/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230201.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 1, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 24 Headlines 21ST MORTGAGE: Tatick Suit Removed to S.D. California 4TOP HOSPITALITY: Rowland Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff AARGON AGENCY: Markowitz Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter ABRAHAMSEN GINDIN: Must Supplement Bid for Guyton Deal Approval ACCURA HEALTH: Gaul Wins Bid for Conditional Class Certification ALAMEDA HEALTH: Soman Suit Remanded to Alameda County Super. Court ALL SECURE: White Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification ALLIANZ GLOBAL: $145-Mil. Class Settlement to be Heard on March 9 AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Wiley Suit Removed to C.D. California ANTECH DIAGNOSTICS: Fort Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ARCADIA CONSUMER: Delphia Sues Over Deceptive Marketing and Selling ARKANSAS: Vanderbilt May File Amended Suit v. Corrections Dep't. AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Decertify Class in Brach Family Suit Nixed AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Decertify Class in Duffy 2004 Tossed AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Decertify Class in EFG Bank Suit Junked AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Decertify Class in LSH Class Suit Junked AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Decertify Class in Wenokur Suit Nixed BALLAD HEALTH: Hall Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Leber Suit Removed to C.D. California BANK OF AMERICA: Nelson Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania BEIJING-MATSUSHITA: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Feb. 24 BELVIDERE POLICE: Wigginton Files Suit in N.D. Illinois BETMGM LLC: Bei Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII BLACK FOX COFFEE: McDonald Sues Over Unpaid Compensations BLST OPERATING COMPANY: Gross FCRA Suit Removed to D. Minnesota BOOT BARN: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in California BRAGG COMMUNITIES: Court Narrows Claims in Thomas Suit BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES: $4.5M Class Deal in Torres Wins Prelim. Nod BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Pina Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls BROCK PIERCE: Seeks Dismissal of Brock FAC CALARES INC: Salbeck Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri CALIFORNIA: Denial of Wilson's Class Certification Bid Recommended CALLON LLC: Faces Slamon Suit Over Fraudulent $73.9-M Fund Transfer CAMPBELL'S TOWING: Alexander Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CAPITAL ONE: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to April 1 CENTENE CORPORATION: Cupp Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CGS STORES: Approval of Stipulation of Conditional Cert. Sought CHATTEM INC: Tlaib Sues Over Dry Mouth Lozenges' Deceptive Labels CHEDDAR'S FRANCHISE: Ramey Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages CHICK-FIL-A INC: Carroll Sues Over Secret Reporting of Data CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Diaz Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition CHIVE MEDIA: Discloses Video Viewing Info to Facebook, Roland Says COLLECTION BUREAU: Weinberger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY: Liable to Plan Losses, Quigley Suit Says CORNER FURNITURE: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COULTER VENTURES: Braun's Bid in Limine in Unpaid Wage Suit Denied CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Case Management Order Entered in Palmer DE HOOP: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Tuy Xep Suit Says DHI MORTGAGE: Bid to Substitute Named Plaintiff OK'd DIGITAL STORM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Donet Suit Says DOCKSIDE GRIMLEY: Warren Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages DOCTOR'S BEST: Martin Sues Over Falsely Advertised Product EMERGENCY SNACK BAR: Estevez Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ESTIA HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Crew Members' OT Wages Under FLSA EURO NAILS: Collazo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Stipulation to Consolidate Pena Cases OK'd FAITH BRIDGE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Donet Alleges FEDEX GROUND: New Jersey Court Allows Derieux to Amend Class Suit FIRSTCREDIT INTERNATIONAL: Luna Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection FOX PEST CONTROL: Greene Sues to Recover Untimely Paid Wages GENERAC HOLDINGS: California Trust Sues Over Wrongful Omissions GERBER LIFE: Loguidice, et al., File Class Certification Bid GLOBAL TRAVEL: Judge Recommends Denial of Class in Sides GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Brand Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Lead GRAND ISLE: Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims in Ortiguerra Suit Granted HALSTED FINANCIAL: McMahon Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Tennessee HARBOR FREIGHT: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Herrera Alleges HEALTHCOMP LLC: Godin Sues Over Unlawful Recording of Calls HENKEL CORP: Watkins Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics HOME DEPOT: Reimer TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia HUDSON NATIONAL: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ICONOCLAST FITNESS: Liu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York IFIT HEALTH AND FITNESS: Balfour Files Suit in D. Delaware IHEALTH LABS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York INSPIRE SUMMITS: Barlow Appeals Suit Ruling to N.Y. Appellate Div. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Initial Approval of Settlement Sought IRIS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit in N.J. J.G. WENTWORTH: Simpson TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida KIA AMERICA: Placencia Sues Over Concealment of Vehicle Defect LHC GROUP: Liable to 401(k) Plan Losses, Kovach Suit Alleges LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Armand Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages LLEIA LUXE EVENTS: McKnight Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection LOUISIANA: 5th Cir. Vacates Class Certification in A.A. v. Phillips LOUISVILLE COUNTY, KY: Class Cert. Denial in Stanifer Suit Upheld MACON IT HAPPEN: French Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation MAYO FOUNDATION: Case Management Order Entered in Schreiber META PLATFORMS: Craig Sues Over Breach of Financial Privacy MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Cruz Suit MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Perugia Sues Over Halls Lozenges' False Labels MULTIPLAN CORP: $33.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 28 NEBRASKA METHODIST: Fitzpatrick Sues Over ERISA Violation NERVE RENEW: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Feliz Suit Alleges NEW YORK, NY: Reilly Sues Over Unpaid OT for Trade Workers NORMAN KRIEGER: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Zuniga Alleges OASIS GOODTIME: Fails to Pay Dancers' Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA OCLARO INC: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Certification Hearing OLLY PUBLIC: Court Narrows Claims in Murphy Suit PAYWARD INC: Singh Files Suit in N.D. Illinois PLANNED LIFESTYLE: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Baxter Suit PORSCHE CARS: Wins Summary Judgment vs. Xu, et al. PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Philipson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Oral Argument in Drummond Reset to Feb. 14 QUANTGENE INC: Faces Ybarra Wage-and-Hour Suit in California QUANTUM 3 MEDIA: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina REALPAGE INC: Faces Enders Suit Over Housing Lease Monopoly RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Ramirez Suit Transferred to W.D. Wash. ROCKLAND COUNTY, NY: Mejia Files Suit in S.D. New York ROOFLINE INC: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Davis Claims SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Johnson Can Conditionally File Docs Under Seal SHAFFER ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Villegas Says SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fails to Refund Canceled Flight, Smith Claims STRIDE INC: Court Upholds Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit SYNGENTA CROP: Blocks Generic Pesticides, Pleasantdale Suit Claims T-MOBILE US: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Secure PII TEAMI LLC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TIMES PUBLISHING: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Waller Says TOUCH OF MODERN: Levine Sues Over Illegal Telephonic Sales Calls TRIPLE J. TRUCKING: Cottrell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Parties Seek to Confirm Briefing Schedule VERIZON DATA: Court Junks Bid to Remand Kendall Class Suit WELLS FARGO: Lead Plaintiffs Must File Reply Brief by March 31 WESTERN FLYER: Settlement in Beissel Suit Gets Initial OK WM. BOLTHOUSE: Smith Sues Over Fruit Juice Smoothie's PFAS Content YOUNG ADULT: Bose Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ZARBEE'S INC: Court Narrows Claims in Lopez Suit ********* 21ST MORTGAGE: Tatick Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kathy Tatick, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. 21st Mortgage Corporation, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00046802-CU-NPCTL was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00108-DMS-BLM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. 21st Mortgage Corporation -- https://www.21stmortgage.com/ -- is a full service lender specializing in manufactured and mobile home loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon K. Brouillette, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Joseph Hakakian, Esq. Laura Ellen Goolsby, Esq. Mark Alan Ozzello, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. CAPSTONE LAWYERS APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-4811 Fax: (310) 943-0396 Email: brandon.brouillette@capstonelawyers.com cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com joseph.hakakian@capstonelawyers.com laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Richard Bryan Hopkins, II, Esq. MAYNARD COOPER & GALE LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Ste. 550 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 596-4380 Email: rhopkins@hinshawlaw.com 4TOP HOSPITALITY: Rowland Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANE C. ROWLAND and BRITTNY REID, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 4TOP HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00051 (M.D. Tenn., January 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay minimum wage and overtime on account of receiving tips in a given workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed as servers at 4Top's Amerigo restaurant located at 1656 Westgate Cir., Brentwood, Tennessee. 4Top Hospitality Group, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne Bennett Hunter, Esq. HUNTER LAW FIRM 101 Creekside Crossing, Suite 1700-307 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 592-2977 E-mail: anne@hunteremploymentlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 5000 Rockside Road Liberty Plaza Building, Suite 520 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsaypay.com AARGON AGENCY: Markowitz Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL MARKOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AARGON AGENCY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 501822/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., January 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading, and unfair representations with respect to its debt collection efforts. The Defendant's debt collection letter failed to include multiple disclosures and statements required pursuant the rules promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) including an itemization date of any kind, any reference to an itemization date or a statement specifying the creditor on such date. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to determine precisely when the validation periods would end, which the CFPB determined was necessary to have a fully informed consumer. In reliance on the Defendant's letter, the Plaintiff expended time and money in an effort to mitigate the risk of future financial and reputational harm in the form of debt collection informational furnishment and ultimate dissemination, to third parties, says the suit. Aargon Agency, Inc. is a debt collector based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christofer Merritt, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com ABRAHAMSEN GINDIN: Must Supplement Bid for Guyton Deal Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DELOISE GUYTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABRAHAMSEN GINDIN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-629-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, orders the parties to file a supplement to their Renewed Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement addressing the issues described in his Order no later than Feb. 21, 2023. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) class action is before the Court on the parties' Renewed Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. In the amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated two provisions of the FDCPA because it allegedly was not registered as a consumer collection agency with the State of Florida Office of Financial Regulation at the time it sent collection letters to her and the putative class members. Upon review of the parties' Motion, Judge Corrigan finds additional briefing necessary on certain issues before deciding whether the class should be preliminarily approved. First, Judge Corrigan is concerned that the class definition includes putative class members who may not have standing. The class definition in this case is as follows: All persons (a) with a Florida address, (b) from whom Abrahamsen Gindin, LLC attempted to collect a consumer debt, (c) between June 24, 2020 and Nov. 30, 2021. In 2022, the en banc panel of the Eleventh Circuit in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 48 F.4th 1236, 1242 (11th Cir. 2022), reiterated that a statutory violation alone is not enough for standing; plaintiffs must allege some concrete harm. In Hunstein, the plaintiff argued that by sending the information about his debt to the mail vendor, the defendant committed an act similar to the tort of public disclosure. The Eleventh Circuit, using the analysis set forth in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), held that that was not enough for standing. The Plaintiff initially proceeded under a similar theory, but amended her complaint post-Hunstein. Now she alleges that the Defendant's allegedly violative actions led her to expend time and effort which waster her time and caused annoyance and frustration. Judge Corrigan that wasted time can be enough for standing. However, the class definition does not limit the class to those that have needlessly expended time and effort. The parties also briefly argue that the Plaintiff and putative class members suffered an intangible injury sufficient to confer standing that bears a close resemblance to the harm flowing from common law abuse of process. In their supplement, the parties should discuss standing and the class definition (including whether it must be narrowed), and whether the Plaintiff and putative class members' injuries are sufficiently comparable under TransUnion to the historical common-law tort of abuse of process. Second, Judge Corrigan notes that the settlement includes a $1,000 award to Ms. Guyton, the named Plaintiff. The Eleventh Circuit in Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, 975 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2020) held that precedent prohibits incentive awards that compensate a class representative for her time and rewards her for bringing a lawsuit. The parties state that the award is statutorily permitted under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(2)(B), but other courts have also questioned the validity of these awards post-Johnson. In their supplement, the parties should discuss whether the statutory award under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(2)(B) is permissible in light of Johnson. In light of the foregoing, Judge Corrigan requires more information before it can preliminarily approve the class action settlement. Accordingly, he orders the parties to file a supplement to the Renewed Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement addressing the issues described in his Order no later than Feb. 21, 2023. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2hpvrub4 from Leagle.com. ACCURA HEALTH: Gaul Wins Bid for Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA GAUL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ACCURA HEALTH VENTURES, LLC; AMERICAN HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ACCURA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES; ACCURA HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS LLC; and AMERICAN HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a ACCURA HEALTHCARE OF IOWA, Case No. 4:22-cv-00154-SHL-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephen H. Locher entered an order denying motion for summary judgment and granting motion for conditional certification. The parties' final area of dispute involves the form and method of notice to potential members of the collective. The Court agrees with Defendants that it is appropriate to give the parties time to meet-and-confer on this issue, particularly given that Gaul's theory for the "common policy" has evolved since she filed her motion for class certification. Following a ransomware attack affecting third-party payroll processing software, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Jessica Gaul the correct overtime rate for one pay period. The Defendants also, however, failed to withhold enough for taxes in that period and two subsequent pay periods, and thus Gaul arguably received more in take-home pay than she should have. The Defendants argue that because they eventually paid the correct withholding amounts to taxing authorities, there has been no Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The Court disagrees and therefore denies Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. American Healthcare is a healthcare management company that operates skilled nursing and senior living facilities throughout the Midwest. Gaul worked for Accura as a part-time Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) until December 12, 2021, at Accura's facility in Carroll, Iowa. Accura uses software called Kronos for timekeeping and payroll processing. On December 13, 2021, Accura learned Kronos was unavailable due to a ransomware attack. Sometime after the attack, Accura provided timesheets to employees to use to track their hours manually for the duration of the Kronos outage. The Kronos outage lasted approximately six weeks. During this period, employees recorded hours by hand and turned them in to supervisors. For Gaul and others in Payroll Group B, the first payroll period impacted by the Kronos outage ran from December 5 to December 18, 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3R05yJO at no extra charge.[CC] ALAMEDA HEALTH: Soman Suit Remanded to Alameda County Super. Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California remands the case, JAS SOMAN, Plaintiff v. ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-06076-JD (N.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. In the putative class action, Soman alleges that her former employer, Alameda Health System (AHS), obtained a background check into her work history using disclosure forms that violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681, et seq., and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1786, et seq. Soman alleges that she applied for a job as a surgical technician with AHS in 2016. She signed a job application that authorized a background check into her employment history and released AHS from liability for the investigation. In conjunction with the application, AHS provided Soman with written disclosure forms about the background check and her rights under the FCRA and ICRAA. Under the FCRA, an employer cannot obtain a consumer report for employment purposes unless it makes "a clear and conspicuous disclosure" in writing before the report is obtained, in a document that consists "solely" of the disclosure, and the applicant authorizes the collection of the report. Soman says that AHS violated these requirements because its FCRA disclosure contained "extraneous and superfluous language" about accretive rights under state law. She also says that the FCRA disclosure did not adequately advise her about the right "to have the person who procured the report provide a complete and accurate disclosure of the nature and scope of the investigation requested." The Court granted multiple motions to dismiss, and provided multiple opportunities for Soman to amend the pleadings. The FCRA claims were dismissed with prejudice. Soman appealed. A few weeks later, the Ninth Circuit decided Gilberg v. Cal. Cash Checking Stores, LLC, 913 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2019). Gilberg did not address standing, but it reversed summary judgment for the defendant on FCRA and ICRAA claims that challenged disclosures substantively identical to the disclosures challenged by Soman.The Court, on its own initiative, invited the parties to file a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Procedure 60 in light of Gilberg. The Circuit remanded on that basis, and the Court granted reconsideration and reopened Soman's case in October 2019. A tortuous story of settlement and remand ensued. On Sept. 25, 2020, the parties advised the Court that the case had settled, and they would file a joint stipulation to remand the case to state court. On Oct. 6, 2020, they changed course and advised that they would ask the Court to consider a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. A year passed, and nothing happened with respect to settlement, remand, or anything else. On Oct. 20, 2021, Soman eventually surfaced to say that she lacked standing under TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), and that the case should be remanded to state court. This development was a surprise given the parties' assurances that they had settled. In light of this, the Court ordered Soman to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The responses to the OSC sowed even more confusion. Neither side made any effort to explain why their proposed courses of action were procedurally sound under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or in the best interests of the class. The Court's repeated requests for an explanation by the parties have gone entirely unsatisfied. This shortfall was not corrected at a status conference the Court held to try to cut through the opacity and confusion. Soman moved for preliminary approval of the proposed $1 million settlement on March 24, 2022, while the prior remand request was still pending. AHS now opposes preliminary approval on the ground that Soman has not shown that she or other putative class members suffered a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing. Soman responds that she has established standing because all of the elements necessary to establish a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) have been met," and, under Syed, the Court can "fairly infer" that she and putative class members were confused by the disclosure form and would not have signed the authorization had it contained a proper disclosure. Soman withdrew the motion to remand on May 5, 2022. Overall, Judge Donato holds that the case has not been efficiently managed by the parties. It has been burdened by long delays and other disruptions that have not been adequately explained to the Court. This is particularly true for the question of a remand. Both sides have at various times asked for a remand to state court for lack of standing, without saying why a return to state court might make sense for the class or otherwise be procedurally appropriate. This has given the Court considerable pause about what the parties are doing, and resulted in several requests that they explain their positions. After reviewing the responses that have trickled in over time, Judge Donato now has enough to work with on the issue of a remand, and further briefing would be duplicative and unnecessary. He holds that Soman has not alleged a concrete and particularized injury that would establish standing to sue. Consequently, the case is remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court, with considerable misgivings about the potential impact on the putative class at this late date in the case. Judge Donato says this is not a positive development for the putative class so late in the day, and it is entirely attributable to the poor performance of counsel on both sides. Overall, the attorneys did not handle the litigation with the professionalism expected of all counsel in this District. The record demonstrates that the counsel for Soman, the Setareh and Haines law firms, have not managed the case in an acceptable manner or in the best interests of the putative class. If the case had proceeded, the Court would have had serious questions about their adequacy as class counsel, and their entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs. The counsel for AHS, the Gordon Rees law firm, did not forthrightly respond to the Court's concerns about the remand and settlement issues. The counsel for both sides appear to have engaged in gamesmanship to the detriment of the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The Court's ability to rectify this situation is over now that Soman and the putative class lack Article III standing, but Judge Donato is confident that the state court will ensure the putative class is not left holding the bag for the lawyers' poor performances. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/48ap5z6p from Leagle.com. ALL SECURE: White Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN WHITE, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ALL SECURE, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, Case No. 2:22-cv-02501-TLP-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- authorizing her overtime claims to proceed as a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated security guard employees; -- directing the Defendant to immediately provide the Plaintiff's counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last names first), last known physical addresses, last known email addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment, and last known telephone numbers of all putative class members; -- providing that the Court-approved notice be posted at all of the Defendant's facilities/offices where they currently employ anyone who falls within the scope of the putative class, enclosed with all of Defendant's currently employed putative class members' next regularly-scheduled paycheck/stub, and be mailed and emailed to the putative class; -- tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as of the date this is fully briefed; and -- requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent to Join Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iUoj53 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com ALLIANZ GLOBAL: $145-Mil. Class Settlement to be Heard on March 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK KNOX COUNTY PENSION & RETIREMENT BOARD, KNOX CHAPMAN UTILITY DISTRICT, BEAUMONT FINANCIAL PARTNERS LLC, WILLIAM JACKSON, and EMILY E. COLE, individually on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated investors, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS U.S. LLC, ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS DISTRIBUTORS LLC, and ALLIANZ FUNDS MULTI-STRATEGY TRUST (n/k/a VIRTUS STRATEGY TRUST), Defendants. Index No.: 651233/2021 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: Any Person who or which purchased or otherwise acquired an interest in the shares of any of the Allianz Global Investors Structured Alpha mutual funds listed below (collectively, the "Mutual Funds"): AllianzGI Structured Return Fund ("Structured Return Fund"). Class A (Ticker AZIAX) Class C (Ticker AZICX) Class P (Ticker AZIPX) Class R6 (Ticker AZIRX) Institutional Class (Ticker AZIIX) AllianzGI U.S. Equity Hedged Fund ("U.S. Equity Hedged Fund"). Class A (Ticker AZUAX) Class C (Ticker AZUCX) Class P (Ticker AZUPX) Institutional Class (Ticker AZUIX) AllianzGI PerformanceFee Structured US Equity Fund ("PerformanceFee Equity Fund"). Class P (Ticker APBPX) Class R6 (Ticker APBRX) Institutional Class (APBIX), and/or AllianzGI PerformanceFee Structured US Fixed Income Fund ("PerformanceFee Fixed Income Fund"). Class P (Ticker APKPX) Class R6 (Ticker APKRX) Institutional Class (APKIX) pursuant or traceable to, or whose investments were otherwise solicited through, the Offering Communications,1 and who or which (i) purchased those shares prior to February 24, 2020, and sold those shares on or after February 24, 2020 and prior to the respective Mutual Fund's liquidation date; (ii) purchased those shares prior to February 24, 2020, and held those shares through the liquidation of the respective Mutual Fund; (iii) purchased those shares on or after February 24, 2020, and sold those shares prior to the respective Mutual Fund's liquidation date; or (iv) purchased those shares on or after February 24, 2020, and held those shares through the liquidation of the respective Mutual Fund, and, (v) in each case, was damaged thereby ("Settlement Class" or "Settlement Class Member"). THIS SUMMARY NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing (the "Settlement Fairness Hearing") will be held on March 9, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Andrew Borrok of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, either in person at the New York County Courthouse, 60 Centre Street, Courtroom 238, New York, New York 10007, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court). At the Settlement Fairness Hearing the Court will, among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed settlement of the above-captioned action for $145,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement") as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated November 1, 2022 ("Stipulation")2 is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved by the Court; (ii) determine whether the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund should be approved by the Court as fair and reasonable; (iv) determine whether to grant final certification of the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement; (v) consider Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, including Plaintiffs' request for payment for their efforts in prosecuting this Action on behalf of the Settlement Class; (vi) consider any objections or opt outs received by the Court; and (vii) rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. Any updates regarding the Settlement Fairness Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement Website, www.AllianzMutualFundsLitigation.com. This is a securities action against Defendants for claims under §§11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the Securities Act by reason of material misrepresentations and omissions in the Offering Communications for the Mutual Funds. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Offering Communications included untrue material statements, and failed to disclose material information, regarding, among other things, the Mutual Funds' investment strategies. Defendants deny they have committed any act or omission giving rise to liability in this Action. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") postmarked (if mailed), or submitted online using the Settlement Website, www.AllianzMutualFundsLitigation.com, no later than April 20, 2023. Your failure to post-mark your Proof of Claim or to submit it online using the Settlement Website by April 20, 2023 will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Claim Form. If you have not received a copy of the full Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Claim Form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.AllianzMutualFundsLitigation.com, by contacting the Claims Administrator by email at info@AllianzMutualFundsLitigation.com, or by writing to: Allianz Mutual Funds Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173050 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or Claim Form, may be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: Olimpio L. Squitieri, Esq. Squitieri & Fearon, LLP 305 Broadway 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 212-421-6492 lee@sfclasslaw.com David S. Golub, Esq Silver Golub & Teitell LLP One Landmark Square 15th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 203-325-4491 dgolub@sgtlaw.com Jordan A. Goldstein, Esq Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC 1290 Avenue of the Americas 17th Floor New York, NY 10104 212-390-9000 jgoldstein@selendygay.com James A. Harrod, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 800-380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Wiley Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Maria Wiley, an individual, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Does 1 to 20, Inclusive, Case No. CVRI2205081 was removed from the Riverside County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 23, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00116-DOC-SP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation (ABDC) -- https://www.amerisourcebergen.com/ -- provides pharmaceutical products. The Company distributes prescription drugs, health and beauty, home healthcare, proprietary drugs, and general merchandise products, as well as technology, medication management, and consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C Slater, Esq. Dominic Ganalongo Mendoza, Esq. SLATER AND ASSOCIATES APLC 1111 West Town and Country Road Suite 30 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (657) 333-8090 Fax: (657) 288-4000 Email: cslater@slateraplc.com demendoza@slateraplc.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. Michelle L. Quach, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (650) 843-4000 Fax: (650) 843-4001 Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com michelle.quach@morganlewis.com ANTECH DIAGNOSTICS: Fort Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Kenya Fort, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Antech Diagnostics, Inc., Vicar Operating Inc. d/b/a VCA, Case No. 2022LA001042 was removed from the Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00367 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Antech Diagnostics -- https://www.antechdiagnostics.com/ -- is a trusted partner in veterinary diagnostics and reference lab testing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. Mara Ann Baltabols, Esq. FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 861-1800 Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua Douglas Lee, Esq. RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP 70 W. Madison St., Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 471-8700 Email: jlee@rshc-law.com ARCADIA CONSUMER: Delphia Sues Over Deceptive Marketing and Selling ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kent Delphia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARCADIA CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, INC. d/b/a KRAMER LABORATORIES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 0:23-cv-60115-AHS (S.D. Fla., Jan. 23, 2023), is brought against the Defendant who markets and sells its Fungi Nail products ("Product(s)") as foot fungus treatment, deceiving the public about the Products' abilities to cure nail fungus in violation of the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act The Defendants claim on their advertising, packaging, and website (http://funginail.com)that the Products have many purported benefits such as: All Fungi-Nail Products are Clinically Proven to Cure and Prevent Fungal Infections, Maximum Strength Medicine, Clinically Proven Ingredient to Cure and Prevent Fungal Infections, Triple Action Formula Kills Fungus, Stops Itching & Burning, Restores Skin Health. The Defendants misled Plaintiff and Class Members into believing that the Product would kill nail fungus. These claims are false and misleading. The Plaintiff and members of the classes purchased the Product for their ingredients, potency, and effects, and paid a premium for Defendants' Products over comparable products that were not promoted with the misrepresentations at issue here. The Defendants' representations concerning the Product are unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent, and have the tendency or capacity to deceive or confuse reasonable consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Fungi Nail Product from a local retailer. Kramer Labs manufactures, distributes, and sells the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P-300 West Palm Beach, FL 33410 Phone: (561) 514-0904 Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com ARKANSAS: Vanderbilt May File Amended Suit v. Corrections Dep't. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GARLAND VANDERBILT, ADC # 137333, Plaintiff v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 4:22CV01108-BRW-JTK (E.D. Ark.), Judge Jerome T. Kearney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, gives the Plaintiff the chance to file an amended complaint if he wishes to do so. The Plaintiff, in custody at the Pine Bluff Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction, filed a Complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights. He paid the $402 filing fee for the action. The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee, regardless of fee status. The Plaintiff made his petition of complaint against the Arkansas Department of Corrections. He says that a Corporal Tate acted unprofessionally. Specifically, he alleges Corporal Tate retaliated against him for writing a statement against Corporal Tate regarding an incident in 9C in which Corporal Tate abused an inmate. He asserts that Corporal Tate seeks revenge against all inmates who wrote witness statements against him. The Plaintiff alleges neither Administrative Director investigated claims that he set out in grievances. Liberally construing the Plaintiff's Complaint, he also alleges failure to supervise. The Plaintiff seeks reprieve from the oppressive supervision of Corporal Tate. Judge Kearney explains that the PLRA requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or employee. He says the Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. After reviewing the Plaintiff's claims, Judge Kearney finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint as currently pled fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. First, the Plaintiff brought his complaints against the Arkansas Department of Corrections. His claims fall under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff's Complaint fails because the Arkansas Department of Corrections is not a "person" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Next, in the Plaintiff's Complaint, he refers to Corporal Tate's abusive behavior towards other inmates and prison staff. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of others, he may not do so. Pro se litigants are not authorized to represent the rights, claims and interests of other parties in any cause of action, including a class action lawsuit. Finally, Judge Kearney holds that bare allegations void of factual enhancement are insufficient to state a claim for relief under Section 1983. The Plaintiff alleges that "neither administrative director" thoroughly investigated his allegations against Corporal Tate, including allegations in grievances. This allegation, however, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Plaintiff also alleges Corporal Tate retaliated against him. However, it is unclear if he wishes to sue Corporal Tate in the action, or whether he included his allegations as background for the failure to investigate and failure to supervise claims he brings. Lastly, the Plaintiff alleges the shift supervisor "continues to assign Cprl. Tate to 9 Barracks post," but he does not identify the supervisor, explain how the supervisor was personally involved in any alleged violation of his rights, or otherwise explain his corrective inaction claim. Judge Kearney gives the Plaintiff the chance to file an Amended Complaint if he wishes to do so. The Plaintiff may amend his Complaint to cure the defects. If the Plaintiff decides to amend, he should submit to the Court, within 30 days of the entry date of the Order, a superseding Amended Complaint that contains in a single document his claims against all the Defendants he is suing. He is cautioned that an Amended Complaint renders his original Complaint without legal effect. Only claims properly set out in the Amended Complaint will be allowed to proceed. If the Plaintiff does not submit an Amended Complaint, Judge Kearney will recommend that his original Complaint be dismissed for the reasons set out. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail the Plaintiff a blank 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Complaint form. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ysfbt27n from Leagle.com. AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Decertify Class in Brach Family Suit Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-00740 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order denying AXA's request for decertification. Instead, the Illustration-Based Claims Class is modified to include: "All individuals who, on or after March 8, 2016, are or were registered owners of an AUL II policy unaccompanied by a Lapse Protection Rider that was issued by AXA after July 10, 2006 and subjected to the COI rate increase announced by AXA on or about October 1, 2015, unless the registered owner of such policy is a securities intermediary, in which case the securities intermediary is not a class member but the entitlement holder with respect to that policy is." This excludes individuals who purchased their policies after the COI rate increase was announced, and defendant AXA, its officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing, and the plaintiffs in the Related Actions. The definition of the New York Illustration-Based Claims Sub-Class can and does remain the same: "all members of the Illustration-based Claims Class who reside in New York." In this litigation, the life insurance policyholders bring claims against the Defendant AXA Equitable arising from an increase in the "cost of insurance" or "COI" -- a monthly charge deducted from the value of a policyholder's account -- on a subset of universal life insurance policies. Over two years ago, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified two nationwide classes, a Policy-Based Claims Class and an Illustration-Based Claims Class, as well as a New York SubClass of the Illustration-Based Claims Class. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XytKph at no extra charge.[CC] AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Decertify Class in Duffy 2004 Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Duffy 2004 LLC et al v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-04803 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order denying AXA's request for decertification. Instead, the Illustration-Based Claims Class is modified to include: "All individuals who, on or after March 8, 2016, are or were registered owners of an AUL II policy unaccompanied by a Lapse Protection Rider that was issued by AXA after July 10, 2006 and subjected to the COI rate increase announced by AXA on or about October 1, 2015, unless the registered owner of such policy is a securities intermediary, in which case the securities intermediary is not a class member but the entitlement holder with respect to that policy is." This excludes individuals who purchased their policies after the COI rate increase was announced, and defendant AXA, its officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing, and the plaintiffs in the Related Actions. The definition of the New York Illustration-Based Claims Sub-Class can and does remain the same: "all members of the Illustration-based Claims Class who reside in New York." In this litigation, the life insurance policyholders bring claims against the Defendant AXA Equitable arising from an increase in the "cost of insurance" or "COI" -- a monthly charge deducted from the value of a policyholder's account -- on a subset of universal life insurance policies. Over two years ago, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified two nationwide classes, a Policy-Based Claims Class and an Illustration-Based Claims Class, as well as a New York SubClass of the Illustration-Based Claims Class. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Hk5MbK at no extra charge.[CC] AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Decertify Class in EFG Bank Suit Junked ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-04767, the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order: denying AXA's request for decertification. Instead, the Illustration-Based Claims Class is modified to include: "All individuals who, on or after March 8, 2016, are or were registered owners of an AUL II policy unaccompanied by a Lapse Protection Rider that was issued by AXA after July 10, 2006 and subjected to the COI rate increase announced by AXA on or about October 1, 2015, unless the registered owner of such policy is a securities intermediary, in which case the securities intermediary is not a class member but the entitlement holder with respect to that policy is." This excludes individuals who purchased their policies after the COI rate increase was announced, and defendant AXA, its officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing, and the plaintiffs in the Related Actions. The definition of the New York Illustration-Based Claims Sub-Class can and does remain the same: "all members of the Illustration-based Claims Class who reside in New York." In this litigation, the life insurance policyholders bring claims against the Defendant AXA Equitable arising from an increase in the "cost of insurance" or "COI" -- a monthly charge deducted from the value of a policyholder's account -- on a subset of universal life insurance policies. Over two years ago, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified two nationwide classes, a Policy-Based Claims Class and an Illustration-Based Claims Class, as well as a New York SubClass of the Illustration-Based Claims Class. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XQeQur at no extra charge.[CC] AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Decertify Class in LSH Class Suit Junked -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LSH CO et al v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-02111-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order denying AXA's request for decertification. Instead, the Illustration-Based Claims Class is modified to include: "All individuals who, on or after March 8, 2016, are or were registered owners of an AUL II policy unaccompanied by a Lapse Protection Rider that was issued by AXA after July 10, 2006 and subjected to the COI rate increase announced by AXA on or about October 1, 2015, unless the registered owner of such policy is a securities intermediary, in which case the securities intermediary is not a class member but the entitlement holder with respect to that policy is." This excludes individuals who purchased their policies after the COI rate increase was announced, and defendant AXA, its officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing, and the plaintiffs in the Related Actions. The definition of the New York Illustration-Based Claims Sub-Class can and does remain the same: "all members of the Illustration-based Claims Class who reside in New York." In this litigation, the life insurance policyholders bring claims against the Defendant AXA Equitable arising from an increase in the "cost of insurance" or "COI" -- a monthly charge deducted from the value of a policyholder's account -- on a subset of universal life insurance policies. Over two years ago, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified two nationwide classes, a Policy-Based Claims Class and an Illustration-Based Claims Class, as well as a New York SubClass of the Illustration-Based Claims Class. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iSz1Jl at no extra charge.[CC] AXA EQUITABLE: Bid to Decertify Class in Wenokur Suit Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wenokur v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-07751 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order denying AXA's request for decertification. Instead, the Illustration-Based Claims Class is modified to include: "All individuals who, on or after March 8, 2016, are or were registered owners of an AUL II policy unaccompanied by a Lapse Protection Rider that was issued by AXA after July 10, 2006 and subjected to the COI rate increase announced by AXA on or about October 1, 2015, unless the registered owner of such policy is a securities intermediary, in which case the securities intermediary is not a class member but the entitlement holder with respect to that policy is." This excludes individuals who purchased their policies after the COI rate increase was announced, and defendant AXA, its officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing, and the plaintiffs in the Related Actions. The definition of the New York Illustration-Based Claims Sub-Class can and does remain the same: "all members of the Illustration-based Claims Class who reside in New York." In this litigation, the life insurance policyholders bring claims against the Defendant AXA Equitable arising from an increase in the "cost of insurance" or "COI" -- a monthly charge deducted from the value of a policyholder's account -- on a subset of universal life insurance policies. Over two years ago, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified two nationwide classes, a Policy-Based Claims Class and an Illustration-Based Claims Class, as well as a New York SubClass of the Illustration-Based Claims Class. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iQL8qn at no extra charge.[CC] BALLAD HEALTH: Hall Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Corey Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BALLAD HEALTH, Case No. 2:23-cv-00004 (E.D. Tenn., Jan. 23, 2023), is brought on behalf of all current and former hourly patient-facing care providers, who were subject to an automatic meal break pay deduction to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and a class action pursuant to the state laws of Tennessee to recover unpaid straight time wages and other applicable damages and penalties. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Likewise, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked. the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, the Defendant's regular practice including during weeks when the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours (not counting hours worked "off-the-clock") was (and is) to automatically deduct a 30-minute meal-period from the Plaintiff's daily time even though they regularly performed (and continue to perform) compensable work "off the clock" through their respective meal-period breaks. The Plaintiff also asserts claims of retaliation under the FLSA and retaliatory discharge under the Tennessee Public Protection Act. Specifically, the Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff Hall by terminating his employment when he asserted his right to a meal break under Tennessee state law and his right to overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek under the FLSA., says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Ballad in August 2018 as a Nurse Intern at Ballad's Holston Valley Medical Center. Ballad operates a "family" of 21 hospitals in East Tennessee and Southwest Virginia, three tertiary medical centers in Bristol, Kingsport, and Johnson City, a dedicated children's hospital, a behavioral health hospital, an addiction treatment facility, long-term care facilities, clinics, pharmacies, home care services, and hospice services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charlton R. DeVault, Jr., Esq. 102 Broad Street Kingsport, TN 36660 Phone: (423) 246-3601 - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Leber Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Brigette Leber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 30-02022-01295356 was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 23, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00140 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. Bank of America, National Association -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Benedetto, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-5300 Fax: (213) 443-5400 Email: matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com BANK OF AMERICA: Nelson Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gary Nelson, Kayleigh Potter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, National Association, Case No. 221202205 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00255 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The Bank of America Corporation -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Kristopher Issac Devyver, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 667-6000 Email: kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com BEIJING-MATSUSHITA: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Feb. 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA If You Bought A Cathode Ray Tube Product, A Class Action Ruling May Affect You. Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Products include Cathode Ray Tubes and finished products that contain a Cathode Ray Tube such as Televisions and Computer Monitors Important Date Deadline to Request Exclusion from Litigated Class February 24, 2023 A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. A class action lawsuit that includes direct purchasers of CRT Products is currently pending. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants (listed below) and Co-Conspirators engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of Cathode Ray Tubes. Plaintiffs further claim that direct purchasers of televisions and monitors that contain a cathode ray tube from the Defendants may recover for the effect that the cathode ray tube conspiracy had on the prices of televisions and monitors. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the unlawful conspiracy involving cathode ray tubes, they and other direct purchasers paid more for CRT Products than they would have paid absent the conspiracy. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' claims. On August 1, 2022, the District Court certified a direct purchaser plaintiff class. A copy of the Order granting class certification is available on the class website at www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com. The class consists of "All persons and entities who, between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007, directly purchased a CRT Product in the United States from any Defendant or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof. Excluded from the class are defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries or affiliates, any co-conspirators, all governmental entities, and any judges or justices assigned to hear any aspect of this action." Your legal rights will be affected whether you act or don't act. This Notice includes information on the certified class and the continuing lawsuit. Please read the entire Notice carefully. You may exclude yourself from the class by submitting a request for exclusion postmarked by February 24, 2023. BASIC INFORMATION 1. Why did I get this Notice? You or your company may have directly purchased Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) or certain products containing those tubes between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007. A direct purchaser is a person or business who bought a CRT, or a television or computer monitor containing a CRT directly from one or more of the Defendants, Co-Conspirators, affiliates, or subsidiaries themselves, as opposed to an intermediary (such as a retail store). You have the right to know about the litigation and about your legal rights and options before you decide whether to request exclusion from the Litigated Class. This Notice explains the litigation and your legal rights. The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the case is called In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1917. The people who sued are called Plaintiffs and the companies they sued are called Defendants. 2. Who are the Defendant and Co-Conspirator companies? The Defendants and alleged Co-Conspirators are: Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd.; Daewoo Electronics Corporation (f/k/a Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd.); Daewoo International Corporation; Daewoo-Orion Societe Anonyme; Hitachi America, Ltd.; Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd.; Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.; Hitachi Ltd.; Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd.; Irico Group Corporation; Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (n/k/a Koninklijke Philips N.V.); LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; LG Electronics, Inc.; LP Displays International, Ltd.; Matsushita Electronic Corporation (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.); Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics America, Inc.)); MT Picture Display Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Matsushita Toshiba Picture Display Co., Ltd.); Orion Electric Co.; Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.); Panasonic Corporation of North America; Philips Consumer Electronics Co.; Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda. (n/k/a Philips do Brasil, Ltda.); Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd. (n/k/a Philips Taiwan Limited); Philips Electronics Industries Ltd.; Philips Electronics North America Corporation; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.; Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Samsung Display Device Company); Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V.; Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.; Shenzhen SEG Hitachi Color Display Devices, Ltd.; Technicolor SA (f/k/a Thomson SA); Technicolor USA, Inc. (f/k/a Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.); Technologies Displays Americas LLC (f/k/a Thomson Displays Americas LLC); Thai CRT Company, Ltd.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Toshiba America Consumer Products LLC; Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc.; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba America, Inc.; Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba Display Devices (Thailand) Company, Ltd.; and Videocon Industries, Ltd. 3. Who are the affiliates and subsidiaries mentioned in the class definition? The "affiliates and subsidiaries" are: Chunghwa Picture Tubes Fuzhou; Chunghwa Picture Tubes Taiwan; Daewoo Electronics America, Inc.; Hitachi Electronic Display (USA); Hitachi High-Technologies America, Inc. (f/k/a Nissei Sangyo America, Ltd.); Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation (f/k/a Nissei Sangyo Co., Ltd.); Irico Group New Energy Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Irico Group Electronics Co., Ltd.); LG Electronics Service Europe Netherlands B.V.; LG Electronics Wales Ltd.; LG Philips Displays; LG.Philips Displays Brasil Ltda.; LG.Philips Displays Holding B.V.; LG.Philips Displays International Ltd.; LG.Philips Displays Korea Co. Ltd.; LG.Philips Displays Mexico SA de CV; LG.Philips Displays USA Inc.; MELCO Display Devices Mexico, S.A. de C.V.; Mitsubishi Display Devices America, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric Sales America, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electronics Industries Canada, Inc.; MT Picture Display Corporation of America (New York); MT Picture Display Corporation of America (Ohio); NEC-Mitsubishi Electric Visual Systems Corporation; NEC-Mitsubishi Electronics Display of America, Inc.; NM Visual Systems de Mexico S. A. de C.V.; Orion Electric Components, Co., Ltd.; Orion Engineering & Service, Inc.; Orion Mexicana, SA de CV; P.T. Tosummit Electronic Devices Indonesia; Panasonic AVC Networks America; Panasonic Sikoku Electronics Corporation of America; PCB Integrated Manufacturing System, S.A. de C.V.; Philips Holding USA Inc.; PT.MT Picture Display Indonesia; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI (Hong Kong), Ltd.; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. (Korea); Samsung SDI Germany GmbH; Samsung SDI Hungary Ltd.; Samtel Color, Ltd.; Tatung Company of America, Inc.; TCL International Holdings Ltd.; TCL Thomson Electronics Corporation; Technologies Displays Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. (f/k/a Thomson Displays Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.); Tianjin Samsung SDI Co. Ltd.; TTE Technology, Inc.; and Zenith Electronics Corporation (a/k/a Zenith Electronics LLC). 4. What is this lawsuit about? The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and Co-Conspirators conspired to raise and fix the prices of CRTs and the CRTs contained in certain finished products for over ten years, resulting in overcharges to direct purchasers of those CRTs and certain finished products containing CRTs. The complaint describes how the Defendants and Co-Conspirators allegedly violated the U.S. antitrust laws by establishing a global cartel that set artificially high prices for, and restricted the supply of CRTs and the televisions and monitors that contained them. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations. The Court has not decided who is right. 5. What is a Cathode Ray Tube Product? For the purposes of the class definition, Cathode Ray Tube Products (or "CRT Product") means Cathode Ray Tubes of any type (e.g., color display tubes and color picture tubes) and finished products which contain Cathode Ray Tubes, such as Televisions and Computer Monitors. 6. What is a class action? In a class action, one or more people, called class representatives, sue on behalf of people who have similar claims. All these people are members of the class, except for those who exclude themselves from the class. If the Plaintiffs obtain money or benefits as a result of a trial or future settlement, you will be notified about those settlements at that time. Important information about the case will be posted on the website, www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com as it becomes available. Please check the website to be kept informed about any future developments. THE LITIGATED CLASS 7. How do I know if I'm part of the Litigated Class? As a result of a motion filed by the Plaintiffs, on August 1, 2022, the District Court certified a class of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (the "Litigated Class"). The Litigated Class includes: All persons and entities who, between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007, directly purchased a CRT Product in the United States from any Defendant or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any Co-Conspirator or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof. Excluded from the class are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries or affiliates, any Co-Conspirators, all governmental entities, and any judges or justices assigned to hear any aspect of this action. 8. What are my rights in the Litigated Class and how do I exclude myself? Remain in the Litigated Class: If you wish to remain a member of the Litigated Class, you do not need to take any action at this time. If you remain a class member, you will be bound by the District Court's rulings in the lawsuit, including any final judgment. Get out of the Litigated Class: If you wish to keep your rights to individually sue the Defendants about the claims in this case, you must exclude yourself from the Litigated Class. You will not get any money from any future judgment awarded to the class if you exclude yourself from the Litigated Class. To exclude yourself from the Litigated Class, you must send a letter that includes the following: * Your name, address and telephone number; * A statement stating that you want to be excluded from In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1917, Litigated Class; and * Your signature. You must mail your exclusion request, postmarked no later than February 24, 2023, to: CRT Direct Class Action P.O. Box 301130 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1130 9. What am I giving up to stay in the Litigated Class? Unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you can't sue the Defendants, or be part of any other lawsuit against these Defendants about the legal issues in this case. It also means that all of the decisions by the Court (including any future class judgment) will bind you. 10. Who are the Class Representatives? The Class Representatives are: Arch Electronics, Inc.; Crago, d/b/a Dash Computers, Inc.; Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc.; Nathan Muchnick, Inc.; Princeton Display Technologies, Inc.; Radio & TV Equipment, Inc.; Studio Spectrum, Inc.; and Wettstein and Sons, Inc., d/b/a Wettstein's. THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU 11. Do I have a lawyer in the case? Yes. The Court has appointed the law firm of Saveri & Saveri, Inc. to represent you as Lead Counsel. You do not have to pay Lead Counsel. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, and have that lawyer appear in court for you in this case, you may hire one at your own expense. GETTING MORE INFORMATION 12. How do I get more information? This Notice summarizes the lawsuit. You can get more information about the lawsuit (including relevant case documents) at www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com, by calling 1-877-224-3063, or writing to CRT Direct Class Action, P.O. Box 301130, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1130. Please do not contact the Court about this case. Dated: January 10, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT BELVIDERE POLICE: Wigginton Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belvidere Police Department, et al. The case is styled as Beverly Wigginton, on behalf of T.L.W., a minor, on behalf of NGOPublications and all similarly situated persons v. Belvidere Police Department, Wallace, Facebook Administrator Deputy Chief; Shane Woody, Chief of Police; Clinton Morris, City of Belvidere Mayor; Case No. 3:23-cv-50030 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. The Belvidere Police Department -- https://www.belviderenj.net/police.php -- is a multi-service oriented law enforcement agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. BETMGM LLC: Bei Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Shen Bei, individually on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BetMGM, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00328 (D.N.J., Jan. 20, 2023), is brought against MGM for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to: full names; contact information; dates of birth; Social Security numbers; and other sensitive information (collectively, "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). Former and current MGM consumers are required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII, which Defendant could not perform its regular business activities without, in order to place a wager with MGM. The Defendant apparently retains this information for at least many years––even after the consumer relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On November 28, 2022, Defendant became aware of suspicious activity on its networks (the "Data Breach"). Upon discovering the suspicious activity, the Defendant "promptly launched an investigation" and determined that "certain BetMGM patron records were obtained in an unauthorized manner", which Defendant "believes occurred in May 2022." The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. Had this information been properly encrypted, the cybercriminals would have made off with only unintelligible data. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. Indeed, the cybercriminals that perpetrated the hack are already attempting to sell it on dark web forums. This present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. Moreover, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with timely and adequate notice. The Data Breach occurred in "May 2022" and was detected by Defendant on November 28, 2022, yet Defendant did not notify impacted customers until December 21, 2022. During this time, Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that their sensitive PII 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 Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant's conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was notified of the Data Breach and his PII being compromised via receiving the Notice Letter directly from Defendant, via E-mail dated December 21, 2022. The Defendant is "the exclusive sports betting division of MGM, both online and in MGM casinos nationwide."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 737 Bainbridge Street #155 Philadelphia, PA 19147 Phone: 215-789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com BLACK FOX COFFEE: McDonald Sues Over Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin McDonald, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. BLACK FOX COFFEE 70 PINE LLC d/b/a BLACK FOX COFFEE, and BLACK FOX COFFEE 438 WEST 33RD STREET LLC, and BLACK FOX COFFEE 45 EAST 45TH LLC, and BLACK FOX COFFEE KIOSK LLC, and BLACK FOX COFFEE ROASTERS LLC, and BLACK FOX COFFEE 550 MADISON AVE LLC, and DANIEL MURPHY, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-00616 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2023), is brought for damages and other redress based upon the Defendants' violations of: the tip pooling and tip retention provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); the New York common law, based on Defendants' conversion of Plaintiff's gratuities; the NYLL's requirement that employers provide a wage statement to their employees on each payday containing specific categories of accurate information; the NYLL's requirement that employers provide a wage notice to their employees at hire containing specific categories of accurate information; and any other claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. Throughout the Plaintiff's three periods of employment, Defendants failed to pay him his proper share of tips, in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL, and the NYCRR. Specifically, Defendants required Plaintiff to participate in an improper tip sharing arrangement by which pooled tips were distributed to those who were ineligible, such as managerial and back-room employees, and thus Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the full amount of tips owed to him each workweek, and from early-October 2020 until June 20, 2021, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any tips at all, in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL, and the NYCRR, which also constitutes conversion under New York common law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-managerial barista during three separate periods, first from October 30, 2018, through March 18, 2020, second from early-October 2020 until June 20, 2021, and lastly from December 13, 2021, until late-July 2022. The Defendants are six legally distinct entities that together operate as a single enterprise to run at least five cafes in Manhattan, as well as the enterprise's owner and day-to-day overseer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Weiss, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 BLST OPERATING COMPANY: Gross FCRA Suit Removed to D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian Gross, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. BLST Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Fingerhut, Case No. 22-cv-18839 was removed from the Hennepin County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Jan. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-00164 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. BLST Operating Company, LLC doing business as Fingerhut -- https://www.fingerhut.com/ -- is an American catalog/online retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Erin L. McCann, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 766-8043 Email: erin.mccann@faegredrinker.com BOOT BARN: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Boot Barn Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 24, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2023, that the Company will continue to defend itself from a labor class action suit in California. On February 27, 2020, one employee, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company, which includes claims for penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act, in the Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No. 34-2019-00272000-CU-OE-GDS, alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal periods and rest breaks, and an alleged violation of the suitable seating requirement as per California Labor Law among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company intends to defend this claim vigorously. Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. operates retail stores and e-commerce websites that sell western and work boots and related apparel and accessories based in California. BRAGG COMMUNITIES: Court Narrows Claims in Thomas Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SSG EZRA THOMAS, and RACHEL THOMAS, individually and as parents and guardians of E.T. and E.T., v. BRAGG COMMUNITIES, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00226-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James C. Dever, III entered an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that any of defendants' officers, directors, or managetS were involved or condoned any of the aggravating factors alleged in plaintiffs' complaint. For example, the plaintiffs allege that "Rachel went to the Corvias housing office and voiced her concerns." The Plaintiffs, however, do not plausibly allege that this unnamed employee at the housing office is an officer, director, or manager of one of the defendants. Therefore, plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged facts sufficient to recover punitive damages under North Carolina law. Thus, the court dismisses plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. : The court agrees that the complaint only puts defendant Bragg on notice for the private nuisance claim. Notably, the only theory for priva~ nuisance plausibly alleged in the complaint is that defendants "misuse of its ownership interest in the relevant housing unit and the military housing property at Fort Bragg, caused the Plaintiffs to incur a substantial and unreasonable interference with their ability to use and enjoy then; leasehold property." On June 6, 2022, Army Staff Sergeant Ezra Thomas and his wife, Rachel Thomas, individually and on behalf of their two children, E.T. and E.T., filed a complaint in this court alleging breach of warranty of habitability, violations of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA"), breach of contract, negligence, violation of Residential Lead-Based Paint Haz.ard Reduction Act, and temporary recurrent private nuisance against Bragg Communities, LLC, Corvias Management-Army, LLC, Bragg-Piceme Partners, LLC, and Corvias Construction, LLC. On August 29, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss and filed. On September 19, 2022, the plaintiffs responded in opposition. On October 3, 2022, the defendants replied. The court grants in part and denies in part defendants' motion to dismiss. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XKlmTl at no extra charge.[CC] BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES: $4.5M Class Deal in Torres Wins Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAIKEL TORRES, Plaintiff v. BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES LLC, BRAND ENERGY SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-CV-01771-CCW (W.D. Pa.), Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On Nov. 1, 2021, Ms. Torres filed a class action complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Pennsylvania, asserting a single claim against Brand under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 P.S. Section 333.101 et seq. ("PMWA"). The claim centers around Ms. Torres' employment with Brand while Brand was a subcontractor involved in building a petrochemical facility in Monaca, Pennsylvania. Ms. Torres alleges that, like all Brand employees, she was required to take a shuttle bus from a parking lot to her work site at the Monaca facility. The gist of her claim is that Brand underpaid Ms. Torres and other employees by failing to count time spent waiting for and riding the shuttle bus towards their compensable working time in violation of the PMWA. Brand removed the case to the Court on Dec. 3, 2021. Ms. Torres then filed an Amended Complaint largely duplicating the allegations in her state court complaint. Brand answered her Amended Complaint, and on April 5, 2022, the Court held an Initial Case Management Conference. Following the conference, the Court issued a Case Management Order and the case proceeded with discovery. On Oct. 5, 2022, following a mediation session before the Hon. Thomas J. Rueter (Ret.), the parties reached a settlement. The settlement, if approved, would create a $4.5 million settlement fund, paid out pro rata to 1,722 class members based on the number of weeks worked "as a nonexempt, craft construction or maintenance employee between Nov. 1, 2018 and Nov. 7, 2022." Under the agreement, Ms. Torres would receive a $10,000 service award and her counsel would receive attorneys' fees of $1.35 million. On Dec. 22, 2022, Ms. Torres filed the instant unopposed Motion, seeking preliminary approval of the settlement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. There being "no obvious deficiencies" and the settlement "falling within the range of reason," Judge Wiegand finds for the purposes of preliminary approval that the proposed settlement appears to be fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2). Turning to provisional certification, because Ms. Torres has made a preliminary showing that she can satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), Judge Wiegand provisionally certifies a class of the 1,722 individuals employed by Defendants that worked in a nonexempt, craft construction or maintenance role in any workweek from Nov. 1, 2018 through and including Nov. 7, 2022 at the Monaca petrochemical Project. Finally, Judge Wiegand considers the parties' plan for the dissemination of notice. After reviewing the materials submitted by Ms. Torres, she finds that Ms. Torres' notice plan complies with Rule 23 and will order that notice be given consistent with the notice plan set forth in the settlement agreement. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wiegand grants Ms. Torres' Motion and enter an order: (1) preliminarily approving the settlement; (2) provisionally certifying the class for settlement purposes only; (3) directing notice to be given consistent with Ms. Torres' notice plan; (4) appointing Winebrake & Santillo, LLC and Conboy Law, LLC as class counsel; (5) adopting the opt-out and objections procedures set forth in the settlement; and (6) setting a fairness hearing and associated deadlines. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4rjm8sr from Leagle.com. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Pina Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Traci Lee Pina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL D/B/A CHILI'S, Case No. CACE-23-000948 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Jan. 24, 2023), is brought for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in sending automated telephonic sales calls, in the form of text messages, to her cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across Florida, in clear violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The text messages that the Defendant made or knowingly allowed another person to make on its behalf to Plaintiff's Number were sent to the Plaintiff for the purpose of "soliciting a sale of conumser goods or services" to the Plaintiff or "obtaining information from the Plaintiff that would or might be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services" to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has never provided his prior "prior express written consent" to Defendant or any other party acting on the Defendant's behalf to authorize the subject telephonic sales calls by means of an "automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers" within the meaning of the FTSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Broward County, Florida. Brinker International d/b/a Chili's is a national casual dining restaurant brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Hedin, Esq. Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: +1 (305) 357-2107 Fax: +1 (305) 200-8801 Email: aravindran@hedinhall.com fhedin@hedinhall.com BROCK PIERCE: Seeks Dismissal of Brock FAC ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BLOTZER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROCK PIERCE, an individual, BROCK PIERCE FOR PRESIDENT, INC., a Delaware corporation, STRATICS NETWORK, INC., a foreign corporation, and JOHN DOE, an unknown company, Case No. 3:22-cv-01278-MAJ (D.P.R.), the Defendant Pierce move the Court for an order dismissing the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice or, in the alternative, staying the matter pending the outcome of the first-filed case styled: Nathan Rowan v. Brock Pierce, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648-RAM, currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (the "Rowan Action"). The Defendant contends, that the Court should dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC) with prejudice or, in the alternative, stay the action. Finally, Plaintiff's reliance on various FCC rulings and third-party telemarketing cases are, on their face, not applicable here. In sum, allowing the Plaintiff's claims to proceed would eviscerate basic corporate legal principles and open the preverbal flood gates of litigation against future political candidates, donors, and volunteers. In addition, holding Pierce personally liable for obligations incurred by the Campaign would have a chilling effect on the exercise of rights secured by the First Amendment and would, in particular, impair the right of Pierce and of persons similarly situated to serve as officers or employees of presidential campaigns. Pierce seeks an order dismissing this action based on the first-to-file Rule because both this action and the Rowan Action involve the same party defendant, Brock Pierce, the same single claim asserting purported violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") with virtually identical allegations, and the entire proposed class in this case is subsumed by the first-filed Rowan Action. In the alternative, Pierce seeks an order dismissing Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because the Plaintiff failed to plead and cannot provide facts sufficient to establish constitutional or statutory standing and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J5AMNS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ramón Dapena, Esq. Iván J. Llado, Esq. MORELL CARTAGENA & DAPENA LLC Ponce de Leon Ave. 273 Plaza 273, Suite 700 San Juan PR 00908 PR Telephone: (787) 723-8753 Facsimile: (787) 723-8763 E-mail: ramon.dapena@mbcdlaw.com ivan.llado@mbcdlaw.com - and - Ashley L. Shively, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 743-6900 Facsimile: (415) 743-6910 E-mail: ashley.shively@hklaw.com CALARES INC: Salbeck Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Calares, Inc. The case is styled as William Salbeck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Calares, Inc. doing business as: Famous Footwear, Case No. 4:23-cv-00075 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Caleres Inc. -- http://www.caleres.com/-- is an American footwear company that owns and operates a variety of footwear brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CALIFORNIA: Denial of Wilson's Class Certification Bid Recommended ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Plaintiff v. LURA MERRITT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00455-AWI-CDB (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recommends that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in the civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. On July 19, 2022, the previously assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary and Injunctive Relief. On Aug. 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his objections to the Findings and Recommendations. That same date, he filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel and a Motion for Certification of Class. On Aug. 24, 2022, the Court issued its Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. On Oct. 6, 2022, the matter was reassigned from the temporarily assigned magistrate judge to Judge Baker. On Dec. 2, 2022, District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations to Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary and Injunctive Relief. The Plaintiff contends his complaint "against B-Facility, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, exceeds 40 African-Americans, General Population (G.P.) exposed to Valley Fever fungus & spores, on-going imminent danger." He states that Defendants CSATF-II deny question of law or fact common to the Class members and the Plaintiff, concerning exclusion from Cocci-1,2/Valley Fever hyperdermic region, soil, dust, area, e.g. Court's order in Plata v. Brown. Further, the Plaintiff asserts the Defendants deny typicality requirements of his grievance 'Group Class' claims involve a common element of fact or law or the same legal or remedial theory for all Class at B-Facility discriminated against. He states he sought primary Relief of declaratory and injunctive Relief in his complaint. Further, he states he does not meet the qualified counsel requirement. Finally, the Plaintiff states "[t]he Attorney representatives for 'Group Class,' did nothing to Remove Plaintiff and Class after sending Letters, and state Court filings. Therefore inadequately represented Class. Therefore Rule 23(d) ORDERS IN CONDUCT OF ACTION, required for Certification of Class." Judge Baker states that a party requesting class certification must demonstrate that (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. As the party requesting class certification, the Plaintiff must meet these four requirements. Judge Baker finds that the Plaintiff is not an attorney and is proceeding without counsel. As a prisoner proceeding pro se, the Plaintiff is unable to satisfy the required prerequisites. Specifically, the fourth prerequisite. It is well established that pro se prisoner plaintiffs are unable to fairly represent and adequately protect the interests of a class, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). It is plain error to permit am imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action. In fact, the Plaintiff acknowledges he does not meet this prerequisite in his motion. And a class action must satisfy all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Hence, even assuming without finding that the Plaintiff met the first three prerequisites for class certification -- numerosity, commonality and typicality -- Judge Baker holds that the Plaintiff cannot meet all prerequisites because he cannot fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. For these reasons, Judge Baker recommends that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Findings & Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/57fmkryt from Leagle.com. CALLON LLC: Faces Slamon Suit Over Fraudulent $73.9-M Fund Transfer ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANIE SLAMON, as Executrix of the Estate of James Slamon, and ERIC LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CALLON (MARCELLUS) LLC f/k/a CARRIZO (MARCELLUS) LLC, and CALLON PETROLEUM COMPANY,, Case No. 4:23-cv-00156 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 17, 2022) seeks damages and injunctive relief based upon the intentional fraudulent transfer by the Defendant Callon (Marcellus) LLC of $73.9 million -- substantially all of its assets at the time -- to its ultimate parent, Defendant Callon Petroleum Company, for zero consideration. On November 2017, Marcellus completed the sale to BKV Chelsea, LLC of substantially all of Marcellus' assets, including its interests in Paid Up Oil and Gas Leases for land in the Marcellus Shale region of Northeast Pennsylvania owned by the Plaintiffs and other lessors. The ultimate sale proceeds due and owing from BKV to Marcellus was $73.9 million. Marcellus directed BKV to pay the entire $73.9 million to Marcellus' ultimate parent, Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., which subsequently merged with and became part of Defendant Callon. Marcellus received no consideration from Callon in exchange for transferring the $73.9 million in sale proceeds to Callon; instead, Marcellus transferred $73.9 million to Callon for nothing. Marcellus, upon selling all of its assets to BKV in exchange for nothing, immediately became insolvent, says the suit. This fraudulent transfer of substantially all of Marcellus' assets to Callon took place during the pendency of a class action brought by the Plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Marcellus and other defendants. The transfer of these funds -- in return for zero consideration -- constitutes a fraudulent transfer and is a voidable transaction pursuant to both the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and the Pennsylvania Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, the suit asserts. At the time it sold all of its assets to BKV in exchange for nothing, Marcellus had actual knowledge of this Class Action lawsuit and the claims of the Plaintiffs and the Classes as creditors of Marcellus. Callon did not take the $73.9 million from Marcellus (via BKV) in good faith or for reasonably equivalent value. To the contrary, Callon took $73.9 million from Marcellus in exchange for nothing. Callon paid no consideration to either BKV or to Marcellus in exchange for receipt of the sale proceeds. On April 7, 2009, James Slamon entered into a Paid Up Oil and Gas Lease Agreement and Lease Addendum with Marcellus. On April 25, 2009, and on May 6, 2009, Lewis entered into separate Paid Up Oil and Gas Lease Agreements and Lease Addenda with Marcellus. In exchange for granting Marcellus exclusive rights to the oil and gas underlying their land, the Plaintiffs received an initial bonus payment and became entitled to a "production royalty" on all gas production, the suit further alleges. Carrizo LLC offers oil and natural gas drilling and exploration services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. Glen L. Abramson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (865) 412-2700 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com gabramson@milberg.com - and - Peter H. LeVan, Jr., Esq. LeVAN STAPLETON SEGAL COCHRAN LLC One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, 36th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 561-1500 E-mail: plevan@levanstapleton.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net CAMPBELL'S TOWING: Alexander Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeffrey Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAMPBELL'S TOWING AND RECOVERY, INC. AND MONTY D. WARD, Case No. 6:23-cv-00045 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 24, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to seek unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and expenses. The Plaintiff alleges violations of his statutory employment right to receive overtime pay from the Defendants as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and all those similarly situated workers overtime wages. The Plaintiff alleges that he was paid a percentage of the revenue generated by his tow truck. The evidence at trial will show that the Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at one and one-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began his employment at Campbell's Towing as a tow truck operator in August 2020. Campbell's Towing and Recovery, Inc. is a Texas corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq. HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC 5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115 Tyler, TX 75703 Phone/Facsimile: 903-596-7100 Email: bhommel@hommelfirm.com CAPITAL ONE: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to April 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MEEHAN, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-01073-MSN-JFA (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge John F. Anderson entered an order extending the following deadlines, as set forth in the joint discovery plan and scheduling order as follows: -- The plaintiffs expert disclosure March 24, 2023 shall be served no later than: -- The defendant's responding expert April 21, 2023 disclosure shall be served no later than: -- Any rebuttal disclosure shall be May 5, 2023 served no later than: -- The Plaintiff shall move for April 21,2023 class certification no later than: -- All discovery in this case May 12, 2023 shall be completed by: -- The final pretrial conference May 18, 2023 currently scheduled for March 16, 2023, is rescheduled for: -- The hearing on this motion scheduled for Friday, January 20, 2023 is canceled Capital One operates as a bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kx4gdg at no extra charge.[CC] CENTENE CORPORATION: Cupp Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Cupp, individually and for others similarly situated v. CENTENE CORPORATION DBA CENTURION HEALTH, Case No. 4:23-cv-00071 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2023), is brought as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff, and other workers like her, overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act The Defendant does not provide bona fide meal periods for its hourly employees who are responsible for direct patient care. Instead, the Defendant requires these employees to remain responsible for patient care throughout their shift—including during their lunch breaks. This responsibility for patient care prevents the employees from being able to use the so-called meal periods effectively for their own purposes. the Plaintiff (and the other employees like her) remained on duty and subject to frequent interruptions during meal breaks. The Defendant knew, or should have known, its non-exempt employees spent their so-called "meal break" predominantly for the Defendant's benefit, performing patient care services. Nonetheless, the Defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes of pay, each day, for the so-called meal "breaks." The Plaintiff brings this individual and collective action to recover all unpaid overtime and other damages owed under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a registered nurse at Centene and worked from July 2021 through August 2022. Centene is a healthcare services company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - 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 CGS STORES: Approval of Stipulation of Conditional Cert. Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY WILLIS, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated as a class, v. CGS STORES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01166-JDB-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving their joint stipulation of conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All current and former hourly-paid employees who (1) worked in Defendant's Camden, Tennessee store (No. 3433) from March 21, 2021 to the present, and/or (2) worked in Defendant's Waverly, Tennessee store (No. 3395) from June 13, 2022 to the present (the "FLSA Collective Members")." Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court issue an Order that conditionally certifies a class of all persons that fit the definition of FLSA Collective Members. The Parties agree that Jackson, Shields, Yeiser, Holt, Owen & Bryant shall be appointed as FLSA Collective Counsel in this collective action and request that the Court issue an order approving same. The Parties agree that Beverly Willis shall be appointed as the Representative Plaintiff of this collective action and request that the Court issue an order approving same. The Parties agree that Defendants shall provide FLSA Collective Counsel with the names, last known home address on file, and social security number for each FLSA Collective Member no later than 14 days from entry by the Court of an Order conditionally certifying the FLSA Collective in accordance with the terms of the Parties' Joint Stipulation. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GVVcq1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew G. Gallagher, Esq. Kaitlyn A. Hansen, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3725 Champion Hills Drive, Suite 3000 Memphis, TN 38125 Telephone: (901) 795-6695 Facsimile: (901) 881-4333 E-mail: mgallagher@littler.com khansen@littler.com CHATTEM INC: Tlaib Sues Over Dry Mouth Lozenges' Deceptive Labels ----------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMAD TLAIB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHATTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00376 (N.D. Ill., January 22, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud Acts, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its dry mouth lozenges under the ACT brand. The Defendant labeled and marketed the product as "Soothing Mint," "Sooth[ing] Dry Mouth," "Moisturizing Mouth Tissue," and "Freshen[ing] Breath." However, in light of the product's pH level, it is misleading to market it to persons suffering from dry mouth because it will have a detrimental effect on oral health. The product fails to inform purchasers of the likelihood of demineralization, dental erosion, sensitivity, and caries. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the product is sold at premium price, says the suit. Chattem, Inc. is a manufacturer of oral care products, with a principal place of business in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee. [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 CHEDDAR'S FRANCHISE: Ramey Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON RAMEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHEDDAR'S FRANCHISE ACQUISITION LLC d/b/a "Cheddar's Casual Cafe, Inc.," Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00007-DCR (E.D. Ky., January 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated tipped employees at applicable minimum wage rate in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a server at the Defendant's restaurant located in Florence, Kentucky from approximately February 2020 to February 2022. Cheddar's Franchise Acquisition LLC is an operator of a nationwide chain of restaurants known as Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, doing business in Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 515 Park Avenue Louisville, KY 40208 Telephone: (502) 636-4333 E-mail: davids@bsjfirm.com CHICK-FIL-A INC: Carroll Sues Over Secret Reporting of Data ----------------------------------------------------------- Keith Carroll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHICK-FIL-A, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00314 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act as a result of the Defendant who secretly report all the details of the visitors' personally identifiable information ("PII"), the titles watched, and more without warning visitors or obtaining their consent. Whenever someone watches a video on www.evergreenhills.com (the "Website"), Defendants secretly report all the details to Facebook: the visitor's personally identifiable information ("PII"), the titles watched, and more. When Plaintiff watched videos on evergreenhills.com, the Defendants disclosed event data, which recorded and disclosed the video's title, description, and URL, to Facebook. Alongside this event data, Defendants also disclosed identifiers for the Plaintiff, including the c_user and fr cookies. In other words, Defendants did exactly what the VPPA prohibits: they disclosed Plaintiff's video viewing habits to a third party. Given the nature of Defendants' business, visitors would be shocked and appalled to know that Defendants secretly disclose to Facebook all of the key data regarding a visitor's viewing habits. The Defendants' conduct is illegal, offensive, and contrary to visitor expectations: indeed, a recent study conducted by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a respected thought leader regarding digital privacy, found that: nearly 9 in 10 adults are "very concerned" about data privacy, and 75% of adults are unaware of the extent to which companies gather, store, and exploit their personal data. By disclosing Plaintiff's event data and identifiers to Facebook, Defendant knowingly disclosed Plaintiff's PII to a third party, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual consumer advocate who watched a video on the Website. The Defendant is a Georgia corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the Website, www.evergreenhills.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Diaz Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------------ SANDRA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00106 (C.D. Cal., January 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an illegal practice of sending automated telephonic sales calls, in the form of text messages, to the cellular telephones of numerous individuals in Florida, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and Class members have never provided the Defendant prior express written consent to authorize the telephonic sales calls, says the suit. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual restaurants, headquartered in Newport Beach, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIDGET MCMAHON and JAMES RICE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., t/d/b/a CHIPOTLE, Case No.2:20-cv-01448-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file its response in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under seal for the following reasons: 1. The Defendant will be filing a Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification that refers to documents that have been designated as "Confidential" pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this matter on May 27, 2021. 2. Reference to the designated materials is necessary in order for the Court to address Defendant's response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. 3. Compelling reasons and good causes support sealing the Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, because it identifies information that contains trade secrets, competitively sensitive technical, marketing, financial, sales, proprietary, sensitive business information, and private personal information. Chipotle Mexican is an American chain of fast casual restaurants specializing in bowls, tacos and Mission burritos made to order in front of the customer. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kBIiWI at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Betsy Bulat, Esq. Robert J. Mollohan, Jr., Esq. MARTENSON, HASBROUCK & SIMON LLP 2573 Apple Valley Road NE Atlanta, GA 30319 Telephone: (404) 909-8100 E-mail: bbulat@martensonlaw.com rmollohan@martensonlaw.com - and - Derek J. Illar, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC 600 Grant Street, 44th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 566-2105 E-mail: dillar@eckertseamans.com CHIVE MEDIA: Discloses Video Viewing Info to Facebook, Roland Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GREGORY ROLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHIVE MEDIA GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00337 (N.D. Ill., January 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for the Video Privacy Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), data containing its digital subscribers' personal viewing information without obtaining proper consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant have secretly reported to Facebook all key data regarding the viewing habits of visitors on its website, Thechive.com. When a visitor watches a video on the website while logged into Facebook, the Defendants transmit the visitor's identifying information and video viewing habits to Facebook without consent. As a result, the Defendant reaps these secret profits at the expense of its digital subscribers' privacy and their statutory rights, says the suit. Chive Media Group, LLC is an American media company headquartered in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue Aventura, FL 33180 E-mail: adam@edelsberglaw.com scott@edelsberglaw.com COLLECTION BUREAU: Weinberger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collection Bureau Of The Hudson Valley, Inc. The case is styled as Yocheved Weinberger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Collection Bureau Of The Hudson Valley, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00364 (D.N.J., Jan. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley Inc. -- https://www.cbhv.com/ -- is a collection agency located in Newburgh, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christofer Merritt, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY: Liable to Plan Losses, Quigley Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN E. QUIGLEY and FRANCES QUIGLEY, on behalf of the ConocoPhillips Savings Plan and a class of similarly situated participants of the Plan, Plaintiffs v. CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, THE CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00062-SLP (W.D. Okla., January 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and co-fiduciary liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, prudence, and diversification under ERISA to the ConocoPhillips Savings Plan in various ways, including, but not limited to: (a) improperly allowed the Plan to offer the Phillips 66 Funds as investment options for the Plan, (b) improperly allowed the Plan to maintain its investment in the Phillips 66 Funds, and (c) failed to liquidate the Funds' substantial holdings in Phillips 66 common stock thereby subjecting the Plan and its participants to the risks associated with being too heavily invested in one company and one industry. As a result of these breaches, the value of the Phillips 66 Funds held in Plaintiffs' accounts diminished considerably and they, like thousands of other Plan participants, suffered losses, says the suit. ConocoPhillips Company is a provider of oil exploration and production services, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Colvin, Esq. LATHAM, STEELE, LEHMAN, KEELE, RATCLIFF, FREIJE & CARTER, PC 1515 E. 71st Street, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74136 Telephone: (918) 970-2000 Facsimile: (918) 970-2002 E-mail: jcolvin@law-lsl.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Douglas P. Needham, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Facsimile: (860) 493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com dneedham@ikrlaw.com ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Mark G. Boyko, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com mboyko@baileyglasser.com CORNER FURNITURE: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corner Furniture Discount Center, Inc. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corner Furniture Discount Center, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00559 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Corner Furniture Discount Center, Inc. -- https://www.corner-furniture.com/ -- offers a selection of Furniture & Mattress in the Bronx, Yonkers, Mount Vernon, White Plains, Manhattan, NYC, New York area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com COULTER VENTURES: Braun's Bid in Limine in Unpaid Wage Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SCOTT LEE BRAUN, et al., Plaintiffs v. COULTER VENTURES, LLC, d/b/a ROGUE FITNESS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05050 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denies the Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine without prejudice. On Nov. 18, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the present class and collective action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Rev. Code Section 4111.03 ("the Ohio Wage Act"). Specifically, they allege that the Defendants failed to pay the class members for all the hours that they actually worked by excluding from calculation of their wages the hours spent performing wind-up and wind-down activities necessary to their primary duties. The Court has conditionally certified the following class: All current or former non-exempt employees in Defendants' warehouse and/or manufacturing divisions and employed during the past three years who were paid from the beginning of their shift until the end of their shift despite being clocked in more than seven (7) minutes prior to their shift and/or remaining clocked in more than seven (7) minutes after their scheduled shift end time. Pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, the Plaintiffs submitted timely a Motion in Limine seeking to allow the presentation of representative evidence at trial to prove damages due. They move the Court to permit them to present representative evidence of damages given the (supposed) impracticability of the alternative: requiring each of the "over 100 individual witnesses" to testify about their particularized damages resulting from Defendants' alleged underpayment. Specifically, the Plaintiffs posit that evidence of the Defendants' underpayment and poor treatment of the testifying workers should be admitted as representative evidence applicable to the non-testifying workers. They contend that no rule bars a collective or class action from seeking minimum wages and overtime using representative evidence. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion on the grounds that the Plaintiffs fail to cite to any actual evidence upon which they intend to rely for its representativeness. Instead, they argue, the Plaintiffs merely request a blanket order permitting them to use "representative evidence" without offering any actual evidence to permit the Court to make that determination or any explanation regarding how the evidence would support their theories of liability. In effect, they contend, motions in limine are used to exclude the introduction of evidence at trial rather than to permit it categorically long before trial. Further, they argue, there is no legal support for permitting the Plaintiffs to introduce broad categories of evidence without knowing what that evidence is. Judge Marbley finds that the Plaintiffs do not identify any evidence for the Court to evaluate. He says the Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge that they have not ascertained "any specific representative evidence" upon which they plan to rely at trial. In the absence of any identifiable evidence, Judge Marbley Court cannot decide whether the proposed evidence is representative or if it is even admissible in any event. This is especially true given that the Plaintiffs pursue two exclusive theories of liability concerning its conditionally certified class: 1. The Defendants' companywide practice of paying its warehouse and/or manufacturing division employees only for the time they were scheduled to work, not from the time they were actually working from Nov. 18, 2016 until approximately February of 2020 (Schedule to Schedule); and 2. The Defendants' companywide practice of paying its warehouse and/or manufacturing division employees only for the time they were clocked in (Punch to Punch), not from the time they were actually working from approximately February of 2020 thereafter. Judge Marbley explains that the Sixth Circuit instructed that parties must identify evidence and their uses with specificity to justify the exclusion of categories of evidence. He sees no reason why the Plaintiffs should not be required to do the same to justify inclusion. In short, he does not intend to issue blanket rulings as to the admissibility or representativeness of evidence which has yet to be identified. As such, he denies the Plaintiffs' Motion without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion in a manner consistent with his Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3n2tfmr4 from Leagle.com. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Case Management Order Entered in Palmer ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palmer v. Cuyahoga County, Case No. 1:22-cv-01515-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an case management order as follows: -- The pleadings shall be amended March 1, 2023 without leave of the Court and new parties shall be joined on or before: -- The parties agreed to the form Feb. 15, 2023 protective order set forth in Appendix L to the Local Rules and will submit the proposed order to the Court no later than: -- Non-expert discovery shall be Aug. 15, 2023 completed by: -- Expert discovery shall be completed as follows: Report(s) for party bearing Aug. 15, 2023 the burden of proof: Responsive report(s): Oct. 15, 2023 Expert discovery deadline: Dec. 15, 2023 -- The dispositive motion deadline Jan. 5, 2024 is: -- The Plaintiff’s deadline to Sept. 5, 2023 file a motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 is: A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Wv3CKw at no extra charge.[CC] DE HOOP: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Tuy Xep Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANCISCO TUY XEP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DE HOOP CORP. d/b/a KAIA WINE BAR and SUZAAN HAUPTFLEISCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00450 (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to provide wage notices. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher from April 2019 through June 2019 and as a waiter and bartender from July 2019 through November 21, 2022. De Hoop Corp., doing business as Kaia Wine Bar, is an owner and operator of a restaurant and bar located at 1614 3rd Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Christian Mercado, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com mercado@pechmanlaw.com DHI MORTGAGE: Bid to Substitute Named Plaintiff OK'd ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT W. AHLSTROM, v. DHI MORTGAGE COMPANY, LTD., L.P., Case No. 5:19-cv-03435-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to substitute the Estate of Robert W. Ahlstrom as Named Plaintiff. The Plaintiff Ahlstrom brought suit on behalf of himself and a putative class of others similarly situated against the Defendants for state law wage and hour and contract violations. On November 3, 2022, the Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a motion notifying the Court that Named Plaintiff Robert W. Ahlstrom passed away and requesting to substitute the Estate of Robert W. Ahlstrom as Named Plaintiff. The Defendant DHIM opposes the motion. The Court finds the matter suitable for submission without oral argument and thus vacates the hearing set for March 23, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. The Court finds that the motion satisfies the requirements of Rule 25(a). First, the motion is timely, as Plaintiff's attorney filed a Suggestion of Death on October 13, 2022, and the motion to substitute was filed on November 3, 2022. Second, the claims are not extinguished. "The question of whether an action survives the death of a party must be determined by looking towards the law, state or federal, under which the cause of action arose." Third, the Estate is a proper party. "The rule defines the 'proper party' for substitution as either 'the decedent's successor or representative.'" DHI Mortgage provides home finance solutions for homebuyers in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HxC9UB at no extra charge.[CC] DIGITAL STORM: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Donet Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARICELA DONET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIGITAL STORM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 150227/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Jan. 9, 2023) alleges that the Defendant's website, digitalstorm.com, contained access barriers that prevented the Plaintiff and other visually impaired and legally blind individuals from purchasing products thereon. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the suit. Digital Storm Inc. is a manufacturing firm that designs and builds gaming computers. It specializes in hand-crafting PCs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com DOCKSIDE GRIMLEY: Warren Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Larry J. Warren, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. DOCKSIDE GRIMLEY INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a DOCKSIDE RESTAURANT and JORDAN GRIMLEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00050 (E.D. Va., Jan. 20, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wages in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Virginia Minimum Wage Act ("VMWA"). The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff or the Class Members the "notice" required to comply with the "tip credit" method of minimum wage compliance. During the Class Period, to comply with the "tip credit" method of minimum wage compliance under the FLSA and/or VMWA, Defendants must have permitted Plaintiff and the Class Members to keep and retain all tips received from Defendants' customers. The Defendants paid Plaintiff and the Class Members direct hourly wages for hours worked at the rate of $2.13 per hour and, in so doing, failed to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members direct hourly wages at the minimum "tipped" hourly rate permitted by the VMWA. For violations of the VMWA minimum wage compensation requirement, Defendants now owe Plaintiff and the Class Members unpaid back wages equal to the difference between $2.13 per hour (the direct wage rate paid) and the full applicable Virginia minimum wage rate; a return of all tips deducted or assigned; statutory liquidated damages; pre/post judgment interest; and attorney's fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a bartender at the Defendants' Dockside Restaurant in Colonial Beach, Virginia. DGI operated at the Dockside Restaurant, located in Colonial Beach, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 587-9373 Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com - and - Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540 A Littler River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22003 Phone: (703) 256-1800 Email: Matt@SutterandTerpak.com DOCTOR'S BEST: Martin Sues Over Falsely Advertised Product ---------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOCTOR'S BEST INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES I through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2023-01302828-CU-MT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Jan. 20, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation of numerous California laws and should be required stop falsely advertising the refunds product, provide to all consumers, and take other appropriate corrective and remedial actions. The Defendant sells a line of products called "Natural Brain Enhancers" ("the Product") by false claiming that it will cause meaningful and sustainable memory support. The Defendant's claim is false: fact, recent clinical research confirms that the Product has no meaningful impact on long term memory or cognition, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a consumer advocate with dual motivations for purchasing the Product. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation that develops, manufactures, promotes, markets, distributes, and/or sells the Product to consumers in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattomeys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattomeys.com EMERGENCY SNACK BAR: Estevez Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ----------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Del Carmen Fleury Estevez, Herminio Hernandez Platon, and Hector Raymundo Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EMERGENCY SNACK BAR, CORP. (D/B/A EMERGENCY TAQUERIA NYC) (F/K/A EMERGENCY SNACK BAR), ESB KITCHEN AND BAR CORP (D/B/A EMERGENCY KITCHEN & BAR), and RICHARD ESTEVEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-00574 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2023), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers and a cook at the restaurants. The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled Dominican fast-food restaurants located in Bronx, New York under the names "Emergency Taqueria NYC" (f/k/a "Emergency Snack Bar") and "Emergency Kitchen & Bar".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ESTIA HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Crew Members' OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY WOOD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. ESTIA HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a BUONA RISTORANTE, MARCO ANGELO and DESPINA ANGELO, Individually, Case No. 8:23-cv-00120 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 18, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Wood was employed with the Defendants from March 2022 until July 28, 2022, as a full-time Crew Member and paid $13.00 an hour. Throughout his employment, Mr. Wood was required to work over 40 hours a week and was not compensated at the rate of at least one and a half times his regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in the work week. Accordingly, the Defendants, despite the Plaintiff's reasonable attempts to obtain payment of these earned monies, has failed, and refused to make payments as required by the employment relationship, says the suit. Estia Hospitality is a hotel & villas management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miguel Bouzas, Esq. FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone (727) 254-5255 Facsimile (727) 483-7942 E-mail: miguel@fgbolaw.com EURO NAILS: Collazo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Kiaraliz Collazo, and all others similarly situated v. EURO NAILS & SPA, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00114-RBD-DAB (M.D. Fla., Jan. 23, 2023), is brought for unpaid overtime wages against Defendant pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week for the Defendant at the Defendant's specific request and behest. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff overtime wages when the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 50 hours per week. The Plaintiff was not subject to any overtime exemptions. Defendant engaged in an illegal policy of requiring the Plaintiff to work 50 or more hours in many workweeks of their employment and did not pay the Plaintiff premium wages for all hours worked beyond 40 in a single workweek. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff at one-and-one-half-times their regular rate for all hours worked beyond 40 in a single workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a nail technician from June 2022 until October 2022. Euro Nails & Spa, LLC, operates as a nail salon in Osceola County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle J. Lee, Esq. LEE LAW, PLLC 1971 West Lumsden Road, Suite 303 Brandon, FL 33511 Phone: (813) 343-2813 Email: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Stipulation to Consolidate Pena Cases OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE PENA, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order granting stipulation to consolidate Case No. 8:22-cv-01222-SSS-ADSx With Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADSx and finding that Pena v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADSx ("Pena I") and Pena v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01222-SSS-ADSx ("Pena II") involve common parties, related factual scenarios, and overlapping legal issues such that both actions "involve a common question of law or fact" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) and that consolidation would advance judicial economy: 1. Orders that Pena II be consolidated with Pena I for all purposes (now bearing Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADSx as the consolidated action); 2. Orders that Pena II (8:22-cv-01222-SSS-ADSx) be closed following consolidation. No further filings shall be made or accepted in Pena II; 23. Orders Plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint in Pena I (Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADSx) by January 27, 2023. The consolidated complaint shall be the operative complaint and shall supersede all complaints filed in any of the actions consolidated herein; and 4. Enters the following deadlines in Pena I: Matter Proposed Deadline Consolidated Complaint January 27, 2023 Last Day to Serve Initial February 10, 2023 Disclosures Last Day to File Motions to Add March 24, 2023 Parties and Amend Pleadings Plaintiff's Motion for Class July 28, 2023 Certification Defendant's Opposition to Motion September 1, 2023 for Class Certification Plaintiff's Reply in Support of September 29, 2023 Motion for Class Certification Hearing on Motion for Class November 3, 2023 Certification Deadline to complete fact February 2, 2024 discovery Experian Information operates as an information services company. The Company offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wkyrXL at no extra charge.[CC] FAITH BRIDGE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Donet Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MARICELA DONET, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FAITH BRIDGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 150229/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Jan. 9, 2023) alleges that the Defendant's website, christianplanner.com, contained access barriers that prevented the Plaintiff and other visually impaired and legally blind individuals from purchasing products thereon. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the suit. FAITH BRIDGE, INC. is an online retail company, who owns and operates a website, offering for sale products, such as planners and journals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com FEDEX GROUND: New Jersey Court Allows Derieux to Amend Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FRANCIS M. DERIEUX, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil No. 21-13645 (NLH)(EAP)(D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint and FedEx's motion for leave to file a sur-reply. Derieux, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed the class action lawsuit against the Defendants asserting claims for unpaid regular and overtime wages under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a to -56a41, and for the failure to timely pay the Plaintiff for all hours worked under New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 to -14. The Court construes the complaint as asserting separate claims under each statute. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a Home Delivery Driver for Defendants Dali and Barrington from January 2020 to April 2020. At the time, FedEx contracted with Dali and Barrington (collectively "Defendants") to provide package delivery services. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff a daily flat rate or, alternatively, $1.35 per stop if Plaintiff made at least 555 stops in a five-day period. The Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked six days per week for 12 to 15 hours per day. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay him for all hours worked; to pay him overtime compensation for hours worked above 40 per week; to pay him for all stops made on his delivery route; and to keep accurate records of all hours worked. The Plaintiff defines the "class" in his complaint as "any individual performing work as a Home Delivery Driver for Defendants in the State of New Jersey from two years preceding the date on which Plaintiffs' original complaint was filed to the present." He brings the motion to amend his complaint to expand the class period to six years preceding the date on which he filed his complaint to align with the limitations period of the NJWPL. FedEx opposes the motion, arguing that the Court should deny the motion on futility grounds because (1) overtime claims are not permitted under the NJWPL; (2) overtime claims arise under the NJWHL, and the applicable statute of limitations is two years preceding the filing of the complaint; and (3) the Plaintiff cannot use the NJWHL's amended six-year statute of limitations to augment the putative class period because the statutory amendment is not retroactive. Dali and Barrington jointly oppose the motion and adopt FedEx's arguments, incorporating them in their brief. In reply, the Plaintiff argues that his allegations establish that the Defendants failed to pay the minimum hourly rate due for all hours worked, regardless of whether those hours were worked under or over forty hours per week, and that is sufficient to state a claim under the NJWPL. By casting unpaid wages as due and owing under the applicable minimum rate, he asserts that his claim arises under the NJWPL and thus, the request to extend the class period to six years falls in line with the NJWPL's six-year limitations period. In its sur-reply, FedEx argues that the Plaintiff did not assert a minimum wage claim in his initial complaint, and he cannot amend his complaint to assert one through the briefing on this motion. Furthermore, it alleges that the Plaintiff is attempting to mask its unpaid overtime claim by inappropriately re-characterizing it as a minimum wage claim to take advantage of the NJWPL's six-year statute of limitations. Judge Pascal finds that the Plaintiff does not seek to amend the complaint by adding an NJWPL claim; his original complaint already pled violations under the NJWPL that are distinct from the NJWHL. The Plaintiff merely seeks to amend the class period to conform to the NJWPL's six-year statute of limitations. For these reasons, Judge Pascal finds that the amendment is not futile. Judge Pascal further finds that for claims accruing after Aug. 6, 2019, the statute of limitations is six years. An action under the NJWHL can be commenced in several ways, but for the purposes of the case, an action is commenced on the date when a complaint is filed in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. The Defendants can challenge the timeliness of the putative class's claims at the class certification stage. To be clear, Judge Pascal's decision is without prejudice to the Defendants' arguments at a later point that some or all of the putative class members' NJWHL claims are barred under the NJWHL statute of limitations applicable to that specific class member. For these reasons, Judge Pascal finds that the NJWHL's statute of limitations does not make the Plaintiff's amendment to expand the class period to six years futile, and the Plaintiff's motion to amend should be granted. For the reasons he stated, Judge Pascal grants both the Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint and FedEx's motion for leave to file a sur-reply. The Plaintiff will file the amended complaint within seven days of the date of the entry of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5zmrwshb from Leagle.com. FIRSTCREDIT INTERNATIONAL: Luna Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gricel Luna, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. FIRSTCREDIT INTERNATIONAL CORP d/b/a FIRSTCREDIT, Case No. 0:23-cv-60123-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"). On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. On April 08, 2022, Defendant sent a collection letter to Plaintiff (the "Collection Letter") in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. The Collection Letter is a communication from Defendant to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt. The Defendant is an entity required to register as a consumer collection agency with the Florida Department of State to lawfully collect consumer debts from Florida consumers. When attempting to collect the Consumer Debt from Plaintiff, Defendant was not lawfully licensed to collect consumer debts from Florida consumers. The Defendant does not fall within any of the exemptions contained within the FCCPA. The Defendant cannot legally collect, or attempt to collect, the Consumer Debt from the Plaintiff without first registering, and thereafter maintaining, a valid consumer collection agency license in accordance with the FCCPA. The Defendant's collection activities directed at the Plaintiff constitute a criminal misdemeanor under Florida law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida. The Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Patti, Esq. Victor Zabaleta, Esq. PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP 3323 Northwest 55th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Phone: 561-542-8550 Email: Tom@pzlg.legal Victor@pzlg.legal FOX PEST CONTROL: Greene Sues to Recover Untimely Paid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Derek Greene, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FOX PEST CONTROL ENVIRONMENTAL LLC, Case No. 601320/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Jan. 23, 2023), is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law to recover damages for untimely wages for Plaintiff and his similarly situated pest elimination employees below the level of assistant managers and excluding administrative employees (collectively, "Putative Class Members" or "Manual Worker") – who work or have worked for Fox in New York between August 13, 2015 through May 24, 2022. During the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant required the Plaintiff and other Putative Class Members to perform at least twenty-five percent of their time on physical work duties. The Defendant, however, paid the Plaintiff and other Putative Class Members on a biweekly basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as Manual Worker from September 2019 through May 2021. The Defendant has employed the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 300-0375 GENERAC HOLDINGS: California Trust Sues Over Wrongful Omissions --------------------------------------------------------------- California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. GENERAC HOLDINGS INC., AARON JAGDFELD, and YORK A. RAGEN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00081-BHL (E.D. Wis., Jan. 20, 2023), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Generac between April 29, 2021 and November 1, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions The Company has historically offered engines, alternators, batteries, electronic controls, steel enclosures, and other components. Due to recent acquisitions, the Company also now provides residential portable and automatic standby generators, along with certain clean energy solutions. Though the name Generac used to be ubiquitous in the home generator industry and the Company commanded a very large portion of the market share, over the past decade other big companies such as Kohler, Champion, Briggs & Stratton, and Cummins have entered the market and stole significant market share. As a result, Generac has been suffering substantial declines in demand for its legacy generator product offerings, causing the Company to slash product prices by nearly 20% during the Class Period and to engage in a massive acquisition spree in an attempt to offset waning demand. In April 2019, Generac acquired Pika Energy Inc., driving the Company's expansion into the home energy-storage market, and allowing Generac to start selling complete energy storage systems under the names PWRcell and PWRview in 2020. In early 2020, Generac and a Mooresville, North Carolina company now known as Pink Energy (formerly PowerHome Solar) formed a partnership to market Pink Energy solar installations with Generac batteries and system components. Pink Energy in turn sold, designed, operated, financed, and installed solar panels and energy-storage systems primarily for residential customers. Unbeknownst to investors, there was a defective component at the core of Generac's solar power product offerings. That component--the "SnapRS"--was intended to perform an essential safety function by rapidly shutting down solar devices in certain dangerous situations. But rather than protecting consumers, the SnapRS would overheat, melt, and, in some cases, start fires. The Defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the versions of the SnapRS installed in thousands of homes through the Pink Energy partnership and other distribution partnerships were defective and dangerous. Numerous consumers filed complaints with regulators, and Generac's business partners that sold, installed, and serviced Generac's solar products informed the Company of the SnapRS defect. Furthermore, during the Class Period, defendants also misled investors about Generac's financial condition by failing to account for the Company's liability for warranty claims arising from the defective SnapRS. By misrepresenting the Company's potential warranty liability, the Defendants overstated Generac's earnings throughout the Class Period, and falsely assured investors that the Company's financial statements were prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). The truth regarding Generac continued to emerge through a series of partial corrective disclosures which revealed widespread product defects in the Company's SnapRS components which, unbeknownst to investors, had caused thousands of solar system failures. For example, on October 19, 2022, Generac announced its preliminary quarterly financial results for the interim period ended September 30, 2022 ("3Q22"). In the 3Q22 release, Generac revealed that it had missed sales expectations for the quarter and cut its guidance for fiscal 2022 ("FY22"). The Company attributed these underwhelming results to lower-than-expected residential product sales and lower home standby generator orders. As a result, it revised its full- year 2022 net sales growth outlook to 22% to 24% compared to 36% to 40% previously, as home standby order headwinds were expected to persist during the fourth quarter of 2022 and through the first half of 2023. On this news, the market price of Generac common stock fell precipitously, declining more than $37 per share--over 25%--the largest single day decline in the Company's history, on unusually high volume of more than 12.8 million shares trading. The true facts, which were known or recklessly disregarded by the Defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: that Generac had been suffering substantial declines in demand for its legacy generator product offerings, causing the Company to slash product prices by nearly 20% and engage in a massive acquisition spree in an attempt to offset waning demand; that SnapRS components being marketed and sold through a partnership with Generac suffered from serious product defect and safety issues; that Generac was exposed to significant impending warranty liability related to the Company's participation in the sale of SnapRS components; and that as a result of the foregoing, the strength of Generac's business metrics and financial prospects had been grossly overstated and materially misrepresented throughout the Class Period. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions as alleged herein, the Plaintiff and the Class purchased Generac common stock at artificially inflated prices, suffered significant losses, and were damaged thereby, says the complaint. The Plaintiff California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust purchased Generac common stock during the Class Period. Generac designs, manufactures, and sells power generation equipment, energy storage systems, and other power products for the residential, light commercial, and industrial markets worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: 414/482-8000 Fax: 414/482-8001 Email: gademi@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631/367-7100 Fax: 631/367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Phone: 619/231-1058 Fax: 619/231-7423 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com GERBER LIFE: Loguidice, et al., File Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE LOGUIDICE and EMILIE NORMAN,v. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 7:20-cv-03254-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of nationwide Classes on their fraud and N.Y. GBL sections 349 and 350 claims regarding Defendant's deceptive advertising of its "Grow Up Plan" and "College Plan" products. Gerber Life provides juvenile and family life insurance products to middle-income families along with medical insurance to small- and medium-sized businesses. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 16, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3QM2a5fat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie Lyons, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave. Suite 200, Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Amanda Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Facsimile: (202) 615-3948 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com nlyons@kalielpllc.com - and - James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com GLOBAL TRAVEL: Judge Recommends Denial of Class in Sides -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA SIDES, et al., v. GLOBAL TRAVEL ALLIANCE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00053-SPW-TJC (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Cavan recommended that: 1. Global Travel's motion to strike or deny class be granted; 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment be denied; and 3. Global Travel's motion for partial summary judgment be granted. The Clerk shall serve a copy of the Findings and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge upon the parties. The parties are advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, any objections to the findings and recommendations must be filed with the Clerk of Court and copies served on opposing counsel within 14 days after service hereof, or objection is waived. D. Mont. Local Rule 72.3. Thus, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the class members have suffered the same injury, or that the claims are susceptible to class-wide proof. The Court also believes Plaintiffs have had adequate time to move for reconsideration of class certification, and disagrees with Plaintiffs that Global Travel's motion is premature. The Plaintiffs allege, among other claims, that Global Travel breached its contract with Plaintiffs, and improperly withheld refunds following the disruption of scheduled school trips in the spring of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The named-Plaintiffs are Montana parents and students who booked trips with Global Travel in 2020, which were later hindered by the global COVID-19 pandemic. Global Travel trips are generally booked a year in advance, pursuant to its General Booking Conditions and Release Agreement ("Booking Agreement"), and are paid in installments. The second is a Standard Cancellation Policy ("Cancellation Policy"), which provides for a refund policy based on the number of days prior to departure a trip is cancelled. The Cancellation Policy also "strongly recommends" that travelers consider purchasing trip protection. Under Global Travel's Trip Protection Program, a traveler may cancel for personal reasons, and receive a full refund less certain non-refundable fees if a trip is cancelled at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled departure. The travelers in this case were middle school students from Ben Steele Middle School, Laurel Middle School, and Castle Rock Middle School in Billings, Montana, and Sacajawea Middle School in Bozeman, Montana. Their trips were scheduled for the spring of 2020. On March 13, 2020, however, the United States declared a national emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On the same date, Global Travel sent a letter to its prospective travelers addressing the pandemic, detailing the Cancellation Policy, outlining Trip Protection Plan coverage, and reiterating Global Travel's right to cancel trips for safety reasons. The Court, therefore, finds Plaintiffs' argument that Global Travel rescinded the contract unavailing. Global Travel did not cancel any scheduled trips or rescind the Booking Agreement. When travel was undisputedly rendered unsafe, Global Travel began the process of rescheduling trips. Except for the Sacajawea Bozeman trip to Europe, the trips were successfully rescheduled and completed the following year. The Court also does not agree with Plaintiffs' argument that the Booking Agreement does not permit Global Travel to keep a percentage of the cost of travel when "it was the one who cancelled the trip," and "did not contain language about a 'voucher program.'" Again, Global Travel did not cancel the trips; it rescheduled the trips when they could be safely completed. Global Travel is a student travel organization that sells educational travel packages to students for a variety of destinations, such as Washington, D.C., New York City, and Europe. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D4FZBC at no extra charge.[CC] GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Brand Sues Over Unsafe Levels of Lead --------------------------------------------------------- Madeleine Brand and John Bowden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GODIVA CHOCOLATIER, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00515 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2023), is brought against Defendant regarding the manufacture, distribution, and sale of its Godiva Signature 72% Cacao Dark Chocolate bar products (the "Affected Products") which contain unsafe levels of lead in violation of the Virginia's Consumer Protection Act. The marketing for and labeling of the Affected Products are silent as to the presence of elevated lead levels in the Affected Products. Godiva's advertising and packaging are false, misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public. Lead is a harmful chemical when consumed and is especially dangerous to pregnant women and children. Lead poisoning occurs when lead builds up in the body, over months or years. A December 2022 report by Consumer Reports revealed that a selection of dark chocolate bars sold to the public, including the Affected Products, contained concerning levels of heavy metals: specifically, cadmium and lead. The Defendant knew or should have known that its representations and advertisements regarding the Affected Products were false and misleading and that they failed to disclose material information. The Defendant had been part of a previous Heavy Metal matter in 2016 raised by watchdog group As You Sow, which filed Proposition 65 Notices for elevated lead and cadmium levels found in the products of multiple dark chocolate brands, including Godiva. Consumers could not have known about the unsafe levels of lead in the Affected Products before purchasing them without having conducted extensive and expensive scientific testing. The Defendant, on the other hand, is positioned to test its products and has exclusive knowledge of the quality control testing on the Affected Products and the ingredients contained therein. Accordingly, consumers relied, and continue to rely, on the Defendant to be truthful regarding the ingredients, including the presence of the dangerous heavy metals in the Affected Products. If the Plaintiffs knew that the Affected Products contained unsafe levels of lead, they would not have purchased the Affected Products on the same terms, if at all. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated purchasers ("Class Members") relied on Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions that the Affected Products contained only those ingredients listed on the Affected Products packaging and labeling. The Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a premium for the Affected Products based upon the Defendant's marketing and advertising campaign. Given that the Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a premium for the Affected Products based on the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Affected Products numerous times during the Class Period. The Defendant manufactures, advertises, labels, and sells dark chocolate, including the Affected Products, throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com gishimoto@zlk.com GRAND ISLE: Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims in Ortiguerra Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ICTOR CAGARA ORTIGUERRA, ET AL. v. GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD, LLC., ET AL. SECTION: "J"(4), Civil Action No. 22-309 (E.D. La.), Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims for Defamation. The Plaintiffs are welders and fitters from the Philippines who came to the United States to work on oil rigs. They sued their employers, Grand Isle Shipyard, LLC and GIS, LLC, in the Court, alleging that they were not paid minimum wage nor overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"); 18 U.S.C. Section 1589; and the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"); 42 U.S.C. Section 3613. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants subjected them to forced labor and segregated and isolated Filipino workers when assigning housing and COVID-19 quarantine accommodations. They also allege that during and after Hurricane Ida, the Defendants refused to allow Filipino workers to evacuate, instead forcing them to remain in a bunkhouse with a damaged roof without clean water and electricity for weeks. They assert these claims as a putative collective action under the FLSA and a putative class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). The Defendants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "Convention"). The Court denied the motion as to the TVPA and FHA claims, but it granted the motion to compel arbitration as to the FLSA claims and stayed those claims pending arbitration. The Defendants then answered the complaint. The answer included a counterclaim for defamation against the Plaintiffs, which claims that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint contains false and defamatory claims of human trafficking and discrimination. They allege that the laintiffs acted with malice and knew their allegations to be false and/or acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the allegations. Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the defamation claim, or in the alternative, strike the counterclaim pursuant to La. Code. Civ. P. art. 971. Judge Barbier holds that the Defendants' allegations of defamation are both conclusory and not yet ripe for consideration. First, he says the Defendants do not provide any information regarding publication of the Plaintiffs' statements outside of a judicial proceeding, nor do they provide any facts pointing toward the Plaintiffs' malice or intent, as required to state a claim for defamation. Second, he says the Defendants must wait until the conclusion of the instant litigation, which will most likely determine the truth or falsity of the statements, before bringing a claim for defamation or defamation per se based on statements Plaintiffs made in their pleadings. After the Court resolves this phase of litigation, the Defendants may choose whether or not to pursue their defamation claims. Finally, because he finds that the defamation counterclaim should be dismissed, Judge Barbier declines to address movants' alternative motion to strike the counterclaim pursuant to article 971 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, Judge Barbier grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaims for Defamation. He dismisses the Defendants' counterclaims for defamation without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/2mb566wt from Leagle.com. HALSTED FINANCIAL: McMahon Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsted Financial Services, LLC. The case is styled as Edna McMahon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Halsted Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02029 (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Halsted Financial Services -- https://halstedfinancial.com/ -- offers compassionate debt collection by allowing consumers to choose their preferred method of communication.[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 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com HARBOR FREIGHT: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Herrera Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. HUD-L-000069-23 (N.J. Sup., Hudson Cty., Jan. 9, 2023) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.harborfreight.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC. operates a chain of tool and equipment retail stores. The Company offers auto parts, shop equipment, hand and air tools, power tools, outdoor products, welding equipment, and various related products. Harbor Freight Tools USA serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com HEALTHCOMP LLC: Godin Sues Over Unlawful Recording of Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Godin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HEALTHCOMP, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00003149-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Jan. 24, 2023), is brought arising out the Defendant's policy and practice to record, without the consent of all parties, telephone calls made to the Defendant's telephone numbers in violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The Defendant's telephone numbers, which include but are not limited to 1-800-442-7247 and 1-855-727-5267, (referred to collectively as "Defendant's customer service numbers") connect callers with customer service for Defendant's members and providers. During the relevant time period, Defendant intentionally and surreptitiously recorded telephone communications made to Defendant's customer service numbers. Defendant did so without warning or disclosing to inbound callers that their calls might be recorded. Defendant's policy and practice of recording telephone conversations without the consent of all parties violates the CIPA. As a result of Defendant's violations, all individuals, who called HealthComp's customer service numbers, while they were in California and were recorded by Defendant surreptitiously and without disclosure are entitled to an award of statutory damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was physically present in San Diego, she called HealthComp's customer service number and had telephonic communications with live representatives of Defendant while using her cellular telephone. HealthComp is one of the largest independent Third Party Administrators ("TPA") of healthcare benefits for self-funded employers in California and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev B. Zysman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN A Professional Corporation 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 783-8836 Email: zev@zysmanlawca.com HENKEL CORP: Watkins Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH WATKINS, an Illinois resident, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HENKEL CORPORATION d/b/a HENKEL NORTH AMERICAN CONSUMER GOODS f/k/a THE DIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01015-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2022) is a class action against the U.S.-based corporation Henkel Corporation, for collection without prior consent of the facial geometry data of the Plaintiff and a potential class of other visitors to Schwarzkopf's websites who used the Virtual Try-On feature, in violation of Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant collects detailed and sensitive biometric identifiers and information, including complete facial scans, of its users through the Virtual Try-On feature, and it does this without first obtaining their consent, or informing them that this data is being collected. Additionally, the Defendant does not provide users with a schedule setting out the length of time during which their biometric information or biometric identifiers will be collected, stored, used, or will be destroyed. Accordingly, the Defendant offers the Virtual Try-On feature to consumers who visit its website. When a consumer views a product, Defendant invites him or her to access to the Virtual Try-On feature by presenting a red "Live Preview" button. The "Live Preview" button is displayed directly below or next to the "Buy Now" button. The Plaintiff and the Class members were never informed in writing that biometric identifiers were being collected, what the specific purpose was, or the length of time the identifiers would be stored. Nor did the Plaintiff or the Class members ever execute a release as to the biometric identifiers Defendant collected through the Virtual Try-On feature, says the suit. Henkel is a German multinational chemical and consumer goods company headquartered in Düsseldorf, Germany.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com HOME DEPOT: Reimer TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ruhi Reimer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 22-A-4250 was removed from the State Court of Cobb County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on Jan. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00317-MLB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Home Depot, Inc. -- https://www.homedepot.com/ -- is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services, including fuel and transportation rentals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chelsea Feagle, Esq. Clifton R. Dorsen, Esq. James Marvin Feagle, Esq. SKAAR AND FEAGLE 2374 Main Street, Suite B Tucker, GA 30084 Phone: (404) 373-1970 Email: cfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq. Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP-WOODSTOCK 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Phone: (770) 427-5600 Fax: (404) 601-1855 Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com The Defendant is represented by: Charles Spalding, Jr., Esq. James Andrew Pratt, Esq. Sidney Stewart Haskins, II, Esq. KING & SPALDING 1180 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 572-4666 Email: cspalding@kslaw.com apratt@kslaw.com shaskins@kslaw.com HUDSON NATIONAL: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE HUDSON NATIONAL GOLF CLUB, INC., (d/b/a "the Defendant"), THERON C. HARVEY, RICHARD HARDIN, and KEVIN MCCONAUGHY, Case No. 7:23-cv-00522 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread of hours, statutory and liquidated damages, and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Despite maintaining formal and functional control over the caddies, Defendants did not pay caddies for their regular work. Instead, Defendants misclassified caddies as "independent contractors," to evade the costs and responsibilities of employment. During each golf season from 2016 to 2021, the Plaintiff worked 69.5 to 80.5 hours per week. The Plaintiff was not paid minimum wage by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at a rate of one- and one-half times his regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff was not paid spread-of-hours by the Defendant or any of the Defendants. The Plaintiff was required to launder uniforms that the Defendant issued to him and required him to wear. The Plaintiff was not reimbursed for the costs of laundering uniforms provided by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was required to purchase additional uniforms to maintain the pace of work required at the Defendant. The Plaintiff was not given wage statements with each payment of wages as required by the NYLL. The Plaintiff was not given a wage notice at the time of hiring or when his rates of pay changed that, inter alia, accurately reflected his rate or rates of pay and number of hours worked per week, as required by the NYLL. The Plaintiff was not given a tip credit notice, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a golf caddie at Hudson National Golf Club from May 2010 to June 23, 2021. Hudson National Golf Club is an exclusive golf club, 18-hole course, and restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACO & FILLAS, LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor. Astoria, NY 11102 Phone: 718-269-2243 Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com ICONOCLAST FITNESS: Liu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Iconoclast Fitness, Inc., et al. case is styled as Rachel Liu, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Iconoclast Fitness, Inc., Ngo Okafor, Case No. 1:23-cv-00525 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Iconoclast Fitness, Inc. -- https://iconoclastfitness.com/ -- is a gym in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON LAW LLC 1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11757 Phone: (516) 388-7611 Email: DJ@BellLG.com IFIT HEALTH AND FITNESS: Balfour Files Suit in D. Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against iFIT Health and Fitness, Inc. The case is styled as Scott Balfour, Don Lee, Kuldeep Singh, Matthew Templon, Shelia Voorheis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. iFIT Health and Fitness, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00067-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract Dispute. iFIT -- http://www.ifit.com/-- is a leading health and fitness platform.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian Connor Bifferato, Esq. THE BIFFERATO FIRM, P.A. 1007 N. Orange Street, 4th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 225-7600 Email: cbifferato@tbf.legal IHEALTH LABS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IHealth Labs Inc. case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. IHealth Labs Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00529 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. iHealth -- https://ihealthlabs.com/ -- offers cloud-based, personal healthcare products for individuals of all ages to take a more active role in managing their health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com INSPIRE SUMMITS: Barlow Appeals Suit Ruling to N.Y. Appellate Div. ------------------------------------------------------------------ HEATHER BARLOW, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Heather Barlow, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Christopher Skroupa, et al., Defendants, Case No. 651739/2020, in the New York Supreme Court, County of New York. The Plaintiffs filed this complaint against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On March 30, 2021, the Court issued an Order remanding this action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The case was closed. On June 29, 2021, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal. On June 30, 2021, the Court ordered that because this action was remanded and the case was closed, the Court does not have jurisdiction to address the Defendants' Notice of Removal. To the extent the Defendants believe it is appropriate to proceed in federal court, they should open a new case in this Court and file a Notice of Removal in that case, the Court added. The appellate case is captioned Heather Barlow et al. vs. Christopher Skroupa et al., Case No. 23-00318, in the New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed on January 18, 2023. [BN] INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Initial Approval of Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK COMIN and MARK BRIGGS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), Case No. 3:19-cv-07261-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Preliminarily approving the Settlement; 2. Appointing Mark Comin as the Class Representative and Briggs as the PAGA Representative; 3. Appointing Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC as Settlement Class Counsel; 4. Certifying the Class and Subclass for settlement purposes only; 5. Approving the proposed Notice of Class Action Settlement and directing the mailing and emailing of the Class Notice to the Class and Subclass; and 6. Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing. International Business provides computer solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J7QdVR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Mark R. Sigmon, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Alex R. Straus, Esq. Kent A. Bronson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: mlee@milberg.com msigmon@milberg.com jwilliams@milberg.com astraus@milberg.com kbronson@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Aaron L. Agenbroad, Esq. Cindi L. Ritchey, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 E-mail: alagenbroad@jonesday.com critchey@jonesday.com - and - Justin Barnes, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS 171 17th Street, NW, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 525-8200 E-mail: Justin.barnes@jacksonlewis.com IRIS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit in N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------ Iris Energy Ltd. disclosed in its Form F-1 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2023, that the Company will continue to defend itself from a putative class suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company is aware that on December 14, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint naming the Company and certain of its directors and officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The filed complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, contending that certain of the Company's statements, including with respect to its equipment financing arrangements, were allegedly false or misleading. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Iris Energy Limited is an Australia-based sustainable Bitcoin mining company that supports local communities, as well as the decarbonization of energy markets and the global Bitcoin network.[BN] J.G. WENTWORTH: Simpson TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Douglas Simpson, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. The J.G. Wentworth Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-02911 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Jan. 23, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00152-KKM-AEP to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The J.G. Wentworth Company -- https://www.jgwentworth.com/ -- is an American financial services company that purchases structured settlements, annuities, and lottery payments in exchange for a lump-sum cash settlement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Joseph Francis Murray, Esq. MURRAY MURPHY MOUL & BASIL LLP 1114 Dublin Rd Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 488-0400 Email: murray@mmmb.com - and - Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 S Allen St Ste 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com The Defendants are represented by: A. Christopher Young, Esq. Alexis Naomi Fennell, Esq. Rosemary Cochrane, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch St Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Phone: (215) 981-4190 Fax: (215) 893-8301 Email: youngac@pepperlaw.com alexis.fennell@troutman.com rosemary.cochrane@troutman.com - and - David Michael Gettings, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 222 Central Park Ave Ste 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Phone: (757) 687-7747 Fax: (757) 687-7510 Email: david.gettings@troutman.com KIA AMERICA: Placencia Sues Over Concealment of Vehicle Defect -------------------------------------------------------------- Clorinda Placencia, Xavier Galan, Kihan Park, Aja Hodges, Kyya Brown, Erica Tullison, Onika Hatchett, John Kekar, Derek Grant, Lena Arthur-Weaver, And Regina Payne, individually and on behalf of all others situated v. KIA AMERICA, INC., AND HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Case No. 8:23-cv-00139 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2023), is brought on behalf of all persons nationwide who purchased or leased Kia vehicles made between 2011 and 2022 or Hyundai vehicles made between 2015 and 2022 equipped with traditional "insert-and-turn" steel key ignition systems ("Covered Vehicles") manufactured by Kia America, Inc. or Hyundai Motor America (collectively, "Defendants"), as a result of the Defendants' concealment of the Vehicle's defect. These Covered Vehicles are not equipped with "immobilizer" technology, which prevents them from starting without a code sent electronically to the Vehicle from the Vehicle's smart key (the "Defect"). The Defendants were aware or should have been aware of the Defect from multiple sources. Police reports indicate that the Defect has been used to steal Kia vehicles since 2011 and Hyundai vehicles since 2015. The Defendants, however, neglected to disclose this to consumers and actively concealed the Defect. Not until November 1, 2021, did Defendant Hyundai make immobilizer technology in vehicles standard. Defendant Kia did not make this change until 2022. Despite the widespread increase in stolen Covered Vehicles, Defendants have not announced a recall of the Covered Vehicles. Defendants have stated they will provide steering locks to law enforcement in affected areas, and Defendant Hyundai will begin selling a security kit for affected owners or lessees in October 2022. In recent months, viral videos on the platforms of YouTube and TikTok explain detailed instructions on how to steal the Covered Vehicles with the use of just a USB cord. A growing trend, titled the "Kia Challenge," encourages viewers to follow the instructions and steal a Covered Vehicle. The Challenge has inspired several videos of teens and young adults breaking into Covered Vehicles, stealing them, and engaging in unsafe driving practices, sometimes abandoning or even crashing the vehicles. Both car thieves and bystanders to the events have been injured or killed following the dangerous thefts and driving related to them. The Plaintiffs believed and relied on Defendants' deceptive representations of the fitness of the vehicle, and ultimately purchased the vehicle due to their lack of knowledge that the vehicle was lacking the anti-theft software. The Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Covered Vehicle had she known how easy it was to steal, or that the Vehicle was lacking a car immobilizer system. The Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered diminished market value of their Covered Vehicles, and even total loss of market value, as a direct result of Defendants' withholding material information and/or actively concealing the Defect, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased or leased Kia vehicles. The Defendants Kia and Hyundai are manufacturers and distributors of new motor vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Dustin L. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law dschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law LHC GROUP: Liable to 401(k) Plan Losses, Kovach Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ GLENDA KOVACH and AMY ADKINS, individually and as representatives of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the LHC GROUP 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiffs v. LHC GROUP, INC.; LHC GROUP 401(k) COMMITTEE; MARCUS MACIP; JOSH PROFFITT; CHRIS GILL, KIMBERLY SEYMOUR; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00051 (S.D. W. Va., January 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the management, operation, and administration of the LHC Group 401(k) Plan. Specifically, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty to the Plan by: (a) offering and maintaining funds with higher-cost share classes when identical lower cost class shares were available; (b) selecting, offering, and retaining poorly performing actively managed funds within the Plan; (c) offering a guaranteed income product that had unnecessarily high risk and low returns; (d) depriving participants of compounded returns which greatly exceed the annual cost of fees and revenue sharing; and (f) failing to maintain and restore trust assets. As a result of the Defendants' actions, Plan participants invested in subpar investment vehicles and paid additional unnecessary operating expenses and fees with no value to the participants and resulting in a loss of compounded returns. LHC Group, Inc. is a home health care services company, headquartered in Lafayette, Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth R. Starcher, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH STARCHER 723 Kanawha Blvd E., Ste. 200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 541-9120 E-mail: krstarcher2@gmail.com - and - Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. Robert N. Fisher, Esq. CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C. 1117 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 618-2924 Facsimile: (805) 618-2939 E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com rob@chumphrelaw.com - and - James A. Clark, Esq. Renee P. Ortega, Esq. TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 11335 Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105 Sacramento, CA 95670 Telephone: (916) 361-6009 Facsimile: (916) 361-6019 E-mail: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com renee.ortega@towerlegalgroup.com LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Armand Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Emmanuella Armand, Nerilene Ballard, Charline Boufin-Tebeu, Javier Cumerma, Kevin Kerrick, and Tolulope Oduyejo-Williams, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated in the State of Florida v. LIFESTANCE HEALTH GROUP, INC., and LIFESTANCE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00103 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 20, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for their violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which obligates employers to pay non-exempt employees, including overtime and minimum wages, for all hours worked, among other issues addressed in the statute and the myriad of Court decisions interpreting the statute. The Plaintiffs and putative class members generally worked over 40 hours in at least one given work week per year. The Plaintiffs and putative class members received a salary or fee basis at a rate of less than $450 per week. In fact, as a result of the predatory practices of LifeStance, the Plaintiffs and putative class members would work at least 40 hours per week, but were paid $0 for the work conducted, in part because LifeStance would require that Plaintiffs and putative class members pay back the monies for time worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are non-exempt psychiatric and mental health nurse practitioners that worked in the State of Florida for LifeStance. LifeStance Health Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal place of business located in Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin K. Ross-Andino, Esq. Jolynn M. Falto, Esq. Nikki Pappas Hudson, Esq. Crisol Lopez-Palafox, Esq. ECLAT LAW, PA Post office Box 161850 Altamonte Springs, FL 32716 Phone: (407) 636-7004 Email: kevin.ross@eclatlaw.com jfalto@eclatlaw.com nikki.pappas@eclatlaw.com crisol.lopezpalafox@eclatlaw.com LLEIA LUXE EVENTS: McKnight Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Tashauna McKnight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LLEIA LUXE EVENTS, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-000974 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Jan. 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices ("FCCPA"). Pursuant to the FCCPA, in collecting consumer debts, no person shall communicate with the debtor between the hours of 9 PM and 8 AM in the debtors time zone without prior consent of the debtor. On January 24, 2022, the Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to the Plaintiff (The "First Communication") The First Communication was sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and was received by the Plaintiff from the Defendant at 6:07 AM in the Plaintiff's time zone. On January 28, 2022, the Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to the Plaintiff (The "Second Communication") The Second Communication was sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and was received by the Plaintiff from the Defendant at 6:27 AM in the Plaintiff's time zone. The Defendant sent multiple Electronic Communications to the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. Each Electronic Communications were sent to the Plaintiff between the hours of 9 PM and 8 AM in the time zone of the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of the Plaintiff to communicate with the Plaintiff between the hours of 9 PM and 8 AM. As such, by and through each of the Electronic Communications, the Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen of the State of Florida. The Defendant is a Florida Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com jen@jibraellaw.com LOUISIANA: 5th Cir. Vacates Class Certification in A.A. v. Phillips ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, A. A., BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER, P.A.; B. B., BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER, P.B.; C. C., BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER, P.C.; D. D., BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER, P.D.; E. E., BY AND THROUGH HIS MOTHER, P.E.; F. F., BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER, P.F., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. COURTNEY N. PHILLIPS, DR., IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE sECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 21-30580 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacates the district court's class certification order and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. Medicaid-eligible children living in Louisiana allege that the Louisiana Department of Health fails to provide them and similarly situated children with intensive home- and community-based services ("IHCBS") needed to treat their diagnosed mental health or behavioral health conditions, as required by Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment ("EPSDT") mandate. The Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated Medicaid-eligible children sued the Department and its Secretary for violating Plaintiffs' rights to necessary treatment under EPSDT and to treatment in the least restrictive setting under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiffs are six Medicaid-eligible children residing across Louisiana who have been diagnosed with mental health or behavioral health conditions. Plaintiffs allege that the Department fails to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated children across Louisiana with the IHCBS needed to treat their conditions, as required by Medicaid's EPSDT mandate. Under the EPSDT mandate, Medicaid-administering agencies like the Department must provide or arrange for all "necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment, and other measures described in subsection (a)," which encompasses all services identified as medically necessary by a health professional. The Plaintiffs' core allegation is that the Department maintains a policy of not providing IHCBS, which the district court defined as "intensive care coordination, crisis services, and intensive behavioral services and supports that are necessary to correct or ameliorate the Plaintiffs' mental illnesses or conditions." The Plaintiffs allege that the Department instead only provides basic mental health interventions such as medication management and infrequent counseling. As a result, Medicaid-eligible children requiring intensive mental health care are untreated and, when they inevitably experience mental health crises, are forced to seek emergency care or psychiatric institutionalization. In 2019, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated Medicaid-eligible children in Louisiana, sued the Department and its Secretary, Dr. Courtney Phillips, in her official capacity, (collectively "LDH") contending that LDH's failure to provide IHCBS violates their right to medically necessary treatment under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the "Medicaid Act") and violates their right to treatment in the least restrictive setting under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court certified a class under Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) consisting of: All Medicaid-eligible youth under the age of 21 in the State of Louisiana (1) who have been diagnosed with a mental health or behavioral disorder, not attributable to an intellectual or developmental disability, and (2) for whom a licensed practitioner of the healing arts has recommended intensive home- and community-based services to correct or ameliorate their disorders. LDH appeals the class certification, arguing that the class is not ascertainable, the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class, and the district court failed to conduct a rigorous analysis. LDH argues that the class definition is not ascertainable because it is not clear which services are included in the term "IHCBS" and which are not. The Fifth Circuit agrees. The district court defined IHCBS as "intensive care coordination, crisis services, and intensive behavioral services and supports that are necessary to correct or ameliorate class members' mental illness or conditions. These three terms, according to the Fifth Circuit, are not defined, nor are they specific, billable behavioral health services ordered by a doctor or licensed mental health professional. It opines that it is not clear which care coordination services and behavioral services are "intensive," falling within the IHCBS definition, and which are not. Knowing which services IHCBS encompasses is essential to evaluating whether an individual is a class member. The district court also found that the class definition was ascertainable in large part because IHCBS is the "functional equivalent" to specialized behavioral health ("SBH") services that Louisiana state law mandates. Because the Louisiana Legislative Auditor reports on SBH services available to Louisiana's Medicaid recipients and LDH has responded to those findings, the district court reasoned that LDH must understand what services are included in SBH, and thus understand what services are included in its "functional[ly] equivalent" IHCBS. But, the Fifth Circuit opines that "functional equivalent" does not mean that SBH services are identical to IHCBS. Accordingly, it is not convinced that LDH's use of the term SBH services indicates an understanding of what services are included in IHCBS. It holds that the term IHCBS, as defined by the district court, is too vague to identify class members, and that the class -- as currently defined -- is unascertainable. For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit vacates the class certification and remands the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion to clarify which services are included in the term IHCBS. Because further proceedings may impact the Defendants' remaining claims that the district court abused its discretion certifying the class under Rules 23(a)(1)-(4) and (b)(2) and failed to conduct a rigorous analysis, the Fifth Circuit does not address those claims now. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5525rk9u from Leagle.com. LOUISVILLE COUNTY, KY: Class Cert. Denial in Stanifer Suit Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARTY STANIFER, Appellant v. LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT AND UNKNOWN MSD PUMP OPERATOR, Appellees, Case No. 2022-CA-0704-ME, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirms the trial court's order denying Stanifer's motion for class certification. In April of 2015, Louisville, Kentucky was subjected to a large amount of rainfall which caused significant flooding in the area. In March of 2017, the Appellant filed the underlying lawsuit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He claimed that a water pumping station near his home malfunctioned and either caused or exacerbated the significant flooding which occurred in 2015, and that this flooding caused property damage. It was later revealed that this pumping station was not part of the storm water drainage system, but was a sewer pumping station. The Appellant later amended his complaint to allege that the sewer pumping station was not working properly and caused a sewage overflow. He went on to claim that this overflow caused or exacerbated the flooding and led to the property damage. In February of 2022, the Appellant moved to have his cause of action certified as a class action. He wanted to include in the class people who suffered property damage from the flooding and who were within his neighborhood. He specifically identified sixteen other people who suffered damages from the flooding. He also identified around 150 other individual properties that were within the geographical area in which he was basing his class membership. The Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District opposed the motion and argued that Appellant's class was too speculative. A hearing was held on the issue in May of 2022. An order denying the class certification motion was entered in June of 2022, and the appeal followed. Keeping in mind that it reviews the issue for an abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals find no error. It opines that the evidence so far indicates that the geographic area that includes the 150 properties is where a sewage overflow could have occurred, not that one did occur there. The evidence also shows that not all of those 150 properties actually incurred flood damage. Finally, there is no evidence that the people who currently own those 150 properties also owned the properties in 2015 when the flooding occurred. Moreover, the Court of Appeals believes that the trial court's reasoning regarding the commonality requirement was flawed in this instance. That being said, because the Appellant failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement, the Court of Appeals is still affirming the judgment of the trial court as to class certification. The trial court also briefly touched on the typicality and adequacy requirements, but did not go into much detail because Appellant had already failed to meet the numerosity and commonality requirements. As the trial court did not sufficiently address typicality and adequacy, the Court of Appeals is unable to determine if the court erred in finding these requirements were not met. Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the trial court. The Appellant did not successfully meet the numerosity requirement for class certification; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. All concur. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 20, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yjj3yj39 from Leagle.com. Peter J. Jannace -- peterj@bsjfirm.com -- Andrew E. Mize -- andrewm@bsjfirm.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, Briefs for the Appellant. Adam T. Goebel -- adam.goebel@skofirm.com -- Angela S. Fetcher -- angela.fetcher@skofirm.com -- Jamila Carter -- jamila.carter@skofirm.com -- Louisville, Kentucky, Brief for the Appellees. MACON IT HAPPEN: French Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- William French, individually and on behalf of those similarly-situated v. MACON IT HAPPEN, LLC d/b/a KAISER TIRE PRO and SHAUN McDANIEL, Case 3:23-cv-00041-RGJ (W.D. Ky., Jan. 24, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Defendants who failed to pay them overtime compensation. The Defendants and controls, misclassified the Plaintiff as exempt from the payment of overtime compensation, and on that basis violated the FLSA by not paying the Plaintiff overtime compensation for overtime work he consistently performed. Specifically, the Defendant characterized the Plaintiff as earning a salary, but Plaintiff was not actually paid on a salary basis. Instead, he was effectively paid on an hourly, daily, or semi-daily basis; when the Plaintiff would work less than five full days, he would receive a fraction of his weekly "salary". The Defendant similarly misclassified its other "managers" and similarly violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant Macon to work as an Assistant Manager/Floating Manager at automotive repair shops operated by Defendant Macon. Macon It Happen, LLC operates automotive repair shops.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 213-1303 Email: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com MAYO FOUNDATION: Case Management Order Entered in Schreiber ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY SCHREIBER, v. MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, Case No. 2:22-cv-00188-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Ray Kent entered a case management order as follows: -- Trial November 18, 2024 -- Motions to Join Parties or April 6, 2023 Amend Pleadings: -- Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures (including lay witnesses) Plaintiff: February 23, 2023 Defendant: February 23, 2023 -- Motion for Class Certification October 30, 2023 Mayo Foundation offers healthcare information, cancer treatment, transplantation, neurosciences, education, and medical research. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WncO3G at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Craig Sues Over Breach of Financial Privacy ----------------------------------------------------------- Crystal Craig, Tiffany Bryant & Sait Kurmangaliyev, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00315-LB (N.D. Cal., Jan. 23, 2023), is brought on behalf of themselves and millions of other Americans whose financial privacy has been violated by Facebook's Pixel tracking tool. Facebook knows (or should have known) that its Pixel tracking tool is being improperly used on the websites of financial services providers and online tax-filing services such as H&R Block, TaxAct, and TaxSlayer, resulting in the wrongful, contemporaneous, re-direction to Facebook of sensitive financial communications and tax filer information. This unlawful transmission and collection of data is done without the knowledge or authorization of the customers, like Plaintiffs, in violation of Defendant's contracts with its users, as well as in violation of various federal and state laws. When a customer communicates with a financial services or tax filing provider's website and Facebook Pixel is present on the customer portal login page, the Facebook Pixel source code causes the exact content of the communication with their tax filing provider to be re-directed to Facebook in a fashion that identifies them as a tax filer and sends filers' tax-return data to Meta without their consent and in violation of federal law. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, and millions of other customers around the country, when they signed into an online tax or financial services provider, the Facebook Pixel secretly deployed on the webpage sent to Facebook the fact that they had clicked to sign-in to the portal. The data that the Facebook Pixel causes to be re-directed from the customer's computing device to Facebook includes tax filers' names, email addresses, adjusted gross incomes, tax-filing statuses, refund amounts, dependents' college scholarship amounts, dependents' names, and other information. The Facebook Pixel also shares that the customer was communicating with a tax filing institution, the customer's Internet Protocol address, identifiers that Facebook uses to identify the customer and his/her device, including cookies named c-user, datr, fr, and fbp (i.e. Facebook Pixel); and browser attribute information sufficient to fingerprint the customer's device. This information is collectively referred to as "sensitive financial information" throughout. The Facebook Pixel collected this information regardless of whether the filer had an account on Meta's social media platforms such as Facebook or Instagram, and regardless of whether the customer had agreed to share their information – in fact, even when filers expressly declined to share their information, the Facebook Pixel collected it anyway. Despite knowingly receiving sensitive financial information from Facebook Partner Financial Data Providers, Facebook has not taken any action to enforce or validate its requirement that Facebook Partner Financial Data Providers obtain adequate consent from taxpayers before providing taxpayer data to Facebook. Despite knowingly conveying sensitive financial information to Facebook via the Facebook Pixel, the Facebook Partner Financial Data Providers have not obtained adequate consent from customers before providing taxpayer data to Facebook. Facebook monetizes the information it receives through the Facebook Pixel deployed on tax filing servicers' web properties by using it to generate highly profitable targeted advertising on- and off-Facebook. Facebook's actions described herein give rise to causes of action for: breach of contract; breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; intrusion upon seclusion / violation of Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution; federal and state electronic communications privacy and wiretap claims; violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; Negligent Misrepresentation; Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; Violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and violation of the New York General Business Law ("GBL"), says the complaint. The Plaintiffs used Block's online tax filing service and were also a Facebook user while using Block's online tax filing services. Meta Platforms, Inc. (referred to herein by its previous name of "Facebook") is an American multinational technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 Email: rapeterson@locklaw.com MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Cruz Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nico Cruz v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01510 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order modifying scheduling order: -- Non-expert discovery due by: May 5, 2023 -- Motion for Class Certification June 16, 2023 filed by: -- Opposition to Class August 11, 2023 Certification filed by: -- Reply to Class Certification August 25, 2023 filed by: -- Hearing on Motion for Class September 8, 2023 Certification to be held on: -- The Court will hold an informal February 7, 2023 telephonic conference regarding any outstanding discovery issues on: The suit involves Labor/Management Relations. Mohawk Industries is an American flooring manufacturer based in Calhoun, Georgia.[CC] MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Perugia Sues Over Halls Lozenges' False Labels --------------------------------------------------------------- JOE PERUGIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00069-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y., January 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law and State Consumer Fraud Acts, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its sugar free honey lemon flavored lozenges under the Halls brand. The Defendant labeled and marketed the product as a cough suppressant and oral anesthetic based on its active ingredient of menthol, promising to "Relieve[s] Coughs and Soothe[s] Sore Throats." The representations that the product "Soothes Sore Throats" and the "Honey Lemon Flavor" are false and misleading. The ingredient list fails to indicate any real honey or lemon. As a result of the false and misleading representations, the product is sold at a premium price, says the suit. Mondelez Global LLC is a food company with a principal place of business in East Hanover, New Jersey. [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 MULTIPLAN CORP: $33.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE MULTIPLAN CORP. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED C.A. No. 2021-0300-LWW SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All record and beneficial holders of MultiPlan Corporation (f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp III ("Churchill III")) (the "Company") common stock and warrants who purchased, acquired, or held such securities at any time during the period between February 19, 2020 and October 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), but excluding the Excluded Persons (as defined in the Stipulation and the Notice) (the "Class").1 PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs Edgar Vaynshteyn ("Lead Plaintiff") and Anthony Franchi ("Additional Plaintiff," and together with Lead Plaintiff, "Plaintiffs"), individually and on behalf of the Class; Defendants Michael Klein, Jeremy Paul Abson, Glenn R. August, Mark Klein, Malcolm S. McDermid, Karen G. Mills, Michael Eck, M. Klein and Company, LLC, Churchill Sponsor III, LLC, and The Klein Group, LLC (collectively, "Defendants," and together with Plaintiffs, the "Parties," and each a "Party"); and the Company have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $33,750,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") as set forth in the Stipulation (the "Settlement"), a copy of which is available at www.MultiPlanStockholdersLitigation.com. The Settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on February 28, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Lori W. Will, Vice Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and whether Plaintiffs should be finally appointed as Class representatives for the Class and Lead Counsel should be finally appointed as Class counsel for the Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and in the best interests of the Class; (iv) determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be granted; (v) determine whether the Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement should be entered; (vi) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vii) determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award should be paid to Class Counsel out of the Settlement Fund; (viii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award; and (ix) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.MultiPlanStockholdersLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at MultiPlan Stockholders Litigation, c/o Epiq Systems, PO Box 2419, Portland, OR 97208-2419, 855-913-3865, or info@MultiPlanStockholdersLitigation.com. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.MultiPlanStockholdersLitigation.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Eligible Class Members in accordance with the terms of the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by the Eligible Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares held by all Eligible Class Members. As explained in further detail in the Notice at Paragraphs 29-38, Eligible Class Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Class Counsel's application for the Fee and Expense Award must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Lead Counsel, Defendants' Counsel, and Company Counsel such that they are received no later than February 13, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this Summary Notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: MultiPlan Stockholders Litigation c/o Epiq Systems PO Box 2419 Portland, OR 97208-2419 Telephone: 855-913-3865 Email: info@MultiPlanStockholdersLitigation.com Website: www.MultiPlanStockholdersLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Lead Counsel: Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY10020 Telephone: 800-380-8496 Email: settlements@blbglaw.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE: Dated: January 9, 2023 1 Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release between Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the Company, dated November 17, 2022 (the "Stipulation"). Copies of the Stipulation and the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice") are available at the Settlement website, www.MultiPlanStockholdersLitigation.com. NEBRASKA METHODIST: Fitzpatrick Sues Over ERISA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Linda A. Fitzpatrick, Michael W. Peters and Mary E. Becklun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEBRASKA METHODIST HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NEBRASKA METHODIST HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., NEBRASKA METHODIST HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. PARTICIPANT DIRECTED INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1- 30, Case No. 8:23-cv-00027 (D. Neb., Jan. 24, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include Nebraska Methodist Health System, Inc. ("Nebraska Health" or "Company") and the Board of Directors of Nebraska Methodist Health System, Inc. and its members during the Class Period ("Board") and the Nebraska Methodist Health System, Inc. Participant Directed Investment Committee and its members during the Class Period ("Committee") as a result of the Defendants breach of fiduciary duties. To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing a plan of similar scope. At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had at least $270 million dollars in assets under management. At the Plan's fiscal year end in 2020 and 2019, the Plan had over $558 million dollars and $455 million dollars, respectively, in assets under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. The December 31, 2020 Report of Independent Auditor of the Nebraska Methodist Health Systems Defined Contribution Plan ("2020 Auditor Report") at 3. The Plan's assets under management qualifies it as a large plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest plans in the United States. In 2019, only .2 percent of 401(k) plans in the country had between $250 million and $500 million in assets under management. As a large plan, the Plan had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against participants' investments. The Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation in ERISA. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count One) and failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count Two), says the complaint. The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan investing in the options offered by the Plan. Nebraska Health is a named fiduciary of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: (717) 233-4101 Fax: (717) 233-4103 Email: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Fax: (717) 233-4103 Email: markg@capozziadler.com NERVE RENEW: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Feliz Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTA FELIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NERVE RENEW, Defendant, Case No. 150233/2033 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Jan. 9, 2023) alleges that the Defendant's website, nerverenew.com, contained access barriers that prevented the Plaintiff and other visually impaired and legally blind individuals from purchasing products thereon. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. NERVE RENEW is an online retail company, who owns and operates a website, selling products, such as nerve care, sleep, energy supplements and devices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 595-6200 Facsimile: (212) 595-9700 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com NEW YORK, NY: Reilly Sues Over Unpaid OT for Trade Workers ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN REILLY, PATRICK DEROSA, SEAN O'BRIEN, ADOLFO REDILLO, and ALOKO KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK and THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT'S BUILDING MAINTENANCE SECTION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00521 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated trade employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs started to work for the Defendants as trade employees at any time between 2013 and 2018. The City of New York is a municipal corporation in New York. The New York City Police Department's Building Maintenance Section (BMS) is an administrative division that provides maintenance services at facilities occupied by the New York City Police Department. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. Diego O. Barros, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com michael@employeejustice.com diego@norinsberglaw.com NORMAN KRIEGER: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Zuniga Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE ZUNIGA, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. NORMAN KRIEGER INC., a California Corporation, KRIEGER AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. (Cal. Super., Jan. 17, 2022) is a Private Attorney General Action complaint, pursuant to the California Labor Code section 2699 et seq., on behalf of Representative Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated who worked for Defendants in their California locations as non-exempt, hourly employees. The Plaintiff asserts Defendants' violations for: -- failure to provide employment records in violation of Labor Code sections 226, -- failure to pay overtime and double time in violation of Labor Code sections 510 and the applicable Wage Orders; -- failure to provide rest and meal periods in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512(a), and the applicable Wage Orders; -- failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code sections 1182.2, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and the applicable Wage Orders; -- failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code sections 226(a), 1174(d), 1198, and the applicable Wage Orders; -- failure to pay reporting time wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 11050(5) (A); -- failure to pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations 11050(4)(C); -- failure to pay all wages earned on time in violation of Labor Code section 204; -- failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; -- failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; -- failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual; -- employers, and individuals acting on behalf of employers, violating or causing to be violated a section of the Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of Labor Code section 558(a). The Representative Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as Import Agent on August 2, 2021. While employed with the Defendants, the Representative Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were regularly required to work off-the-clock, and/or during their rest and/or meal periods. The Representative Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees were routinely required to work through meal/rest periods, because of understaffing, inadequate coverage, unreasonably high workload and expectations, and/or other actions, inactions, or decisions made by and within the sole control and discretion of the Defendants, says the suit. The Representative Plaintiff filed a PAGA Notice on July 11, 2022 by serving a PAGA Notice to all named Defendants and to the LWDA in compliance with Labor Code section 2699.3. As of September 15, 2022, 65 Days after the Representative Plaintiff's PAGA Notice, the Representative Plaintiff has not received correspondence from the LWDA regarding its intent to investigate the Plaintiff's claims. Norman Krieger provides transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Raffi Tapanian, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com raffi@hbklawyers.com OASIS GOODTIME: Fails to Pay Dancers' Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- URIAH SHARP, v. OASIS GOODTIME EMPORIUM I, Inc. a Georgia Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00266-TWT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 18, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeking to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff any wages or compensation whatsoever and Plaintiff's sole form of remuneration was the receipt of tips from the Defendant's customers. The Defendant also allegedly required the dancers, as a condition of their employment to pay kickbacks or fees including a $9 - $59 shift fee; a "tip out fee" at the end of each shift to the manager on duty; fees to the DJ, bouncer restroom attendant; and a fee each time a dancer used the VIP rooms with a customer. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the federally required minimum wage and one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay when Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant off and on within three years of the filing of this Complaint. When working, Plaintiff worked approximately three shifts per week up to five shifts per week. The Plaintiff worked approximately six to eight hours per shift. Oasis Goodtime was an adult entertainment nightclub located at 6363 Peachtree Industrial Blvd., Doraville.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly N. Martin, Esq. Thomas F. Martin, Esq. MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 E-mail: kmartin@martinandmartinlaw.com tfmartin@martinandmartinlaw.com OCLARO INC: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Certification Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAISRAVAN BHARADWAJ KARRI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. OCLARO, INC., MARISSA PETERSON, EDWARD COLLINS, GREG DOUGHERTY, KENDALL COWAN, DENISE HAYLOR, IAN SMALL, BILL SMITH, and JOEL A. SMITH III, Case No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file joint stipulation and order to vacate the status conference and class certification hearing. On November 14, 2022, upon request by the Parties, the Court rescheduled the status conference and class certification hearing until February 16, 2023 to allow the parties time to explore a settlement through mediation. On January 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement to inform the Court that the parties reached an agreement for a class-wide settlement. The Plaintiff further informed the Court that he anticipates filing the stipulation of settlement and motion for preliminary approval within 60 days thereafter. The Parties request that the status conference and class certification hearing set for February 16, 2023 be vacated in light of the tentative settlement, which is subject to Court approval. The undersigned Parties, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows, subject to Court approval: 1. The status conference and class certification hearing previously set for February 16, 2023, is hereby vacated sine die. 2. The Plaintiff shall file the stipulation of settlement and motion for preliminary approval on or before March 17, 2023. Oclaro is a provider of lasers, optical components, modules and subsystems for communications, industrial and consumer laser markets. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QXqqkZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. David E. Bower, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com dbower@monteverdelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David J. Berger, Esq. Catherine E. Moreno, Esq. Malavika F. Lobo, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 E-mail: dberger@wsgr.com cmoreno@wsgr.com mlobo@wsgr.com - and - Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq. Nathaniel P. Garrett, Esq. Dennis F. Murphy, Jr., Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 E-mail: sdhibbard@jonesday.com ngarrett@jonesday.com dennismurphy@jonesday.com OLLY PUBLIC: Court Narrows Claims in Murphy Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOPE MURPHY, et al., v. OLLY PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-03760-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss. -- The Court grants the motion to dismiss only as to the unpurchased products, and denies it in all other respects. -- The Plaintiffs may amend their complaint as to the unpurchased products, if they wish to do so, within 30 days of the order. -- Olly argues that "because the Plaintiffs' other claims should be dismissed, the Plaintiffs' Unjust Enrichment claim for unjust enrichment also fails." -- Because the Court does not conclude that the Plaintiffs' claims fail -- aside from their inclusion of products that Plaintiffs did not purchase -- the Court rejects this argument. -- The Plaintiffs have plausibly stated a claim for unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Court does not dismiss the New York consumer protection claims. The Plaintiffs Hope Murphy, Carol Lesh, and Emily Jiang bring this putative class action against Defendant Olly Public in connection with Olly's melatonin supplements. The Plaintiffs allege that Olly's products include significantly more melatonin than the label asserts, and therefore violate state consumer protection laws. Melatonin is a neurohormone that regulates sleep. Olly Public sells melatonin supplement. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GXJDOX at no extra charge.[CC] PAYWARD INC: Singh Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Payward, Inc. The case is styled as Paul Singh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Payward, Inc. doing business as: Kraken, Case No. 1:23-cv-00375 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 21, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Payward, Inc., doing business as Kraken -- http://www.kraken.com/ -- provides a digital currency exchange and trading platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Louis Fradin, Esq. MICHAEL L. FRADIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 8401 Crawford Ave., #104 Skokie, IL 60076 Phone: (847) 644-3425 Email: mikefradin@gmail.com PLANNED LIFESTYLE: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Baxter Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIUS BAXTER, et al., v. PLANNED LIFESTYLE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-08222-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Any motion for leave to amend or Feb. 23, 2023 join additional parties shall be filed no later than: -- Initial Disclosures pursuant to Jan. 31, 2023 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be completed no later than: -- Initial requests for production of Feb. 17, 2023 documents shall be served no later than: -- Interrogatories shall be served no Feb. 17, 2023 later than: -- Depositions shall be completed no Oct. 17, 2023 later than: -- All expert discovery, including Oct. 31, 2023 expert reports and depositions, shall be completed no later than: -- All discovery must be completed no March 3, 2024 later than: Planned Lifestyle provides concierge, building maintenance, and security for residential and commercial buildings. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D5LC2N at no extra charge.[CC] PORSCHE CARS: Wins Summary Judgment vs. Xu, et al. -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL XU and DANIEL VAZ-POCAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00510-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Geraghty entered an order granting the: -- Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Claims Asserted by Plaintiff Michael Xu; and -- Motion for Summary Judgment as to Claims Asserted by the Plaintiff Daniel Vaz-Pocas. The Defendant PCNA is entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims. In addition, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is denied. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Jericho Moll, is denied, and their Motion to Exclude the Joint Expert Report of Mark A. Gustafson and Bruce A. Strombom, Ph.D. is denied as moot. The Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Declaration of Murat Okcuoglu is also denied as moot. Finally, the Court finds -- and Plaintiffs' papers do not seriously dispute -- that the Moll/Gregory report would assist the trier of fact. The case is about alleged adhesive failures in car engine cooling systems, and the report offers competent opinions about the cause and nature of those failures. Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the report of Dr. Moll and Dr. Gregory is therefore denied. Porsche Cars is the exclusive importer of Porsche vehicles for the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZTqma3 at no extra charge.[CC] PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Philipson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Philipson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional Claims Bureau, LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00497 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Professional Claims Bureau Inc. -- https://www.pcbinc.org/ -- is a collection agency located in Garden City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christofer Merritt, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Oral Argument in Drummond Reset to Feb. 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DRUMMOND, et al., v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-04479 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith entered an order granting the plaintiffs' consent motion for continuance: -- Oral argument on the motion for Feb. 14, 2023 class certification is rescheduled from January 25, 2023 to: The nature of suit states diversity-breach of contract. Progressive Specialty operates as an insurance firm.[CC] QUANTGENE INC: Faces Ybarra Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ CHASE YBARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUANTGENE INC., JOHANNES BHAKDI, and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV01170 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff started working for the Defendants as an onsite manager in or around July 2022. Quantgene Inc. is a biotechnology company doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com QUANTUM 3 MEDIA: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quantum 3 Media, LLC. The case is styled as Juanita Williams, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Quantum 3 Media, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00037-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C., Jan. 20, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Quantum 3 Media -- https://quantum3media.com/ -- delivers qualified prospects and sales for the top insurance brands and agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS LAW, PLLC 4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310 Raleigh, NC 27612 Phone: (919) 960-1545 Fax: (919) 882-8763 Email: kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com REALPAGE INC: Faces Enders Suit Over Housing Lease Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY ENDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC.; ALLIED ORION GROUP LLC; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BELL PARTNERS, INC.; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CORTLAND PARTNERS LLC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; INDEPENDENCE REALTY TRUST, INC.; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; SHERMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.; and UDR, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00055 (D. Col., Jan.9, 2023) is an action arising from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rental housing prices in the Greater Denver Metro Area, in violation of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, RealPage and the Defendant property managers who use its revenue management services formed a price-fixing cartel, and the revenue growth they have achieved was possible only through coordinated price setting. With the assurance that their competitors are setting Denver rental prices using the same algorithm, each Defendant property manager could allow a larger share of its units to remain vacant while maintaining higher rental prices across its properties. This increased their revenue at the expense of renters, says the suit. The Defendants' conspiracy succeeded because the pricing coordination among property managers was designed to and did inhibit competition in the Denver rental market. Defendant RealPage repeatedly and explicitly admonished that, for the software to work properly, every Defendant property manager needed to accept its suggested price at least 80%-90% of the time. The Defendants' price fixing conspiracy is a per se unlawful restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It has resulted in artificially inflated rent prices and a diminished supply of rental units in the Greater Denver Metro Area, the suit asserts. REALPAGE, INC. provides products and services to the multifamily real estate industries. The Company offers applicant screening, accounting, budgeting, property management, and compliance reporting solutions. RealPage also develops and delivers proprietary web-based applications that enhance client information management capabilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 536-7849 Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 Facsimile: (610) 822-0206 Email: mboni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Ramirez Suit Transferred to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Emmanuel Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Receivables Performance Management LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00031-CPK was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Jan. 20, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00114-BAT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Receivables Performance Management (RPM) -- https://receivablesperformance.com/ -- is a national leader in accounts receivable management.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq. CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER PC 33 N. Dearborn St., Ste. 400 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 858-3239 Email: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott L. Schmookler, Esq. GORDON & RESS 1 North Franklin, #800 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 980-6779 Email: sschmookler@gordonrees.com ROCKLAND COUNTY, NY: Mejia Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Rockland. The case is styled as Rene Alvarado Mejia, and all others similarly situated v. County of Rockland, New York Unified Court System, Donna G. Siberman, Jane Doe, John Doe, Case No. 7:23-cv-00492 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Rockland County -- https://rocklandgov.com/ -- is the southernmost county on the west side of the Hudson River in the U.S. state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jorge L. Vasquez, Jr., Esq. NEW YORK CITY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 22 Reade Street New York, NY 10007 Phone: (646) 319-3714 Fax: (646) 319-3714 Email: jorge.vasquez1906@gmail.com ROOFLINE INC: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roofline, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Carlos Jimenez, Juan Pinzon, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Roofline, Inc., SRS Distribution Inc., J.B. Wholesale Roofing and Building Supplies, Inc., Builders Supply Logistics, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2023-00333516-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 23, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." RoofLine -- https://rooflineinc.com/ -- offers roofing materials and accessories from a wide array of manufacturers from asphalt composition shingles, commercial roofing products, and metal roofing to wood shakes and slate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Orlando J. Villalba, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2533 Phone: 310-712-8002 Email: Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Davis Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MATT DAVIS, LAKIA MORTON, and ZACHARY CHERNIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00251-TWT (N.D. Ga., January 18, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive and confidential personally identifiable information (PII) of its current and former customers. In July 2022, a large quantity of PII entrusted to Samsung by its customers was exfiltrated and stolen by an unauthorized third party. Only a few months earlier, in March 2022, Samsung had confirmed another data security breach. Despite this earlier breach and knowledge of the exposed sensitive technical data and the immediate need to protect customers' PII from attackers, Samsung utterly failed to adequately secure its systems and allowed another breach to occur, this time compromising consumer PII. The Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury as a result of the Defendant's conduct, says the suit. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a subsidiary of consumer electronics company Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, headquartered in Ridgefield, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles H. Van Horn, Esq. Katherine M. Silverman, Esq. Carson L. Modrall, Esq. BERMAN FINK VAN HORN PC 3475 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 1640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 261-7711 Facsimile: (404) 233-1943 E-mail: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com ksilverman@bfvlaw.com cmodrall@bfvlaw.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 596-4097 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Johnson Can Conditionally File Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLON JOHNSON; CHRISTOPHER CROWELL; JANE DOE (ZAHIDA SHARIEF); SHAUNA LEE LANDIS; JANIELLE GUZMAN; GERALD WAYNE CRUTCHER; RAFAEL DIAZ; and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; SAN BERNARDINO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF JOHN MCMAHON, individually; PAUL WYNN, individually; JOE BILLINGS, individually; RICK BESSINGER, individually; ROBERT GUILLEN, individually; Does 1 through 10, Case No. 5:18-cv-01121-GW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order granting application for leave to conditionally file documents under seal in support of plaintiffs' second motion for class certification. For the reasons stated in the application for leave to conditionally file documents under seal, the Court grants: -- Plaintiffs' request to conditionally seal Bates No. 18653 and 18654; -- 133 Strip Search Forms, Bate Stamped and produced by Defendants; -- Bates No. MJvCB 1235, 1278, 1290, 1313, 1335, 1340, 1343, 1364, 1384, and 1403; -- Bates No. MJvCB 9983, 9984, 9985, 9986, 9987, 9988, 9989, and 9990; -- Bates No. MJvCB 10320, 10321, 10322, 10324, 10327, 10328, and 10330; -- Bates No. MJvCB 9790, 9792, 9794, and 9796; -- Bates No. MJvCB 10190, 10204, and 10264; -- Bates No. MJvCB 9755, 9756, 9757, and 9758; -- Bates No. MJvCB 9843, 9844, and 9845; -- Bates No. MJvCB 9914, 9915, 9916, and 9917; -- Bates No. MJvCB 9835, 9836, and 9837; and -- Bates No. MJvCB 10074, 10085, and 10123. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WCWOec at no extra charge.[CC] SHAFFER ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Villegas Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SOCORRO EDITH VILLEGAS, ELIZABETH ARELLANO, and JONATHAN ELIZARRARAZ, individually and acting on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees v. SHAFFER ENTERPRISE LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba CHICK-FIL-A, ROBERT VERNON SHAFFER, an Individual, RONALD BARRIE, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-00333 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants failed to pay its employees minimum, overtime and double time wages, failed to provide rest and meal periods, and failed to comply with the record keeping, wage statement and payment deadline provisions of California law, and other derivative remedies. The Plaintiffs, for themselves and the Class, also seek injunctive relief requiring Defendants to comply with all applicable California labor laws and regulations in the future and preventing Defendants from engaging in and continuing to engage in unlawful and unfair business practices. The Plaintiffs further seek declaratory relief enumerating Defendants violations so that the Defendants and the general public will have clarity and guidance with regards to Defendants' future employment practices. Ms. Villegas, Ms. Arellano and Mr. Elizarraraz were employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees at Defendants' "Chick-fil-A" restaurant establishment. Shaffer Enterprises operates as a construction firm, specializing in nonresidential construction.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Gonzalo Quezada, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com GQuezada@TheMMLawFirm.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fails to Refund Canceled Flight, Smith Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00313 (N.D. Cal., January 22, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of bailment, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's cancellation of the Plaintiff's and similarly situated passengers' booked flight during the holiday season. Moreover, the Defendant failed to return the Plaintiff's luggage in a timely manner and also failed to refund the ticket's price. As a result, the Plaintiff was forced to purchase a replacement flight through Delta Airlines, says the suit. Southwest Airlines Co. is an airline company based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 6057 Metropolitan Plz. Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (314) 662-2836 E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com STRIDE INC: Court Upholds Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stride Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2023, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia confirmed and upheld the dismissal of a consolidated securities class suit. On November 19 and December 11, 2020, respectively, two putative securities class action lawsuits captioned Yun Chau Lee v. K12 Inc., et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-01419 (the "Lee Case"), and Jennifer Baig v. K12 Inc., et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-01528 (the "Baig Case") were filed against the Company and two of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020. On February 17, 2021, the District Court consolidated the Lee Case and the Baig Case under the caption In re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01419 (the "Consolidated Securities Class Action"), and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 5, 2021, alleging violations by the Company and the individual defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements and/or omitted to disclose material facts concerning the Company's technological capabilities and expertise to support increased demand for virtual and blended education related to the global emergence of COVID-19, its cybersecurity protocols and protections, and its administrative support and training to teachers, students, and parents. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on May 20, 2021, which the District Court granted, without prejudice, on September 16, 2021. The plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint, but appealed the District Court's dismissal decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on December 1, 2021. On November 22, 2022, the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion affirming the District Court's decision and upholding the dismissal of the case. Stride, Inc., together with its subsidiaries is an education services company providing virtual and blended learning. In December 16, 2020, the company changed its name from "K12 Inc." to Stride, Inc. SYNGENTA CROP: Blocks Generic Pesticides, Pleasantdale Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ PLEASANTDALE FARMS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, AG, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, and CORTEVA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00060 (M.D.N.C., January 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, state antitrust laws, and state consumer protection laws, and for unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' use of restrictive agreements disguised as "loyalty programs" with large agricultural products distributors and retailers to block the availability of generic pesticides to farmers. Under these loyalty programs, the Defendants provide payments to distributors in exchange for selling certain amounts of the Defendants' pesticides and restricting sales of generic pesticides made by competing manufacturers. The Defendants implement and enforce these loyalty programs to ensure that manufacturers of generic pesticides are unable to effectively distribute their products, which preserves the Defendants' control of the market and prevents price competition. As a result, the Defendants have restrained competition, maintained unlawful monopolies, and harmed America's farmers, reducing choices for these farmers and costing them millions of dollars in overcharges. Pleasantdale Farms, Inc. is a farming business based in Hammonton, New Jersey. Syngenta Crop Protection, AG is a chemical manufacturing company based in Basel, Switzerland. Syngenta Corp. is an agriculture company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC is an affiliate of Syngenta Crop Protection, AG based in Greensboro, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an agricultural chemical and seed company based in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gagan Gupta, Esq. Stuart M. Paynter, Esq. Sara C. Willingham, Esq. PAYNTER LAW, PLLC 106 S. Churton Street, Suite 200 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Telephone: (919) 729-2149 E-mail: ggupta@paynterlaw.com stuart@paynterlaw.com swillingham@paynterlaw.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. Kevin B. Love, Esq. Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305)357-9000 E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com klove@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com - and - Lloyd D. Levenson, Esq. William S. Donio, Esq. COOPER LEVENSON, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1125 Atlantic Avenue, Third Floor Atlantic City, NJ 08401 Telephone: (609)344-3161 E-mail: ldlevenson@cooperlevenson.com wdonio@cooperlevenson.com T-MOBILE US: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ----------------------------------------------------- Frankie J. Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE US, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00367-BRM-JSA (D.N.J., Jan. 23, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's failure to implement industry-standard security protocols and its repeated failure to detect and secure customers' personally-identifiable information ("PII"). On January 19, 2023, T-Mobile revealed the company's second major breach in less than two years, admitting that a hacker was able to obtain customer data, including names, birth dates, and phone numbers, from 37 million accounts (the "Data Breach"). T-Mobile said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on January 19, 2023 that it currently believes the attacker first retrieved the data around November 25, 2022, through one of its APIs. T-Mobile stated it detected malicious activity on January 5, 2023 and that the attacker had access to the exploited API for over a month. T-Mobile said it traced the source of the malicious activity and fixed the API exploit within a day of the detection. And claimed that the API used by the hacker did not allow access to data that contained any social security numbers, credit card information, government ID numbers, passwords, PINs, or financial information. T-Mobile has disclosed eight hacks since 2018, with previous breaches exposing customer call records in January 2021, credit application data in August 2021, and an "unknown actor" accessing customer info and executing SIM-swapping attacks in December 2021.6 In April last year, the hacking group Lapsus$ stole T-Mobile's source code after purchasing employees' credentials online. T-Mobile's failure to implement industry-standard security protocols and its repeated failure to detect and secure customer information have caused harm to Plaintiff and the Class. As a result of T-Mobile's actions, Plaintiff and the Class experienced damages from: theft of their PII and the resulting loss of privacy rights in that information; improper disclosure of their PII; loss of value of their PII; the amount of ongoing reasonable identity defense and credit monitoring services made necessary as mitigation measures; T-Mobile's retention of profits attributable to Plaintiff's and other customers' PII that T-Mobile failed to adequately protect; economic and non-economic impacts that flow from imminent, and ongoing threat of fraud and identity theft to which Plaintiff are now exposed to; ascertainable out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time allocated to fixing or mitigating the effects of this data breach; and overpayments of T-Mobile's products and/or services which Plaintiff purchased, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current T-Mobile customer with two cellular phone lines and two smartwatch cellular lines. The Defendant is a national telecommunications company that provides mobile communication services, among other products and services, throughout the United States and around the globe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. Jordan M. Steele, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com jsteele@carellabyrne.com - and - Zachary S. Bower, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 2222 Ponce DeLeon Blvd. Miami, FL 33134 Phone: 973-422-5593 Email: zbower@carellabyrne.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (973) 639-9100 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Phone: (917) 438-9189 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com TEAMI LLC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teami LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Teami LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00561 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Teami Blends -- https://www.teamiblends.com/ -- creates wellness and skincare products inspired by natural plants, herbs, and tea.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Downes, Esq. MIZRAHI KROUB LLP 225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 595-6200 Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com TIMES PUBLISHING: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Waller Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER WALLER, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00119 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 18, 2022) sues the Defendant for violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), data containing its digital subscribers': (i) personally identifiable information or Facebook ID (FID) and (ii) the computer file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed (Video Media). Because Defendant does not inform Tampabay.com digital subscribers about this dissemination of their Personal Viewing Information -- indeed, it is automatic and invisible -- they cannot exercise reasonable judgment to defend themselves against the highly personal ways Tampabay.com has used and continues to make money by using their personal data. The Defendant allegedly chose to disregard the Plaintiff's and hundreds of thousands of other Tampabay.com digital subscribers' statutorily protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive personal data to Facebook, says the suit. The Defendant does not seek its digital subscribers' prior written consent to the disclosure of their Personal Viewing Information (in writing or otherwise) and its customers remain unaware that their Personal Viewing Information and other sensitive data is being disclosed to Facebook, the Plaintiff contends. By disclosing its digital subscribers Personal Viewing Information to Facebook—which undeniably reveals their identity and the specific video materials they requested from the Defendant's website—Defendant has intentionally and knowingly violated VPPA, the suit alleges. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action for legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to Defendant's practices of intentionally disclosing its digital subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing violation of VPPA. The Plaintiff began her digital subscription to Tampabay.com around 2018 and continues to maintain the subscription to this day. Times Publishing is an American media company that develops, owns, and operates the Tampabay.com website, which includes a broad selection of video content posted along with their stories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1 st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30 th Avenue Aventura, FL 33180 E-mail: adam@edelsberglaw.com scott@edelsberglaw.com TOUCH OF MODERN: Levine Sues Over Illegal Telephonic Sales Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ethan Levine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOUCH OF MODERN, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00347 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2023), is brought for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in sending automated telephonic sales calls, in the form of text messages, to his cellular telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals across Florida, in clear violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The text messages that the Defendant made or knowingly allowed another person to make on its behalf to the Plaintiff's Number were sent to the Plaintiff for the purpose of "soliciting a sale of consumer goods or services" to the Plaintiff, or "obtaining information from Plaintiff that would or might be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services" to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has never provided his prior "prior express written consent" to the Defendant or any other party acting on Defendant's behalf to authorize the subject telephonic sales calls to the Number by means of an "automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers" within the meaning of the FTSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Florida. Touch of Modern, LLC is a members-only e-commerce website and app focused on selling lifestyle products, fashion, and accessories to men.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Hedin, Esq. Arun G. Ravindran, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: +1 (305) 357-2107 Fax: +1 (305) 200-8801 Email: aravindran@hedinhall.com fhedin@hedinhall.com TRIPLE J. TRUCKING: Cottrell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jimmy Cottrell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated v. TRIPLE J. TRUCKING, INC., TERESA JONES, GRANT JONES and STEVEN JONES, Case No. 4:23-cv-00013-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., Jan. 23, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Kentucky Wages and Hours Act ("KWHA") by failing to pay the Plaintiff and other employees truck drivers overtime compensation. The drivers worked overtime in many workweeks but were not paid overtime compensation. Instead, Defendant would pay the drivers at the same rate whether the work was more or less than forty hours in the work week, which violated the FLSA and the KWHA. In addition to violating the overtime laws by not paying overtime compensation at all to nonexempt employees, the Defendant also improperly withhold amounts, including overtime wages, from Plaintiff Cottrell's final paycheck based on the Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiff owed a debt to a third party; there was no legal authority for this withholding, which thus constituted conversion and a separate violation of the FLSA and KWHA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a truck driver from early 2018 until the end of 2022. Triple J. Trucking, Inc. is a Kentucky for-profit corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 213-1303 Email: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Parties Seek to Confirm Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.B., individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. United Behavioral Health, Case No. 1:21-cv-00553-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order confirming the previously agreed to and court ordered briefing schedule regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification filed January 9, 2023. On October 14, 2022, the Defendant filed an unopposed motion to extend certain case management deadlines for good cause shown. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WoI820 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan M. Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS PA 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone: (954) 616-8995 Facsimile: (954) 206-0374 Email: Jordan@jml-lawfirm.com - and - Randi A. Kassan, Esq. Arthur M. Stock, Esq. Ryan P. McMillan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 Facsimile: (516) 741-0128 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com astock@milberg.com rmcmillan@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Geoffrey M. Sigler, Esq. Clare F. Steinberg, Esq. James A. Tsouvalas, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 887-3776 Facsimile: (202) 530-9641 E-mail: gsigler@gibsondunn.com CSteinberg@Gibsondunn.com JTsouvalas@gibsondunn.com VERIZON DATA: Court Junks Bid to Remand Kendall Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN MARIE KENDALL, v. VERIZON DATA SERVICES LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-05324-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying motion to remand. The motion to remand is denied because the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. While this is a putative class action, neither side argues that CAFA's jurisdictional requirements are satisfied here. The question is therefore whether there is diversity jurisdiction over Kendall's individual claims, the Court says. The complaint does not give specific dollar amounts or numbers of hours, so Verizon may make "reasonable assumptions." Ms. Kendall is right that Verizon's estimate of three hours of unpaid overtime per week is too high; one hour per week is a more reasonable estimate. More importantly, Verizon's estimate assumes that Kendall was not paid anything for her overtime work. Notice of Removal 6. But the complaint only claims that she was not paid the correct overtime rate. Verizon's estimate of the amount in controversy for the overtime claim therefore should be reduced by eight-ninths. With this adjustment, a reasonable estimate of Kendall's claims before attorney's fees is more like $45,000, the Court adds. Verizon Data offers information technology services. The Company provides Internet protocol, data, voice, and wireless communication solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H1w3do at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Lead Plaintiffs Must File Reply Brief by March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE WELLS FARGO & COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-04494 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order on motion for extension of time to file response/reply. -- Lead Plaintiffs are granted until March 31, 2023, to file their reply brief in further support of class certification. The nature of suit states Securities/Commodities/Exchange. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California.[CC] WESTERN FLYER: Settlement in Beissel Suit Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW BEISSEL, an individual, J&B ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WESTERN FLYER EXPRESS, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00903-R (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge David L. Russell entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class and collective action settlement. The Court grants conditional certification of the provisional Oklahoma Class, in accordance with the Settlement, for the purposes of this Settlement only. The Oklahoma Class is defined as: "all current and former individuals who provide(d) transportation services for WFX within the United States, who entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement, or a similarly styled agreement, with WFX from December 7, 2017 to July 19, 2022." The Court grants conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective, in accordance with the Settlement, for the purposes of this Settlement only. The FLSA Collective is defined as: "all current and former individuals who provided transportation services for WFX within the United States, between December 7, 2017 and July 19, 2022, who (1) entered into an Independent Contractor agreement with WFX (2) were classified as independent contractors, and (3) sign or cash the settlement check(s) they receive as a result of this Settlement." The Court authorizes the retention of CPT Group as Settlement Administrator for the purpose of the Settlement, with reasonable administration costs estimated not to exceed $21,500. The Court conditionally appoints Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP and the Law Offices of Robert S. Boulter as Class Counsel for the Oklahoma Class and the FLSA Collective. The Court also conditionally appoints Plaintiff Andrew Beissel as the Class Representative for the Oklahoma Class and the FLSA Collective. Western Flyer is an Oklahoma City based trucking company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kteyLn at no extra charge.[CC] WM. BOLTHOUSE: Smith Sues Over Fruit Juice Smoothie's PFAS Content ------------------------------------------------------------------ GWENDOLYN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00373-GRB-AYS (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, fraud, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Green Goodness Fruit Juice Smoothie under the Bolthouse Farms brand. The Defendant labeled and marketed the product as a nutritious, healthy "100% Fruit Juice Smoothie," when, in fact, the Plaintiff's testing has revealed that the product contains per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS), a category of synthetic chemicals that are, by definition, artificial. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and putative Class members have suffered injury in fact, including economic damages, says the suit. Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. is an owner and operator of subsidiary Bolthouse Farms, with its corporate headquarters located at 7200 East Brundage Lane, Bakersfield, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Erin Ruben, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: eruben@milberg.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E. 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (630) 796-0903 E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com YOUNG ADULT: Bose Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------- Shante Bose, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE, INC. d/b/a YAI, Case No. 1:23-cv-00496 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, to recover from the Defendant: unpaid wages, including overtime compensation, due to time shaving, unpaid wages due to an impermissible policy of deducting employees' paid time off, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was never permitted a free and clear lunch break. the Plaintiff were required to stay at their job site at all hours. The requirement to stay on premises was particularly important because it was never possible to obtain proper coverage to care for the individuals with disabilities under their supervision. Consequently, the Plaintiff was required to stay on site, continue to work, and could not take a free and clear lunch break. Despite the lack of lunch break, the Defendant would automatically deduct 30 minutes from the Plaintiff's daily compensable time. Additionally, the Plaintiff would have their PTO impermissibly deducted to the half-hour whenever an employee was even a few minutes later. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with proper wage statements at all relevant times. Similarly, Class members did not receive proper wage statements, in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a direct support professional ("DSP") for th eDefendant's Youth Adult Institute. The Defendant owns and operates a non-profit organization serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities under the name YAI.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CK Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 ZARBEE'S INC: Court Narrows Claims in Lopez Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL LOPEZ, v. ZARBEE'S, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-04465-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss. -- The Court grants the motion to dismiss only as to the unpurchased products, and denies it in all other respects. -- Lopez may amend her complaint as to the unpurchased products, if she wishes to do so, within thirty days of this order. In McKinney, the plaintiff had alleged that the defendant's packaging and advertisements contained deceptive and misleading statements in violation of the common law and consumer protection laws of California and 43 other states. The Court agreed that district courts have discretion to address this issue in either a motion to dismiss or a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff Lopez brings this putative class action against Defendant Zarbee's, Inc. in connection with Zarbee's melatonin supplements. Ms. Lopez alleges that Zarbee's products include significantly more melatonin than the label asserts, and therefore violate state consumer protection laws. Zarbee's moves to dismiss, arguing that all of the claims are completely preempted, and that Lopez lacks standing as to some claims. Zarbee's Inc. sells melatonin supplements. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kwh8QU at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 2023. 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 ***