged Del Taco's compliance with certain California wage and labor laws and alleged certain unfair and unlawful business practices. Jack In The Box Inc. is a fast food restaurant based in California. DENTSPLY SIRONA: Levi & Korsinsky Notifies of Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Dentsply Sirona Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Dentsply investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud. This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Dentsply's common stock between June 9, 2021, and May 9, 2022. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/dentsply-sirona-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28966&wire=4 XRAY investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint, defendants orchestrated a scheme to inflate Dentsply's revenue and earnings by manipulating the Company's accounting for a distributor rebate program so that senior executives would be eligible for significant cash and stock-based incentive compensation. In order to facilitate this scheme, Dentsply and its executives made numerous false and misleading statements to investors during the class period. As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, Dentsply's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Dentsply during the relevant time frame, you have until August 1, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Contact: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] DIGITAL DIRECT: Fails to Pay Overtime for Packers, Tol Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ SELINA XINICO TOL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIGITAL DIRECT AND MORE INC. d/b/a FULLFILLMENT CENTER and DAVID CAMEO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03474 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. Ms. Xinico worked for Digital as a packer from approximately March 2021 through April 15, 2022. Based in Brooklyn, New York, Digital Direct and More Inc., d/b/a Fullfillment Center, offers its clients packaging services for shipping electronic and other items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com cuadra@pechmanlaw.com DOCUSIGN INC: Faces Weston Securities Suit in California Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Docusign, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2022, that a class action complaint was filed against the company alleging claims under the Securities Exchange Act. On February 8, 2022, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Weston v. DocuSign, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:22-cv-00824, naming DocuSign and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The complaint purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements about its business and prospects during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities between June 4, 2020 and December 2, 2021. DocuSign offers electronic signature products based in California. DOLLAR TREE: E.D. California Dismisses Snipes Suit With Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California dismisses with prejudice the case, TERRY T. SNIPES, SR., an individual, residing in San Joaquin County, California; Plaintiff v. DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Virginia Corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00878-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.). The Parties have complied in all respects with the Judgment and Final Approval Order entered in the case on Nov. 6, 2020, and all sums encompassed by the Class Action Settlement have been disbursed in accordance with the parties' Report Re: Distribution And Joint Proposal For Approval Of Cy Près Distribution, approved on July 29, 2021. Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2), and based on the foregoing Order, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the case with prejudice. Insofar as the Parties have complied with their respective obligations under the Nov. 6, 2020 Judgment and Final Approval Order, and based on the Plaintiff's request that the case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(2), Judge England dismisses the case with prejudice. The matter having been concluded in its entirety, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2aaw87j6 from Leagle.com. S. BRETT SUTTON -- brett@suttonhague.com -- JARED HAGUE -- jared@suttonhague.com -- BRADY BRIGGS -- brady@suttonhague.com -- SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C., in Fresno, California, Attorneys for the Plaintiff, the Class Members and all Aggrieved Employees. EARLY WARNING SERVICES: Fralish Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Early Warning Services LLC. The case is styled as John Fralish, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Early Warning Services LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01039-CDB (D. Ariz., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Early Warning Services, LLC -- https://www.earlywarning.com/ -- is a fintech company owned by seven of the country's largest banks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. PRICE LAW GROUP APC - TUCSON, AZ 2290 E Speedway Blvd. Tucson, AZ 85719 Phone: (520) 622-2481 Fax: (818) 600-5433 Email: susan@pricelawgroup.com ELITE INSURANCE: Does not Properly Pay Sales Agents, Luman Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CARTER LUMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE INSURANCE PARTNERS LLC and JAGGER ESCH, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01384 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff, and all similarly situated employees, in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, proper overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Mr. Luman was employed by Defendant EIP as a salaried, exempt employee under the title of sales agent from May 2019 until April 25, 2022, working in the corporate, Palm Harbor, Florida office. Elite Insurance Partners LLC is a licensed insurance agency based in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 6916 W. Linebaugh Ave #101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com EMPYREAN SERVICES: Underpays Electrical Planners, Zimbrich Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ZIMBRICH, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPYREAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00894-LPL (W.D. Pa., June 16, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Defendant Empyrean Services, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Zimbrich worked for Empyrean at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, Georgia from approximately January 2020 until December 2020 as an electrical planner. He alleges that the Defendant never paid him overtime but, rather, paid him straight-time-for-overtime. Empyrean Services, LLC provides technical consulting services to the energy sector, including to fossil fuel power plants and nuclear power plants. Empyrean's services include construction, engineering, and technical consulting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Taylor Montgomery, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com tmontgomery@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com ESCADA (USA) INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Escada (USA), Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Escada (USA), Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03620 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Escada (USA) Inc. -- https://www.escada-fragrances.com/en-gb/ -- was founded in 1981. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of women's, children's, and infants' clothing and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ESSENDANT CO: Underpays Customer Service Advocates, Zidek Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- HOPE ZIDEK, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ESSENDANT CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03087 (N.D. Ill., June 13, 2022) is a class and collective action brought by Plaintiff to recover for Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and alleged contractual obligations (or unjust enrichment if no contract is found), and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes, and ordinances. According to the complaint, the Defendant subjected Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to Defendant's policy and practice of failing to compensate its call center employees for their necessary boot-up time, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate them as required under applicable federal and state laws. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights, the rights of the FLSA Collective Class, and the rights of the Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Classes were violated and seek to recover an award of unpaid wages and overtime premiums, liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to which they may be entitled. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a customer service advocate from June 2018 to August 2021. Based in Deerfield, Illinois, Essendant Co. distributes janitorial, sanitation, office, print, imaging, and food service supplies to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank V. Cesarone, Esq. Peter J. Flowers, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 N. Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 232-6333 Facsimile: (630) 845-8982 E-mail: fvc@meyers-flowers.com pjf@meyers-flowers.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com ETHOS VETERINARY: Removes Sambolin Class Suit to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of SIERRA SAMBOLIN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ETHOS VETERINARY HEALTH, LLC dba PREMIER VETERINARY GROUP; CUBEX, LLC, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case No. 2022CH04832) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 22, 2022. The clerk of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-03276. The case is assigned to Judge Mary M. Rowland. ETHOS VETERINARY HEALTH LLC provides veterinary services. The Company offers emergency veterinary care for dogs and cats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie L. Filipovic, Esq. Matthew E. Szwajkowski, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER One East Wacker Drive Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 422-6134 Facsimile: (312) 422-6110 Email: JFilipovic@ohaganmeyer.com mszwajkowski@ohaganmeyer.com EYE CARE LEADERS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Sandvig Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY SANDVIG, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EYE CARE LEADERS HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00234-M (E.D.N.C., June 10, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment by failing to diligently discover, investigate, and give notice of the occurrence of a data breach in a reasonable and practicable period of time. The class action arises out of the recent targeted data breach of the computer network for Eye Care Leaders whereby an unauthorized third-party accessed Defendant's insufficiently secured computer network and exfiltrated a wealth of unencrypted data, including the removal of the highly sensitive personal information and medical records of approximately 342,000 individuals, including approximately 54,000 current and former patients and employees of Summit Eye Associates, P.C., the eye care clinic used by Plaintiff, says the suit. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of loss of the value of their private and confidential information, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, the suit asserts. Plaintiff Kimberly Sandvig was a patient at Summit Eye. Eye Care Leaders is a healthcare software service provider based in North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel R. Rhine, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Road Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 E-mail: JRR@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW Ste. 305 Washington DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 640-1160 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. Riley W. Prince, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312)641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com rprince@barnowlaw.com F & R PRODUCE: Fails to Provider Proper Wages, Pena Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public of California, Plaintiff v. F & R PRODUCE, LLC; GREG FAIMAN; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22NWCV00476 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against all Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code by failing to provide required meal and rest periods, failing to pay overtime and all earned wages after separation from employment, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and engaging in unfair business practices. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a general helper. His employment with the Defendants was governed and regulated by the Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission. F & R Produce, LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. TELLERIA, TELLERIA & LEVY, LLP 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 387-3400 Facsimile: (213) 387-7872 E-mail: ajenkinssg@gmail.com FCA US LLC: Faces Norman Suit Over Defective Motor Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------- EFFIE JOHNSON NORMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US, LLC, Defendant, Case 2:22-cv-11393-TGB-CI (E.D. Mich., June 22, 2022) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated who purchased or leased a Ram 1500 vehicle (the "Class Vehicles") sold with a defect that allows water to enter the cabin, causing foul odors, mold, mildew, electrical system disruption, and rear cabin airbag contamination (the "Water Intrusion Defect"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite the Defendant's longstanding knowledge of a material design and manufacturing defect, it failed to disclose the Water Intrusion Defect to the Plaintiff and other consumers. The Water Intrusion Defect in the Class Vehicles results in water intrusion in the rear cabin, which destroys the interior of the vehicles, leaving permanent stain marks; leaves foul odors, mold, and mildew; causes electrical connections to short-circuit, resulting in electrical issues with the vehicle's Body Control Module ("BCM") or other electrical systems; and contaminates and fouls the rear-cabin airbag and propellant, says the suit. Not only does the Water Intrusion Defect destroy the interior cosmetics of the Class Vehicles, but the Water Intrusion Defect presents a serious risk to occupants' safety and health. First, the Water Intrusion Defect causes a foul odor, mold, and mildew, which can cause health issues for the vehicles' occupants. The Water Intrusion Defect can short the vehicles' BCM or other electronic systems connections, such as the push-to-start ignition system, locks, windows, headlights, taillights, interior lights, windshield wipers, climate control, infotainment system and navigation, and back up camera. Failure of one or all these systems not only distracts the driver, but could also cause, among other things, vehicle start-up failure, headlight and taillight failure, inoperable turn signals or brake lights, inoperable backup camera or infotainment system, inoperable windshield wipers, and the inability to lock, or unlock the vehicle, the suit added. Had the Plaintiff and other Class members known about the Water Intrusion Defect at the time of purchase or lease, they would not have purchased or leased the Class Vehicles or would have paid substantially less for them. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive service parts and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com -and- W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Email: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@beasleyallen.com Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com Dylan.Martin@BeasleyAllen.com -and- Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com FIVE STAR PIZZA: Pierce Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Pierce, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Five Star Pizza Co., Inc.; Deft Brothers, LLC; Gen2 Pizza, LLC; Eric Arntson; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00535 (W.D. Mich., June 13, 2022) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated Section 408.414 by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. The Plaintiff worked as delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, from approximately July 2019 to January 2021. Five Star Pizza Co., Inc. is an entity that operates Domino's pizza stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley K. Glazier, Esq. Robert M. Howard, Esq. BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C. 990 Monroe Avenue, N.W. Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 458-6814 E-mail: bglazier@bosglazier.com - and - Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com FORD MOTOR COMPANY: Barnes Files Suit in D. Delaware ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company. The case is styled as Margaret Barnes, Eric Senkyrik, Sharon Jackon, Michael Hogan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00823 (D. Del., June 17, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-4601 Email: rpaul@bm.net FORD MOTOR: Franco Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company. The case is styled as Ricardo Franco, William Kiefer, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 5:22-cv-00907-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gil Melili, Esq. Jason A Ibey, Esq. Pamela Erin Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com gil@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com - and - Courtney L. Davenport, Esq. THE DAVENPORT LAW FIRM, LLC 18805 Porterfield Way Germantown, MD 20874 Phone: (703) 901-1660 Email: courtney@thedavenportlawfirm.com - and - K. Scott Warrick, Esq. William F. Cash, III, Esq. LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY PROCTOR BUCHANAN OBRIEN BARR MOUGE 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502-5996 Phone: (850) 435-7000 Email: swarrick@levinlaw.com bcash@levinlaw.com - and - Robert Frank Melton, II, Esq. William C. Ourand, Jr., Esq. NEWSOME MELTON PA 201 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1500 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 648-5977 Fax: (407) 648-5282 Email: melton@newsomelaw.com ourand@newsomelaw.com FRASIER STERLING: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frasier Sterling, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Frasier Sterling, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05047 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frasier Sterling -- https://frasiersterling.com/ -- is a celeb-loved jewelry, accessories, and fashion brand that offers affordable accessories and jewelry for women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com FRONTWAVE CREDIT: Ward-Howie Suit Transferred to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Elaine Ward-Howie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Frontwave Credit Union, Case No. 37- 22-00016328-CU-BC-CTL, was transferred from the Superior Court of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 17, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00890-BTM-JLB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Class Action Fairness Act. Frontwave Credit Union -- https://www.frontwavecu.com/ -- is a not-for-profit credit union that is chartered and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration of the U.S. federal government.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 615-3948 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com The Defendant is represented by: Camille A. Brooks, Esq. Stuart M. Richter, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012 Phone: (310) 788-4400 Fax: (310) 788-4471 Email: camille.brooks@katten.com stuart.richter@katten.com GARDNER RESOURCES: Sogbuyi-Whitney Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- CECILIA SOGBUYI-WHITNEY, and ANNETTE GABAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GARDNER RESOURCES CONSULTING, INC., CAREMARK PHC LLC, CVS HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC, and CORAM ALTERNATE SITE SERVICES INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10935 (D. Mass., June 15, 2022) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking payment of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Gardner Resources Consulting, Inc. provides IT consulting and staffing services. Plaintiffs Sogbuyi-Whitney and Gabay worked for the Defendants as Epic Quality Assurance consultants between November 2021 and May 2022 and between October 2021 and May 2022, respectively.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harold Lichten, Esq. Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: apagano@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com GLACIER BAY: Ibarra Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Mercedes Ibarra, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GLACIER BAY HOLDINGS, LLC, a limited liability company; WESTGATE PREMIER HEAL TH CARE SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES I through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV398855 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 2, 2022), is brought against Defendants for California Labor Code violations, unfair business practices, and civil penalties stemming from Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to maintain accurate time and payroll records, and failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses. The Plaintiff, and the Class, worked more than 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week. The Defendants regularly failed to pay all overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff, and the Class, when they worked in excess of 8 hours in a single work day and/or 40 hours in a single work week, or in excess of 12 hours in a single work day and/or 80 hours in a single work week. The Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff, and the Class, were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving wages for overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a Certified Nursing Assistant since 2007. The Defendants are a skilled nursing facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Davis, Esq. Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. Carlos Jimenez, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 237 California Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 Email: heather@protectionlawgroup.com amir@protectionlawgroup.com carlos@protectionlawgroup.com HALLMARK CARDS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hallmark Cards, Incorporated. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hallmark Cards, Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-05249-KPF (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hallmark -- https://www.hallmark.com/ -- is the oldest and largest manufacturer of greeting cards in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE: Court Grants Garcia's Bid for Writ of Mandate ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PAUL GARCIA, et al., Petitioners v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent, HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE CO., Real Party in Interest, Case No. B315701 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Five, grants the petition for writ of mandate. I. Introduction In a Dec. 28, 2018, order, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) concluded that California's meal and rest break rules were preempted under the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. Section 31101 et seq.). The Petitioners contend that this decision does not apply to bar meal and rest break claims arising from conduct that predated the order. The Court of Appeals agrees. II. Background The Petitioners are truck drivers previously employed by real party in interest Haralambos Beverage Co. On Jan. 31, 2017, they filed a putative wage and hour class action alleging, among other things, that Haralambos failed to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512 and the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Order No. 9-2001. Nearly two years later, on Dec. 28, 2018, the FMCSA issued an order concluding that California's meal and rest break rules are laws "on commercial motor vehicle safety," are preempted pursuant to title 49 United States Code section 31141 (section 31141), which is the preemption provision of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, and "California may no longer enforce its meal and rest break rules]" with respect to drivers who are subject to the FMCSA rules. Thereafter, Haralambos filed a motion to strike the class allegations on federal preemption grounds, which the parties agreed was a request to strike petitioners' third and fourth causes of action for failure to provide meal and rest breaks. On Aug. 18, 2021, the superior court granted the motion and struck the two causes of action. In the court's view, "the question was not whether the Preemption Decision had retroactive effect but whether the court may enforce preempted California meal and rest break rules and statutes as respecting affected truckers, whenever they arose." It reasoned that the Preemption Decision's statement that "California may no longer enforce" its meal and rest break rules "'voided'" and "'invalidated'" the state meal and rest break rules upon which petitioners' claims were based. In response to the Petitioners' petition for writ of mandate, the Court of Appeals filed an order to show cause why relief should not be granted and set the matter for hearing. The California Employment Lawyers Association and Consumer Attorneys of California each filed an amicus curiae brief in support of petitioners. The American Trucking Associations, Inc. and California Trucking Association filed a joint amicus curiae brief on behalf of Haralambos. III. Discussion The superior court, in issuing its ruling, found persuasive the Legal Opinion issued by the FMCSA's Deputy Chief Counsel. That Legal Opinion, issued on March 22, 2019, took the position that "once FMCSA issues a preemption decision under section 31141, the State law or regulation, to the extent preempted, is invalidated and 'without effect,'" and courts may no longer enforce the preempted rules, regardless of when the underlying conduct occurred or when the lawsuit was filed. Under this interpretation, the Preemption Decision eliminates the court's power to grant relief now, regardless of when the conduct occurred. A majority of federal district courts to consider the question have found this interpretation persuasive. The Court of Appeals agrees that when a state law is preempted, it is "invalidated," and, in the words of section 31141, "may not be enforced." The FMCSA opines that "enforcement" includes a court's granting of relief based on the state law, and thus, when a state law is invalidated by a preemption ruling, a court may no longer grant relief based on the law, regardless of when the underlying conduct occurred. In the context of the Preemption Decision, the Court of Appeals disagrees. Unlike a preemption statute that sets forth what, precisely, is preempted and then delegates to an agency or leaves to the courts the authority to determine whether particular state laws fall within the statute's scope of preemption, section 31141 confers upon the Secretary the authority to preempt laws, including the authority to determine and communicate what is preempted. Specifically, section 31141(a) provides that: "A State may not enforce a State law or regulation on commercial motor vehicle safety that the Secretary of Transportation decides under this section may not be enforced." The FMCSA, acting as the Secretary's designee, could have elected to preclude the enforcement of state laws in claims that were pending in reliance upon the agency's prior interpretation. But the FMCSA chose not to do so. Moreover, although the FMCSA had the authority to provide that "a State may not enforce" its own laws (Section 31141(a)), the Preemption Decision elected to use more limited language, by providing that "California may no longer enforce the meal and rest break rules with respect to drivers of property-carrying commercial motor vehicles subject to FMCSA's hours of service rules." The Court of Apepals presumes the FMCSA was aware of the statute's language and intentionally chose different language. That language -- "may no longer enforce" -- "strongly suggests prospective, not retroactive, application." In light of the FMCSA's authority to determine and communicate what it is preempting, its use of language suggesting prospective application only, and its failure to expressly extend its decision to pending claims, the Court of Appeals concludes that the Preemption Decision does not apply to bar claims arising from conduct that occurred prior to the decision, i.e., before Dec. 28, 2018. IV. Disposition The petition for writ of mandate is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwscus2k from Leagle.com. Mara Law Firm, David Mara, Matthew Crawford; Cohelan Khoury & Singer and Jeff Geraci, for the Petitioners. No appearance for the Respondent. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, James Robinson -- jrobinson@grsm.com -- Jeffrey A. Swedo -- jswedo@grsm.com -- Travis K. Jang-Busby, R. Scott Sokol, Matthew G. Kleiner, and Andrea K. Williams, for the Real Party in Interest. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Robert R. Roginson -- robert.roginson@ogletree.com -- and Alexander M. Chemers -- alexander.chemers@ogletree.com -- for Amicus Curiae American Trucking Associations, Inc. and California Trucking Association. Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho and Raymond Wendell -- RWENDELL@GBDHLEGAL.COM -- for Amicus Curiae California Employment Lawyers Association. Workman Law Firm and Robin G. Workman for Amicus Curiae Consumer Attorneys of California. HARLEM CHICKEN: Faces Leon Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- EUGENIO JUAREZ LEON and JUVENAL JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARLEM CHICKEN LLC (D/B/A CHIRPING CHICKEN), THEOS CHICKEN CORP. (D/B/A CHIRPING CHICKEN), and MICHALIS KOKKINOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05008 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants failed to pay proper minimum and overtime wages; pay spread of hours exceeded 10 hours; provide a written notice and accurate wage statement; reimburse the costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment; and engaged in unlawful deductions. Plaintiffs Leon and Juarez were employed by Defendants as delivery workers from approximately May 21, 2019 until October 27, 2021 and from approximately September 2020 until September 2021, respectively. The Defendants operate two fried chicken restaurants located in in Manhattan, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HAWKEYE ACQUISITION: Chalas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawkeye Acquisition, Inc. The case is styled as Ana Chalas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hawkeye Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05095 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hawkeye acquisitions -- http://www.hawkeye-aircraft.com/-- provides private aircraft solution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Jarvis Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terra Jarvis, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, a foreign corporation; HCL AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; SAMSON SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., a New Jersey corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22CV398821 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 1, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation California Labor Code. Due to the demands and directives of the Defendants, the Plaintiff and Class members regularly worked over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff worked, on average, 70 to 80 hours per week and in February 2020, due to the demands and directives of the Defendants, the Plaintiff worked up to around 100 hours per week. On multiple occasions, the Plaintiff complained to the Defendants about not getting paid overtime compensation. The Defendants stated that they do not pay overtime compensation. In response to the Plaintiff's complaints about not being paid for overtime work, on multiple occasions, the Defendants told Plaintiff that any work performed in excess of 40 hours per week was considered "volunteer time." Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class members were not properly compensated for all hours worked and were not properly compensated for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Documentation Writer from October 8, 2018 to March 19, 2021. HCL Technologies Limited was an employer with employees engaged in business throughout this county and the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dean S. Ho, Esq. OPTIMUM EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 7545 Irvine Center Dr., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 954-8181 Facsimile: (949) 335-6106 Email: dean@employees-lawyer.com HEALTH SCIENCES: Class Action Lawsuit Over Breast Imaging Dropped ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News (Canada) reports that a class-action lawsuit involving Health Sciences North in Sudbury, Ont., has been discontinued. In February 2021, the Toronto law firm Gluckstein Lawyers launched the suit connected to breast imaging conducted at the hospital in Sudbury, Ont., between January 2008 and December 2020. Shannon Hayes, a former HSN patient, alleged her breast cancer was missed. The lawsuit alleged negligence by HSN, certain hospital administrators, and certain doctors in the provision, review and reporting of results of breast imaging. "The lawsuit was discontinued on the consent of all parties and with court approval," said lawyer Jordan Assaraf in an email to CBC News. He had been working on the class action on behalf of Gluckstein Lawyers. "Further details regarding Ms. Hayes are privileged," he added. When the suit was originally filed, the law firm said the plaintiff had her original scan in July 2018. A year passed before her breast cancer was diagnosed following imaging performed at a hospital in London, England. By then, the cancer had spread. Assaraf said anyone wanting to advance an individual claim should seek legal advice. The deadline to do that is Aug. 31. That's when the limitation period to sue will expire. "Our office will be issuing claims on behalf of those who have retained us," Assaraf said. When the class action was originally filed, HSN denied the allegations. A spokesperson said given the issue could still end up in the courts on an individual basis, they are unable to offer any comment at this time. [GN] HEIRLUME USA: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heirlume USA Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Heirlume USA Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05118-PGG-KHP (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Heirlume -- http://www.heirlume.co/-- is a branded fine jewelry e-commerce site with a focus on helping gift buyers find the perfect gift for their significant other.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HERBS ETC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Herbs Etc., Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Herbs Etc., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05314-LJL (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Herbs, Etc. -- https://www.herbsetc.com/ -- guarantees effective herbal medicine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HOME RESERVE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Reserve, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Reserve, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05315 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Home Reserve -- https://www.homereserve.com/ -- sells sofas, sectionals, loveseats, chairs, and ottomans with built in storage space and replacement fabrics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HORIZON REALTY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Rosenberg Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT ROSENBERG, Plaintiff v. HORIZON REALTY ADVISORS LLC and HRA STADIUM PARK, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-00278-MC (D. Or.), Judge Michael J. McShane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division, grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. I. Background Plaintiff Rosenberg brings the putative class action against Defendants Horizon Realty Advisors and HRA Stadium Park, alleging that the Defendants repeatedly violated Oregon housing laws. The Defendants move to dismiss, arguing that the Plaintiff's claim related to utility charges exceeds the statutory limit for damages. II. Discussion Oregon law allows landlords to charge tenants a "utility or service charge" for utilities and services that are paid for or provided by the landlord. Landlords who choose to charge tenants in this manner must comply with certain notice and accounting requirement. If a landlord charges a utility charge but fails to comply with those requirements, tenants may recover "an amount equal to one month's periodic rent or twice the amount wrongfully charged to the tenant, whichever is greater." The Plaintiff alleges multiple violations of ORS 90.315(4)(b), over the course of many months. His complaint asks for "one month's periodic rent for each and every month that the Defendants charged a utility service charge, but violated ORS 90.315(4)(b)." The Defendant argues that the statutory scheme caps damages to one month's rent or twice actual damages, whichever is greater. Judge McShane agrees. He says, neither the Oregon Supreme Court nor the Oregon Court of Appeals have addressed this issue. In the absence of binding authority, he interprets the statute according to state law, looking first at the text and the context of the statutory scheme. He must not "insert what has been omitted, or omit what has been inserted." Further, the interpretation should "give effect to all provisions." The ORS 90.315(4)(f) reads: " If a landlord fails to comply with paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this subsection, the tenant may recover from the landlord an amount equal to one month's periodic rent or twice the amount wrongfully charged to the tenant, whichever is greater." Judge McShane does not find this language to be ambiguous, especially in the context of the entire statutory scheme. The statute creates a cause of action for violations of ORS 90.315(4). An aggrieved tenant is entitled to damages in the amount of one month's rent or twice the actual damages, regardless of the number of violations. The Plaintiff asks the Court to insert "for each and every month" into the damages provision. This goes against the maxims of statutory interpretation, Judge McShane holds. Additionally, he says, if the statute were construed as the Plaintiff suggests, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which the double damages provision would be applicable -- a tenant would need to be overcharged for utilities by more than half their rent in a single month. Judge McShane's interpretation also aligns with the legislative intent. The one month's rent provision is sufficient to ensure that landlords comply with the law and provides a remedy to tenants whose rights have been violated but who suffered no actual damages. For violations with actual damages, the double damages provision ensures that tenants are adequately compensated while still providing a deterrent to landlords who violate the statute. Because the statute does not allow for the damages the Plaintiff alleges, the Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with leave to amend. III. Conclusion Because ORS 90.314(4)(f) caps damages, Judge McShane grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff has 28 days to amend his complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2huthzyd from Leagle.com. HUBBARD PEANUT: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hubbard Peanut Co., Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hubbard Peanut Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05316 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hubs Peanuts -- https://www.hubspeanuts.com/ -- is Virginia's oldest continuously family owned and operated peanut processor and has delivered unmatched quality, service & flavor since 1954.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com HUGE LEGAL TECHNOLOGY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Huge Legal Technology Company, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Huge Legal Technology Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05126 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Huge Legal Technology Co Inc. doing business as Trust & Will -- https://trustandwill.com/ -- is modernizing the trust and estate planning industry with an easy, fast, and secure way to set up your estate plan online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com I SEE ME: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against I See Me! LLC. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I See Me! LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05318 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I See Me! -- https://www.iseeme.com/ -- is the leader in the personalized book market, with millions of copies sold through its website and high-end retailers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com IDT CORPORATION: Court Approves Settlement in Rosales Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- IDT Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2022, that the settlement for the class action lawsuit filed by Jose Rosales was approved by the court in February 2022. On January 22, 2019, Rosales filed a putative class action against IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International in California state court alleging certain violations of employment law. Plaintiff alleges that these companies failed to compensate members of the putative class in accordance with California law. In August 2019, the Company filed a cross complaint against Rosales alleging trade secrets and other violations. On February 2, 2022, the court approved a settlement agreement between the parties. The settlement did not have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. IDT Corporation is into telephone communications based in New Jersey. IDT CORPORATION: Faces JDS1 Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court -------------------------------------------------------------- IDT Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2022, that a company's former subsidiary, Straight Path Communications Inc., and derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, is facing a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. In July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of the company's former subsidiary, Straight Path Communications Inc., and derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company, The Patrick Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors. The complaint alleges that the company aided and abetted Straight Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims between Straight Path and the company related to potential indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as well as the sale of Straight Path's subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the company in connection with that settlement. That action was consolidated with a similar action that was initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, a declaration that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused, that the term sheet is invalid, awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and the company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class Plaintiffs. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 24, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was ultimately denied, and which denial was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. On February 17, 2022, the court denied the company's motion for summary judgment. On March 10, 2022, JDS1, LLC withdrew its application to serve as class representative and lead plaintiff. On May 16, 2022, the court denied The Arbitrage Fund's motion to serve as class representative and lead plaintiff, and approved intervenor Ardell Howard's motion to serve as class representative. The trial is currently scheduled to begin on August 29, 2022. IDT Corporation is into telephone communications based in New Jersey. ILLINOIS DOR: Illinois Fuel Suit removed to C.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Illinois Fuel & Retail Association, Saunders Oil Co., Inc., Freedom Oil Company, on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR); David Harris, Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue; Daniel Wright, Sangamon County State's Attorney, in his official capacity and as representative for all Illinois State's Attorneys; Case No. 2022-MR-227 was removed from the Sangamon County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on June 2, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-03089-SEM-KLM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute. The Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR) -- http://www.revenue.state.il.us/-- is the code department of the Illinois state government that collects state taxes operates the state lottery, oversees the state's casino industry, oversees the state's thoroughbred and harness horse racing industries, and regulates the distribution of alcoholic beverages throughout Illinois, including beer, wine, and liquor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald M Craven, Esq. CRAVEN LAW OFFICE 1005 N Seventh St Springfield, IL 62702 Phone: (217) 544-1777 Fax: (217) 544-0713 Email: dmcraven@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Alex Hemmer, Esq. ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 100 W. Randolph St. Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 814-3846 Email: alex.hemmer@ilag.gov - and - David Tichy, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL 500 South Second Street Springfield, IL 62701 Phone: (217) 782-1841 Email: david.tichy@ilag.gov ILLINOIS: Johnson's Bid to Certify Class Action v. Pritzker Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DEARIUS JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. J.B. PRITZKER and ROB JEFFREYS, Defendants, Case No. 22-4035 (C.D. Ill.), Judge James E. Shadid of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class Action. The Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, has filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and a Motion to Certify a Class Action. The Plaintiff is seeking to file a lawsuit on behalf of all individuals incarcerated for first degree murder who "were 18 to 21 years of age at the time of the crime, and who were convicted and sentenced to first degree murder and was 18 to 21 years of age, between the year of 1998 (after enactment of the Truth-In-Sentencing law), up until the year of 2019 (before enactment of the New Parole law)." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires class members must be provided with adequate representation. Based on this requirement, courts have repeatedly refused to allow pro se prisoners to represent a class in a class action. The Plaintiff is not represented by counsel and Judge Shadid finds the Plaintiff cannot fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Motion to Certify a Class Action is denied. However, Judge Shadid considers the Plaintiff's claims as they pertain to him. The Court is required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A to "screen" the Plaintiff's complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it "(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." The Plaintiff says he was sentenced under Illinois Truth in Sentencing Law for First Degree Murder. Therefore, he must serve 100% of his sentence. However, the Plaintiff says inmates who were sentenced prior to the enactment of this statute only had to serve 50% of their sentence and were entitled to receive good time credits. In addition, inmates who were sentenced under the New Parole Law enacted on June 1, 2019, are eligible for parole review after 20 years. The Plaintiff says the difference in sentences under the three statutes violates his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, he asks the Court to order the Governor and the Illinois Department of Correction (IDOC) Director to allow Plaintiff to receive good time credits and to receive parole review after 20 years. In short, the Plaintiff is seeking to shorten the length of his incarceration. However, the Supreme Court has held a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or speedier release. Consequently, Judge Shadid holds that the Plaintiff's 28 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint is filed pursuant to the wrong statute. Generally, a court cannot convert a Section 1983 lawsuit into a habeas petition pursuant to Section 2254 since "the two kinds of actions have different conditions, different defendants (or respondents), and different consequences." For instance, a state prisoner must exhaust the remedies available in the state courts before a district court may consider the merits of his federal habeas petition. Therefore, the Plaintiff's case is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In light of the foregoing, Judge Shadid denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Class Action. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. The case is closed. All pending motions are denied as moot. If the Plaintiff wishes to appeal the dismissal, he may file a notice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must set forth the issues the Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. If the he does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxw4zzj from Leagle.com. IMAGE PLAZA: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Image Plaza Inc. The case is styled as David Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Image Plaza Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03628-FB-SIL (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Image Plaza, Inc. is a business entity registered with the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C. 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Phone: (516) 783-9662 Fax: (646) 435-4376 Email: james@civilrightsny.com IMANI MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Franklyn Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Imani Management, Inc. and Angel Lavergne, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05175 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act seeking to recover unpaid wages for overtime work for which he did not receive overtime compensation pay as required by law. Mr. Gonzalez has been employed by the Defendants from 2008 until March 5, 2022. He performed manual work including cleaning the building, sweeping inside and outside and mopping, snow removal and salt spreading on the sidewalk, changing bulbs, taking out and collecting garbage, remove water from the steampipes or valves, plumbing (gas leaks), plaster and compound when ceilings would fall down, snake sewer for toilets, sinks, bathtubs, open doors for tenants when they left their keys inside, and take care of Con Edison employees' access for meter reading, with all of these services performed in Defendant's multi-story building. Imani Management, Inc. is a property management company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway - Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com INDEBTED USA: Faces Kemp Suit Over Misleading Collection Letters ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE KEMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDEBTED USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01522-JMC (D. Maryland, June 21, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful, negligent, and intentional violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to OneMain Financial some time prior to October 21, 2021. The alleged debt has defaulted and was assigned to the Defendant for purposes of collection. Consequently, on or about October 21, 2021, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff an initial contact letter on or about October 21, 2021 in an attempt to collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt. The Plaintiff responded to the Defendant asserting her "g-notice" rights and requested validation in writing via email sent to the Defendant on October 27, 2021. However, the Defendant did not respond to the Plaintiff's request, and instead continued collection activities by sending multiple collection letters. The fact that the Defendant did not validate and continued its collection efforts was suspicious, misleading, and out of character for a legitimate debt collection, says the suit. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading, unfair, unconscionable, and false debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper, the suit added. Indebted USA, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aryeh E. Stein, Esq. MERIDIAN LAW, LLC 1212 Reisterstown Road Baltimore, MD 21208 Tel: (443) 326-6011 E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com INFORMA MEDIA: Discloses Customers' Private Reading Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PATTI DELVALLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INFORMA MEDIA, INC. F/K/A PENTON MEDIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00132 (W.D. Mich., June 21, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for violation of Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act by disclosing detailed information about Plaintiff's "Michigan Farmer" magazine subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed her information to aggressive advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing the Private Reading Information of its Michigan-based subscribers during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period. As a result, Plaintiff and similarly situated subscribers received a barrage of unwanted junk mail, says the suit. While Informa profits handsomely from the unauthorized rental, exchange, and/or disclosure of its customers' Private Reading Information and other individualized information, it does so at the expense of its customers' statutory privacy rights (afforded by the PPPA) because Informa does not obtain its customers' written consent prior to disclosing their Private Reading Information, the suit adds. Informa Media, Inc. f/k/a Penton Media, Inc., operates as a marketing and information company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. William Kalas, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com wk@millerlawpc.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com aravindran@hedinhall.com INFORMATION RESOURCES: Santiago Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Krystal Santiago and Scarlett Osorio, individually and on behalf of similarly situated female employees v. INFORMATION RESOURCES INC., and JEFF NEUMAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-04821-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022), is brought to redress the unlawful employment practices committed against them, including the Defendants' discriminatory treatment towards them due to their gender and/or race, as well as unlawful retaliation due to their complaints of discrimination, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and to redress IRI's discriminatory pay practices, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, and the New York State Pay Equity Law ("New York Labor Law"). This action is brought against the Defendant in their individual capacities and on behalf of a collective of female exempt consultants, including, but not limited to, female analysts, consultants, principals, vice presidents, and senior vice presidents to redress severe gender and race discrimination in employment. Female employees were disproportionately and discriminatorily downgraded and undervalued within IRI's performance review system. This mistreatment is uniform throughout the Company. IRI's performance evaluation system's insufficient standards, quality controls and implementation metrics, coupled with its lack of transparency and opportunities for redress, has a discriminatory and disparate impact on female employees. IRI employees are promoted within a system that is insufficiently designed, articulated, explained or implemented to consistently, reliably or fairly develop and promote excellent employees. Promotions are not based upon true comparative performance as they lack transparency and sufficient quality controls in their design and implementation. IRI's promotion procedures and practices reflect and codify the biases of the Company's mostly white male management and, naturally, have a disparate impact on the Company's female and POC employees. Even when ostensibly based on performance, managers have discretion to promote those within the "good old boys" club. Participation in male-dominated social activities—such as after-work happy hours (where management routinely used slurs) are among the criteria that may be considered for evaluation, compensation and advancement at IRI. Despite the Company's hollow promises and orchestrated "photo opportunities" through its actions taken against Plaintiffs, it is clear that diversity is the last thing IRI cares about. Nowhere is this truth clearer than in the facts underlying the Plaintiffs' claims. Notwithstanding IRI's attempts to silence Plaintiffs, they intend to cast light on the bias that has caused harm to them and countless numbers of women and POC employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendants in the State of New York. The Defendant IRI is an employer in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Ste. 602 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 583-7400 Email: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com INSOMNIA COOKIES: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insomnia Cookies, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Insomnia Cookies, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03615 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Insomnia Cookies -- https://insomniacookies.com/ -- is a chain of bakeries in the United States that specializes in delivering warm cookies, baked goods, and ice cream.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com INUSA MANUFACTURING: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inusa Manufacturing LLC. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Inusa Manufacturing LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05208 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. InUSA -- https://inusa.com/ -- is a premium luggage Brand designed specifically to satisfy every aspect of the travelling experience by creating products that are light and practical while maintaining unique designs and beautiful contemporary collections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal IRONNET INC: Faces Grad Securities Suit in E.D. Va. --------------------------------------------------- IronNet, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2022, that in April 22, 2022, a federal securities class action lawsuit, captioned "Grad v. IronNet, Inc., et al.," Caes No. 1:22-cv-004499 was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of a proposed class consisting of those who acquired its securities between September 15, 2021 and December 20, 2021. The complaint names the company, its co-Chief Executive Officers, and its Chief Financial Officer as defendants and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in a September 14, 2021 press release regarding its business and financial prospects, its ability to predict the timing of significant customer opportunities and its disclosure controls and procedures. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Motions by members of the proposed class to be appointed lead plaintiff are due by June 21, 2022. On May 20, 2022, the court entered a stipulated order suspending the defendants' obligations to file any responsive pleadings or motions to the complaint and requiring that, within 14 days after a lead plaintiff has been appointed by the court, counsel for the lead plaintiff and the defendants submit a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and defendants' response thereto. IronNet, Inc., formerly known as LGL Systems Acquisition Corporation was incorporated in the state of Delaware on April 30, 2019 for the purpose of entering into a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, recapitalization, reorganization or other similar business combination with one or more businesses or entities. ISHARYA INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Isharya, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Isharya, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05320-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Isharya -- https://isharya.com/ -- blends modern techniques with heirloom details to create glamourous & sophisticated nickel-free, hypoallergenic, gold plated jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com JASON WU INC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jason Wu Inc. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Jason Wu Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05321 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Jason Wu -- https://jasonwustudio.com/ -- is a leading global design talent based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal JODI HARPSTEAD: Benson Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jodi Harpstead. The case is styled as Michael Benson, and others similarly situated v. Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of the Department of Human Services; Sued in official capacity, Case No. 0:22-cv-01601-ECT-TNL (D. Minn., June 17, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Civil Detainee: Conditions of Confinement for the Civil Rights Act. Jodi Harpstead commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services in August 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JOHN DOE CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shapiro Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Shapiro, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. John Doe Corp. I (d/b/a IHOP), and Venice Griffin, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05022 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff against Defendants seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Defendants own, operate and/or control an IHOP restaurant located in New York City. The Plaintiff was employed as a host and general worker at Defendants' restaurant from approximately March 27, 2022. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay applicable minimum hourly wages, provide wage notices, and furnish wage statements. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com JONESBORO, AR: Faces Trullinger Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA TRULLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF JONESBORO, ARKANSAS, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00137-KGB (E.D. Ark., June 10, 2022) is a class action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Laura Trullinger was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid emergency dispatcher within the three years relevant to this lawsuit. Jonesboro is a city located on Crowley's Ridge in the northeastern corner of the U.S. State of Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. WH LAW | WE HELP 1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 E-mail: chris@wh.law KAS PET LLC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KAS Pet, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KAS Pet, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05117 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. KAS Pet, LLC doing business as PL360 Pet -- https://www.pl360pet.com/ -- offers super-clean Health, Home + Grooming products (plus bundled Pet Life kits) designed for your one-of-a-kind pet life.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com KAV HEALTH: McLemore Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JORDYN MCLEMORE, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAV HEALTH GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00155-TMR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, June 10, 2022) arises from the Defendant's unlawful policy related to failing to pay non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff, for all time spent working, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Plaintiff McLemore was hired by Defendant as a chemical dependency counselor assistant on April 13, 2022. She was hired as an hourly, non-exempt employee. KAV Health Group LLC is a provider of online addiction treatment, Suboxone treatment and mental health treatment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Sabo Friedmann, Esq. Peter G. Friedmann, Esq. Jamie R. Bailey, Esq. THE FRIEDMANN FIRM LLC 3740 Ridge Mill Drive Hilliard, OH 43026 Telephone: (614) 610-9756 Facsimile: (614) 737-9812 E-mail: Rachel@TFFLegal.com Pete@TFFLegal.com Jamie@TheFriedmannFirm.com KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: ASEA/AFSCME Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips Holding USA INC., Philips RS North America LLC, Philips Rs North America Holding Corporation, Case No. 3014, was transferred from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 17, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00909-JFC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in Eindhoven in 1891..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-7229 Fax: (412) 281-4229 Email: arihn@peircelaw.com KROGER CO: Caneer Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Retail Sales Tax ------------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Caneer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO., a foreign corporation, d/b/a QUALITY FOOD CENTERS, INC. ("QFC"); WHOLE FOODS MARKET PACIFIC NORTHWEST, INC., a foreign corporation; SAFEWAY, INC., a foreign corporation; and TOWN & COUNTRY MARKETS, INC. a Washington corporation, Case No. 22-2-08219-4 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., June 1, 2022), is brought to challenge the Defendants' unlawful collection of retail sales tax from sales of food and food ingredients that are exempt from sales tax under Washington law. Sellers must collect the appropriate sales tax on all retail sales. Buyers should be able to trust that businesses only collect sales tax when permitted by law. The unlawful collection of sales tax from buyers is theft. The Defendants disregarded the applicable exemptions by applying and collecting a retail sales tax on the purchase of food and food ingredients. This conduct violates RCW 82.08.0293, RCW 82.08.050, and WAC 458-20-244, which specifically exempts food and food ingredients from retail sales taxation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Class members seek the same declaratory judgment and damages to end this unlawful practice, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Washington who resides in King County, Washington. The Kroger Co., d/b/a Quality Food Centers, Inc. ("QFC"), is an Ohio corporation and maintains its corporate offices in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brad J. Moore, Esq. Ray W. Kahler, Esq. Ruby Aliment, Esq. STRITMATTER KESSLER KOEHLER MOORE LAFAYETTE BAY PRODUCTS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lafayette Bay Products, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lafayette Bay Products, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05298 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lafayette Bay Products is a family run business of devout pet lovers from the shores of Lake Minnetonka in Wayzata, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. LALA KENT: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lala Kent, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Lala Kent, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05128-PGG-OTW (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lala Kent -- https://givethemlala.com/ -- is a cruelty free, high quality cosmetics line showcasing a large collection of color cosmetics, including glosses, matte liquid lipsticks, cream lipsticks, highlighters, eyeliner and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Strong Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Strong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LendingClub Corporation, Case No. GD-22-02580 was removed from the Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 23, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00932-CRE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Negotiable Instrument. LendingClub -- https://www.lendingclub.com/ -- was a peer-to-peer lending company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. East End Trial Group, LLC 6901 Lynn Way. Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Phone: (412) 223-5740 Fax: (412) 626-7101 Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Victoria D. Summerfield, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 501 Grant Street Union Trust Building. Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 454-5033 Fax: (412) 281-0717 Email: victoria.summerfield@troutman.com LILIUM NV: Faces Maniraj Securities Suit in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Lilium N.V. disclosed in its Form F-1 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2022, that on April 18, 2022, a putative class action was filed against Lilium N.V., Daniel Wiegand, Geoffrey Richardson, and Barry Engle for purported violations of United States securities laws. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and is presently captioned as "Maniraj Ashirwad Gnanaraj v. Lilium N.V. et al.," Case No. 2:22-CV-02564. Said lawsuit is currently at a preliminary stage. Lilium is a next-generation transportation company focused on developing an e-aircraft for use in a new type of high-speed air transport system for people and goods. MANOR MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blanco Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL BLANCO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANOR MANAGEMENT LLC; and BARRY GOTTEHRER, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05176 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Blanco was employed by the Defendants as maintenance crew. MANOR MANAGEMENT LLC operates as a real estate management company. The Company provides management services for multi family rental properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Tel: (212) 563-9884 Email: michael@samuelandstein.com MAVIS TIRE: Trentecoste Sues Over Store Managers' Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- SALVATORE TRENTECOSTE, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. MAVIS TIRE SUPPLY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-05257 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2022) is a civil action for damages and other redress based upon Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay Plaintiff overtime wages and failing to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a store manager, a managerial position in name only, from June 2009 until May 2015, with the exception of December 2012 through November 2013, and then again from October 2018 until October 23, 2021. Mavis Tire Supply LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that operates a tire sales and automobile services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlin Duffy, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 MCDONALD'S CORP: Seeks Dismissal of PFAS Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for the Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that McDonald's Corporation argues that a "baseless accusation" that its packaging contains toxic chemicals should be dismissed because the plaintiffs do not assert any injuries and the "grease-resistance substances" are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). McDonald's filed a motion to dismiss and an accompanying brief in support of its motion on June 1 through attorney Trenton Norris of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP in San Francisco. The brief states that the class action boils down to two recent articles in consumer advocacy publications that 'indicate' that the packaging of four McDonald's menu items may contain unspecified chemical compounds in a category of thousands of compounds used for grease-resistance, some of which are believed to be toxic and some of which are known to be safe." "Plaintiff's have not done any testing of their own, much less on their own purchases," Norris wrote. "Even the advocacy publications did not test the food itself. And the results they report for the packaging are entirely consistent with the presence of safe, FDA-approved grease-resistance substances - which McDonald's discloses it uses." McDonald's argues that the plaintiffs fail to claim they suffered actual injuries. Instead, they allege economic damages. They claim that based on the presence of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), "the menu items they have already enjoyed were worth less than they paid, or maybe worth nothing." McDonald's argues that the plaintiffs fail to confirm the type of PFAS in the packaging and fail to prove any PFAS substances are present in the food. It adds that PFOA and PFOS are two types of PFAS that are regulated and were phased out about a decade ago, while other PFAS substances are FDA-approved for use in food and contact applications. "The one specific PFAS substance cited in the complaint as having been used in McDonald's packaging in the past was FDA-approved, and the PFAS substances presently used in McDonald's packaging are also specifically approved," Norris wrote. "Therefore, regardless of whether McDonald's misrepresented or disclosed the presence of PFAS in its packing -- which the complaint alleges inconsistently -- plaintiffs fail to allege facts on which to base their core claim that McDonald's packaging contains any harmful PFAS compound," he added. The defendant further argues that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois is not the proper venue for the case. If dismissal is denied, McDonald's seeks to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois where two similar cases are also pending. Attorney Steffan Keeton of The Keeton Firm LLC in Pittsburgh filed the amended class action complaint on April 20 on behalf of plaintiffs Larry Clark, Joseph Hauser, Lydia Johnson and Linda Cavazos. The plaintiffs allege they suffered economic damages as a result of the presence of PFAS. "The products that plaintiffs and class members purchased are either worthless or worth less than the purchase price because defendant failed to disclose that they contain PFAS which are dangerous to the health of the consumer and to the environment," the suit states. According to the first amended complaint, the plaintiffs claim they purchased food products that are unfit for their intended use because they contain PFAS. "PFAS are known as 'forever chemicals' because the carbon-fluorine bonds in PFAS are extremely strong and thus are not appreciably degraded under environmental conditions," the complaint alleges. "The continued use of PFAS is, by their nature, unsustainable, because it will necessarily lead to a greater concentration of PFAS in the environment. In some case, PFAS will survive over 1,000 years." As a result, the suit states that low levels can also be harmful. The plaintiffs claim exposure to PFAS is especially harmful to children and pregnant women. The substances are allegedly capable of crossing the placenta and transferring to unborn infants. "Women exposed to PFAS during pregnancy have higher risks of gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia, and their babies are more likely to undergo abnormal growth in utero, leading to low birth weight and later face an increased risk of childhood obesity and infections," the suit states. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege PFAS used in food packaging may migrate into fast food. "The use of PFAS in its products stands in stark contrast to McDonald's brand identity which espouses food safety," the suit states. "In almost every medium, McDonald's Corporation tells consumers, investors, and the general public that the products are safe." The plaintiffs allege McDonald's denied that PFAS were used in the products until 2021. "This failure to warn injured reasonable consumers, including plaintiffs, who reasonably relied upon defendant's misleading representations that its products were safe," the suit states. "Had plaintiffs and the putative class members know that McDonald's products contained PFAS, they would not have purchased the products and/or would have paid less for them." The plaintiffs claim that as a company valued in excess of $200 billion, McDonald's has the resources to provide products without the use of PFAS. "This 'profits over people' approach allows McDonald's Corporation to save pennies per unit sold, and instead pass these 'costs' at a far greater rate onto generations of consumers that must live with the consequences of McDonald's willful inclusion and concealment of dangerous PFAS in McDonald's products," the suit states. The case is U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:22-cv-628 [GN] MCG HEALTH: Hearst Unit Facing Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Ionut Arghire, writing for SecurityWeek, reports that patient care guidelines provider MCG Health faces a proposed class lawsuit over the compromise of patient information during a March 2022 data breach. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the New York-based Hearst Health network, MCG Health combines artificial intelligence with clinical expertise to help healthcare organizations provide care to their patients. On June 10, the company started to inform potentially impacted individuals of a data breach that occurred on March 25, and which might have resulted in their personal information being accessed by a third-party. "MCG determined on March 25, 2022 that an unauthorized party previously obtained certain of your personal information that matched data stored on MCG's systems," reads the notification letter - a sample of which was submitted to the Office of the Maine Attorney General. Potentially impacted information, the company says, includes names, dates of birth, gender, addresses, Social Security numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, and medical codes. "Upon learning of this issue, we took steps to understand its nature and scope. We have deployed additional monitoring tools and will continue to enhance the security of our systems," MCG Health said. The healthcare contractor informed the Maine Attorney General that 1.1 million individuals were impacted in the incident, but mentioned only roughly 790,000 patients in a breach notice to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - most likely, some of MCG Health's customers are reporting the incident separately. A proposed class action filed with the District Court for the Western District of Washington seeks to hold MCG accountable for failing to properly secure patients' personally identifiable information (PII) and for failing to inform the impacted individuals faster. "Defendant waited roughly three months to notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach and/or inform them that their PII was compromised. During this time, Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that their sensitive personal identifying information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm," the 37-page complaint alleges. The document also claims that the unauthorized access lasted for roughly two weeks, that the compromised data was stored unencrypted, and that MCG should have been better prepared to mitigate cyberattacks, given the frequency of incidents involving organizations in the healthcare sector. [GN] MEAT N' BONE: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meat N' Bone, Inc. The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Meat N' Bone, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05215 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Meat N' Bone -- https://meatnbone.com/ -- is an online butcher shop that offers premium quality meats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MENARD INC: Shoemaker Sues Over Mislabeled Abrasive Wheel Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ Glenn Shoemaker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Menard, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04089-MDH (W.D. Mo., June 10, 2022) is a class action arising from the deceptive business practices of Defendant in the advertising, packaging, and labeling of its bonded abrasive wheel product in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The complaint alleges that during the relevant class period, Defendant sold the defective product to Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers without adequate advertising, packaging, and labeling that identified that the abrasive wheel product had a shelf life or expiration date after which the product could not be safely used due to risk that the product may give way, crack, split, explode, and fail if used after its shelf life. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the putative class, seek a refund for amounts paid as a result of his purchase of the defective product, and further seeks injunctive relief, enjoining Defendant from selling the defective product without a clear expiration warning and label, says the suit. Menard, Inc. is an American home improvement retail company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Paul D. Anderson, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & McCLAIN, P.C. 221 W. Lexington, Suite 400 Independence, MO 64050 Telephone: (816) 836-5050 Facsimile: (816) 836-8966 E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com pda@hfmlegal.com METRO FRANCHISING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barnes Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METRO FRANCHISING COMMISSARY LLC; and GLEN WAYNE (a/k/a Ariel Wayne), Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05178 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Barnes was employed by the Defendant as shift manager. METRO FRANCHISING COMMISSARY LLC is a food production company based New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. Jason Mizrahi, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 792-0046 Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com MIAMI LABS: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miami Labs, Inc. The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Miami Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05214 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Miami Labs, Inc. is incorporated in the state of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com MOMOMILK LLC: Faces Dawkins Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELBERT DAWKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOMOMILK, LLC, D/B/A MILK BAR, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03482-FB-RLM (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website http://www.milkbarstore.com/to be fully accessible to, and independently usable by, the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Momomilk, LLC, d/b/a Milk Bar, is a chain of dessert and bakery restaurants in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com MPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Suit in Maryland Court ------------------------------------------------------------- mPhase Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022,, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2022, that in November 9, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a class action complaint filed in April 2021 for violation of federal securities laws was filed which names Verus International, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer, Anshu Bhatnagar and former Chief Financial Officer, Christopher Cutchens as defendants. This class action complaint was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of its subsidiary Verus International, Inc. between June 17, 2019 and October 8, 2020. mPhase Technologies, Inc. is a technology company focused on consumer engagement based in Maryland. NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Judgment on Pleadings in Stuart Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STAN STUART, Plaintiff-Appellant v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, a Municipal Corporation, JOSEPH JABLONSKY, individually and as former Nassau County Sheriff, SHERIFF MICHAEL J. SPOSATO, as the Current Nassau County Sheriff, JOHN AND JANE DOE 1-100, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-1187-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court granting the Defendants-Appellees' motion for judgment on the pleadings. I. Background Plaintiff-Appellant Stuart, through counsel, sued Defendants-Appellees Nassau County, its current and former Sheriff, and John and Jane Does under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the New York State Constitution, bringing claims related to a May 1, 1997, strip search at the Nassau County Correctional Center ("NCCC"). Stuart was a class member of the "Nassau County Strip Search Cases," which were consolidated into a class action lawsuit challenging the County's blanket policy of strip searching all detainees admitted to the NCCC between May 1996 and June 1999. The district court issued a final judgment in the Nassau County Strip Search Cases in 2014, finding in favor of the plaintiff class on their state constitutional claim and awarding $500 per strip search in general damages. Mr. Stuart filed the present lawsuit for special damages in 2017, alleging that the County had violated his federal and state rights and caused him to suffer trauma and anxiety. The district court held that Stuart was bound by the dismissal of the class action's Section 1983 claim and granted the Defendants-Appellees' motion for judgment on the pleadings as to this claim. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stuart's state-law claims. Stuart appealed, pro se. II. Discussion The Second Circuit reviews a district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims for abuse of discretion. It finds that the district court did not err in dismissing Stuart's complaint. As a class member, Stuart was bound by decisions rendered in the Nassau County Strip Search Cases. Accordingly, because a judgment vacating the County's concession of liability as to the plaintiff class' Section 1983 claim had previously been issued, the district court properly dismissed Stuart's subsequent individual Section 1983 claim. The Second Circuit further holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stuart's state-law claims. Federal district courts have discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims "that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy." Once a district court's discretion is triggered under Section 1367(c)(3), it balances the traditional "values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity" in deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. A district court may "decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction" if it "has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." In the case, the district court noted that although Stuart's state-law claims for special damages were "related to" the Nassau County Strip Search Cases because that action determined the County's liability under state law, the actual determination of whether Stuart could recover special damages did not depend on the earlier litigation. Stuart's remaining state law claim was in its infancy, given that the federal law claim had been dismissed, and Stuart failed to demonstrate that he had expended substantial "time, effort, and money in preparing his dependent claims," such as would militate in favor of retaining jurisdiction. The district court thus acted well within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Stuart's remaining state-law claims. III. Disposition The Second Circuit has considered Stuart's remaining arguments and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, it affirms the judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Summary Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/msbft9et from Leagle.com. Plaintiff-Appellant STAN STUART, pro se, in Seaford, New York. SAMANTHA ASHLEY GOETZ, Deputy County Attorney (Robert F. Van der Waag, Deputy County Attorney, on the brief), for Thomas A. Adams, Acting Nassau County Attorney, in Mineola, New York, for the Defendants-Appellees. NATIONAL REVIEW: Disclosed Private Reading Info, O'Shea Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN O'SHEA and PAUL GOODRICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-11295-JEL-JJCG (E.D. Mich., June 10, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff and similarly situated customers' Private Reading Information in violation of Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed detailed information about Plaintiffs' National Review magazine subscriptions to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed their information to aggressive advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing -- rather than selling -- its customers' Private Reading Information, the Defendant is able to disclose the information time and time again to countless third parties, says the suit. Plaintiff O'Shea was a subscriber to National Review magazine, including during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period while Plaintiff Goodrich was a subscriber to National Review magazine, including during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period. National Review, Inc. is an American semi-monthly conservative editorial magazine.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. William Kalas, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com wk@millerlawpc.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com aravindran@hedinhall.com NESTLE PURINA: Fails to Pay All Agreed Wages, Terska Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOSHUA TERSKA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE CO., and NESTLE USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00513-HE (W.D. Okla., June 21, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Packing Line Operator since around May 2018. According to the complaint, the Defendants have entered into agreements with the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to pay such employees their regular rates of pay in addition to additional wages for specific events such as an additional $0.55 per hour for working the Second Shift, an additional $0.50 per hour for working the Third Shift, double the employees' wages for working on Sundays, and an additional pay earned based on the amount of hours worked in the previous year which can be paid during the employee's vacation. However, the Defendants failed to maintain records and keep track of the hours each employee worked, and to accurately calculate its employees' wages. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not been paid by the Defendants for all wages agreed upon, earned and due for the period between December 6, 2021 and about March 2022, says the suit. The Corporate Defendants manufactures foods and beverages, as well as pet foods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark E. Hammons, Esq. Amber L. Hurst, Esq. HAMMONS, HURST & ASSOCIATES 325 Dean A. McGee Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Tel: (405) 235-6100 Fax: (405) 235-6111 E-mail: mark@hammonslaw.com amber@hammonslaw.com NETAPP INC: Settlement in Shareholder Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- NetApp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended April 29, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2022, that in May 2, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the settlement of a purported securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants NetApp and certain of our executive officers filed in August 14, 2019. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements with respect to our financial guidance for fiscal 2020, as provided on May 22, 2019. Members of the alleged class are purchasers of the company's stock between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019. The complaint alleges unspecified damages based on the decline in the market price of our shares following the issuance of the revised guidance on August 1, 2019. The defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted and on February 26, 2021 and the judge entered judgment in favor of NetApp and the other defendants. On March 26, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The parties subsequently engaged in settlement discussions, and on July 30, 2021 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) providing for the settlement of the class action. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, NetApp has agreed to pay approximately $2.0 million in connection with the settlement, and this amount was accrued during the three months ended July 30, 2021. The parties subsequently executed a stipulation of settlement, which contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties, and which provides that the class action will be dismissed with prejudice, with mutual releases by all parties, upon final court approval. On September 24, 2021, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion seeking court approval of the settlement. On May 2, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, subject to further consideration at a final approval hearing, which is scheduled to be held on September 1, 2022. The court's approval of settlement will remain preliminary pending the outcome of the final approval hearing. NetApp, Inc. is a global cloud-led, data-centric software company based in California. NEW YORK TIMES: Perkins Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The New York Times Company. The case is styled as Megan Perkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The New York Times Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-05202 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The New York Times Company -- https://www.nytco.com/ -- is an American mass media company that publishes The New York Times newspaper.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Ave New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com NEW YORK, NY: Disability Rights Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed City of New York, et al. The case is styled as Disability Rights New York, Carlos Leon, Stephanie Diaz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The City of New York, New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Police Department, Eric Adams, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York; Ydanis Rodriguez, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Transportation; Keechant L. Sewell, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York Police Department; Case No. 1:22-cv-04493-ER (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New York City -- https://www.nyc.gov/ -- comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emma Noftz Stern, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK 25 Chapel Street, Suite 1005 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (408) 655-8501 Fax: (718) 797-1161 Email: emma.stern@drny.org - and - Christina N. Asbee DISABILITY RIGHTS NY 725 Broadway, Ste 450 Albany, NY 12207 Phone: (518) 545-6869 Email: christina.asbee@drny.org NOVITAS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Potts Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CINDY POTTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVITAS SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DIVERSIFIED SERVICE OPTIONS, INC. d/b/a GUIDEWELL SOURCE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00986-JPW (M.D. Pa., June 22, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Potts was employed by the Defendants as education specialist. NOVITAS SOLUTIONS, INC. doing business as Highmark, provides insurance services The Company specializes in underwriting of accident and health insurance plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. Michael J. Bradley, Esq. Steve T. Mahan, Esq. WEISBERG CUMMINGS P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-5707 Facsimile: (717) 233-8133 Email: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com mbradley@weisbergcummings.com smahan@weisbergcummings.com OMSOM CORPORATION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omsom Corporation. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Omsom Corporation, doing business as: Omsom, Case No. 1:22-cv-05258-PAE-JW (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Omsom -- https://omsom.com/ -- is a venture-backed CPG brand bringing proud, loud Asian flavors into American homes..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com OSEA INTERNATIONAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Osea International, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Osea International, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05096 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. OSEA -- https://oseamalibu.com/ -- is a seaweed-based, family-run skincare company based in Malibu, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PADDED WAGON: Urgiles Sues Over Trash Haulers' Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS URGILES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PADDED WAGON OFNEW JERSEY INC., THE PADDED WAGON INC., JOHN CECERE, EDMOND DOWLING, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04939 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt trash hauler for the Corporate Defendants from August 2018 until May 2020, and again from August 2021 until March 2022, where his job responsibilities included, among other things, the loading, removal, and unloading of garbage and other bulk items from the New York City Housing Authority Properties. The Corporate Defendants own and operate a moving and storage business doing business as "The Padded Wagon," located in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 200 Park Avenue-17th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 PAWP INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pawp, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pawp, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05115 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pawp -- https://pawp.com/ -- is a digital health clinic and telehealth platform for pet owners and their pets that connects them with veterinary professionals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PEAK PERFORMANCE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peak Performance Bat Club LLC. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peak Performance Bat Club LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05218-VSB (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Peak Performance Bat Club -- https://www.peakperformancemiami.com/ -- is categorized under Recreation Centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com PEGASYSTEMS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Pegasystems Inc. of a class action securities lawsuit. The lawsuit on behalf of PEGA investors has been commenced in the the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased PEGA common stock between May 29, 2020 and May 9, 2022, inclusive. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of the team: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pegasystems-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=29084&wire=5 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) PEGA had engaged in corporate espionage and misappropriation of trade secrets to better compete against Appian, a principal competitor; (2) defendants' product development and associated success was, in significant part, not the result of its own research and product testing but rather the result of such corporate espionage and trade secret theft; (3) defendants had engaged in a scheme to steal Appian trade secrets, which was not only known to, but carried out through, the personal involvement of the Company's CEO; (4) the Company's CEO and other officers and employees did not comply with the Company's written Code of Conduct, including its express prohibition on "stealing" confidential information from a competitor and "misrepresenting your identity in hopes of obtaining confidential information"; (5) the Company was "unable to reasonably estimate damages" in the lawsuit filed by Appian as a result of the foregoing misconduct (the "Appian Litigation"); and (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about PEGA's business, operations, prospects, legal compliance, and potential damages exposure in the Appian Litigation were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made. WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in PEGA during the relevant timeframe, you have until July 18, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. Discuss your rights with our legal team without cost or obligation. PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission form https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pegasystems-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=29084&wire=5 or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Contact: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] POINTSBET NEW YORK: Hogan Sues Over Deceptive Betting Options ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Hogan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PointsBet New York LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00594-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for breaches of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the New York General Business Law. PointsBet New York LLC operates a sports betting platform within New York and entices the public to place wagers by promising "Risk Free" bets. The Defendant promoted "Risk Free" bets by saturating digital, print, radio and other media with such advertisements prior to beginning operations in this State in early 2022. According to the complaint, these promotions are advertised as "Risk-Free," so customers believe that if their bet of $500 is lost, the same amount of money in free bets, i.e., $500, would be credited to their account. However, this representation is false because if the customer's bet wins, they do not receive the wager amount itself. For example, if a customer places a $500 wager with very good odds that would return $600 if won by betting cash, that same customer would only receive $100 if using the "risk free" bet amount. The result would be a loss of $400 because the Defendant would retain that money, so it is not risk free, says the suit. The Plaintiff relied on the representations and omissions and expected that a risk free bet would treat dollars the same regardless of whether the bet were placed by using the risk free option or through using cash. The Plaintiff would not have placed the "risk free" bets, would have done so on different terms, or used another sports gaming platform, had the true facts had been known, suffering damages, the suit alleges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Trejo Files FDCPA Suit in D. Nebraska --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Sylvia Trejo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03107 (D. Neb., June 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC -- https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- a subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc., specializes in working with people in debt repayment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Watkins Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Cynthia Watkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00236-KD-N (S.D. Ala., June 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC -- https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- a subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc., specializes in working with people in debt repayment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Schoen, Esq. 2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6 Montgomery, AL 36106 Phone: (334) 395-6611 Fax: (917) 591-7586 Email: dschoen593@aol.com PPL CORPORATION: Talen Montana Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Talen Montana Retirement Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff; Talen Montana, LLC, Intervenor Plaintiff v. PPL Corporation, PPL Capital Funding, Inc., PPL Electric Utilities Corp., PPL Energy Funding Corp., Paul A. Farr, Mark F. Wilten, Does 1-50; Case No. 1:22-cv-00045, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on June 17, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01990 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. PPL Corporation -- https://www.pplweb.com/ -- is an energy company headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Sterup, Esq. BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. - BILLINGS 315 North 24th Street PO Box 849 Billings, MT 59103-0849 Phone: (406) 248-2611 Fax: 248-3128 - and - Jake Rutherford, Esq. Paul R. Genender, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES 200 Crescent Court, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 746-8119 Fax: (214) 746-7777 The Defendants are represented by: Tom Singer, Esq. AXILON LAW GROUP, PLLC P O Box 987 Billings, MT 59103-0987 Phone: (406) 294-9466 Fax: (406) 294-9468 - and - Elizabeth L. Griffing, Esq. AXILON LAW GROUP, PLLC - HELENA 7 West 6th Ave. Helena, MT 59601 Phone: (406) 457-5465 Fax: (406) 447-4255 Power Block, Ste. 4P - and - Mark D. Parker, Esq. PARKER, HEITZ & COSGROVE, PLLC 401 N. 31st Street, Suite 805 PO Box 7212 Billings, MT 59103-7212 Phone: (406) 245-9991 Fax: (406) 245-0971 The Intervenor Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Liou, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8000 PRIMUS MEDICAL: Faces Adams Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DIAMINIQUE ADAMS, individually and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. PRIMUS MEDICAL GROUP, PC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02399-SHL-atc (W.D. Tenn., June 21, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged common pay practice and policy that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee at its Memphis, Tennessee. The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated employees were required by the Defendant to perform pre-shift "off-the-clock" work for as much as one-hour compensable time. However, the Defendant failed to "edit-in" to its timekeeping system, thereby failing to compensate them for the time they performed work while not "clocked-in" to its timekeeping system at the applicable FLSA overtime rates. On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs of this action, and other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Primus Medical Group, PC is an internal medicine clinic. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Faces Pett Suit Over Private Info Disclosure ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY LOU PETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLISHERS CLEARING HOUSE, INC., Defendant, Case 2:22-cv-11389-DPH-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 22, 2022) alleges violation of the Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act ("PPPA"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that by renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing the Private Purchase Information of its Michigan-based customers during the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, the violated the PPPA. The Defendant disclosed detailed information about the Plaintiff's Interior Design and Remodeling magazine subscriptions to data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn disclosed her information to aggressive advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, the Plaintiff has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail, says the suit. PUBLISHERS CLEARING HOUSE LLC operates as a multi-magazine subscription agency. The Company offers a wide selection of magazines titles, including travel, religion and inspiration, and automotive. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. William Kalas, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com wk@millerlawpc.com -and- Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com -and- Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com aravindran@hedinhall.com READY READING GLASSES: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ready Reading Glasses, Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ready Reading Glasses, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05159 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ready Reading Glasses, Inc. -- https://readyreadingglasses.com/ -- is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma and is part of the Health and Personal Care Stores Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com REDWIRE CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Florida Court ----------------------------------------------------- Redwire Corporation disclosed in its Form 8-K Report dated May 25, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2022, that it is facing a class action filed against the company, its CEO, and its CFO filed in December 17, 2021, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the company and certain of its directors and officers made misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects, allegedly in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. Redwire Corporation is into critical space solutions and components based in Texas. RESTAURANT 597: Moran Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- PABLO OTILIO MORAN, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs v. RESTAURANT 597, INC. d//b/a BUS STOP CAFE, and ANASTASIOS HATZIIONNIDIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04878 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law seeking to recover from Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving; improper meal credit deductions; unlawfully retained gratuities; unpaid spread of hours premium; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a dishwasher and delivery person at Defendants' Bus Stop Cafe in New York from June 2012 to present. The Defendants collectively own and operate Bus Stop Cafe situated at 597 Hudson Street, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ROMAN FINANCIAL: Smith Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roman Financial Group LLC. The case is styled as Stewart Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Roman Financial Group LLC, Does 1 through 10, Inclusive and each of them, Case No. 2:22-cv-02434 (E.D. Pa., June 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Roman Financial Group -- https://www.theromanfinancialgroup.com/ -- offers life insurance and retirement services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com RSG CONSTRUCTION: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN JOSE SANDINO MARTINEZ, SOLIN ANTONIO ESCALANTE TORRES, DALMACIO ENRIQUEZ HERNANDEZ, JOSE ENERIQUE, CHARLES CECILIO VASQUEZ REYES, SIMEON DOMINIGUEZ BRAVO, ARNULFO VASQUEZ BASURTO, MARLENY RAMOS PLACENCIA, DUGLAS EPISMENIO CACAO TZUL, RIGOBERTO TENAS NAJARRO, UBER ANTONIO TZILIN, MILTON DE JESUS VALLADARES, ILSIAS ELI TENAS NAJARRO, STANLEY MICHELL MERCEDES CARVAJAL, CRISTIAN ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ, ISRAEL SANTIAGO CARDOZA, JORGE RUBEN MORALES SANCHEZ, MARIO DE JESUS NAVARRO, OSCAR FERNANDO REYES ROSALES, JOSE LUIS SOSA HERNANDEZ, CRISPIN SUAREZ, ANGEL ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ GARCIA, CAROLINA BERENICE RAMIREZ SORIANO, SILVIO CRUZ GALEAN ARMENGOL, BYRON STALIN MAROTO VALLEJO, EDWIN SANDINO MORENO, NELSON T. MANZANARES, ANGEL ARNULFO FAJARDO VASQUEZ, ZENAIDA ENRIQUEZ HERNANDEZ, MIGUEL EDUARDO CEFLA SILVA, JOSUE ANDRES SAN MARTIN RENDON, CAMILO RAMOS MATA, LUIS ENRIQUEZ ENRIQUEZ, JOSE ALFREDO MORALES PAREDES, ANGEL PEREZ CERVANTES, EZEQUIEL ANZURES BARRETO, JOSEPH FRANCISCO GUZMAN SANTAMARIA, CARLOS ALFREDO BARRETO ANZUREZ, ALVARO DE JESUS GUZMAN SANTAMARIA, JUAN HUEPALCALCO SALOMA, JUAN MARCELO ACTEOPAN CARVENTE, and VIRGINIA TOCAY NIJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RSG CONSTRUCTION CORP. and NYC LINE CONTRACTORS INC., HARJIT SINGH, NAVJIT SINGH and GURPREET SINGH, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03469 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2022) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising out of Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them proper overtime wages, failed to pay wages for all hours worked, failed to pay wages owed on a weekly basis in which Plaintiffs' wages were earned, failed to provide Plaintiffs with a written wage notice, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs were former and present construction workers of the Defendants. RSG Construction Corp. is a New York-based construction services provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: 718-263-9591 RUSSELL BRANDS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Russell Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Russell Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05157 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Russell Athletic -- https://www.russellathletic.com/ -- has been creating go-to athletic apparel since 1902.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Granado Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Guadalupe Granado, on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Sandridge Energy Inc., Case No. CJ-22-02500 was removed from the Oklahoma County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on June 21, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-00516-SLP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. SandRidge Energy, Inc. -- https://sandridgeenergy.com/ -- is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in the Mid-Continent region of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly Brantley, Esq. William B Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: meb@federmanlaw.com wbf@federmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert A Bragalone, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP - DALLAS 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 231-4714 Fax: (214) 461-4053 Email: bbragalone@grsm.com - and - Robert B Houston, Esq. WARD & GLASS LLP 1601 36th Avenue NW, Suite 100 Norman, OK 73072 Phone: (405) 360-9700 Fax: (405) 360-7902 Email: ben@ttb-law.com SCHOTT NYC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schott NYC Corp. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Schott NYC Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-03617-PKC-TAM (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Schott NYC -- https://www.schottnyc.com/ -- offers a line of fine leather jackets, motorcycle apparel, and wool coats that are now available for purchase on-line.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SCORES HOLDING: De Oliveira Labor Suit in NY Court Discontinued --------------------------------------------------------------- Scores Holding Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2022, that on March 26, 2021, a Stipulation of Discontinuance was so-ordered by the Federal Court, discontinuing all claims against the company with regards to the case entitled "Luisa Santos de Oliveira v. Scores Holding company, Inc., Club Azure, LLC, Robert Gans, Mark S. Yackow, Howard Rosenbluth," Docket No. 1:18-cv-06769-GBD, in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York filed in October 8, 2018. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), violated the New York Minimum Wage Act and the overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law (NYLL), violated the Spread of Hours Wage Order of the New York Commissioner of Labor, violated the Notice and Recordkeeping requirements of the NYLL, violated the wage statement provisions of the NYLL, recovery of equipment costs in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, and unlawful deductions from tips in violation of the NYLL. Plaintiff brought this action as a class action and seeks certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees and former employees of Defendants. The company has submitted an answer to Plaintiff's claims and the case is currently in the discovery phase. The case was assigned to a Magistrate Judge. There was a conference in March 2, 2021 and a Scheduling Order was entered. On March 26, 2021, a Stipulation of Discontinuance was so-ordered by the Federal Court, discontinuing all claims against the company. Scores Holding company, Inc. is into licensing the "Scores" trademarks and other intellectual property to fine gentlemen's nightclubs with adult entertainment in the US. SECURITY SERVICES: Faces Gomez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE GOMEZ JR., an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SECURITY SERVICES GROUP, INC., a California Corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV399105 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., June 10, 2022) is an employment class action arising from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for required business expenses; failed to pay wages, including overtime and penalty wages; failed to provide rest breaks; failed to provide uninterrupted meal breaks; failed to timely pay all wages owed; failed to provide accurate wage statements; and engaged in unlawful and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants until April 2022 as an hourly, non-exempt employee. Security Services Group Inc. provides security services at locations throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003 Telephone: (213) 761-5484 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com - and - Garen Majarian, Esq. MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC 18250 Ventura Blvd. Tarzana, CA 91356-4229 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: garen@majarianlawgroup.com SH GROUP OPERATIONS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SH Group Operations, LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SH Group Operations, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03618 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. SH Hotels & Resorts -- https://www.shhotelsandresorts.com/ -- is a hotel brand management company that operates the award-winning 1 Hotels, Baccarat Hotels, Treehouse Hotels, and SH Collection properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SHEARER'S FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Moore Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LYNN MOORE & HEATHER KOLM, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHEARER'S FOODS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-01017 (N.D. Ohio, June 13, 2022) challenges various policies and practices of Defendant that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act and the Ohio Rev. Code Ann. arising from Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs' proper overtime wages. Plaintiff Moore was employed by the Defendant as a packer and break reliever from approximately 2013 through approximately August 2021. Plaintiff Kolm was employed by the Defendant in various positions, including packer, break reliever, machine operator, and quality technician from approximately March 2019 through approximately November 2021. Based in Massillon, Ohio, Shearer's Foods LLC is in the business of manufacturing and distributing private brand snack foods for industries around the world.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com SIERRA HEALTH: Ruboczki Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Health and Wellness Centers, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Peter Ruboczki, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sierra Health and Wellness Centers, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00322243-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 22, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Sierra Health and Wellness Centers -- https://www.sierrahealthwellnesscenters.com/ -- offers addiction behavioral health, wellness and addiction treatment services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com SOCLEAN INC: Huff Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John Huff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SoClean Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01141 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 20, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00913-JFC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Product Liability. SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen S. McConnaughhay, Esq. FONVIELLE, LEWIS, FOOTE & MESSER 3375-A Capital Cir NE Tallahassee, FL 32308 Phone: (850) 422-7773 Fax: (850) 422-9681 Email: allen@wrongfullyinjured.com - and - Andrea Barient, Esq. Patrick W Pendley, Esq. 24110 Eden St Plaquemine, LA 70765 Phone: (225) 975-0150 Fax: (225) 687-6398 Email: abarient@pbclawfirm.com pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com - and - D. Chad Nuce, Esq. PASLEY, NUCE, MALLORY & DAVIS, LLC P.O. Box 1168 Thomaston, GA 30286 Phone: (706) 646-2147 Fax: (706) 646-2147 - and - John M. Deakle, Esq. Richard J. Lajaunie, Esq. Ronald V. Johnson, Esq. Russell L. Johnson, Esq. DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 2072 Hattiesburg, MS 39403 Phone: (601) 544-0631 Fax: (601) 544-0699 SOCLEAN INCORPORATED: Cason Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as James Cason, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SoClean Incorporated, Case No. 4:22-cv-00180 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 20, 2022. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00912-JFC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Product Liability. SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory E Good, Esq. GOOD LAW PC 3430 E Sunrise Dr., Ste. 270 Tucson, AZ 85718 Phone: (520) 628-8221 Fax: (520) 547-0394 Email: good@goodlaw.net SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Woodburn Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solidquote LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Woodburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Solidquote LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01539-DDD-SKC (D. Colo., June 21, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SolidQuote -- https://www.solidquote.com/vsolidauto4/step1.html -- has a network of car insurance companies that are all competing to supply customers' policy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 08701 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Peak Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. The case is styled as Erica Peak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-00798-UNA (D. Del., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Southwest Credit Systems -- https://www.swcconsumer.com/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig N. Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22 Wilmington, DE 19805 Phone: (215) 326-9179 Email: ag@garibianlaw.com SPECTRUM LIFESCIENCES: Bui Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spectrum Lifesciences, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Huong Bui, on behalf of herself the State of California and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. Spectrum Lifesciences, LLC, Repligen Corporation, Case No. 22STCV20265 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 21, 2022). The Case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Spectrum Lifesciences, LLC was founded in 2017. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of bulk organic and inorganic medicinal chemicals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Miles Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com STAFF SUPPORT: Faces Vasquez Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- KRYSTAL VASQUEZ, MARIA de PILAR ESPINOZA VERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAFF SUPPORT TEAM LLC, MACK MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, MACK CAT LABOR, ROBERT MACK, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03468 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid prevailing wages, daily overtime, and supplemental benefits that they and the members of the putative class were entitled to receive for work that they performed under contracts entered into between Defendants and the Metropolitan Transit Authority and/or New York City Transit Authority. The Plaintiffs further assert that the Defendants failed to provide wage notices and wage statements and provide paid sick leave as required by the NYLL. Plaintiff Vasquez also brings this action on behalf of herself, contending that Defendants violated NYLL Section 215 by reducing her hours as retaliation after she complained about Defendants' unlawful practices. Plaintiffs Vasquez and Vera were employed by the Defendants as subway cleaners from May 1, 2021 until December 20, 2021 and from September 2021 until December 23, 2021, respectively. Staff Support Team LLC is a staffing/placement agency that provided staffing services, including contracting with the Metropolitan Transit Authority to provide subway cleaning services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Margaret A. Malloy, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (518) 692-3748 E-mail: mmalloy@workingsolutionsnyc.com - and - Brendan Sweeney, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 430-7930 E-mail: bsweeney@workingsolutionsnyc.com STITCH FIX INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2022, that the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal for a class action lawsuit after the court granted a motion to dismiss the case. On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by certain of the company's stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its officers. The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding its active client growth and strategy with respect to television advertising between June 2018 and October 2018. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The four lawsuits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been appointed. On September 18, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action lawsuits (the "Class Action") filed a consolidated complaint for violation of the federal securities laws. On October 28, 2019, the company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 9, 2019, and the defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on December 30, 2019. The court granted the motion to dismiss on September 30, 2020 but allowed the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On November 6, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 7, 2020. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 8, 2021, and the company filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss on January 22, 2021. The court granted the motion to dismiss on October 1, 2021. On October 29, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. No hearing date has been set. Stitch Fix, Inc. is into personalized shipments of apparel, shoes, and accessories based in California. TAL EDUCATION GROUP: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Court ------------------------------------------------------------- TAL Education Group disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2022, that on February 4, 2022, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its current and former executives, advancing claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to represent all purchasers of its American Depository Shares between April 26, 2018 and July 22, 2021. Said action is in its preliminary stages. TAL Education Group is into educational services and is based in Haidian, Beijing. TAL EDUCATION GROUP: Settles Shareholder Suit in New York Court --------------------------------------------------------------- TAL Education Group disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2022, that on November 30, 2021, the Southern District of New York issued a final judgment approving the parties' stipulation and agreement of settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit filed in said court. In June 18, 2018 and July 17, 2018, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain officers of the company in said court, which was later consolidated into one. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading activities related to its American Depository Shared from April 26 to June 13, 2018. In June 24, 2021, it reached a stipulation and agreement of settlement with the plaintiffs. In November 30, 2021, the court issued a final judgment approving the parties' stipulation and agreement of settlement. TAL Education Group is into educational services and is based in Haidian, Beijing. TARGET CORP: $231K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Garcia Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SERGIO GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01249-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Plaintiff Garcia's unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees. The Plaintiff and Defendant Target have reached terms of settlement of a putative class action. The Settlement Agreement provides for awards of attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and Class Representative Award. The Settlement was preliminarily approved on Oct. 20, 2021. The Notice to the Settlement Class regarding the terms for attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and Class Representative Award have been completed and no objections have been received. After reviewing the Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Enhancement Award, and other related documents on file, and having heard the argument of the Attorneys for the respective Parties, Judge Nunley appoints James Hawkins and Isandra Fernandez of James Hawkins APLC as the Settlement Class Counsel for purposes of settlement. The Plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees in the amount of $216,645 and reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of $14,649 is granted as follows. Upon consideration of the relevant factors, Judge Nunley grants an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $216,645, representing 33.3% of the Maximum Settlement Amount. He grants $14,649 in litigation costs. The attorneys' fees and costs will be paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff Garcia is appointed as the Class Representative for purposes of settlement. Judge Nunley awards the Class Representative an Enhancement Award of $5,000 as fair and reasonable compensation for his services. The Enhancement Award will be paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Judge Nunley finds that no just reason exists for delay in entering the Judgment and Final Approval Order. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to enter the Order as a Final Judgment. The Order will constitute a final judgment with respect to the claims of the Named Plaintiffs, the Final Settlement Class, for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ynnz6vrr from Leagle.com. TARGET CORP: Class Settlement in Garcia Suit Wins Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SERGIO GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01249-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On June 16, 2022, a hearing was held on the parties' joint motion. he parties have submitted their Settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved by its Order entered on Oct. 19, 2021. In accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Class Members have been given notice of the terms of the Settlement and the opportunity to object to it or to exclude themselves from its provisions. Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting papers filed by the parties, 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 June 16, 2022, Judge Nunley grants final approval of the Settlement. For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Nunley finds and determines that the proposed Class, as defined in the definitions section of the Settlement and conditionally certified by the Preliminary Approval Order, meets all of the legal requirements for class certification, and it is ordered that the Class is finally approved and certified as a class for purposes of the Settlement. He further finds and determines that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class and to each Class Member and that the Class Members who did not timely submit valid elections not to participate in the Settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order will be bound by the Settlement, that the Settlement is ordered finally approved, and that all terms and provisions of the Settlement are ordered to be consummated. Judge Nunley finds and determines that the Settlement Shares to be paid to the Class Members, as provided for by the Settlement, are fair and reasonable. He gives final approval to and orders the payment of those amounts be made to the Class Members out of the Net Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement. He also finds and determines that the fees and expenses in administrating the Settlement, in the amount of $24,899, are fair and reasonable. He gives final approval to and orders that amount be paid out of the Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement. Judge Nunley determines by separate order the request by the Plaintiff and the Class Counsel to the Class Representative Payment and the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment. He orders that to the extent payments made to Class Members remain uncashed 180 days after mailing, the funds represented by the uncashed checks be delivered to the California State Controller's Office, Unclaimed Property Division. Without affecting the finality of the Order in any way, the Court retains jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of the Order and the Settlement. Upon completion of administration of the Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will provide written certification of such completion to the Court and the counsel for the parties. Pursuant to the Settlement, the Plaintiff and all the Class Members who did not timely submit valid elections not to participate are permanently barred from prosecuting against the Defendant, and each of its former and current parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliated corporations and entities, and each of their respective former and current employees, officers, directors, agents, attorneys, shareholders, fiduciaries, other service providers, and related persons and entities, and assigns, any of the claims released by them under the Settlement. The parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement. Judge Nunley enters final judgment in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed on Oct. 19, 2021, and the Order, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees except as provided by the Settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2022 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3a5xsxvw from Leagle.com. TEAM TREATZ: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Team Treatz, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Team Treatz, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05145 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Team Treatz -- https://teamtreatz.com/ -- currently designs and manufactures Licensed Dental Dog treats as well as Cat Tartar Control treats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com TELADOC HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Notifies of Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Teladoc Health, Inc. (NYSE: TDOC) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Teladoc investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between October 28, 2021 and April 27, 2022. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of the team: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/teladoc-health-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28971&wire=4 TDOC investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (i) increased competition, among other factors, was negatively impacting Teladoc's BetterHelp and chronic care businesses; (ii) accordingly, the growth of those businesses was less sustainable than Defendants had led investors to believe; (iii) as a result, Teladoc's revenue and adjusted EBITDA projections for FY 2022 were unrealistic; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, Teladoc would be forced to recognize a significant non-cash goodwill impairment charge; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Teladoc during the relevant time frame, you have until August 5, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Contact: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Smith, writing for The Coin Republic, reports that Musk undying support for meme-token Dogecoin is seen yet again as he tweets in favor of the asset class amidst crypto pyramid schemes filling against him. A lawsuit is filed against the world's richest man, alleging he conducted a Ponzi scheme using DOGE, 258 billion as total monetary damages are being demanded. Meanwhile, the creator of Dogecoin, Billy Markus, who has dissociated from the project advised Dogecoin developers to focus on utility and security. Elon Musk continues to show support for his "favorite cryptocurrency" even as a $258 billion class-action lawsuit alleging a crypto pyramid scheme is filed against him. A class complaint against Musk and his companies, Tesla and SpaceX, was registered in a New York district court on June 16 alleging him of carrying out a Ponzi scheme using DOGE. $258 billion as total monetary damages are demanded from Musk. On top of that, it also requested the court to rule DOGE trading as gambling in the United States. However, the crypto community didn't seem to agree with the lawsuit as entrepreneurs criticized the move. Meanwhile, the world's richest man too wasn't affected that much as even amidst all the mess he poured down his love for Dogecoin in a recent tweet. Meanwhile, Billy Markus, the creator of Dogecoin, who is no longer associated with the project also shared his vision regarding the asset class as he recommends the DOGE devs give priority to security and utility. Responding to Markus's suggestion, Musk says he agrees and replied with "More currency-like." Further, the Tesla boss also gave assurance to Markus saying that he is in favor of utilizing Dogecoin as payment for other services and as well as in Tesla and SpaceX merch. As reported earlier, Malicious actors, on the other hand, are releasing deepfake videos marketing cryptocurrency scams and typing to earn some money through it. While scrolling on the internet, Musk too came across one such video of his. In the video, a deepfake is seen mimicking the SpaceX CEO on a TED Talk. In the fake version, Musk can be seen promoting a crypto platform that claims 30% returns on crypto deposits. [GN] TEVRA BRANDS: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tevra Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tevra Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05119 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tevra Brands -- https://tevrabrands.com/ -- offers high quality, innovative products for your pets, family and home at an affordable price.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com TILLY'S INC: Securities Suit in California Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2022, that the court dismissed a class action lawsuit against the company after the settlement amount was paid. In September 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging, among other things, various violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint sought class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. In June 2016, the court granted the company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against us. Specifically, the court agreed with the company that the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining the company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all of plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court of Appeal. In February 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion overturning the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff's allegations stated a claim. In March 2019, the company filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the Court of Appeal's decision. The California Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal's decision. Since the case was remanded back to the trial court, the parties have been engaged in discovery. In March 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the company opposed. In October 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. In December 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court's order denying her motion for class certification. In October 2021, the plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of her appeal, which the Court of Appeal granted with a remittitur to return the case to the trial court where the case would proceed only with respect to the plaintiff's individual claims. In March 2022, the parties executed a settlement agreement and in April 2022 the company paid the settlement amount, which was originally accrued for during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021. On May 11, 2022, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. Tilly's is a destination specialty retailer of casual apparel, footwear, accessories and other goods based in California. TOYOTA MOTOR: Vehicle Owners Eligible for Compensation Confirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Dowling, writing for DRIVE, reports that anyone who bought a second-hand 2015 to 2020 Toyota HiLux, Prado or Fortuner with a dodgy diesel filter -- or bought it new and then sold it -- could still be eligible for thousands of dollars in compensation in a landmark court case. The $2 billion court case involving more than 260,000 Toyota HiLux, Prado and Fortuner vehicles sold in Australia from 2015 to 2020 will include customers who bought an affected vehicle second-hand - or bought new and have since sold it. The law firm leading the landmark open class action in the Federal Court has confirmed the number of Toyota customers who may be eligible for compensation goes beyond those who bought their vehicle new and still own it today. It also includes people who bought one of the affected vehicles as new and then sold it -- and anyone who bought one of the affected vehicles secondhand within the defined period. However, for customers to be eligible for compensation, they must register their interest with the law firm. There is no cost to register, but a portion of the compensation will go towards legal costs if the case is successful. Toyota has announced it plans to contest the Federal Court's decision to award more than 260,000 owners of Toyota four-wheel-drives with dodgy diesel particulate filters up to 17.5 per cent of the of the purchase price of their vehicles. In a statement to Drive, lawyers representing the legal firm Gilbert and Tobin, which is handling the court action on behalf of consumers, said: "People who purchased the vehicles secondhand during the relevant period are group members in the class action, and their vehicles were found to be defective. "However, the court found that the amount of compensation to which used car buyers were entitled needed to be determined on an individual basis. This will be done in due course through a separate process." When asked what happens to buyers who bought an affected Toyota vehicle new - but then sold it - the law firm said they too are still eligible for compensation, but that will also "be done through a separate process still to be determined." And, the law firm noted: "If you purchased (an affected Toyota) vehicle new and did not sell during the relevant period, you are likely to be eligible for compensation under the current judgment." Regardless of their circumstances, current and former owners of affected Toyota vehicles are encouraged to sign up and register their details to determine if they are eligible for compensation. As reported on June 20, Toyota has announced plans to contest the decision - and the astronomical sum of compensation involved. If Toyota does not succeed with its appeal, the landmark court case could deliver the biggest compensation payout in Australian corporate history. The law firm handling the class action of behalf of the owners of affected Toyota vehicles -- Gilbert and Tobin -- on June 20 began contacting more than 264,000 drivers of certain Toyota HiLux, Toyota Prado and Toyota Fortuner diesel vehicles across Australia purchased from October 2015 to April 2020. A total of 264,170 Toyota vehicles were fitted with either the 2.8-litre (1GD-FTV) and 2.4-litre (2GD-FTV) turbo diesel engines. Before Toyota introduced a technical solution, the faulty diesel particulate filters (DPF) could clog the exhaust system and produce excessive white smoke, which often led to increased fuel consumption -- and complaints from other motorists, police stops, and fines from pollution authorities. [GN] TRUE PET FOOD: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Pet Food Project Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. True Pet Food Project Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05114 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. True Pet Food Project Inc. -- https://tenderandtruepet.com/ -- provides pet food. The Company offers proteins and vegetables for cats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com TRUENERGY SERVICES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Delong Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL DELONG; MONICA HARTMAN; and CARL MORELAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01339-X (N.D. Tex., June 21, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. TRUENERGY SERVICES, LLC is a privately held energy broker and consulting firm representing many of the country's largest Retail Electricity Providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Tel: (215) 540-8888 Fax: (877) 788-2864 Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com teamkimmel@creditlaw.com -and- Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. Butsch Roberts & Associates LLC 231 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Tel: (314) 863-5700 Fax: (314) 863-5711 Email: Roberts@butschroberts.com TT OF VOLUSIA: Ryan Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TT of Volusia. The case is styled as Jessica Ryan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TT of Volusia doing business as Maserati of Daytona Beach, Case No. 2022-30925-CICI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., June 17, 2022). The case type is stated as "Other Civil - Circuit." TT of Volusia doing business as Maserati of Daytona Beach -- https://www.maseratialfaromeoofdaytona.com/ -- is a Maserati dealer in Daytona Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Dover, Esq. DEMESMIN & DOVER PLLC 1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Taje Gill, St. Esterphanie Juste, Benjamin Valdez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Lyft, Inc., Case No. CGC22600284 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 21, 2022). The case type is stated as "Antitrust/Unfair Competition." Uber Technologies, Inc. -- https://investor.uber.com/home/default.aspx -- is an American mobility as a service provider.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Williams Dempsey, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE PO Box 371680 Pmb 44465 Denver, CO 80237-5680 Email: rachel.w.dempsey@gmail.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 212-9300 Fax: (415) 373-9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com UNIFIN INC: Vega Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Vega, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00601 (W.D. Tex., June 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Unifin, Inc. -- https://unifininc.com/ -- is a full-service BPO and Accounts Receivable Management firm licensed and bonded internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com UNLIMITED FURNITURE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unlimited Furniture Group, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unlimited Furniture Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05149 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Unlimited Furniture Group, Inc. -- https://www.unlimitedfurnituregroup.com/ -- is an upscale home furnishings & decor sold in a warehouselike setting by-appointment only.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com VANMOOF USA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VanMoof USA Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VanMoof USA Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05094 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. VanMoof's -- https://www.vanmoof.com/en -- offers next-gen electric bikes with award-winning designs, packed with high-tech smart features.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Levi & Korsinsky Notifies of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Verrica investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between May 28, 2021 and May 24, 2022. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of the team: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/verrica-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28969&wire=4 VRCA investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) there were manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where Verrica's contract manufacturer produced a bulk solution for the Company's lead product candidate, VP-102; (2) these deficiencies were not remediated when Verrica resubmitted its New Drug Application for VP-12 for molluscum; (3) the foregoing presented significant risks to Verrica obtaining regulatory approval of VP-102 for molluscum; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Verrica during the relevant time frame, you have until August 5, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Contact: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] VIEW INC: Faces Mehedi Securities Suit in California Court ---------------------------------------------------------- View, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2022, that a putative class action was filed against the company alleging violations of the federal securities laws. On August 18, 2021, plaintiff Asif Mehedi filed a putative securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned "Mehedi v. View, Inc. (formerly CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II), et al.," Case No. 5:21CV06374, N.D. Cal., alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the Company, Rao Mulpuri, and Vidul Prakash. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and that Mulpuri and Prakash violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of persons who acquired the company's stock between November 30, 2020 and August 16, 2021. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that the company had not properly accrued warranty costs related to its product, that there was a material weakness in the company's internal control over financial reporting related to warranty accrual, that the company's financial results for prior periods were misstated as a result and that defendants' positive statements about the company's business were materially misleading. The complaint alleges that the foregoing statements caused the price of the company's stock to be inflated and that class members were damaged when the price of the company's stock declined on August 16, 2021, when the company announced an independent investigation concerning the adequacy of the company's previously disclosed warranty accrual. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs, including attorneys' and expert fees. In February 8, 2022, the Court appointed Stadium Capital LLC lead plaintiff and denied the competing motion of Sweta Sonthalia. In March 14, 2022, Ms. Sonthalia filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the lead plaintiff order. In April 11, 2022, the district court denied Ms. Sonthalia's motion to stay proceedings in the district court pending disposition of the writ petition. The writ petition is now fully briefed in the Ninth Circuit and is being considered for oral argument in August, September, or October 2022. View is a smart buildings platform and technology company based in California. VITAMIN SHOPPE: Sued Over Deceptive Dietary Supplements' Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ JOYCETTE GOODWIN, an individual, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. VITAMIN SHOPPE INDUSTRIES, LLC, dba THE VITAMIN SHOPPE, a New York Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04039-JFW-MAR (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act and for breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties, and claim for negligent misrepresentation arising from the Defendant's unlawful conduct. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets "The Vitamin Shoppe Garcinia Cambogia Extract," a dietary supplement that it falsely claims to be an effective aid in "weight management" and "appetite control," despite the fact that the product's only purportedly active ingredients, Hydroxycitric Acid and Chromium Nicotinate Glycinate Chelate, are scientifically proven to be incapable of providing such weight-loss benefits. The Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to (a) cease marketing the product using the misleading and unlawful tactics complained of herein, (b) destroy all misleading, deceptive, and unlawful materials, (c) conduct a corrective advertising campaign, (d) restore the amounts by which it has been unjustly enriched, and (e) pay restitution damages and punitive damages, as allowed by law. Ms. Goodwin is a resident of Los Angeles County, California, and purchased the product several times for personal and household use and not for resale at a Vitamin Shoppe store with her most recent purchase around April or May 2022. Vitamin Shoppe Industries, LLC provides health and fitness products. The Company offers vitamins, supplements, probiotics, proteins, aromatherapy, herbs, superfoods, and natural beauty products. Vitamin Shoppe Industries serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Lilach Halperin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com mike@consumersadvocates.com lilach@consumersadvocates.com VODAFONE GROUP: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Vodafone Group Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 16, 2022, that German courts have been determining the adequacy of the mandatory cash offer made to minority shareholders in Vodafone's takeover of Kabel Deutschland. Hearings took place in May 2019 and a decision was delivered in November 2019 in Vodafone's favor, rejecting all claims by minority shareholders. A number of shareholders appealed, which was rejected by the court in December 2021. Several minority shareholders have filed a further appeal before the Federal Court of Justice. The appeal process is ongoing. Vodafone Group Public Limited company is into radio telephone communications based in Berkshire. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Kimball Sues Over Defective Turbochargers ----------------------------------------------------------- JULIE KIMBALL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, AUDI AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT and AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04163-JMV-MAH (D.N.J., June 21, 2022) is a class action pursuant to California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the Song–Beverly Consumers Warranty Act arising from the Defendants' unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, harmful, and unfair business conduct and practices. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured, distributed, sold, and warranted the class vehicles under the VW and Audi brand names throughout the United States whose engines were incorporated with a defective turbocharger. Plaintiff Kimball leased a 2010 Audi A4 equipped with a class engine in California from an authorized Audi dealership for her personal or household use in December 2009. At the expiration of the lease, Plaintiff Kimball purchased the 2010 Audi A4. In July 2019, at 63,683 miles, Plaintiff Kimball's vehicle experienced the turbocharger defect. As a result of the turbocharger defect, Plaintiff Kimball was forced to pay approximately $3,000 to have her vehicle diagnosed and the turbocharger replaced, says the suit. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is the North American operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of automobile companies of Germany.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com - and - Thomas P. Sobran, Esq. THOMAS P. SOBRAN, P.C. 7 Evergreen Lane Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (781) 741-6075 E-mail: tsobran@sobranlaw.com W.F. YOUNG: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.F. Young, Incorporated. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. W.F. Young, Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-05116 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. W.F. Young, Inc. -- https://www.wfyoung.com/ -- is a privately held American corporation that has sold animal care products since 1892.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com WALMART INC: Corpuz Sues Over Mislabeled Fish Oil Supplements ------------------------------------------------------------- EDISON CORPUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00901-RBM-AHG (S.D. Cal., June 21, 2022) is a proposed class action on behalf of a nationwide and California class of consumers seeking redress for the Defendant's deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling and sale of its Spring Valley 1000 mg Fish Oil dietary supplement ("Product" or "Supplement"). According to the complaint, the Defendant markets, labels and sells a Product prominently described as "Fish Oil" consisting of consisting of 600 mg of Eicosapentaenoic Acid ("EPA") and 400 mg of Docosahexaenoic Acid ("DHA") - the essential omega-3 fatty acids that naturally occur in fish. Contrary to what is represented on both the front and back of its label, this Product is not Fish Oil, nor does it contain a single milligram of the principal Omega-3s found in fish oil (i.e., EPA and DHA). Rather, Defendant's Product is a lab synthesized solution - the result of a chemical process known as trans-esterification, whereby an industrial solvent and ethanol are used to molecularly alter and substantially transform otherwise unmarketable fish waste into a consumable product, says the suit. If the Plaintiff and other members of the Class had known of the true nature of the Product, they would not have purchased them or paid less for them. WALMART INC. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler, games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party supplies, and automotive tools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (213) 401-4100 Fax: (213) 401-0311 Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com WAX RESEARCH INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wax Research, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wax Research, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05155-MKV (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wax Research Inc. -- http://www.waxresearch.com/-- is a private company. The company currently specializes in the Sporting Goods area..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com WHOLESALE IN MOTION: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wholesale In Motion Group, Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wholesale In Motion Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05168 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wholesale In Motion -- https://www.wholesaleinmotion.com/ -- is one of the largest stores for wholesale clothing apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com WIRECO WORLDWIDE: Wampler Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD WAMPLER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WIRECO WORLDWIDE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02242 (D. Kan., June 22, 2022) is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law for failing to pay Plaintiff overtime at one and one-half the regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked within a workweek and for retaliatory conduct for alleged insubordination. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly nonexempt manufacturing employee from February 2018 through June 3, 2022 at its facility located in Chillicothe, Livingston County, Missouri. Wireco Worldwide Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of metal wire. The Company operates five manufacturing facilities in Chillicothe, Missouri; Kirksville, Missouri; Sedalia, Missouri; Montgomeryville, Pennsylvania; and Rosenberg, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg N. Tourigny, Esq. THE TOURIGNY LAW FIRM LLC 4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 945-2861 E-mail: greg@tourignylaw.com - and - Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 4600 Madison, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 221-7100 Facsimile: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com WORLD WRESTLING: Two More Law Firms to File Investment Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Phillipa Mariee of Wrestling World reports that WWE has been targeted by several legal companies in the wake of the investigation into Vince McMahon's hush money payout to a former employee. Five law firms were already searching for investors who had lost money after the investigation was made public, looking to file class-action lawsuits against the company. According to Brandon Thurston of Wrestlenomics, two more law firms have now joined the hunt as well. Pomerantz Law Firm and Moore Kuehn PLLC are the latest companies to join the hunt for a potential lawsuit against WWE, but as of writing, no lawsuits have actually been filed. WWE's stock decreased significantly after it was made public that Vince McMahon was under investigation and there is a belief that the company failed to disclose information before it was made public, which has cost many of its investors a lot of money. [GN] XTO ENERGY: Underpays Directional Supervisors, Thompson Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SCOTT THOMPSON, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XTO ENERGY, INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00784-UNA (D. Del., June 13, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for XTO from approximately September 2018 through March 2020 as a directional supervisor. He and similarly situated directional supervisors were classified by the Defendant as independent contractors, were paid a flat amount for each day worked, and were not paid overtime for all hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the FLSA, asserts the complaint. XTO Energy, Inc. is a staffing company that provides recruitment services to the oil and gas industry, among others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sue L. Robinson, Esq. Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market St. 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com awhite@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com YOUTOPIA ENTERTAINMENT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Youtopia Entertainment, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Youtopia Entertainment, LLC doing business as: Candytopia, Case No. 1:22-cv-05252 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Youtopia Entertainment, LLC doing business as Candytopia -- https://www.candytopia.com/ -- is a sugar meets spice, deliciously immersive and outrageously interactive candy wonderland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com YUMA REGIONAL: Johnson Files Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yuma Regional Medical Center. The case is styled as Brittney Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, Case No. 2:22-cv-01061-SMB (D. Ariz., June 22, 2022). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Federal Trade Commission Act. Yuma Regional Medical Center -- https://www.yumaregional.org/Home -- is a hospital in Yuma, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colleen M Auer, Esq. Elaine Ryan, Esq. AUER RYAN PLLC 20987 N John Wayne Pkwy., Ste. B104-374 Maricopa, AZ 85139 Phone: (520) 705-7332 Fax: (602) 560-0256 Email: cauer@auer-ryan.com eryan@auer-ryan.com YUVI INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yuvi Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Yuvi Inc. doing business as: Noemie, Case No. 1:22-cv-05268 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yuvi Inc. doing business as Noemie -- https://www.hellonoemie.com/ -- offers premium jewelry quality at the finest price.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com ZIWI USA: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ziwi USA Incorporated. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ziwi USA Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-05146 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2022). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ziwi -- https://www.ziwipets.com/ -- is home of healthy, 100% natural dog and cat food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP 200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Defends 1,035 PI Suits at April 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed prior to 1979, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Since 2002 and as of April 30, 2022, approximately 1,035 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been filed against us and we have vigorously defended and continue to vigorously defend against them. Of these lawsuits, 988 have been dismissed without any payment by us, 37 are pending and only 10 have been settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our financial condition or operating results. "As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims if the use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated environmental, health or safety or other laws. Such product liability claims have included and may in the future include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3OJIGfi ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Faces Product Liability Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party. "In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we fund a share of defense costs, settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent. "We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured. Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for insurance recoveries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://bit.ly/3bvPWxb ********* 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 2022. 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 ***