/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230206.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 6, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 27
Headlines
100% MADE: Plaintiff's Deadline to Move for Class Cert Stayed
370 CANAL: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in MacPherson
3M COMPANY: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Johnson Suit
ALLIED COLLECTION: Court Junks THT Bid to Strike in Austin Suit
ALLSTATE LIFE: Hearing on Class Cert Extended to March 15, 2023
AMANDA WORLEY: Seeks to Hold Bids for Class Certification
AMBASSADOR GROUP: Class Cert Hearing Continued to April 5
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Claims in Baggage Fee Class Suit Due Feb. 22
AMERICAN PROTECTION: Parties Seek to Stay Class Cert. Ruling
ANTHONY ANNUCCI: Court OKs Extension of Discovery Deadlines
ATLANTA, GA: Gyn & Fertility Seeks to Stay Proceedings
BESPOLITAN INC: Bedding's 1500 Thread Count "False," Ward Alleges
BETMGM LLC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Murphy Suit Alleges
BHP BILLITON: Class Cert. Reply Extended in Pennington Suit
BHP BILLITON: Pennington, et al., Seek More Time to File Reply
BROCK PIERCE: Rowan Seeks to Continue Class Certification Hearing
BUFFALO, NY: US Bank Seeks More Time for Class Cert Filing
CASELLA WASTE: Rodney Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Deadline to File Payout Claim Set February 13
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Class Cert Filing Deadline Extended to March 30
CHARTER FOODS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 7
CONCEPT MANAGEMENT: Faces Waters Work-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ga.
CONTRACT PHARMACAL: Fails to Timey Pay Manual Workers, Ramos Says
DEVON ENERGY: Scheduling Order Entered in Wright Class Action
DIGITAL CURRENCY: McGreevy Sues Over Unfair Sale of Securities
DIRECT GENERAL: Parties Directed to Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
DUNGARVIN OHIO: Bid for Conditional Cert Denied w/o Prejudice
FABLETICS INC: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Wakefield Claims
FATE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Hadian Suit Over 61.45% Stock Price Drop
FIRST NATIONAL: Bezek Bid for Leave to File Sur-reply OK'd
FLEETWASH INC: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages, Rodriquez Alleges
FOOT LOCKER: Martin Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Communications
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Harrison Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Has Until Feb. 10 to File Class Cert. Response
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Monopolizes Compatible Parts Market, Lipkin Says
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Shutdown of Bluelink 3G
ILLINOIS: Wrongfully Imprisoned Children, Class Suit Alleges
JOHN HEATH: Scheduling Order Entered in Stewart Class Action
KAISER FOUNDATION: Class Cert Bid Briefing Extended in Schmitt
LAKE DIAMOND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, O'Day Suit Alleges
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Directed to File Status Report by Feb. 21
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Choco Bars Contain Lead, Cadmium, Goldstein Says
MAJERLE MANAGEMENT: Allen Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
MARATHON OIL: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
MDL 2818: Bid to Seal Exhibits Granted in Sales Practices Case
METROPOLITAN POLICE: Pappas Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid
METROPOLITAN POLICE: Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Sub-classes
MGM RESORTS: Parts of Dyson Report Excluded From Lucas ERISA Suit
MT. KISCO COUNTRY: Metin Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 1, 2024
NAVY FEDERAL: Morrow, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
NECTAR BRAND: Scheduling Order Entered in Snow Class Action
NEWREZ LLC: Seeks Leave to File Surreply to Yates Class Cert Bid
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Swacker Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Servers
PNC BANK: Court Junks Polonowskis Bid for Class Certification
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Kampmann Sues Over Products' Therapeutic Claims
RARE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Patton Sues Alleges
REALPAGE INC: Artificially Raised Rental Prices, Marchetti Alleges
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Court Modifies Expert Disclosure Deadlines
SANUKI JAPANESE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Tyndall Suit Says
SAZERAC COMPANY: Faces Patterson Suit Over Mislabeled Beverages
SB NORTHWEST: Gongora Seeks Manufacturing Employees' Unpaid Wages
SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Allowed Leave to Extend Case Deadlines
SCVRH LLC: Garrett Files Bid for Class Certification
SIMPLY ORANGE: Faces Class Suit Over Drinks' Toxic PFAS Levels
SOTERA HEALTH: Oakland County Sues Over Drop in Share Price
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid
SWEETIE BOY: Parties Directed to File Joint Status Report
T-MOBILE US: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Baughman Alleges
T-MOBILE US: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Lynch Suit Claims
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: VDC Seeks Leave to File Reply Under Seal
TESLA INC: CEO Testifies in Class Action Trial Over 2018 Tweet
TIK TOK INC: Intrudes In-App Browser Users' Privacy, Albaran Claims
TRADER JOE'S: Dark Chocolate Contains Cadmium, Lead, Suit Alleges
TREY CAIN: Sake, et al., Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
TRUIST BANK: McKnight Suit Claims Improper Debt Collection Practice
UNILEVER UNITED: Antiperspirant Products Contain Benzene, Earl Says
UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Amended Complaint
UNITED STATES: Wiggins Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Samson Files Renewed Class Certification Bid
VERIZON CONNECT: Fails to Pay Sales Reps' OT Wages Under FLSA
VIESTE SPE: Bank Allowed Leave to File Reply to Opposition
WASHINGTON: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines
YIELDSTREET INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
*********
100% MADE: Plaintiff's Deadline to Move for Class Cert Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guerrero v. 100% Made in
the USA Bully Tools, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02466-VEC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order staying the
Plaintiff's deadline to seek leave from the Court to move for class
certification pending the Court's resolution of the Defendant's
renewed motion to dismiss.
Not later than Friday, February 24, 2023, the parties must provide
a status update regarding their settlement discussions, the Court
says.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Hm6u7e at no extra charge.[CC]
370 CANAL: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in MacPherson
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD MACPHERSON v. 370
CANAL FITNESS GROUP, LLC d/b/a PLANET FITNESS, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00464-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions
to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive
relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and
in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in
Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
discovery set by the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
for such an application arises and must comply with Local
Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's
Individual Practices.
-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences are not required, but may be requested where
counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.
-- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance
with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3joMZTp at no extra charge.[CC]
3M COMPANY: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Johnson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARROD JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00008-AT (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Deadline to Depose Defendants' March 31, 2023
Experts
-- Plaintiff's Reply in Support April 17, 2023
of Class Certification
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures April 17, 2023
-- Deadline to Depose Rebuttal Experts May 16, 2023
-- Motions for Summary Judgment/Daubert May 31, 2023
Motions
3M is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the
fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health care, and consumer
goods.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XQmGV6 at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLIED COLLECTION: Court Junks THT Bid to Strike in Austin Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Austin v. Allied
Collection Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01593-CDS-NJK
(D. Nev.), the Court entered an order:
1. Denying Teacher's Health Trust's (THT Health) Motion to
Strike,
2. Granting THT Health's Motion to Dismiss, and
3. Granting in Part and Denying in Part Digestive Disease
Specialist's (DDS)
Motion to Dismiss.
The Plaintiff brings this class-action lawsuit against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA") and Nevada law, along with claims for
relief based on negligence, breach of contract, and breach of
implied contract.
Ms. Austin contends that she was improperly sent to collections for
medical debt that she incurred, and she seeks relief not only for
herself but also on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals.
THT Health moves to strike plaintiff's class allegations under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), arguing that "while she can
proceed as an individual, she has not met the requirements under
Rule 23 to also represent a broad class of individuals."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40mKAsX at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE LIFE: Hearing on Class Cert Extended to March 15, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT,
v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00652-ADA-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order
continuing hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification from March 8, 2023, to March 15, 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wILHpd at no extra charge.[CC]
AMANDA WORLEY: Seeks to Hold Bids for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD BARNETT, WILLIAM
E. BENGE, CHRISTOPHER LEE DUFF, JACOB EDMONDS, JOHN HEALY, HALEY
SMITH, MICHAEL STOTTLEMIRE, JEFF TABOR, DOUGLAS TROUT, And ADDISON
WOODY on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
AMANDA WORLEY, in her official Capacity as Cumberland County
General Sessions Judge, JENNIFER PHILLIPS CROSS, PATRICIA ELDRIDGE
AND GREG WATSON, in their official Capacities as Judicial
Commissioners of Cumberland County General Sessions Court, and
CASEY COX, in his official Capacity as Cumberland County Sheriff,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00060 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendants move the Court
to hold the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and for a
preliminary injunction in abeyance until after the initial case
management conference.
A copy of the Defendants motion dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Yb8TIF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robyn Beale Williams, Esq.
Laura Adams Hight, Esq.
FARRAR & BATES , LLP
12 Cadillac Drive, Suite 480
Brentwood, TN 37207
Telephone: (615) 254-3060
Facsimile: (615) 254-9835
E-mail: robyn.williams@farrar-bates.com
laura.hight@farrar-bates.com
AMBASSADOR GROUP: Class Cert Hearing Continued to April 5
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEL OBISPO YOUTH BASEBALL,
INC. d/b/a DANA POINT YOUTH BASEBALL, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals and entities, v. THE
AMBASSADOR GROUP LLC d/b/a AMBASSADOR CAPTIVE SOLUTIONS;
PERFORMANCE INSURANCE COMPANY SPC; BRANDON WHITE; GOLDENSTAR
SPECIALTY INSURANCE, LLC; DOMINIC CYRIL GAGLIARDI and DOES 1
through 50, Case No. 8:21-cv-00199-SPG-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order continuing hearing
dates on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion
for relief.
The Court continues the hearing dates on the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and the Plaintiff's motion for relief under
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b) to extend deadline to file motion for class
certification from February 1, 2023 to April 5, 2023.
Ambassador Group specializes in the captive insurance marketplace.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HpWF9f at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Claims in Baggage Fee Class Suit Due Feb. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Avery of CNET reports that claims must be filed online or
postmarked by no later than February 22, 2023 of American Airlines'
$7.5M baggage fee settlement.
American Airlines is paying millions to passengers who were charged
to check luggage. See if you're one of them.
American Airlines charged passengers improper fees to check
luggage, according to a class-action suit filed in 2021. To resolve
these allegations, American, the largest carrier in the world, is
paying at least $7.5 million to impacted customers.
Plaintiffs in the case include travelers who qualified for the
airline's AAdvantage Gold status loyalty program and those with
AA-branded credit cards that came with bag-check privileges.
They say their benefits weren't honored, though, because they
weren't properly programmed into AA's airport software system -- an
issue the airline has had since at least 2013, according to their
complaint.
"As a result, AA passengers were improperly charged and forced to
pay baggage fees," the complaint alleged.
American Airlines agreed to the settlement in October, and
consumers can now submit a claim for compensation on the settlement
website.
The airline declined to comment, but in court filings it denied any
wrongdoing.
For more class-action suits, find out about Keurig's $10 million
K-Cup recycling settlement and see if you qualify for T-Mobile's
$350 million data breach payout.
Plaintiffs in Cleary, et al., v. American Airlines allege that the
carrier routinely tells certain passengers they can check bags for
free, then requires them to pay when they arrive to check in at the
airport.
"Knowing that waiving baggage fees would entice fliers, AA offered
free checked bags to certain customers -- including customers who
flew frequently in AA's loyalty program, AAdvantage; customers who
purchased first or business class tickets and customers who held
AA's branded credit cards," the suit reads. American
"systematically breached those contracts by nevertheless requiring
those passengers to pay AA to check such bags."
Some passengers said they requested a refund and were refused. One
class representative, Eric Earll, said he was approved for a
Citi/AAdvantage Platinum Select credit card, "which he understood
would allow him to check a bag at no additional charge on his
upcoming flight."
But when Earll arrived at the airport, "the AA check-in agent told
him the computer showed no bag fee waiver, that this happens all
the time and that he had to pay the fee in order to check the
bag."
According to the lawsuit, American Airlines generated over $1.4
billion in baggage fees in 2019 alone.
The settlement breaks class members into two groups:
Travelers with AA-branded credit cards that entitled them to free
bag-checking privileges but were charged on a domestic flight.
Passengers who received email confirmation that one or more of
their bags would be free to check but still had to pay.
To qualify for part of the settlement, class members must have
traveled on or after Feb. 24, 2017, and their tickets must have
been bought no later than April 8, 2020.
While both the class representatives and the airline have agreed to
the terms of the settlement, they still need to be approved by the
court. If and when that happens, eligible customers will receive a
full refund of all relevant checked-baggage fees.
According to the American Airlines website, the charge for the
first checked piece of luggage on a domestic flight is $30. From
there, fees increase to $40 for a second bag, $150 for a third bag
and $200 for a fourth one.
Refunds will be issued via mailed checks and electronic payments.
While American has agreed to a $7.5 million floor, there is no cap
on how much the settlement might ultimately pay out.
You can fill out an online claim form or mail in a completed form
to:
Clearly v. American Airlines Settlement
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173053
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Claims must be filed online or postmarked by no later than Feb. 22,
2023.
If you want to comment on, object to or be excluded from the
settlement, the deadline is Jan. 18, 2023.
A final fairness hearing on the case will be held on May 8, 2023.
Payments for valid claims will come after that, but they may be
delayed by appeals.
"We do not know how long that will take," attorneys for the
plaintiffs said in a statement on the settlement site. "Please be
patient." [GN]
AMERICAN PROTECTION: Parties Seek to Stay Class Cert. Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOAN A. TANOFSKY, and all
others similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), v.
AMERICAN PROTECTION PLANS, LLC d/b/a AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY,
Case No. 9:22-cv-81657-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order staying ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification for 30 days, up to and including February
20, 2023, in order to attempt to reach a resolution without the use
of additional judicial resources.
On October 28, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her Collective Action
Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial.
On November 28, 2022, Tanofsky and Opt-in Plaintiff Lenny Shwartz
filed their consents to Sue Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
Opt-in Plaintiff Stanley Loseille filed his Consent to sue Under
the FLSA on December 1, 2022.
The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Conditional Certification of
Collective Action on December 11, 2022.
On January 20, 2023, the Parties held lengthy discussions
concerning potential resolution. The Parties have also discussed
the possibility of resolving this matter on a class-wide basis.
American Protection is a nationwide provider of various insurance
and warranty products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40bwxGE at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Jake S. Blumstein, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10 th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Justin B. Kaplan, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS BROAD & CASSEL
2 S. Biscayne Blvd., 21st Floor
Miami, FL 33131
E-mail: Justin.kaplan@nelsonmullins.com
Marisa.armas@nelsonmullins.com
Kristin.Ahr@nelsonmullins.com
Brooke.werner@nelsonmullins.com
ANTHONY ANNUCCI: Court OKs Extension of Discovery Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matzell v. Anthony J.
Annucci, et al., Case No. 9:20-cv-01605 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
David N. Hurd entered an order granting letter motion from AAG
Robert J. Rock for Anthony J. Annucci, Stanley Barton, Jane Boyea,
Elizabeth Laramay, Jeffrey McKoy, Kay Heading Smith, Bruce Yelich
requesting extension of discovery deadlines:
-- Discovery due by: Feb. 10, 2023
-- Non-Dispositive Motion March 22, 2023
(Class Certification)
to be filed by:
-- Authorized by Magistrate Jan. 19, 2023
Judge Christian F. Hummel
on:
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]
ATLANTA, GA: Gyn & Fertility Seeks to Stay Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GYN & FERTILITY
SPECIALISTS, INC., et al., v. SAINT JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL OF ATLANTA,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01753-TWT-WEJ (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section 1292(b), the Court's Order of January 9, 2023,
dismissing Dr. Hanafi's claim under 42 U.S.C. section
18116 (the Affordable Care Act);
2. amending such Order as required by 28 U.S.C. section
1292(b), if the Court grants certification; and
3, staying proceedings, pending such interlocutory appeal.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kAGHjN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith S. Hasson, Esq.
Michael F. O'Neill, Esq.
HASSON LAW GROUP, LLP
3379 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 625
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (678) 701-2869
E-mail: keith@hassonlawgroup.com
mike@hassonlawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Seslee S. Smith, Esq.
Ryan C. Burke, Esq.
MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN, LLP
1600 Atlanta Financial Center
3343 Peachtree Road, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30326
BESPOLITAN INC: Bedding's 1500 Thread Count "False," Ward Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BESPOLITAN INC. and ELEGANT COMFORT INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00069 (W.D.N.Y., January 24, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendants for violation of the New
York's General Business Law and for quasi contract/unjust
enrichment/restitution.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Elegant
Comfort Bed Sheet and Pillow Sets on e-commerce websites. The
Defendants have marketed the products as having a "1500 Thread
Count" when the products have a thread count of approximately 180
only as revealed in a compliant thread count testing. As a result
of the Defendants' misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers purchased the products at a premium price. Had
the Plaintiff and other consumers been aware that the products have
a much lower thread count, they would not have purchased or would
have paid significantly less for them, says the suit.
Bespolitan Inc. is a manufacturer of bedding sheets, with its
principal place of business in New Jersey.
Elegant Comfort Inc. is a manufacturer of bedding sheets, with its
principal place of business in 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
- and -
Robert Abiri, Esq.
CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
445 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 2520
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 593-9095
E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com
- and -
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd., Ste. 100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 751-5948
E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com
BETMGM LLC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Murphy Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MEREDITH MURPHY and SCOTT MADLINGER, on behalf of themselves and a
class of all others similarly situated v. BETMGM, LLC,, Case No.
2:23-cv-00360 (D.N.J., Jan. 23, 2023) is a class action lawsuit
alleging the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members'
PII that was entrusted to it in its capacity as a sports betting
and gaming operator, and for failing to provide timely and adequate
notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information
had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third
party.
The sensitive PII includes names, postal addresses, email
addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, hashed Social
Security Numbers and account identifiers (such as player ID and
screen name).
In December 21, 2022, the Defendant began notifying affected
customers that their data had been compromised. In the notice
letter, the Defendant acknowledged that the breach had taken place
in May 2022, and went undiscovered until November 28, 2022. The
Defendant exposed Plaintiffs and Class Members to harm by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems
were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose
that it did not have adequately robust network systems and security
practices in place; failing to take standard and reasonably
available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to
provide Plaintiffs and Class Members prompt notice of the Data
Breach, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct since the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of hackers.
Plaintiff Murphy provided her PII to Defendant in October of 2022.
Plaintiff Scott Madlinger provided his PII to Defendant in
approximately 2013.
BetMGM is a sports betting and gaming entertainment company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com
mreich@zlk.com
BHP BILLITON: Class Cert. Reply Extended in Pennington Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pennington, et al., v. BHP
Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC, et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-00178 (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky entered
an order granting motion for extension of time to file reply to
motion for class certification.
-- Reply due by Feb. 10, 2023.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.[CC]
BHP BILLITON: Pennington, et al., Seek More Time to File Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pennington et al v. BHP
Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC, et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-00178-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs file unopposed motion
for extension of time to file reply in support of motion for class
certification
The Plaintiffs Aaron Parish Black, as Trustee of the Ralph J. and
Reba J. Family Trust, and as Trustee and the Reba J. Parish Trust,
Norma J. Bryant, and Dan Larry Pennington move the Court for a
14-day extension of time to reply to the Defendants' Response to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Pursuant to Local Rule 6.2, counsel for the Plaintiffs has
conferred with the Defendants' counsel and Defendants do not oppose
the relief requested in this Motion for Extension.
The Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on January 13, 2023. The Court's Order granting the
Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to file response
indicates that the Plaintiffs have until January 27, 2023, to file
a reply in further support of their motion for class
certification.
Due to numerous scheduling conflicts and the addition of two new
substantive arguments presented by Defendants in their response, as
well as the sheer length and volume of the briefing and
corresponding exhibits, Plaintiffs have good cause for the Court to
grant a 14-day extension of time for the Plaintiffs to file their
reply in further support of their motion for class certification,
up to, and including February 10, 2023, the lawsuit says.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZVOxoo at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George A. Barton, Esq.
Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC
5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
Mission, KS 66205
Telephone: (913) 563-6250
E-mail: george@bartonburrows.com
stacy@bartonburrows.com
BROCK PIERCE: Rowan Seeks to Continue Class Certification Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN ROWAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROCK PIERCE, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648-RAM (D.P.R.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order continuing the
hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification presently
scheduled for January 26, 2023 for no less than 60 days to allow
Plaintiff to file a sur-sur-reply in support of class certification
that:
(1) addresses newly discovery evidence regarding Pierce's
personal liability that had been withheld until just
recently, and
(2) incorporates Plaintiff's forensic expert's analysis to
identify Pierce's violative calls and their recipients,
and in support states:
The putative class action arises from prerecorded calls in the form
of ringless voicemails made by Defendant Pierce regarding his
presidential candidacy in 2020 to, among others, telephone numbers
purchased from a company called Aristotle, which sells voter data
to political campaigns.
The prerecorded calls in the form of ringless voicemails were made
using a cloud based dialing platform from a company called
Stratics.
In March 2022, Pierce identified Stratics as the company whose
dialing platform was used to transmit Pierce's prerecorded calls.
As a result, Plaintiff immediately subpoenaed Stratics, which
responded indicating that they did not have any accounts associated
with Pierce or his presidency and therefore could not identify any
potentially relevant records regarding Pierce's prerecorded calls.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JGPStJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jairo Mellado-Villarreal, Esq.
Héctor Orejuela-Dávila, Esq.
MELLADO & MELLADO-VILLARREAL
165 Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 102
San Juan, PR 00917
Telephone: (787) 767-2600
Facsimile: (787) 767-2645
E-mail: jmellado@mellado.com
horejuela@mellado.com
- and -
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28 th FL
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26 th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaurmanpa.com
BUFFALO, NY: US Bank Seeks More Time for Class Cert Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as US Bank Trust, N.A., as
Trustee of the American Homeowner Preservations Trust Series 2015A+
v. City of Buffalo, New York, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00249-JLS-JJM (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for
an order extending the deadline to files motion for class
certification fact discovery to March 1, 2023.
The additional time is required to fully develop a complete factual
record for consideration of class certification. The requested
extension will not disrupt any other dates in the case's current
schedule.
Counsel has consulted with David Lee, counsel for Defendants, who
has indicated he has no objection to the requested extension and
consents to the relief requested.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RknwHo at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
ADVOCATE ATTORNEYS, LLP
Cleveland, OH 44103
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: mdann@advocateattorneys.com
- and -
Brian R. Goodwin, Esq.
GOODWIN LAW FIRM
75 South Clinton Square
Suite 510 - #6955
Rochester, NY 14604
Telephone: (585) 353-7084
Facsimile: (888) 395-7296
E-mail: Brian.GoodwinLaw@gmail.com
CASELLA WASTE: Rodney Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodney et al v. Casella
Waste Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00196-cr (D. Vt.), the Court
entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of collective action and granting in part and denying
in part plaintiffs' motion to notify putative class members.
The Plaintiffs Joseph Wilson Rodney, Jr., Rosemarie Sibley, and
Kenneth Messom, individually and behalf of all opt-in plaintiffs
and others similarly situated, bring this collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against Casella and class
actions pursuant to Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont state laws to
recover unpaid straight time, overtime wages, and other penalties.
The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Casella who
worked as waste disposal drivers "at any time since August 17, 2018
through the final disposition of this matter.
Casella Waste is a waste management company based in Rutland,
Vermont, United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GYD7HT at no extra charge.[CC]
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Deadline to File Payout Claim Set February 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Dobkin of The U. S. Sun reports that fans of Celsius may be
entitled to a payout of up to $250 if they purchased the energy
drink within the past seven years. The deadline to file your claim
is coming up in a few weeks on February 13, 2023.
Due to a class action lawsuit against Celsius, the company must pay
its consumers who bought the energy drink from January 1, 2015, to
November 23, 2022.
You must be a resident of the United States who purchased the drink
for personal or household consumption.
Those who purchased for resale or distribution are not eligible for
a payout.
The catch is, you must have proof of purchase, such as a receipt,
to get up to $250 per household.
Without proof of purchase, you can only get up to $20 per
household.
The payout is calculated by the number of products bought.
For example, you may submit a claim to receive $1.00 for each can
you purchased.
For products that are sold in packages, like Celsius On-The-Go or
Flo Fusion powdered drinks that usually come in packages of 14, you
may submit a claim to receive $5.00 per package of 14.
Celsius Holdings, Inc. was sued for allegedly claiming that its
products had "No Preservatives," on the label when they did contain
citric acid.
The company argued that citric acid was only added to its products
for flavor, not as a preservative. However, they decided to
settle.
If the total value of all the approved claims exceeds the funds
available for distribution, then the amounts of the payouts will be
decreased.
However, if there is money left over from the available funds, then
the amounts of the payouts will be increased pro rata up to two
times the original claimed amount.
A claim form can be submitted online or mailed with a postmark date
of February 13.
The form of payment that you will receive is unclear, but one
TikToker, The Points Baby, said he has gotten other claims through
PayPal and Venmo in his video.
The following Celsius products are eligible for your claim:
Celsius beverages (at times labeled "Celsius Live Fit")
Celsius Heat
Celsius BCAA+Energy, and Celsius with Stevia)
Celsius On-The-Go
Flo Fusion powdered drinks [GN]
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Class Cert Filing Deadline Extended to March 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brittney Gibson v.
Certified Credit Reporting, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01014
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywel entered an
endorsed order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay
the class certification deadline.
The Court will extend the deadline to file a motion for class
certification to March 30, 2023.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.
Certified Credit Reporting Inc was founded in 1985. The company's
line of business includes providing mercantile and consumer credit
reporting services.[CC]
CHARTER FOODS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 7
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GALLAGHER v. CHARTER
FOODS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00049 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Robert J. Colville entered an order granting motion to extend time
for discovery.
-- All second stage discovery shall March 10, 2023
be completed by:
-- The deadline to move for class April 7, 2023
certification under Rule 23 and
final certification and
decertification of the conditionally
certified collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act is
also extended by 45 days to:
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Charter Foods was founded in 1997. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for
on-premise consumption.[CC]
CONCEPT MANAGEMENT: Faces Waters Work-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN WATERS, ASHLEY SEEK, and ELEANOR THORNTON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONCEPT
MANAGEMENT OF AIRPORT, INC. d/b/a MALONE'S STEAK & SEAFOOD and
FEROZALI DELAWALLA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00351-SDG-CCB
(N.D. Ga., January 24, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for tip theft and willful failure to pay minimum wage in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for Plaintiff Waters'
retaliation, race discrimination, retaliatory suspension, and
termination in violation of Section 1981.
The Plaintiffs worked as servers and bartenders at Malone's Steak &
Seafood at any time between 2016 and 2022.
Concept Management of Airport, Inc., doing business as Malone's
Steak & Seafood, is a restaurant company located in in Dekalb
County, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Tierra M. Monteiro, Esq.
SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 780-4880
Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
tmonteiro@scottemploymentlaw.com
CONTRACT PHARMACAL: Fails to Timey Pay Manual Workers, Ramos Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KARLA RAMOS, on behalf of herself, individually, and all other
persons similarly situated v. CONTRACT PHARMACAL CORP., Case No.
2:23-cv-00491 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2023) seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, compensatory damages, liquidated damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other appropriate relief
pursuant to the the and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, the New York Labor Law, and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff and Class Members were required to pay increased
prices for the goods and services that they otherwise would have
purchased at an earlier date were their wages lawfully paid on a
weekly basis because of inflation, being an ever increasing scourge
throughout the Covid-19 pandemic and recent events. By retaining
these wages earned beyond the timeframes set by NYLL section 191,
Defendant benefitted from the time value of money and their free
use of such funds, at the expense of the Plaintiff and Class
Members.
On December 8, 2022, the Defendant terminated Plaintiff's
employment because the Plaintiff exercised her rights under the
FMLA to provide care for her daughter due to her daughter's serious
health condition constituting retaliation under the FMLA, and in
order to deny benefits to which the Plaintiff would have been
entitled under the FMLA and thereby interfered with the exercise of
Plaintiff's rights under the FMLA by terminating her employment
because of her anticipated need for leave in connection with the
birth of her child on May 13, 2023.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid packaging inspector on May 4, 2020.
Contract Pharmacal is a company that specializes in the production
and shipment of various pharmaceutical products at its factory in
Islandia, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com
DEVON ENERGY: Scheduling Order Entered in Wright Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wright v Devon Energy
Production Company LP, Case No. 2:22-cv-00213-NDF (D. Wyo.), the
Hon. Judge Nancy D. Freudenthal entered a scheduling order pending
ruling on class certification as follows:
Event Deadline
-- Motions for leave to amend or April 7, 2023
add additional parties:
-- Documents previously produced October 6, 2023
by parties shall be deemed
authenticated under Fed. R.
Evid. 901 except as to those
objected to by this date:
-- Fact Discovery for Class October 18, 2023
Certification Discovery
Deadline (not including expert
discovery):
-- The Plaintiff's Rule 26 Expert November 17, 2023
Disclosures for Class
Certification, including Expert
Report(s) (filed):
-- The Defendant's Rule 26 Expert January 19, 2024
Disclosures for Class
Certification, including
Expert Report(s) (filed):
-- The Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Rebuttal February 23, 2024
Expert Disclosures for Class
Certification, including Rebuttal
Expert Report(s) (filed):
-- The Plaintiff's Class March 22, 2024
Certification Motion:
-- The Defendant's Class April 12, 2024
Certification Response:
-- Private Mediation Deadline: April 30, 2024
-- Class Certification Hearing: May 1, 2024
Devon Energy provides oil and natural gas exploration and
production services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J8fEGM at no extra charge.[CC]
DIGITAL CURRENCY: McGreevy Sues Over Unfair Sale of Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MCGREEVY, ASHWIN GOWDA, TRANSLUNAR CRYPTO, LP, CHRISTOPHER
BUTTENHAM, and ALEX SOPINKA, individually and on behalf of all
others similar situated v. DIGITAL CURRENCY GROUP, INC., and BARRY
SILBERT, Case No. 3:23-cv-00082 (D. Conn., Jan. 23, 2023) sues the
Defendants over unlawful sale of unregistered securities, in
violation of Section 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act, and
fraud in connection with the sale or purchase of securities, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Act
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, seeking damages for their
liability as Control Persons as provided for by the federal
securities laws.
The Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have been denied access
to their digital assets since November 16, 2022 and face little
prospect of recovering a meaningful amount of the digital assets
they lent to Genesis Global Capital, as a result of the violations
of the federal securities laws. Accordingly, the Genesis Global
Capital represented in every lending transaction it executed from
July 1, 2022 forward that it was in fact solvent, when it was not.
These misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Genesis
Global Capital-DCG transaction and Genesis Global Capital's
solvency violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5. The misrepresentations and omissions were
material, as no reasonable lender would have loaned digital assets
to Genesis Global Capital had they known of Genesis Global
Capital's true financial condition or the details of the $1.1
billion DCG Promissory Note, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs, members of the Classes, and their agents reasonably
relied on Genesis Global Capital's misrepresentations and omissions
as to Genesis Global Capital's solvency in deciding to lend digital
assets to Genesis Global Capital or to rollover existing loans with
Genesis Global Capital into new terms.
Thus, as a result of the misrepresentations and omissions, Genesis
Global Capital received billions of dollars in new loans and loan
roll-overs from Plaintiffs and members of the Classes Genesis
Global Capital otherwise would not have. These misrepresentations
and omissions came to light after Genesis Global Capital
experienced a slew of withdrawal requests in November 2022 in the
wake of the collapse of digital asset trading platform FTX due to a
general loss of confidence in the digital asset markets. This "bank
run" combined with Genesis Global Capital's true financial
condition meant that Genesis Global Capital did not have the assets
to honor redemption requests, the suit added.
On November 16, 2022, Genesis Global Capital unilaterally stopped
honoring redemption requests, meaning no lender could obtain their
digital assets from Genesis Global Capital. Even then, Genesis
Global Capital continued to misrepresent its financial condition,
calling the cause of its inability to honor redemptions a result of
a "liquidity and duration mismatch" when in reality it was because
of insolvency.
On January 19, 2022, Genesis Global Capital, LLC and two affiliated
entities filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. As a
result, the Plaintiffs and members of the Classes have suffered
significant harm and are owed billions of dollars, the suit further
asserts.
The Plaintiffs are digital asset lenders who engaged in digital
asset lending transactions with Defendant-controlled subsidiary
company Genesis Global Capital, Inc. from February 2, 2021 through
November 16, 2022.
DCG is the parent company of a conglomerate of digital asset and
blockchain technology companies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Steven L. Bloc, Esq.
Zachary A. Rynar, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, Floor 15
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
zrynar@sgtlaw.com
DIRECT GENERAL: Parties Directed to Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOESEA RANSBURG,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A DIRECT AUTO INSURANCE, Case
No. 6:23-cv-00100 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered
an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines
pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court
of agreeable deadlines in their case management report.
-- The deadlines should include a deadline for
(1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff
and defendant;
(2) discovery - class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
Direct General operates as an insurance firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]
DUNGARVIN OHIO: Bid for Conditional Cert Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORA DUVALL, et al., v.
DUNGARVIN OHIO, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03372-SDM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order denying
without prejudice the joint motion for conditional certification
and to approve the Parties' proposed notice and consent.
The motion is denied without prejudice because the Motion contains
a definition of the proposed putative collective class, but the
Proposed Notice is directed to a different group of people.
If the parties file a second Joint Motion, the Named Plaintiffs
shall file with the Court copies of their counsel's so-called
Pre-Complaint Advertising Letter and Post-Complaint Advertising
Letter.
The parties must also make sure the relevant date is consistent in
the definitions in the Motion and Proposed Notice, as well as
included in the Proposed Text Message Notice.
Dungarvin Ohio provides a variety of supports to children and
adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HFXKtN at no extra charge.[CC]
FABLETICS INC: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Wakefield Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL WAKEFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FABLETICS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00520 (C.D. Cal., January 24, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending automated
telephonic sales calls, in the form of text messages, to the
cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals across Florida in an attempt to promote its products.
Prior to making or knowingly allowing another person to make on its
behalf the subject telephonic sales calls, the Defendant failed to
obtain the prior express written consent from the Plaintiff and the
members of the Class, says the suit.
Fabletics, Inc. is an online clothing and fashion retailer based in
El Segundo, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
aravindran@hedinhall.com
FATE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Hadian Suit Over 61.45% Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALI HADIAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FATE THERAPEUTICS, INC., J. SCOTT WOLCHKO, and EDWARD
J. DULAC III,, Case No. 3:23-cv-00111-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 20,
2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Fate securities between April 2,
2020 and January 5, 2023, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) 20 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 21 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
On April 2, 2020, after the market closed, Fate announced its entry
into a global collaboration and option agreement with Janssen
Biotech, Inc., under which Fate received a $50 million upfront
payment. On the news, Fate's stock price jumped 8.8% in trading on
April 3, 2020.
The Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:
-- the Janssen Collaboration Agreement was less sustainable
than Fate had represented to investors; and
-- certain clinical programs, milestone payments, and royalty
payments associated with the Janssen Collaboration Agreement
could not be relied upon as future revenue sources.
On January 5, 2023, after the markets closed, Fate issued a press
release announcing that it had terminated the Janssen Collaboration
Agreement. On this news, Fate's stock price fell $6.76 per share,
or 61.45%, to close at $4.24 per share on January 6, 2023.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
The Plaintiff acquired Fate securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Fate is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops
programmed cellular immunotherapies to treat cancer and immune
disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
Monsey, NY 10952
Telephone: (845) 290-6818
Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com
FIRST NATIONAL: Bezek Bid for Leave to File Sur-reply OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BEZEK, et al. v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 1:17-cv-02902-SAG (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
surreply;
2. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment and decertification;
3. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' cross
motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of
successor liability and denying in part on the issue of
class membership; and
4. granting the parties' respective motions to seal certain
exhibits which are subject to confidentiality orders.
Jill Bezek and Michelle Harris represent a class of borrowers who
had a federally related loan serviced by First Mariner Bank
(“First Mariner”). The Plaintiffs assert that First Mariner and
its employees violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA), by referring loans to a title services provider, Genuine
Title, in exchange for kickbacks.
The Defendant First National Bank of Pennsylvania, the successor in
interest to First Mariner by and through its merger with Howard
Bank, has filed a motion asking this Court to grant summary
judgment in its favor on all claims and to decertify the class
previously certified on October 2, 2020.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rdw3f7 at no extra charge.[CC]
FLEETWASH INC: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages, Rodriquez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RODRIGUEZ and others similarly situated v. FLEETWASH, INC. OF
NEW JERSEY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00149 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 23, 2023) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages against Defendant pursuant to Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked at least 43 hours per week during the
entirety of the entirety of their employment. The Defendant failed
to pay Plaintiffs at one-and-one-half-times their regular rate for
all hours worked beyond 40 in a single workweek. The Defendant
allegedly did not record all of the time worked by the Plaintiffs
during their employment, which is a direct violation of 29 C.F.R.
section 516. The Defendant engaged in an illegal scheme of failing,
refusing, or neglecting to pay Plaintiffs premium wages for all
hours worked while employed by Defendant in an effort to extract
work from Plaintiffs without compensating Plaintiffs for the work
provided, says the suit.
As a result, the Plaintiffs often performed work for Defendant at a
rate well below the appropriate premium wage because Plaintiffs
worked after hours in full view of Defendant's management. The
Plaintiffs seek full compensation, including unpaid premium wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs because Defendant's
conduct in refusing to pay the Plaintiff at least one-and-one-half
times their regular rate was a calculated attempt to extract
additional work out of the Plaintiffs for the benefit of Defendant,
the suit asserts.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as a manual laborers.
Fleetwash, Inc is a pressure washing enterprise and provides
services to its customers in Hillsborough County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
LEE LAW, PLLC
1971 West Lumsden Road, Suite 303
Brandon, FL 33511
Telephone: (813) 343‐2813
E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com
FOOT LOCKER: Martin Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Communications
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RUTH MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC., and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00319 (N.D. Cal.,
January 23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's wiretapping of the
conversations of all visitors of its website, www.footlocker.com,
and allowing at least one third party to eavesdrop such electronic
communications in real time. The Defendants did not inform the
Plaintiff or Class members that they were secretly recording their
conversations or allowing, aiding, and abetting a third party to
intercept and eavesdrop on them in real time, says the suit.
Foot Locker Retail, Inc. is an owner and operator of the website,
www.footlocker.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
David W. Reid, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Harrison Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harrison et al v. General
Motors, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-12927-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich., the Hon.
Judge Laurie J. Michelson entered an order granting in part GM's
motion to dismiss.
The Court says,"The Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with any
reason to rethink its decision in Withrow. The Plaintiffs merely
cite to cases in this District and others that have deferred the
question to the class-certification stage. But the Court is well
aware of these decisions. In fact, it addressed many of these
decisions in Withrow and provided reasons why it was not persuaded
to follow them. In fact, many of the decisions Plaintiffs cite
predate this Court's decision in Withrow. And since the Court
issued its opinion in Withrow, other courts have joined it in
dismissing nationwide class claims that seek to invoke state laws
that the named plaintiffs have no connection to."
Danny Harrison, along with 41 other plaintiffs, bought new or
pre-owned General Motors vehicles that they believe are defective.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that each of their vehicles
(which encompass a variety of GM models and range from model years
2014 to 2021) has a valve-train system that malfunctions in a few
ways.
As a result of this defect, the Plaintiffs say that they hear
noises from the engine, such as a "chirping, squeaking, and/or
ticking when the vehicle is not idling." Eventually, the defect
leads to the engine misfiring as valves fail to open and close at
the appropriate times. This, say Plaintiffs, causes them to stall,
surge, or lose power while driving.
So Plaintiffs sued GM over what they call the Valve-Train Defect.
In what is a borderline unwieldy single lawsuit, they bring a host
of claims, all on behalf of nationwide or statewide classes, which
include fraudulent omission or concealment,
unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and
violations of consumer-protection statutes in 22 states.
GM simultaneously moved to dismiss the complaint and to compel
certain plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims. The Court has issued
an opinion on the motion to compel arbitration, and as a result,
stayed plaintiffs' claims. So it will only consider
the claims of the following Plaintiffs in its opinion on the motion
to dismiss: Danny Harrison, Melissa Luster, Leon Jordan, Mark
Hayford, Ronald and Marilyn Jett, Nataliya and Alexander Purshaga,
Daniel Podojil, Jennifer Deery, Christopher
Dittman, Michael Scott, Bobby Cheshire, Brian and Tammy Burton,
Tony and Robin Reidhar, Paul Mouradjian, Brian Hess, Lisa Saffell,
Joseph Attia, Stephanie Speno, and Scott Roller.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XPWhq3 at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Has Until Feb. 10 to File Class Cert. Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hurry, et al., v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00673-ECM-JTA(M.D. Ala.), the Hon.
Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order granting the General Motors'
unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
-- The Defendant requests a 14-day extension until February
10, 2023 to respond to the Plaintiffs’ motion.
The Court further order that the Plaintiffs shall have until
February 17, 2023 to file a reply to the Defendant's response.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wqPOpO at no extra charge.[CC]
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Monopolizes Compatible Parts Market, Lipkin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VLADIMIR LIPKIN and ANZHELA DEMKIV, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR
COMPANY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00413 (N.D. Ill.,
January 23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the antitrust laws and consumer protection laws.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged monopoly of the
compatible parts market by using its warranty to try to force
Harley owners to use its own parts rather than the many quality
aftermarket parts available for its motorcycles. As a result,
Harley-Davidson has lessened competition in the market for
Harley-compatible replacement parts. This has allowed
Harley-Davidson to charge supracompetitive prices for its parts, at
the expense of the consumers who buy them, the suit alleges.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC is a motorcycle
manufacturer based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
- and -
Ling S. Wang, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
100 S. Fifth Street, Suite 1900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (651) 432-4468
E-mail: ling@feganscott.com
- and -
David Freydin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID FREYDIN LTD
8707 Skokie Blvd., Suite 305
Skokie, IL 60077
Telephone: (312) 544-0365
E-mail: David.freydin@freydinlaw.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Shutdown of Bluelink 3G
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that The Hyundai
shutdown of Bluelink 3G connected services has caused a class
action lawsuit that alleges the sunsetting of 3G wireless has
rendered important features obsolete in Hyundai and Genesis
vehicles.
The Hyundai Bluelink feature allegedly uses technology which is
only compatible with 3G wireless networks, and Hyundai's vehicles
allegedly cannot be upgraded or adapted to work with later wireless
technologies such as 4G or 5G.
According to the Hyundai 3G sunset lawsuit, the automaker sold
vehicles between 2014 and 2020 with Bluelink connected services
that operate features such as emergency and crash reporting.
Hyundai Bluelink depends on 3G wireless technology from Verizon
which discontinued its 3G wireless service December 31, 2022.
The Hyundai Bluelink shutdown lawsuit includes:
"All persons or entities in the United States who are current or
former owners and/or lessees of a vehicle equipped by Defendants
with the BlueLink feature and 'connected services.'"
The 3G sunset allegedly left Hyundai and Genesis customers without
features they paid for, believing those features would function for
the life of the vehicles.
According to the class action lawsuit, Hyundai knew about the
shutdown of Bluelink 3G wireless years ago but didn't tell
customers. As early as 2010, Verizon announced it would transition
its entire 3G network to 4G LTE.
However, Hyundai allegedly continued to market and sell vehicles
while promoting the benefits of Bluelink.
The plaintiff who filed the lawsuit alleges Hyundai knew by 2012
that 3G would be phased out of service.
"Defendants deceived Plaintiff and class members by marketing,
promoting, selling and leasing vehicles equipped with a 3G
telematics system knowing that the product was going to become
obsolete." -- Hyundai 3G sunset class action lawsuit
The Hyundai 3G sunset lawsuit was filed by Illinois plaintiff John
Tamburo who purchased a certified pre-owned 2015 Hyundai Genesis on
May 31, 2017.
The Hyundai 3G sunset class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern
Division): John Tamburo v. Hyundai Motor America Corporation, et
al.
The plaintiff is represented by Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC.
The Hyundai 3G sunset class action lawsuit follows 3G lawsuits
filed against other automakers, as you can see below.
-- BMW 3G Lawsuit Involves ConnectedDrive and BMW Assist
-- Ford 3G Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Modems Are Outdated
-- Nissan 3G Shutdown Causes Class Action Lawsuit
-- Porsche Connect 3G Sunset Class Action Lawsuit
-- VW Car-Net Not Working, Lawsuit Blames 3G Sunset [GN]
ILLINOIS: Wrongfully Imprisoned Children, Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Savage of My Journal Courier reports that Illinois
Department of Children and Family Services wrongfully incarcerated
hundreds of children in juvenile detention after a court ordered
them to be released to their guardian, according to a class action
lawsuit filed by Cook County's public guardian.
These children have missed holidays, birthdays and funerals of
loved ones, said Cook County public guardian Charles Golbert, who
acts as a lawyer for abused, neglected and dependent children. He
spoke at a news conference announcing the lawsuit.
"They're held for months after the time they should have been
released, forced to remain in jail, forced to be under the
conditions where they're confined, they're prevented from getting
the same schooling they would get in the community, from being able
to visit with their families, from being able to build the
relationships that they need to prepare them for life," said
attorney Russell Ainsworth, who is representing the young
plaintiffs.
The problem has persisted for decades, according to a news release
from the law firm of Loevy & Loevy, which is representing nine
young people, mostly unnamed, as well as other children in similar
situations.
DCFS director Marc Smith, who is named in the lawsuit along with
several past and present agency officials, was held in contempt of
court last year for continued failure to find permanent placements
for two children in his care. They're among dozens of children who
are ready for permanent placement after mental health or other
types of treatment but for whom no homes available are available.
But previous legal action has not been enough to prompt reform in
the troubled agency.
"Nothing else has worked," Ainsworth said. "The only thing that
will change DCFS' practices is to sue them and hold them personally
liable for their actions and force them to pay damages to the
children who have been suffering harm for 30 years."
Plaintiff Janiah Caine, 18, was imprisoned wrongfully in juvenile
temporary detention center for a "shocking 166 days over a one-year
period," according to the lawsuit.
Caine, then a minor, lost her grandmother during the time she was
recommended for release but remained locked up, and was unable to
attend her funeral.
"Everybody has that one family member you can always talk to and go
to," Caine said at the news conference. "She was that person I
had."
The teen couldn't reach her case worker, and "my grandma was
getting sicker and sicker as we're just waiting and waiting . . .
it's a horrible feeling."
Caine said she and other detained youths spent the majority of the
day locked up in small cells the size of a bathroom, with just a
bed, a toilet and a sink. "Everybody knows you can go crazy just
being in a room by yourself like that," she said.
In addition, the environment wasn't safe, and staff treated them
badly, Caine said. "You don't know when somebody gonna hit you."
"They treat you like nothing. It's just so bad," she said.
DCFS did not immediately respond to requests for comment. [GN]
JOHN HEATH: Scheduling Order Entered in Stewart Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jermaine Stewart v. John
C. Heath, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03768-MCS-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarci entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-off: April 7, 2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial): April 7, 2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): May 5, 2023
-- Expert Discovery: June 2, 2023
-- Deadline to File a Motion: March 13, 2023
Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to File an Opposition: April 3, 2023
to Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to File a Reply: April 24, 2023
in Support of the Motion
for Class Certification:
-- Hearing date on motion for May 15, 2023
Class certification:
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZUpIZT at no extra charge.[CC]
KAISER FOUNDATION: Class Cert Bid Briefing Extended in Schmitt
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA SCHMITT; ELIZABETH
MOHUNDRO; and O.L. by and through her parents, J.L. and K.L., each
on their own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON; KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON OPTIONS, INC.; KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST; and KAISER FOUNDATION
HEALTH PLAN, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01611-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order granting the
Defendants' unopposed motion to extend time regarding briefing for
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion to seal, as
follows:
-- The Defendants' opposition to the Feb. 21, 2023
Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion March 3, 2023
for Class Certification
(This would be the new
noting date as well)
-- The Defendants' Opposition to March 6, 2023
Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal:
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion March 10, 2023
to Seal (This would be the new
noting date as well)
Kaiser Foundation offers individual and family coverage for
individuals who may be: self-employed, working for a company that
does not offer a group plan, students or recent graduates who are
over age or not covered on a parent's plan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JjLdxw at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Medora A. Marisseau, Esq.
Mark A. Bailey, Esq.
Joshua M. Howard, Esq.
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 223-1313
Facsimile: (206) 682-7100
E-mail: mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com
mbailey@karrtuttle.com
jhoward@karrtuttle.com
LAKE DIAMOND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, O'Day Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT O'DAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. INVESTMENT AT LAKE DIAMOND, LLC d/b/a Lake
Diamond Golf & Country Club, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00059
(M.D. Fla., Jan.24, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff O'Day was employed by the Defendant as cart attendant.
INVESTMENT AT LAKE DIAMOND, LLC owned and operated a golf course
d/b/a Lake Diamond Golf & Country Club in Ocala, Florida in Marion
County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W. 70th Avenue Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 617-6017
Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
E-Mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com
LIGHTFIRE PARTNERS: Directed to File Status Report by Feb. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aley v. Lightfire
Partners, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00330 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Therese Wiley Dancks entered an order directing the Defendant to
file a status report by Feb. 21, 2023 which shall attach a purchase
order and cost as discussed during this conference.
-- A redacted copy of the purchase order shall be filed
electronically in the case, and an unredacted copy shall be
provided separately to the Court and Plaintiff's counsel as
instructed.
-- The status report shall also include the total number of
outbound calls by Defendant for the time period Jan. 1,
2021 to Feb. 28, 2022, as well as depositions scheduled, if
any.
-- A redacted copy of the total number of the outbound calls
shall be filed electronically in the case, and an
unredacted copy shall be provided separately to the Court
and Plaintiff's counsel as instructed.
-- After discussion with counsel, the Court defers mediation
with no new deadline at this time. Court will revisit
mediation with the parties in the future.
-- Discovery deadlines are extended as follows:
a. The Plaintiff's expert disclosure due June 12, 2023
b. The Defendant's expert disclosure due July 12, 2023
c. Rebuttal due Aug. 1, 2023
d. Class Certification Motion to be filed by Sept. 11, 2023
e. All Discovery due Sept. 11, 2023
f. Discovery Motions due Sept. 25, 2023
g. Dispositive Motions to be filed by Sept.9, 2023
The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.
LightFire Partners serves business-to-consumer companies with
cutting edge technology, lead generation and call center outreach
solutions.[CC]
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Choco Bars Contain Lead, Cadmium, Goldstein Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON GOLDSTEIN and LYNN MINCK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. LINDT & SPRUNGLI (NORTH AMERICA),
INC., Case No. (W.D. Mo., Jan. , 2023) is a class action lawsuit
against Defendant regarding the manufacture, distribution, and sale
of its Lindt Excellence 70% Cocoa Dark Chocolate Bars and Lindt
Excellence 85% Cocoa Extra Dark Chocolate Bar products which
contain unsafe levels of lead and cadmium.
According to the complaint, the marketing for and labeling of the
Affected Products are silent as to the presence of elevated levels
of Heavy Metals in the Affected Products. Lindt'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. Cadmium is
carcinogenic and exposure to even low levels of cadmium over time
may result in a toxic build-up of cadmium in the kidneys, leading
to kidney disease and bones damage and osteoporosis. Lindt claims
and promotes to customers that its "premium chocolate products are
safe, as well as delightful," says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a premium for the Affected
Products based upon Defendant's marketing and advertising campaign.
Given that Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a premium for the
Affected Products based on Defendant's misrepresentations and
omissions, the Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered an injury in
the amount of the premium paid.
The Defendant's conduct allegedly violated and continues to violate
New York's General Business Law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act. The Defendant also breached and continues to
breach its warranties regarding the Affected Products and has been
and continues to be unjustly enriched. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
bring this action against Defendant on behalf of themselves and
Class Members who purchased the Affected Products during the
applicable statute of limitations period.
Plaintiff Goldstein purchased the Lindt's Excellence Dark Chocolate
70% and Lindt's Excellence Dark Chocolate 85%, during the Class
Period from a Florida retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael S. Kilgore, Esq.
Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON
& McCLAIN, P.C.
221 W. Lexington, Suite 400
Independence, MO 64050
Telephone: (816) 836-5050
Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
msk@hfmlegal.com
jms@hfmlegal.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
gishimoto@zlk.com
MAJERLE MANAGEMENT: Allen Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEWART ALLEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MAJERLE MANAGEMENT, INC. et al, Case No. 8:21-cv-00950-PJM (D.
Md.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to reopen the above case to:
1. preliminarily approving the stipulation of settlement;
2. appointing him as class representative and
his counsel as class counsel;
3. certify a settlement class, setting a final approval
hearing and notice.
The Plaintiff Allen and all defendants in this case, have agreed to
resolve the case by a Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement proposes a class consisting of:
"All members of Greenbrook HOA from whom the Defendants
attempted to collect an alleged late fee from June 1, 2017 to
the present.
The class and settlement excludes individuals who previously
entered into a release that released such claims. The class and
settlement individuals who filed bankruptcy and was discharged
after their last fee.
The claims to be addressed by the class are: Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and Federal
Fair Debt Collection Act claims arising from the matters set out in
the Complaint.
Majerle Management provides management services for rental
properties and community associations
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WyM7cu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq.
Peter A. Holland, Esq.
THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
914 Bay Ridge Rd, Ste 230
Annapolis, MD 21403
Telephone: (410) 280-6133
Facsimile: (410) 280-8650
E-mail: eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com
peter@hollandlawfirm.com
MARATHON OIL: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kunneman Properties, LLC,
et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. Marathon Oil Company, Case No. 6:22-cv-00274-KEW (E.D. Okla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) final certification of the Settlement Class;
(2) final approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement
Class; and
(3) final approval of the Notice to Class Members.
The Class Representatives are Kunneman Properties LLC, DJM Family,
LLC, and Royse Family, L.L.C.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kqR61l at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
– and –
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
SHARP LAW , LLP
5301 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
Facsimile: (913)901-0419
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
rhudson@midwest-law.com
sgoodger@midwest-law.com
MDL 2818: Bid to Seal Exhibits Granted in Sales Practices Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as General Motors Corp Air
Conditioning Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No.
2:18-md-02818-MFL (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge entered an order:
(1) granting the Defendant's motions to seal; and
(2) terminating as moot the plaintiffs' motion to seal.
In this putative consolidated class action, the Plaintiffs allege
that the air conditioning systems of vehicles manufactured by
Defendant General Motors (GM) are defective.
On March 1, 2022, Plaintiffs moved for class certification. In
support of that motion, the Plaintiffs attached as exhibits several
documents produced during discovery. On March 1, 2022, GM moved the
Court to seal certain of those exhibits and/or portions of those
exhibits that GM said contained "highly confidential trade secret
and non-public business information."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DaWgoS at no extra charge.[CC]
METROPOLITAN POLICE: Pappas Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE PAPPAS, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02800-RC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)
and Local Rules 5.1(h) and 7, for leave to file motion to certify
class and appoint class representatives and class counsel under
seal
The Plaintiffs' Motion inadvertently contained limited confidential
and sensitive information that should not be part of the public
record: the names and limited medical information concerning two
individuals who are not named plaintiffs and are not members of the
proposed class.
The Plaintiffs intend to promptly file a substitute for Docket 60
that redacts these names and medical information, as well as names
of certain class members who are not named plaintiffs.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m), Plaintiffs contacted Defendants before
filing this motion, and Defendants stated that they did not oppose
the motion.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DM6JYj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eve Hill, Esq.
Andrew D. Levy, Esq.
BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 2500
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 962-1030
Facsimile: (410) 385-0869
E-mail: ehill@browngold,com
adl@browngold.com
- and -
Ellen Eardley, Esq.
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
2000 K Street, NW, Suite 325
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
E-mail: eeardley@findjustice.com
cmehri@findjustice.com
METROPOLITAN POLICE: Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Sub-classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE PAPPAS, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02800-RC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying a class and sub-classes.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kQKUQH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eve Hill, Esq.
Andrew D. Levy, Esq.
BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 2500
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 962-1030
Facsimile: (410) 385-0869
E-mail: ehill@browngold,com
adl@browngold.com
- and -
Ellen Eardley, Esq.
Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
2000 K Street, NW, Suite 325
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 822-5100
Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
E-mail: eeardley@findjustice.com
cmehri@findjustice.com
MGM RESORTS: Parts of Dyson Report Excluded From Lucas ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EBONI D. LUCAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. MGM RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01750-JAD-NJK
(D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' motion to exclude portions of the Plaintiffs'
rebuttal expert report prepared by Eric C. Dyson or, alternatively,
to reopen discovery and to award attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiffs are current and former participants in the 401(k)
plan of MGM Resorts. They bring the class action for claims that
the Defendants breached their duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) by allegedly retaining overpriced
investments and failing to control costs associated with the 401(k)
plan.
The parties are currently before the Court regarding the
Plaintiffs' expert report prepared by Dyson, which was designated
as a "rebuttal" report. In particular, the parties dispute whether
certain aspects of that report are properly characterized as
including "rebuttal" opinion, and, if not, the proper remedy to
address that issue.
Judge Koppe begins her analysis by determining whether the
disclosure of the identified portions of Dyson's rebuttal report
violated the scheduling order. In so doing, she must determine
whether the pertinent portions of that report are properly
considered initial expert opinions or rebuttal expert opinions.
Judge Koppe finds that it is clear that portions of Dyson's
rebuttal report were required to be included in the initial expert
report. On its face, she says the latter report is designed to
offer new information in support of the initial opinion. Such
information should have been provided in the initial report. Hence,
providing such information in a rebuttal report after the
expiration of the deadline for disclosing initial expert opinions
was improper.
Judge Koppe next turns to the appropriate remedy in light of her
finding. Although she finds that a disclosure violation exists, the
circumstances do not justify striking the violating aspects of the
expert opinion. The report was served 30 days before the expiration
of the discovery period, which provided sufficient time to address
this shortcoming by further deposing the expert and challenging the
new aspects of his report. Therefore, Judge Koppe declines the
request to strike these aspects of the expert report because it was
sufficiently harmless to avoid that drastic relief.
With respect to the alternative relief sought, the parties agree
that it is appropriate to allow further deposition questioning of
Dyson given these circumstances. Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs balk
at the prospect of allowing the Defendants the opportunity to
provide a further expert opinion responding to these new aspects of
Dyson's report.
Judge Koppe says courts facing similar circumstances routinely
allow both further deposition questioning and an opportunity for
responsive expert opinion. She holds allowing the Defendants to
rebut these new opinions is contemplated by the governing rules,
and the Court has not been persuaded to do otherwise in the case.
Lastly, the Defendants ask for an award of expenses incurred with
respect to the instant motion practice.
Judge Koppe says the Defendants have been prejudiced in having to
engage in motion practice to address Dyson's improper rebuttal
opinion. Courts facing similar circumstances in which an initial
expert report is erroneously portrayed as a rebuttal report
routinely award attorneys' fees to the movant. The circumstances
here likewise warrant an award of attorneys' fees incurred with
respect to the instant motion practice since the Plaintiffs'
improper expert disclosure prompted the need to litigate this
issue.
For the reasons discussed, Judge Koppe grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' motion as stated. To the extent the parties do
not agree amongst themselves as to the amount of fees, the
Defendants must file a motion to calculate fees by Feb. 7, 2023.
The parties must confer on a schedule to depose Dyson and for the
Defendants to provide a further responsive expert report, all of
which must be completed by March 15, 2023. The dispositive motion
deadline is also reset for April 14, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/j4h6sn63 from Leagle.com.
MT. KISCO COUNTRY: Metin Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------------------------
CIGDEM METIN; and SEVIL NIXON, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MT. KISCO COUNTRY CLUB REALTY
CORPORATION d/b/a MT. KISCO COUNTRY CLUB; MT. KISCO COUNTRY CLUB
INC.; HARVEY ROSENBLUM; TANYA BARSHELL; and any other related
entities, Defendants, Case No. 701662/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty.,
Jan. 24, 2023) seeks to to recover from the Defendants unlawfully
retained tips and gratuities owed to the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as service
employees.
MOUNT KISCO COUNTRY CLUB, INC. operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization offers golfing, tennis, fine and
casual dining, pool, and banquet facilities, as well as children's
programs. Mount Kisco Country Club serves communities in the State
of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
Email: aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 1, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Nationwide
Retirement Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03499-MHW-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered a scheduling
order:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings March 15, 2023
or to join additional parties shall
be filed by:
-- The motion for class certification February 1, 2024
shall be filed by:
-- Any dispositive motions shall be June 3, 2024
filed by:
-- Plaintiff will make a settlement February 15, 2023
demand by:
-- The Plaintiff will submit a February 1, 2024
motion for class certification
on or before:
-- The Defendant will submit any March 15, 2024.
opposition to the motion for
class certification on or
before:
-- The Plaintiff will file any April 15, 2024
reply to the motion for class
certification by:
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XyZoms at no extra charge.[CC]
NAVY FEDERAL: Morrow, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIOBHAN MORROW and TRACEE
LE FLORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
1:21-cv-00722-MSN-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs seeks class
certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure of the following Class:
"All current and former Navy Federal Credit Union
accountholders who opened their account prior to March 1,
2022, and, from January 7, 2016 through the date of class
certification, were charged an International Service
Assessment Fee on a debit card transaction made while the
accountholder was located in the United States."
The Plaintiffs further requests that their counsel -- KalielGold
PLLC, Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, The Van Winkle
Law Firm, and Lynch Carpenter, LLP -- be appointed as Class Counsel
for the Class.
Navy Federal is a global credit union headquartered in Vienna,
Virginia, chartered and regulated under the authority of the
National Credit Union Administration.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HgbYjG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Heather Whitaker Goldstein, Esq.
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 844-7169
E-mail: hgoldstein@vwlawfirm.com
dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
Jason H. Alperstein, 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
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
alperstein@kolawyers.com
- and -
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
Jeff Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Todd Carpenter, Esq.
Jae K Kim, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH
1350 Columbia Street. Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
NECTAR BRAND: Scheduling Order Entered in Snow Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amanda Snow v. Nectar
Brand LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-07912-MCS-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Mark C. Scarci entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-off: Oct. 14, 2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial): Oct. 21, 2023
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Nov. 21, 2023
-- Expert Discovery: Dec. 20, 2023
-- Deadline to File a Motion: Dec. 20, 2023
Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Deadline to File a Reply: July 11, 2023
in Support of the Motion
for Class Certification:
-- Hearing date on motion for July 31, 2023
Class certification:
Nectar Brand is a Limited Liability that operates within the
mattress manufacturing industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QYsUQj at no extra charge.[CC]
NEWREZ LLC: Seeks Leave to File Surreply to Yates Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE YATES, v. NEWREZ LLC
d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No. 8:21-cv-03044-TDC (D.
Md.), the Defendant moves for leave to file a surreply in
opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.
The Surreply addresses various allegations of ethical misconduct
and misleading the court, made for the first time in the
Plaintiff's reply brief.
The Plaintiff also asserts -- for the first time -- that Shellpoint
made arguments without a good faith basis.
The Court's consideration of a short brief on Plaintiff's new
assertions will not unduly prejudice Plaintiff.
Newrez is a nationwide mortgage lender and servicer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iZDKJ7 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Melissa O. Martinez, Esq.
Brian E. Pumphrey, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
500 East Pratt Street, Suite 1000
Baltimore, MD 21202-3169
Telephone: (410) 659-4432
Facsimile: (410) 659-4482
E-mail: mmartinez@mcguirewoods.com
bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Swacker Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Servers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEANETTE SWACKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF FLORIDA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00076 (M.D.N.C., January 24, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for paying their restaurant
employees at an hourly rate below the applicable federal, state, or
local minimum wage plus tips in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Ms. Swacker was employed as a server at Outback Steakhouse in
Burlington, North Carolina from approximately November 2018 to June
2021.
Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC is an operator of a chain of
restaurants known as Outback Steakhouse based in North Carolina.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR P.C.
115 Elk Avenue
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Telephone: (803) 328-0898
E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com
PNC BANK: Court Junks Polonowskis Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY J. POLONOWSKI and
BARBARA A. POLONOWSKI , individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-00151-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Court concludes that individual issues predominate over
class-wide issues which undermines the propriety of using the class
action vehicle.
Finally, the Plaintiffs assert that the Court could certify a class
for liability purposes or a class that would seek only statutory
damages. But, Plaintiffs seek both actual and statutory damages for
themselves and for the class; Plaintiff have not proposed a
liability class or a statutory damages only class. And, neither
alternative fulfills Plaintiff's burden to show that class action
provides a superior vehicle to individual lawsuits in light of
Plaintiffs' calculations of their own actual damages.
The Court declines to certify the class proposed by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' claims require the Court to determine which provision
of the automatic stay applies, a dispute not common or typical of
most of the members of the proposed class.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) and (3), the
commonality and typicality requirement. In addition, the Plaintiffs
seek actual damages for themselves and for each member of the
class, a remedy that requires individualized proofs necessitating
mini trials for each putative class member.
The individual facts and proofs would predominate over the facts
and proofs common to each member of the class. The Plaintiffs,
therefore, cannot satisfy Rule 23(b).
The Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Barbara Polonowski filed a motion for
class certification. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' factual
situation sufficiently different from the majority of the class
that Plaintiffs' claims present issues that are neither common nor
typical of the claims of the proposed class.
The Plaintiffs Jeffrey and Barbara Polonowski obtained home equity
line of credit (HELOC) from Defendant PNC Bank. The agreement
provided Plaintiffs with an open end line of credit, not a loan of
a fixed amount. Defendant secured the HELOC through a mortgage on
Plaintiffs' residence.
In 2018, the Plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. By
mid-November 2108, the Plaintiffs had reaffirmed the HELOC and had
been discharged from the bankruptcy proceeding.
PNC Bank offers a wide range of personal banking services including
checking and savings accounts, credit cards, mortgage loans, auto
loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40dNlNq at no extra charge.[CC]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Kampmann Sues Over Products' Therapeutic Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jana Kampmann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No.
1:23-cv-01021-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Jan. 22, 2022) alleges that
co-packaged combination of active over-the-counter ingredients
marketed and sold by the Defendant for "Severe Cold & Flu"
("DayQuil") with vitamin C ("SuperC") under the Vicks brand
expressly and impliedly warranted to the Plaintiff that the
addition of vitamin C to a proven OTC product would be similarly
effective at treating symptoms of cold and flu, and provide a
proven therapeutic benefit.
The front label of the SuperC component represents it contains
"1,000 mg Vitamin C" along with "B vitamins, green tea, ginseng,
and turmeric extracts" to "Energize + Replenish," by Helping to
replenish essential vitamins and provide a healthy energy boost. By
co-packaging vitamin C in a "Daytime Convenience Pack," consumers
will expect it is intended to be used with the approved OTC
combination for the common therapeutic purpose of alleviating cold
and flu symptoms. However, the fine print on one of the sides of
the Product states, "THIS PRODUCT IS NOT INTENDED TO TREAT COLDS OR
FLU," says the suit.
The Plaintiff read the representations on the front label of the
co-packaged DayQuil and SuperC, and expected the addition of
vitamin C to a proven OTC product would be similarly effective at
treating symptoms of cold and flu, and provide a proven therapeutic
benefit. As a result of the false and misleading representations,
the Product is sold at premium price, not less than $13.49 per 12
DayQuil capsules and 14 SuperC capsules, excluding tax and sales,
the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions at
Walmart between 2021 and 2023.
Procter & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods
corporation.[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
RARE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Patton Sues Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEIGH PATTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RARE HOSPITALITY INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00331-JFA (D.S.C. Jan. 24, 2023) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to pay the Plaintiff all
minimum wages owed while working for the Defendant paid on a hybrid
sub-minimum wage and tips basis.
Plaintiff Patton was employed by the Defendant as server.
RARE HOSPITALITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. owns and operates a restaurant
located in Columbia, South Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR P.C.
115 Elk Avenue
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Telephone: (803) 328-0898
Email: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com
REALPAGE INC: Artificially Raised Rental Prices, Marchetti Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTEO MARCHETTI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC.; THOMA BRAVO, L.P.;
AMLI MANAGEMENT COMPANY; ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL COMPANY; APARTMENT
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC; ASSET LIVING, LLC; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL
LLC; BH MANAGEMENT LLC; THE BOZZUTO GROUP; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST;
CORTLAND PROPERTIES, INC.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREYSTAR
REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; MID-AMERICA
APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN PROPERTIES; RPM LIVING LLC;
SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; and
WINNCOMPANIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-20263 (S.D. Fla.,
January 23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have formed a cartel in
the multifamily residential apartment building market in the U.S.
to artificially inflate the rental prices of apartment units above
competitive levels. To facilitate this unlawful scheme, the
Apartment Management Defendants provide RealPage and, through
RealPage, one another—with highly sensitive and confidential
competitive information on a daily basis, including detailed
real-time data regarding pricing, inventory, occupancy rates, and
unit types that are or will be coming available to rent, among
other things. The Apartment Management Defendants do so with the
knowledge, provided by RealPage, that their competitors are also
exchanging their real-time confidential information. Pursuant to
the conspiracy, the Apartment Management Defendants have outsourced
their pricing decision-making and formed a cartel, restraining
competition and resulting in high supracompetitive rents. Rather
than compete, the Defendants are choosing to collude, says the
suit.
RealPage, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Richardson,
Texas.
Thoma Bravo L.P. is a private equity firm with its principal place
of business in Miami, Florida.
AMLI Management Company is a company that manages apartment units,
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
Alliance Residential Realty, LLC is a company that manages
apartment units, headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Apartment Management Consultants, LLC is an apartment management
company headquartered in Sandy, Utah.
Asset Living, LLC is an apartment management company headquartered
in Houston, Texas.
Avenue5 Residential, LLC is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
BH Management Services, LLC is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate with its headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa.
Bozzuto Management Company is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in Greenbelt, Maryland.
Camden Property Trust is a real estate trust headquartered in
Houston, Texas.
Cortland Properties, Inc., is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in New York, New York.
Equity Residential is a Maryland real estate investment trust
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
Essex Property Trust, Inc. is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in San Mateo, California.
FPI Management, Inc. is a manager of multifamily rental real estate
headquartered in Folsom, California.
Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC is a manager of multifamily
rental real estate headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina.
Lincoln Property Company is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. is a manager of multifamily
rental real estate headquartered in Germantown, Tennessee.
Morgan Properties, LLC is a manager of multifamily rental real
estate headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
RPM Living LLC is a manager of multifamily rental real estate
headquartered in Austin, Texas.
Security Properties Inc. is a company that manages apartment units,
headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
Thrive Communities Management, LLC is a company that manages
apartment units, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
Winncompanies LLC is an apartment management company with its
primary place of business located in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq.
Javier A. Lopez, Esq.
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 372-1800
E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
jal@kttlaw.com
- and -
Archie C. Lamb, Jr., Esq.
ARCHIE LAMB & ASSOCIATES
2625 McCormick Dr., Ste. 102
Clearwater, FL 33759
Telephone: (205) 612-6789
E-mail: alamb@archielamb.com
- and -
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Court Modifies Expert Disclosure Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ford v. Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Case No. 1:20-cv-00470 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge David N. Hurd entered an order granting letter motion from
Donald W. Boyajian for Ethan Deecher, Morgan Ford, Grady Habicht
requesting Modification of the Expert Disclosure Deadline :
-- The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure March 17, 2023
Deadline is now:
-- The Defendants Expert Disclosure May 10, 2023
Deadline is now:
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure June 1, 2023
Deadline is now:
-- The Motion for Class June 15, 2023
Certification is due by:
-- Dispositive Motions to be July 1, 2023
filed by:
-- Deadline for Mediator Jan. 25, 2023
Selection is:
-- Authorized by Magistrate Jan. 19, 2023
Judge Christian F. Hummel
on:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC]
SANUKI JAPANESE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Tyndall Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICKOLAS TYNDALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANUKI JAPANESE STEAK AND SEAFOOD
RESTAURANT INC., d/b/a "Carolina Grill Seafood and Steak" and DUC
H. NGUYEN, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00009-BO (E.D.N.C., January
24, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for paying their
restaurant employees at an hourly rate below the applicable
federal, state, or local minimum wage plus tips in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Tyndall was employed as a waiter at Carolina Grill Seafood and
Steak restaurant from approximately January 2017 to June 2020.
Sanuki Japanese Steak and Seafood Restaurant Inc., doing business
as Carolina Grill Seafood and Steak, is a restaurant company
located in New Bern, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR P.C.
115 Elk Avenue
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Telephone: (803) 328-0898
E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com
SAZERAC COMPANY: Faces Patterson Suit Over Mislabeled Beverages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAMIEN PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-at-00063 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2023) is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the Fireball Cinnamon malt
beverage (the "Malt Product") against Defendant for manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, and selling underfilled and mislabeled
alcoholic beverages.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is
engaged in widespread false and deceptive advertising in connection
with its Malt Products. In a practice that runs contrary to
reasonable consumer expectations, Defendant employs a classic
bait-and-switch scheme that causes unsuspecting consumers to spend
more money for less than the advertised amount of alcohol they
believe they are purchasing - and induces them to buy a
fundamentally different product entirely.
Specifically, the packaging and labeling of the Malt Products
prominently advertise that they are "Fireball Cinnamon" products,
which consumers understand to refer to Defendant's Whiskey
Products. However, "Fireball Cinnamon" is not a whiskey product it
all; it is a malt beverage with half the alcohol of whiskey, says
the suit.
SAZERAC COMPANY INC. operates distilleries and produces alcoholic
beverages. The Company offers bourbon, vodka, gin, rum, whisky, and
cocktails. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Jenna L. Gavenman, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
jgavenman@bursor.com
SB NORTHWEST: Gongora Seeks Manufacturing Employees' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY M ALOMA GONGORA, v. SB NORTHWEST INVESTMENTS, LLC doing
business as EAGLE TRAILER MANUFACTURING, RICK BARNES, an individual
and CINDY POWELSON., Case No. 3:23-cv-00097-YY (D. Or., Jan. 20,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, plus
liquidated damages as provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act, as
well as costs, disbursements, and attorney fees.
According to the complaint, the times that the Plaintiff worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and
other manufacturing workers for at least some of those overtime
hours worked at the employee's regular rate of pay in cash, not
through normal payroll.
The Plaintiff as individual, as well as on behalf of the collective
group of employees is entitled to recover a state law penalty equal
to 240 hours at the employee's regular rate of pay for the
Defendants' willful failure to pay overtime wages and a separate
penalty where those employees have unpaid regular wages and have
separated from employment going back to April 1, 2018, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff worked as a trailer manufacturing employee from May
2020 to June 2022.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Quinn E. Kuranz, Esq.
THE OFFICE OF Q.E. KURANZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
735 SW FIRST AVE., Suite 300
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 914-3930
Facsimile: (503) 200-1289
E-mail: quinn@kuranzlaw.com
SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Allowed Leave to Extend Case Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVER GUILBEAU,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND
CHRISTOPHER O'MARA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Case
No. 5:21-cv-00142-JKP-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth S.
Chestney entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion
for leave to extend case deadlines.
By their motion, the Defendant asks the Court to continue the
hearing set on Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Notice Under Swales
to a date after the February 10, 2023 deadline for Plaintiffs to
file their reply.
The hearing currently set for February 8, 2023, is canceled.
Schlumberger operates as an oilfield services company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D8vqxw at no extra
charge.[CC]
SCVRH LLC: Garrett Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephanie Garrett, an
individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. SCVRH LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00358-RCC (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter:
1. certifying a class, comprised of:
"The Plaintiff and other similarly situated former
employees
(i) who worked at or reported to Defendant’s Facility
and were terminated without cause on or about July
22, 2022, and within 90 days of that date,
(ii) or who were terminated without cause as the
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass
layoff and/or plant closing ordered by Defendant
on or about July 22, 2022, (iii) who are affected
employees, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section
2101(a)(5), and (iv) who have not filed a timely
request to opt-out of the class;"
2. appointing Raisner Roupinian LLP as Class Counsel;
3. appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative;
4. approving the form and manner of Notice; and
5. and such further relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.
Until July 2022, the Defendant was a full-service acute care
facility that provided medical and healthcare services in Green
Valley, Arizona.
On July 22, 2022, the Defendant terminated on one day’s notice
its hospital staff of approximately 300 employees.
The Defendant had committed to keep them employed until August 20,
2022, and pay out their unused, earned paid time off (PTO) upon
termination, neither of which it did. Plaintiff then filed this
action to seek damage against the Defendant for failing to inform
the employees of their termination date 60 days in advance, as
required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
(WARN Act), and to pay the unpaid wages pursuant to the Arizona
Wage Act (AWA).
On August 11, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit
against Defendant, alleging that the mass layoff on July 22, 2022
was carried out without giving advance notice to the employees as
required by the WARN Act.
SCVRH is a full service hospital and medical campus providing
healthcare to the Santa Cruz Valley residents.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Yb7B0h at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cindy K. Schmidt, Esq.
WATERFALL ECONOMIDIS CALDWELL
HANSHAW & VILLAMANA , P.C.
5210 E. Williams Circle, Suite 800
Tucson, AZ 85711
Telephone: (520) 790-5828
Facsimile: (520) 745-1279
E-mail: cschmidt@waterfallattorneys.com
- and -
René S. Roupinian, Esq.
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
jar@raisnerroupinian.com
SIMPLY ORANGE: Faces Class Suit Over Drinks' Toxic PFAS Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH ASWELL of Scary Mommy reports that Simply Orange is facing a
lawsuit alleging its juice contains toxic PFAS levels. The
class-action lawsuit says the drink contains chemicals "hundreds of
times" over the federal limit.
Simply Orange juice might be less simple than they let on. The
popular drink, owned by parent company Coca-Cola, is facing a
class-action lawsuit that alleges the product contains dangerously
high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) -- toxic
chemicals that have been tied with a bevy of health issues.
The lawsuit is centered on the idea of false advertising: since the
bottle contains phrases like "all natural ingredients, " "simply
natural," "filtered water" and "nothing to hide," it's implying
that the product doesn't contain manmade toxic chemicals and that
the company actively filters out toxins.
"In reality, testing has revealed that the product contains [PFAS],
a category of synthetic chemicals that are, by definition, not
natural," the complaint writes.
While the lawsuit does not give specific numbers when it comes to
the PFAS contamination, it says that it is "hundreds of times" over
the federal limit.
PFAS are human-made chemicals used in a huge range of industrial
products, like plastics, cardboards, clothing, non-stick cookware,
and cleaning products. According to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), PFAS have difficulty leaving the body once
ingested and have been linked to weakened immune systems, higher
cholesterol, liver damage, and some types of cancer. They are known
as "forever chemicals," since they leave the body (or other
contaminated area, such as water source) extremely slowly.
Most humans are exposed to PFAS via eating food packaged in
materials that contain PFAS, eating fish or seafood in PFAS
contaminated water, or drinking contaminated water.
While it is unclear how Simply Orange juices are contaminated as
alleged, it's likely from the plastic packaging as opposed to
additives to the juice.
"As we get better and better able to measure PFAS at lower levels
and the FDA falls further behind on what it is testing … then
you're going to keep seeing these lawsuits pop up," Tom Neltner,
chemicals policy director with the Environmental Defense Fund, told
The Guardian.
While the federal government does regulate PFAS in a few key ways,
and while regulation has expanded greatly in recent decades, there
is still a long road ahead. Eighteen states currently have their
own PFAS regulations and 23 more have adopted policies that will go
into effect in the future. These policies set limits on PFAS use,
stop certain products from being manufactured with PFAS, and
prevent PFAS water contamination.
At the moment, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not
widely test foods for PFAS contamination. [GN]
SOTERA HEALTH: Oakland County Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
OAKLAND COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM; and OAKLAND COUNTY
VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEES'BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOTERA
HEALTH COMPANY; MICHAEL B. PETRAS, JR.; SCOTT J. LEFFLER; MICHAEL
F. BIEHL; MICHAEL P. RUTZ; KATHLEEN A.HOFFMAN; RUOXI CHEN; SEAN L.
CUNNINGHAM; DAVID A. DONNINI; STEPHANIE M. GEVEDA; ANN R. KLEE;
CONSTANTINE S. MIHAS; JAMES C. NEARY; VINCENT K. PETRELLA; WARBURG
PINCUS LLC; GTCR, LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; JEFFERIES LLC;
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; RBC CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS
INC.; CITIZENS CAPITAL MARKETS, INC.; ING FINANCIAL MARKETS LLC;
ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC.; LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; PENSERRA
SECURITIES LLC; SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC; and TIGRESS
FINANCIAL PARTNERS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00143 (N.D.
OH., Jan. 24, 2023) is an action brought on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Sotera common
stock: (i) pursuant and traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or around November 20, 2020 (the "IPO"); (ii)
pursuant and traceable to the Company's secondary public offering
conducted on or around March 18, 2021 (the "SPO," and together with
the IPO, the "Offerings"); and (iii) between November 20, 2020 and
September 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"),
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Offering Materials
issued in connection with the Offerings, and throughout the Class
Period, Sotera made numerous materially false and misleading
representations concerning its emissions control systems and
exposure to liability from lawsuits for the Company's failure to
limit harmful Ethylene Oxide ("EtO") emissions. The Company
represented that it had "a proactive [environmental, health and
safety] program and a culture of safety and quality." In addition,
Sotera stated that it employed adequate and effective safeguards to
control EtO emissions. Moreover, Sotera and its executives
vehemently denied allegations that the Company's EtO emissions from
its sterilization facilities caused cancer and other severe health
issues in people living in the communities near those facilities,
says the suit.
These and similar statements made throughout the Class Period were
false. In truth, Sotera and its senior executives and controlling
shareholders knew, or at a minimum, recklessly disregarded, that
for years the Company failed to employ effective emissions control
systems to prevent the release of excessive amounts of toxic EtO
gas from its sterilization facilities. Those deficiencies exposed
people living in the surrounding communities to a significantly
increased risk of cancer and subjected Sotera to an increased risk
of liability from hundreds of EtO-related lawsuits. As a result of
these misrepresentations, shares of Sotera stock traded at
artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. As a
result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's shares,
Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, the suit alleges.
SOTERA HEALTH COMPANY provides health care services. The Company
offers integrated health and sterilization services with the
scientific expertise of Nelson Labs, Nordion, and Sterigenics.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA
& GAROFOLI CO., LPA
55 Public Square Suite 1950
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 621-8484
Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
Email: sdsimp@climacolaw.com
- and -
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
Email: hannah@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ASTROM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
SOUTHERN COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-03647-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for
a two-week extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff Astrom's
motion to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate
notice to potential class members:
"all power plant workers of Southern who were paid at less
than time and a half for hours worked over 40 in a workweek
for the past three years."
On December 16, 2022, Southern filed two motions:
(a) a motion to compel arbitration of Astrom's claims
pursuant to the arbitration agreement he entered into
with Johnson Service Group; and
(b) a motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the
motion to compel.
The motions, which Astrom opposes, became fully briefed on
Wednesday, January 18, 2023 and were submitted to the presiding
judge the next day.
In its motion to stay, Southern argues that allowing proceedings to
move forward, before the motion to compel arbitration is
adjudicated, would risk a de facto waiver of Southern’s asserted
right to arbitration under Astrom's arbitration agreement, as well
as breach of the agreement's collective action waiver. Astrom, as
noted above, opposes the motion.
On Friday, January 13, 2023, two weeks after filing responses to
Southern’s motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.
Southern Company is an American gas and electric utility holding
company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HLGmUq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew M. McKinley, Esq.
Kevin M. Young, Esq.
Alex W. Simon, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
1075 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
Telephone: (404) 885-1500
E-mail: amckinley@seyfarth.com
kyoung@seyfarth.com
asimon@seyfarth.com
SWEETIE BOY: Parties Directed to File Joint Status Report
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYNIKA MUNN, et al. v.
SWEETIE BOY TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00512-REP (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order that the
parties shall file by May 15, 2023, a joint status report regarding
the status of the class certification proceedings.
Sweetie Boy is a Richmond Virginia based transportation and
logistics company. The company specializes in auto transport and
brokerage.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WSbLsB at no extra charge.[CC]
T-MOBILE US: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Baughman Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER BAUGHMAN, an individual, and on behalf of classes of
similarly situated individuals v. T-Mobile US, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00477-JAK-PLA (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2023) alleges that
Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in securing sensitive
personal information including without limitation, unencrypted and
unredacted name, contact and demographic information, and date of
birth ("personal identifiable information" or "PII").
The Plaintiff seeks damages for herself and other similarly
situated current and former student loan borrowers or any other
person(s) impacted in the data breach at issue ("Class Members"),
as well as other equitable relief, including, without limitation,
injunctive relief designed to protect the very sensitive
information of Plaintiff and other Class Members.
On January 20, 2023, Defendant notified the Plaintiff and Class
Members about a widespread data breach involving sensitive PII. The
number of individuals affected has been estimated to impact 37
million customers by the Defendant.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous actual and
concrete injuries as a direct result of the Data Breach, including:
(a) invasion of privacy;
(b) financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk
and imminent threat of identity theft;
(c) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating
the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft;
(d) financial costs incurred due to actual identity theft;
(e) loss of time incurred due to actual identity theft; and
(f) loss of time heeding Defendant's warnings and following its
instructions in the Notice Letter.
Plaintiff Baughman provided her personal information to the
Defendant and/or its affiliates in conjunction with product and
services she obtained.
T-Mobile US is a telecommunications company that provides wireless
voice, messaging, and data services along with mobile phones and
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
S. Mary Liu, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS &
OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main St, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Facsimile: (760) 304-8933
E-mail: mliu@awkolaw.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
lking@bradleygrombacher.com
T-MOBILE US: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Lynch Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH LYNCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. T-MOBILE US, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00052 (W.D. Mo., January 23, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract,
and invasion of privacy.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to exercise reasonable
care in securing its customers' personal identifiable information
(PII). On or about January 20, 2023, news became public that a
widespread data breach involving sensitive PII had occurred. The
Plaintiff and Class members have suffered numerous actual and
concrete injuries as a direct result of the data breach, including:
(a) invasion of privacy; (b) financial costs incurred mitigating
the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (c)
loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the
materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (d)
financial costs incurred due to actual identity theft; (e) loss of
time incurred due to actual identity theft; (g) the loss of benefit
of the bargain (price premium damages), to the extent Class members
paid the Defendant for services; (h) deprivation of value of their
PII; and (i) the continued risk to their PII, says the suit.
T-Mobile US, Inc. is a telecommunications company headquartered in
Bellevue, Washington and Overland Park, Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Eric D. Barton, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
Anthony C. Badami, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
ebarton@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
abadami@wcllp.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: VDC Seeks Leave to File Reply Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALUE DRUG COMPANY, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL INC., WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-03500-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting it leave to file under seal its Reply Appendix of
Exhibits in Support of renewed motion for class certification.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals is a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda
Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Japan's largest pharmaceutical.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dk3BCD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Kohn, Esq.
Joseph Lukens, Esq.
Bradley J. Demuth, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
1617 JFK Blvd, Suite 1550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 277-5770
E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
jlukens@faruqilaw.com
bdemuth@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
Dan Litvin, Esq.
Deborah Elman, Esq.
David B. Rochelson, Esq.
GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 398-0055
E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
dlitvin@garwingerstein.com
delman@garwingerstein.com
drochelson@garwingerstein.com
- and -
David F. Sorensen, Esq.
Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
ccoslett@bm.net
- and -
Susan Segura, Esq.
David C. Raphael, Esq.
Erin R. Leger, Esq.
SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL
LEGER LLP
221 Ansley Blvd.
Alexandria, LA 71303
Telephone: (318) 445-4480
E-mail: ssegura@ssrllp.com
draphael@ssrllp.com
eleger@ssrllp.com
- and -
Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
Andrew W. Kelly, Esq.
ODOM & DES ROCHES LLC
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 522-0077
E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com
akelly@odrlaw.com
- and -
Russell Chorush, Esq.
Christopher M. First, Esq.
William B. Collier, Jr., Esq.
HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP
1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 221-2000
E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com
cfirst@hpcllp.com
wcollier@hpcllp.com
TESLA INC: CEO Testifies in Class Action Trial Over 2018 Tweet
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tanisha Rajput of WION reports that Tesla CEO Elon Musk appeared in
a San Francisco federal courtroom in a trial over a 2018 tweet in
which he claimed to have "secured funding" to take Tesla private, a
tweet that shareholders allege cost them millions in trading
losses, and defended himself by saying that "just because I tweet
something does not mean people believe it or will act
accordingly".
Wearing a dark suit over a white button-down shirt, the billionaire
testified for less than 30 minutes before the court adjourned,
Guardian reported. Musk spoke softly and in bemused manner
sometimes, a contrast to his combative testimony in past trials.
Musk's testimony began with questions about his use of Twitter, the
microblogging site he bought in October and called it the most
democratic way to communicate while adding that his tweets did not
always affect Tesla stock the way he expected.
The class-action trial in San Francisco court centres on
allegations that Musk had lied when he tweeted, costing investors.
Earlier, investor Timothy Fries told the jury how he lost $5,000 by
buying Tesla stock after Musk's tweet.
Fries told the jury that funding secured meant to him that "there
had been some vetting, some critical review of those funding
sources".
Musk described the difficulties the company went through around the
time he sent the "funding secured" tweet, including bets by
short-sellers that the stock would fall.
"A bunch of sharks on Wall Street wanted Tesla to die, very badly,"
he said, describing short-sellers, who profit when a stock falls in
price.
Musk's attorney, Alex Spiro, told the jury that his client believed
he had financing from Saudi backers and was taking steps to make
the deal happen and had tried to protect the "shareholders" by
posting the tweet that had "technical inaccuracies".
A jury of nine will decide whether the tweet artificially inflated
Tesla's share price by playing up the status of the funding for the
deal and if so, by how much.[GN]
TIK TOK INC: Intrudes In-App Browser Users' Privacy, Albaran Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARITZA ALBARAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIK TOK INC. (f/k/a MUSICAL.LY, INC.), and
BYTEDANCE INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00486 (C.D. Cal.,
January 23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act, and the California Business & Professions Code, and for
common law invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action on behalf of all
persons who downloaded TikTok, a video-sharing social media app
that allows users to create and share short-form videos on any
topic. At issue here is TikTok's use of in-app website browsers,
which allow users to tap an embedded URL within the App.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and Class members, Defendants TikTok
Inc. and ByteDance Inc. invaded their privacy by utilizing in-app
browsers to intercept valuable information about the Plaintiff and
Class members without their consent. The Defendants' actions
constitute a clear violation of wiretap laws, intrude upon users'
right to privacy, and allow the Defendants to unjustly profit from
their unlawful activities, says the suit.
TikTok Inc., formerly known as Musical.ly, Inc., is a wholly owned
subsidiary of TikTok, LLC, with its principal place of business in
Culver City, California.
ByteDance Inc. is a technology company, with its principal place of
business in Mountain View, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
TRADER JOE'S: Dark Chocolate Contains Cadmium, Lead, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rome Ish-Hurwitz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Trader Joe's Company, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-0036 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 20, 2023) sues the Defendant for
failing to disclose the presence of cadmium and lead in its dark
chocolate products, including Trader Joe's Dark Chocolate (72%
Cacao) and Trader Joe's The Dark Chocolate Lover's Chocolate (85%
Cacao).
The Plaintiff seeks both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Class including requiring full disclosure of all
such substances on the Products' packaging and restoring monies to
the members of the proposed Class, who would not have purchased the
Products had they known they contained the Heavy Metals and would
not have paid premium prices for the Products had they known the
truth about the existence of Heavy Metals in the Products.
Lead is a carcinogen and lead exposure can seriously harm the brain
and nervous system in children and is associated with a range of
negative health outcomes such as behavioral problems, decreased
cognitive performance, delayed puberty, and reduced postnatal
growth. Cadmium, like lead, "displays a troubling ability to cause
harm at low levels of exposure."
In December 2022, Consumer Reports published a blockbuster report
detailing the prevalence of Heavy Metals in dark chocolate
products, including in Defendant's Products. The Tested Dark
Chocolate includes Defendant's 72% Cacao Dark Chocolate and The
Dark Chocolate Lover's Chocolate 85% Cacao. The Consumer Reports
Article noted that "while most of the chocolate bars in CR's tests
had concerning levels of lead, cadmium, or both, five of them were
relatively low in both" showing it is possible to make products
with lower amounts of heavy metals. Dark chocolate manufacturers,
such as Taza, are able to produce dark chocolate products with low
levels of lead and cadmium.
Plaintiff Ish-Hurwitz purchased Trader Joe's The Dark Chocolate
Lover's Chocolate Bar, 85% cacao at Defendant's stores located in
Northbrook and Chicago, Illinois. He purchased this Product at
least twice per month between 2018 and December 2022.
Trader Joe's is a privately held chain of specialty grocery
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
Nia-Imara Binns, Esq.
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON AND
MILLEN, LLC
2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
nbinns@fklmlaw.com
jjagher@fklmlaw.com
- and -
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com
DGeorge@4-Justice.com
BBrown@4-justice.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Esq.
Shashi Gowda, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
csmith@gustafsongluek.com
sgowda@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
TREY CAIN: Sake, et al., Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAKE TN, LLC, and SEANACHE
HOMES, INC., for themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
TREY CAIN, KALI CAIN, CAIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, TENNESSEE TITLE &
ESCROW AFFILIATES, LLC, KNOX VALLEY PARTNERS, LLC, MORRIS FAMILY
HOLDINGS, LLC, PATRICK MOSS, IRA INNOVATIONS, LLC, MARY M. WESTER,
individually and as Trustee of the Mary M. Wester Revocable Trust,
MIKE TODD, and ALYCIA WHITE as Executrix of the Estate of William
J. Gulas, Case No. 3:21-cv-00108 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order extending all remaining deadlines
pertaining to class certification:
a. The Plaintiffs to file Supplement to Motion to Certify on
or before March 9, 2023;
b. The Defendants to serve and/or file Supplemental Class
Expert Report on or before March 23, 2023; and
c. The Defendants' to file Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify on or before April 6, 2023.
On December 12, 2022, the Court granted the Parties' agreed third
joint motion to modify case management order and motion to reset
briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion to certify.
The Court set the following deadlines as it pertains to Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify:
a. The Plaintiffs' Supplement to Motion to Certify due on or
before January 23, 2023;
b. The Defendants' Supplemental Class Expert Report due on or
before February 6, 2023; and
c. The Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
due on or before February 20, 2023.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HDw5d6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Brad Scarbrough, Esq.
Gregory H. Oakley, Esq.
Brandon A. Carnes, Esq.
BUILDLAW, PLC
4300 Sidco Dr., Ste. 200
Nashville, Tennessee 37204
Telephone: (615) 369-9996
Facsimile: (615) 515-4491
E-mail: brad@build.law
greg@build.law
Brandon@build.law
TRUIST BANK: McKnight Suit Claims Improper Debt Collection Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TASHAUNA MCKNIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUIST BANK, successor by merger
to SunTrust Bank, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-000975 (Fla. Cir.
Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., January 24, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of sending
electronic mail communication to Florida consumers, including the
Plaintiff, between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in an attempt to collect
debt without obtaining customers' prior consent.
Truist Bank is a banking company based in Charlotte, North
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
UNILEVER UNITED: Antiperspirant Products Contain Benzene, Earl Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH EARL and JEANETTE ROCK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00360 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 20, 2023) is a class action lawsuit
regarding Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, and sale of
antiperspirant/deodorant and dry shampoo products sold under
various brands that contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a
carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other
cancers.
The Products at issue include:
(a) Suave 24-hour Protection Powder Aerosol Antiperspirant
(b) Dove Dry Shampoo Volume and Fullness
(c) Dove Dry Shampoo Fresh Coconut
(d) Nexxus Dry Shampoo Refreshing Mist
(e) TRESemmé Dry Shampoo Volumizing
(f) Bed Head Oh Bee Hive Dry Shampoo
(g) Bed Head Dirty Secret Dry Shampoo
Although the Defendant lists both active and inactive ingredients
on the Products' labels, benzene is not among those ingredients
listed. Thus, Defendant misrepresents that the Products do not
contain benzene, or otherwise Defendant fails to disclose that the
Products contain benzene. The presence of benzene in the Products
renders them adulterated and misbranded, and therefore illegal to
sell under both federal and state law, the Plaintiff contends.
Accordingly, the Defendant engaged in unfair conduct in violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
including but not limited to selling adulterated and misbranded
products in violation of the FDCA and Illinois Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act.
Ms. Earl has purchased multiple canisters of Defendant's Suave 24
Hour Protection Powder, Aerosol product from a Target store in
Illinois. Ms. Earl purchased the antiperspirant products for
personal use.
Ms. Rock has purchased multiple canisters of Defendant's Suave
Professionals Dry Shampoo Refresh and Revive product from a Walmart
store in Illinois. Ms. Rock purchased the dry shampoo products for
personal use.
Unilever manufactures personal care products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Respond to Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LEWIS, et al., v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02182-RCL
(D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
an extension of time, to and through March 27, 2023, to file their
initial response to Plaintiffs' amended complaint and the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and appoint lead counsel.
On July 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, bringing claims
for a writ of mandamus, ultra vires action, violations of the
Administrative Procedure Act, and a writ of habeas corpus against
Defendants.
On September 27, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
and a motion to certify the class and a motion to appoint lead
counsel.
The Defendants' response to the amended complaint and motions is
due on January 24, 2023.
The United States Parole Commission is the parole board responsible
for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole
releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its
jurisdiction.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40bwoTC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew M. Graves, Esq.
Brian P. Hudak, Esq.
Stephanie R. Johnson, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
601 D Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
E-mail: Stephanie.Johnson5@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Wiggins Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONOVAN WIGGINS, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Case No. 22-1459 (Fed. Cl.), Judge Carolyn N. Lerner of
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims grants the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and dismisses the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff is incarcerated at the David Wade Correctional
Facility in Louisiana. He alleges that he is "unconstitutionally
barred" from receiving Social Security payments pursuant to Section
402(x) of the Social Security Act, which limits such payments to
prisoners, certain other inmates of publicly funded institutions,
fugitives, probationers, and parolees.
The Plaintiff filed suit in the Court on Oct. 3, 2022. In his
Complaint, he alleges that Section 402(x) of the SSA unlawfully
deprived him of "old-age and/or survivors benefits." He claims that
Section 402(x) is facially unconstitutional as applied, and denies
him Social Security benefits without protections of Due Process or
Equal Protection by state law.
The Plaintiff also argues that his convictions are invalid and,
thus, should not trigger Section 402(x) restrictions. He seeks
relief including damages in the amount of $2 million, certification
of his case as a class action, appointment of class counsel, fees,
and costs.
Judge Lerner holds that the Court does not have jurisdiction over
the Plaintiff's claims under the SSA. She explains that Section
405(g) of the SSA grants exclusive jurisdiction over benefit
actions to the federal district court. The Court of Federal Claims
is not a United States district court.
The also lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's criminal claims.
Judge Lerner finds that the Plaintiff asserts that his alleged
convictions are preempted in Louisiana/Oregon. The Court is a court
of specific civil jurisdiction and has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate any claims whatsoever under the federal criminal code.
Jurisdiction is similarly lacking to entertain collateral attacks
on decisions of other courts.
Finally, Judge Lerner holds that transfer to a district court is
not an alternative. Nothing in the Complaint suggests that the
Plaintiff received a final determination from the Social Security
Administration. Absent such a determination, the transfer fails
under the second element: Section 405(g) requires exhaustion of
administrative remedies prior to filing in district court.
For these reasons, Judge Lerner dismisses the Complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. She grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. She
denies as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and
grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2453swte from Leagle.com.
Donovan Wiggins, Homer, LA, pro se.
Emma E. Bond, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for the Defendant.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Samson Files Renewed Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samson v. UnitedHealthCare
Services Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00175-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the
Plaintiff files a renewed motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff moves to certify two classes of persons who were
called on their cell phones using an artificial or prerecorded
voice by one of the UHC teams that called Plaintiff.
-- Wrong Number Class:
"All persons residing within the United States who, between
January 1, 2015 and the date of class certification,
received a non-emergency telephone call(s) from one of the
UnitedHealthcare teams that called Plaintiff Samson, to a
cellular phone through the use of an artificial or
prerecorded voice, and who, according to the Defendant's
records, was not a UnitedHealthcare
member at the time of the call."
-- Do-Not-Call Class:
"All persons residing within the United States who, between
January 1, 2015 and the date of class certification,
received a non-emergency telephone call(s) from one of the
UnitedHealthcare teams that called Plaintiff Samson, to a
cellular phone through the use of an artificial or
prerecorded voice, and whose telephone number, according to
Defendant's records, was flagged or documented as "do not
call," "final do not contact" or otherwise recorded as a
number not to be called.
This is a class action brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), against the Defendant UnitedHealthcare
Services, Inc. for its unlawful robocalling practices.
Like the Plaintiff Frantz Samson, tens of thousands of consumers
received numerous harassing and unwanted calls on their cell phones
from UHC even after UHC knew that it should not call them, did not
have consent to call them, or had the wrong number. Depositions of
key UHC witnesses revealed why this happened.
UnitedHealth is a health care and well-being company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 19,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wtO9Qg
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Amanda M. Steiner, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
asteiner@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.,
John Soumilas, Esq.,
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.,
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, 25th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
VERIZON CONNECT: Fails to Pay Sales Reps' OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RAMIREZ and JIMMY PIZARRO, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VERIZON CONNECT FLEET USA LLC, And
VERIZON CONNECT INC., d/b/a VERIZON CONNECT, Case No.
1:23-cv-00343-MLB (N.D. Ga., Jan. 23, 2023) seeks to recover
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act for Sales
Representatives.
The Defendants have allegedly failed to pay overtime wages to all
Inside Sales Representatives working under various job titles, some
self-created, others created by the company such as: Business
Development Representative, Business Development Manager, Account
Manager, Closer, Consultant, Fleet Manager, Development Manager,
Associate Sales Partner or Sales Partner, Specialist, Inside Sales
Representative and other interchangeable or related job titles, all
of which are now or were at one time, used to identify employees
working as non-exempt, YThrInside Sales Representatives.
The Defendants purchased Fleetmatics USA, LLC for $2.4 billion
dollars in 2016. It is not a mere coincidence that Verizon Connect
continues to subject employees to the same unlawful pay practices
that plagued Fleetmatics USA, LLC., and which resulted in a
settlement on November 3, 2016, in the case of Gillard, Stramiello
and Pate v. Fleetmatics USA LLC, Case no. 8:16-cv-00081, DE 70, in
the sum of $2,102,250.00.
The Defendants have continued with a scheme to avoid paying
overtime wages to all its ISR nationally, and thus save and steal
millions of dollars of wages owed to 1000 or more employees, but
instituting a De Facto policy discouraging employees against
reporting more than 40 hours of work per week and also
intentionally not putting in place an accurate and contemporaneous
time clock system. The Defendants absolutely know that Inside Sales
Representatives routinely worked overtime hours, as managers and
supervisors witnessed the extra hours, encouraged, and even
pressured Inside Sales Representatives to work as many hours as
possible to hit quotas and meet goals and performance metrics
called (KPI meaning key performance indicators), says the suit.
Moreover, Defendants never asked employees to leave after the shift
ended, never prohibited them from working prior to the shift time,
and witnessed and knew that employees, including the Plaintiffs,
routinely worked through some or all of the one hour provided meal
break as to which Defendants took an automatic one hour deduction
from the total work hours each day, regardless of whether Inside
Sales Representatives took such uninterrupted meal breaks or simply
worked throughout some or all of the times deducted and without any
means to report or claim this time, the suit alleges.
Mr. Ramirez worked for the Defendants as a Business Development
Representative, as a sales partner and/or in inside sales
representative since September 2019. Plaintiff Jimmy Pizarro was
hired by Defendants to work in the Tampa office on or about
December 2018 as a BDR.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
1201 Peachtree St. N.E., Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
VIESTE SPE: Bank Allowed Leave to File Reply to Opposition
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crossfirst Bank et al., v.
Vieste SPE LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01637-DLR (D. Ariz), the
Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order granting the the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file an omnibus reply to
the Defendants' responses in opposition to class certification and
for leave to exceed page limits.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y9qgcX at no extra charge.[CC]
WASHINGTON: Parties Seek Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMARIO RASHEED STERLING,
DAVID SHERWOOD JOHNSON, ELIZABETH ECKLUND, ROBERT ERICKSON, LAUREN
COLAS, ALEXANDER JUAREZ, and LORI ALEXANDER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAMI L. FEEK,
Commissioner, Washington State Employment Security Department, in
her individual capacity, and in her official capacity, Case No.
3:22-cv-05250−DGE (W.D. Wash.), the parties submit their
stipulated motion to extend the initial case deadlines related to
class certification for five months.
Event Current Case Proposed
Schedule Schedule
-- Deadline for joining Jan. 31, 2023 May 31, 2023
additional parties and
to amend pleadings:
-- Plaintiff's disclosure Feb. 14, 2023 July 14, 2023
of experts related to
class certification:
-- Defendant's disclosure March 14, 2023 Aug. 11, 2023
of experts related to
class certification:
-- Plaintiff's disclosure March 28, 2023 Aug. 11, 2023
of rebuttal experts
related to class
certification:
-- Deadline to complete April 11, 2023 Sept. 15, 2023
expert depositions
-- Plaintiff's motion for May 5, 2023 Oct. 6, 2023
class certification due:
-- Defendant's response to June 12, 2023 Nov. 3, 2023
Plaintiff's motion for
class certification due:
-- Plaintiff's reply due: June 23, 2023 Nov. 17, 2023
The parties have worked together diligently and cooperatively to
move the case forward and meet the case deadlines. The procedural
posture of the case has prevented the parties from engaging in full
discovery until recently.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j2XefZ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Walter M. Smith, Esq.
Steve E. Dietrich, Esq.
SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES PLLC
3905 Martin Way E, Suite F
Olympia, WA 98506
Telephone: (360) 915-6952
E-mail: walter@smithdietrich.com
steved@smithdietrich.com
- and -
Marc C. Cote, Esq.
Jillian Cutler, Esq.
Jack N. Miller, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
E-mail: mcote@frankfreed.com
jcutler@frankfreed.com
jmiller@frankfreed.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Randall Thomsen, Esq.
Timothy G. Leyh, Esq.
Ariel A. Martinez, Esq.
ARRIGAN LEYH FARMER &
THOMSEN LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 623-1700
Facsimile: (206) 623-8717
E-mail: timl@harriganleyh.com
randallt@harriganleyh.com
arielm@harriganleyh.com
YIELDSTREET INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TECKU, et al., v.
YieldStreet Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07327-VM-SDA (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs Michael Tecku, David Finkelstein, and Lawrence Tjok
submit the following unopposed/consent request to extend the
current deadline for filing their forthcoming motion for class
certification, and all opposition and reply briefing associated
with that Motion, for a period of two weeks as set forth below.
The current schedule for the filing of the Motion, Opposition, and
Reply is set out as follows:
-- Motion for Class Certification: February 3, 2023
-- Opposition to Motion for Class March 6, 2023
Certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Reply: March 28, 2023
The Plaintiffs request that the Court extend each of these
deadlines by a period of two (2) weeks, such that the new briefing
schedule for the Motion will be as follows:
-- Motion for Class Certification: February 17, 2023
-- Opposition to Motion for Class March 20, 2023
Certification:
-- Plaintiffs' Reply: April 11, 2023
Yieldstreet is an alternative investment platform focused on
generating income streams for investors.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40dNzUM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Peiffer, Esq.
Daniel Centner, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 523-2434
Facsimile: (504) 608-1465
E-mail: jpeiffer@peifferwolf.com
dcentner@peifferwolf.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***