/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230308.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 8, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 49 Headlines 116 WEST HOUSTON: Faces Worrapong Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. A.B. BAKERY RESTAURANT: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AG CONSULTING: Kovalez, et al., Seek Conditional Certification ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Loera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours AMERICAN MEDICAL: Rosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. APPLE INC: Robinson Suit Transferred to N.D. California ASCENSION HEALTH: Illinois Nurses File Wage Class Action ATC HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AUSTIN CARD: Hess Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Willner Suit Removed to C.D. California BIOSKIN LASER: Polanco Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BLACKSTONE LABS: Tabai Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages BOB'S DISCOUNT: Dixson Sues Over Discrimination on Disabled Persons BRAIDWOODS LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRIGHT HORIZONS: Rutter Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Indigenous Women Sterilizations CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Vickers Sues Over Deceptive Promises CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Hernandez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping CATALENT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 25 CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Caro Sues Over Massive Data Breach CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Unprotected Health Info CENTRIC HEALTH: Cordova Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHRISTMAS MOUSE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CIRCLES OF CARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach CREDIT COLLECTION: Lackey Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. CULTURAL ELEMENTS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CVS HEALTH CORPORATION: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota D.W.M. INTERNATIONAL: Wang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DABUR INTERNATIONAL: Rose Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois DARTMOUTH CO-OPERATIVE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DECKER AND SONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DEL MONTE FOODS: Bryan Sues Over Deceptive, Misleading Practices DLOCAL LIMITED: Zappia Sues Over Materially Misleading Documents DNC PARKS: Perez Class Cert Bid Reset to March 27 DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Wins Class Certification Bid DUNGARVIN OHIO: Second Joint Bid for Conditional Cert. OK'd EPIC LANDSCAPE: Gomez, et al., Seek FLSA Conditional Certification EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Torres Files Bid for Class Certification ETHEREUMMAX: Celebrities File Motion to Dismiss Fraud Class Action ETHOS GROUP: Fedorys Suit Consolidated with Gorman, Harper Suits EVOLUTION WELL: Settlement Agreement in Copley Gets Initial OK EXPERIAN INFO: Case Management Conference Scheduling Order Entered FALCONS MANAGEMENT: Ware Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages FIRST UNITED BANK: Kerrigan Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma FMA ALLIANCE: Genger Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection FRANK STRADA: Hart Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California FRUTH PHARMACY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FUTURE ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Illicit Activities GENERAL MOTORS: Preliminary Pretrial Order Modified in Riley GENESCO INC: Grajales Suit Removed to M.D. Florida GOOGLE LLC: Stellman Suit Transferred to S.D. New York GRAND CANYON: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Recommended GUNNAR OPTIKS: Gimenez Sues Over Defective Eyeglasses HANES BRANDS: Ramon Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina HEALTH & WELLNESS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HIGHMARK HEALTH: Waruszewski Sues Over Failure to Protect Data HIGHMARK INC: Marshall Sues Over Data Breach HOLIDAY INN CLUB: Lingard Sues Over Unlawful Timeshare Loans HONEST COMPANY: Sucharow Files Bid for Class Certification HOWARD MEMORIAL: Teague Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas HYUNDAI MOTOR: Filing Settlement Claims in Fires Suit Until July 7 IAVARONE ENTERPRISES: Puntaloro Sues Over Unpaid Compensations INMAR INC: Holmes Amended Bid to Certify Class OK'd INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Ulery Sues Over Unwanted Prerecorded Message INTERFACE INC: Court Vacates Steamfitters' Bid to Certify Class INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Pre-Motion Conference Class Cert. Sought ISLAND JAY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Lightoller Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping JILL-EST: Class Certification Scheduling Order Amended in Smith JMJ ENTERPRISES: Seeks to Decertify Wade Collective Action JOHN DEERE: DOJ Supports 'Right To Repair' Class Action Suit JOHN HANCOCK: Stipulation for Leave to File FAC OK'd in Kroetz JUUL LABS: Agrees to Settle E-Cigarette Class Suit for $438.5-Mil. KANSAS CITY TREE: Court Overrules Bid to Decertify as Untimely KENTECH CONSULTING: Abrogina Seeks to File Class Cert Exhibit KEURIG DR PEPPER: $10-M Recyclable Pod Settlement Granted Final OK KEURIG DR PEPPER: Verdin Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 1 KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought KNOX COUNTY: Court Disallows Class Certification in Day Suit KROGER CO: Class Certification Deadliness Amended in Womick Suit LABORATORY CORP: Supplementation of Record in Anderson Suit OK'd LEFT LEAD: Court OKs Boyll Bid to Certify Class LENOVO (UNITED STATES): Filing of Class Status Bid Extended LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court OKs Sealing of Class Cert Materials in TVPX LITIGATION PRACTICE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response LOREAL USA: Edwards Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois LOREAL USA: Wall Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois LUMIO INC: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Simons Files Suit in N.D. Illinois M & R PIZZA: Marquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages MAKER ECOSYSTEM: Black Thursday Class Suit Dismissed MANITOBA: Faces Class Suit Over Overcharge Photo Radar Tickets MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Robinson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification MATCO TOOLS: Munger Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII MCADOO'S SEAFOOD: Brixey Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Poppe RPNS Suit MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Shaffer v. Mattel MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Wray RPNS Suit MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Clayton v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Cohen v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Duranko v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Eisen v. Blackbaud MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Faszczewski v. Blackbaud MEC HOLDING: Sends Mass Automated Marketing Calls, Perez Claims MEDCAN HEALTH: Class Action Over Vacation, Holiday Pay Certified MEDILODGE GROUP: Witte Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Michigan META PLATFORM: Westport District Joins Youth Mental Health Suit MG BILLING: Class Certification Deadline Extended to Oct. 31 MI CASA: Pardini Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification MICKS IN COOPERSTOWN: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MIDDLESEX WATER: Scheduling Order Entered in Lonsk Class Suit MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Settles CRT Class Action Suit for $33-Mil. MUNDI 910 VICTORIA: Exclusion With Fire Class Action Until May 24 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class Cert Responses Due March 23 in Sweeney NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Sanchez Files Suit in C.D. California NESTLE WATERS: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Nov. 16 NEW HAMPSHIRE BOWL: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEW YORK, NY: Sow Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31 NEW YORK, NY: Yates Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31 NEWBURY COMICS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fisher Files Suit in N.D. Ohio NORTHPOINT SENIOR: Summers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NUMERADE LABS: Ghanaat Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Information ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Carroll Class Certification Gets Final OK OUR OWN CANDLE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York P.F. CHANG'S: Cookson Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. PANERA LLC: Ladonski Sues Over Deceptive and Untruthful Promises PARTNERS BANCORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Linkbancorp Sale PATREON INC: Court Dismisses in Part Stark's 1st Amended Complaint PEPSICO INC: Gumner Sues Over Unlawful Marketing PFLUG PACKAGING: Bahena Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PISA GROUP: Court Certifies TCPA Class Action Suit PRO CUSTOM: Ct. Adopts Recommendations to Certify Class in Murrell R&L CARRIERS: Seeks Denial of Class Certification in Johnson RAGAN & RAGAN: Class Action Settlement in Rubino Gets Final OK RCX LLC: Cline-Thomas Bid to Dismiss Class Action Tossed REALPAGE INC: Deadline Suspended to Respond to Complaint RELIANCE FIRST: Bid to Dismiss Davis Complaint Nixed RICE DRILLING: Court Resets Class Certification Hearing in J&R RIVERBEND OIL & GAS: Black Files Suit in N.D. Illinois SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mark Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Murray Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey SANTA MONICA, CA: Scheduling Order Entered in Murcia Class Suit SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Order Continuing Hearing Entered SCRANTON QUINCY HOSPITAL: Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fernandez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida SELECT PORTFOLIO: Scheduling Order Entered in Evans Class Suit SEQUOIA CAPITAL: O'Keefe Sues Over Cryptocurrency Exchange Fraud SETTON PISTACHIO: Judge Recommends Denial of Ali Class Cert. Bid SIG SAUER: Court Tosses Ortiz Bid for Class Certification SMUGGLER LLC: Costa FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California SOUTHERN COMPANY: Bid to Compel Astrom's Claims Granted SOUTHERN COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Drummond Suit SRG GLOBAL COATINGS: Peeler Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ST. JOHN KNITS: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Ostrovskaya ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Jones Complaint STATE FARM: M&M Rental Sues Over Underpaying Policyholders STONEWALL KITCHEN: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SUTTER HEALTH: Lockhart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SYNCHRONY BANK: Williams FCRA Suit Removed to D. Connecticut SYNGENTA CROP: Status Conference in Generic Class Suit Set April 6 TASTE INC: Jarrell Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages TASTY PALATE: Hsu Sues to Recover Unpaid Tips and Minimum Wages TAXACT INC: Smith-Washington Suit Removed to N.D. California TESLA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 28, 2023 TESLA INC: Shareholders File Class Action Over Autopilot Tech TJ INSPECTION: Cox Sues to Recover Unpaid Lost Wages TMONE LLC: Randolph Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation TOM VILSACK: Chen Files Suit in S.D. New York TOP QUALITY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York TRIAD HUNTER: Starcher Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia TRUGREEN LP: Motion to Strike TCPA Class Action Granted TWITTER INC: Weitzman Data Breach Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. UNITED PARCEL: Rietheimer Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo. UNITED STATES: $1.175-M Deal in Immigration Suit Granted Final OK UNITED STATES: Class Action Filed v. ICE Over Alleged Retaliation VITAMIN COTTAGE: Levine Seeks to Certify Class of Asst. Managers WALDORF ASTORIA: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Violations WALGREENS CO: Reaches $54.1-Bil. Prelim. Settlement in Opioid Suit WASHINGTON COUNTY, AL: Lang Files Bid for Class Certification WASHINGTON: Reaches Settlement for Youth in Foster Care WHITE CASTLE: Court Rules Claims Accrue Under BIPA in Cothron Suit YALE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Checks Sent to 6,000 Union Workers ZIPRECRUITER INC: Approval of Settlement Deal Pending ********* 116 WEST HOUSTON: Faces Worrapong Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- POONYA AUP PAPHAT WORRAPONG A/K/A PAUL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 116 WEST HOUSTON CHEFSCAPE NYC LLC (D/B/A THAIMEE LOVE) and HONG THAIMEE A/K/A NGAMPROM THAIMEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01432 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2023) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and the spread of hours and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Worrapong was employed as a cook and server at the Defendants' restaurant located in New York from approximately June 8, 2022 until on or about October 2, 2022. The Defendants own and operate a New York-based Thai restaurant under the name "Thaimee Love."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 A.B. BAKERY RESTAURANT: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Reyes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. A.B. BAKERY RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a JACQUELINE'S BAKERY RESTAURANT, R&R 1579 BAKERY CORP. d/b/a JACQUELINE'S LOUNGE, and REYNALDO BRAVO, Case No. 1:23-cv-01612 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2023), is brought pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to a fixed salary; unpaid spread of hours premium; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was not always paid the overtime premium of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for their hours worked in excess of forty per week due to an improper fixed salary as required under the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff regularly worked days that exceeded ten hours in length, but the Defendants unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members the spread of hours premium for workdays that exceeded ten hours in length. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the Plaintiff the proper overtime wages at a rate that is at least one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek due to paying a fixed salary in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a baker for the Defendants' Bakery. The Defendants own and operate a bakery and bar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 AG CONSULTING: Kovalez, et al., Seek Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVAN KOVALEV and MINTIWAB HILL, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly-Situated, v. A.G. CONSULTING ENGINEERING, P.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-05954-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for conditional certification and authorizing Plaintiffs to issue notice of this action to all field employees who worked for Defendant within the last 3 years. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated field employees were misclassified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), did not receive pay at a rate of time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week, and were not paid for off-the-clock work. The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification on behalf of all field employees who were paid on an hourly rate, and either did not receive overtime pay at time and a half, or received no compensation for hours worked off-the-clock. Once the Defendant has produced collective action members' names and contact information and notices have been issued, collective action members should have a 90-day window to return a signed opt-in consent form. Courts routinely approve a 90-day opt-in period. The Plaintiffs worked as field employees for Defendant A.G. Consulting Engineering. The Defendant is a professional engineering firm that employes over 60 employees providing services for federal, state, and city agencies and for the private sector. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J3Y4mN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com elechtzin@edelson-law.com - and - James A. Wells, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (717) 585-7823 E-mail: jayw@capozziadler.com ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Loera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours ---------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Loera, Jr. and Charlotte Daniels, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a political subdivision of the State of California, Case No. 4:23-cv-00792 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay Sheriff's Safety Aides assigned to work shifts at the Oakland International Airport, including the Plaintiffs, for all of their overtime hours worked. The Defendant has maintained a policy, plan, and/or practice of requiring Sheriff's Safety Aides to work uncompensated overtime. During the relevant time period, Defendant has required Sheriff's Safety Aides to arrive at a station at least 15 minutes before their scheduled shifts to perform job duties. The Defendant has also required Sheriff's Safety Aides to perform work after the end of their scheduled shifts. The Defendant's uniform policy, plan, and/or practice results in Sheriff's Safety Aides regularly working 30 minutes or more of uncompensated time per shift, which typically amounts to more than two-hours of uncompensated overtime per week per employee. The Defendant was aware, or should have been aware, that Plaintiffs and similarly situated Sheriff's Safety Aides performed work that required payment of overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Sheriff's Safety Aides for the Alameda County Sheriff's Office. County of Alameda is a government entity in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sharon R. Vinick, Esq. LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 318-7700 Fax: (510) 318-7701 Email: sharon@levyvinick.com - and - Rachel Terp, Esq. TERP LAW 2831 Telegraph Avenue Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: (510) 550-5103 Email: rachel@terplaw.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Rosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Medical Response of Inland, et al. The case is styled as Sharde Rosa, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. American Medical Response of Inland, American Medical Response of San Diego, Inc., American Medical Response of Southern California, American Medical Response West, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00335120-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 22, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." American Medical Response is America's leading provider of medical transportation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com APPLE INC: Robinson Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Barry Robinson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00877 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 22, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00795-NC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Harris Markowitz, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Jordan Scott Joachim, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING 620 8th Ave., 42nd Floor, #4204A New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 841-1086 Email: jjoachim@cov.com - and - Kathryn Cahoy, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306 Phone: (650) 632-4700 Email: kcahoy@cov.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Illinois Nurses File Wage Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Sydney Halleman, writing for HealthcareDive, reports that four Illinois nurses have filed a federal class action lawsuit against Ascension Health, alleging that the system failed to pay correct wage amounts while the defendants were employed at Ascension's Illinois-based Saint Joseph hospital. The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of Illinois, pointed to Ascension's cost-cutting practices more broadly, claiming that the Missouri-based nonprofit Catholic health system engages in "a variety of improper cost-cutting practices" in order to maximize its revenue and executive compensation, despite having $18 billion in cash reserves. The class action suit comes after The New York Times reported that Ascension had spent years cutting its staffing levels in an effort to trim costs before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dive Insight: The class action lawsuit, citing the NYT report, alleges that Ascension's "improper" cost-cutting measures, including cutting its nursing staff by 23% over the past five years, led to complex nurse payment structures as the health system attempted to incentivize nurses to "work longer hours to make up for the staff shortages." The lawsuit alleges that as a result the defendant nurses, all former and current employees at Joliet, Illinois-based Ascension Saint Joseph, experienced "regular and repeated" compensation errors, which Ascension did not contest but still failed to pay. The undercompensation is "systemic" and may have impacted "dozens, perhaps hundreds," of hospital employees, according to the lawsuit. Ascension failed to compensate one of the lawsuit's defendants, former interventional radiology nurse Desiree Lehr, over $2,000 in incentive shift pay, in addition to another $762.50 that was discovered during the course of the lawsuit investigation, according to the suit. Another defendant, a current psychiatric nurse at Ascension, has still failed to receive her contractually obligated raise intended to go into effect July 11, 2022, according to the suit. In a statement to Healthcare Dive, a spokesperson for Ascension said that the system recently became aware of the litigation and was looking into the issues raised. "We pride ourselves on paying every associate a fair wage," the spokesperson said. The federal lawsuit is the latest spotlight on the nation's hospitals, especially nonprofits, as systems reckon with dismal financial outlooks heading into this year. In September, the NYT reported another investigation, which found that one of the nation's largest healthcare systems, Providence Health, routinely pressured patients into paying their medical bills -- even if they were eligible for financial assistance. [GN] ATC HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ATC Healthcare Services, LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ATC Healthcare Services, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01531 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ATC Healthcare -- https://atchealthcare.com/ -- has provided leading nurses and healthcare professionals to hospitals and facilities nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com AUSTIN CARD: Hess Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Hess, and others similarly situated v. AUSTIN CARD ROOM, LLC, and RYAN CROW, Case No. 1:23-cv-00209 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees the appropriate overtime wages, minimum wage, and unlawfully retaining tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff and others similarly situated, occupied the position of "Card Dealer;" did not hold a position considered as exempt under the FLSA; were paid on an hourly basis; had tips retained by the Defendants; were paid below the then-current minimum wage; and, did not receive the appropriate overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week. The Defendants retained 12% of the tips earned by the Plaintiff and all other Card Dealers and distributed 5/6 of the retained tips to management and supervisors. The remaining 1/6 of the retained tips were split amongst other coworkers that were not dealing poker. Despite retaining a portion of dealers' tips, the Defendants claimed a tip credit. Such an arrangement is prohibited under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 21, 2019 to July 29, 2022 as a Card Dealer. The Defendants operate a card-room enterprise in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles L. Scalise, Esq. ROSS • SCALISE LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com BANK OF AMERICA: Willner Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cozette Willner, in her individual capacity, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, Early Warning Services, LLC DBA Zellepay.com, DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV01554 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01430 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The Bank of America Corporation -- http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered at the Bank of America Corporate Center in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Matthew D. Benedetto, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-5300 Fax: (213) 443-5400 Email: matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com BIOSKIN LASER: Polanco Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Viktoryia Polanco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIOSKIN LASER LLC and BIOSKIN LASER II LLC, and SANTA VAYNSHENKER, as an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-01525 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. Although Plaintiff regularly worked 60 hours or more hours each week, from July 2018 until March 2020, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Although Plaintiff returned July 2021 and worked until October 2021, the Plaintiff generally did not work in excess of 40 hours during this period. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an esthetician while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants. BIOSKIN LASER LLC and BIOSKIN LASER II LLC, are both New York domestic business corporations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 BLACKSTONE LABS: Tabai Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- Carolina Tabai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLACKSTONE LABS, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-002290 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act "FTSA"), as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text message marketing, The Defendant engages in unsolicited text message marketing, including to individuals who have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to those who have not provided Defendant with their prior express consent as required by the FTSA. Defendant's unsolicited text message spam caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion. Defendant's text messages also occupied storage space on Plaintiffs and the Class members' telephones. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class members and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received telephonic sales calls. The Defendant sells and distributes fitness supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Email: jen@jibraellaw.com BOB'S DISCOUNT: Dixson Sues Over Discrimination on Disabled Persons ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Dixson, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, BDF ACQUISITION CORP., Case No. 23STCV04099 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought on behalf of a Class of mobility impaired/wheelchair bound persons, alleging that the Defendants are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the anti-discrimination state statutes of California, Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act") and the California Disabled Persons Act ("CDPA"). On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff patronized the Bob's Furniture located at 16242 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA to purchase a Southwick Curio Cabinet and suffered discrimination as a result of being denied full and equal access. Specifically, this store denied Plaintiff equal access because it did not provide an accessible parking lot and/or restroom. First, Plaintiff was deterred from parking in a handicap-accessible parking space because the parking lot did not have an adequate number of accessible and/or van-accessible parking spaces, nor did the parking lot provide accessible parking signage and/or additional signs or language below the symbol of accessibility stating "minimum fine $250.00" so as to deter the use of handicap accessible parking spaces by those persons who are not disabled. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to park in a handicap accessible parking space. Once inside the store, Plaintiff was denied equal access to the store's restroom. Initially, Plaintiff was unable to access the restroom without assistance due to the excessive force required by him to open the restroom door, and because the restroom door closer is not adjusted to allow the bathroom door to remain open for at least 3 seconds, making it not possible for him to wheel himself inside, unassisted. Once inside restroom, Plaintiff was deterred from using the facilities because the toilet was situated such that Plaintiff was not afforded enough stall room space to maneuver his wheelchair and/or make transfer from his wheelchair to the toilet. As a result, Plaintiff was deterred from using the restroom. In an attempt to avoid litigation, the Plaintiff provided notice and the opportunity to cure to Defendants. On November 18, 2022, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the store manager of the 16242 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach Bob's Furniture location informing him/her that this store is not accessible to him for the above reasons, that he was aware of similar accessibility barriers at other Bob's Furniture locations, and asking that these problems be fixed within 30 days. Plaintiff did not seek any monies or statutory damages in his letter. Plaintiff received no response to his November 18, 2022, letter. As a result, he is now being deterred from patronizing all of Defendants' California locations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic and requires a wheelchair to move about and has visited and patronized Bob's Furniture stores within the State of California. The Defendants operate as many as 16 stores in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 BRAIDWOODS LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Braidwoods, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Braidwoods, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01472 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Braidwood LLC is a company that operates in the Management Consulting industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com BRIGHT HORIZONS: Rutter Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHELSEA RUTTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN'S CENTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-00002-19810-9-SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle on Feb. 21, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00233 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action to remedy Bright Horizons' widespread violations of Washington's protections against the use of noncompetition covenants, which keep Bright Horizons childcare workers trapped in their jobs, depress their wages, and rob them of an important source of bargaining power, asserts the complaint. Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc. provides private childcare, backup care, and early childhood education for children at various locations throughout the United States, including operating approximately thirty childcare centers in Washington.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Derek Bishop, Esq. Rebecca Schach, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: debishop@littler.com rschach@littler.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Indigenous Women Sterilizations ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit accuses the British Columbia government of "sexism and genocide" over a decades-long practice of coercing Indigenous women into sterilization and abortions. The lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court says the province had a law on the books sanctioning sterilizations for 40 years before it was repealed in 1973, though the procedures allegedly continued afterward. The notice of civil claim says the practice had a "traumatic and destructive effect" that inflicted harm on Indigenous women and their communities and was aimed at "eradicating" their culture. One lead plaintiff in the case says she was handed paperwork authorizing doctors to tie her tubes for no "valid medical reason" just moments before a caesarean section procedure in 1983 at a hospital in Campbell River. The woman, now in her 60s, says she was left traumatized and untrusting of doctors after being sterilized without proper consent, racked with guilt about the child "she might have had" if not for the procedure. The allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court and the province has yet to file a response to the claim. The case was prepared by a pair of law firms, Cooper Regal in Alberta, and Murphy Battista in B.C. In a statement announcing the lawsuit released shortly after filing, lead plaintiff Lorraine Davis said the case is about being heard after years of silence and holding the province accountable. "It's always difficult to speak truth to power but the province must acknowledge what happened to me and others," Davis said. "Never again can this be allowed to happen." Stephanie Roy, another lead plaintiff in the case, said the lawsuit is about "basic human rights" and the need for people to know their province's blighted history. For years and years, silence has hurt me and so many others. My unborn child was taken away from me, against my will," Roy said. "Now I am coming forward, to speak up." Lawyer Stephen Cooper said in the statement that the lawsuit highlights Canada's "oppressive colonial approach to the Indigenous population." "Forced and coerced sterilization and abortion is yet another shameful chapter in Canada's past attempts to subjugate and assimilate the First Peoples of this country," Cooper said. The class seeks certification by the court and damages for Charter violations. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 24, 2023. [GN] CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Vickers Sues Over Deceptive Promises ----------------------------------------------------------- Lachae Vickers, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01440 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought to seek actual damages, punitive damages, restitution, and an injunction to prevent Caesars Sportsbook from continuing to engage in their illegal practices of false and misleading representations and deceptive promises. Caesars Sportsbook has become an industry leader in part by making untruthful and deceptive promises to lure new bettors; specifically, by advertising that the company will provide new users with a $1,000 or $1,250 or even $5,000 "free bet," "risk-free bet," or a specified amount "on Caesars." But these promises are far from the truth: the bet is not in any respect "free" or without risk. The Plaintiff and other consumers would not have signed up for and made a so-called "free" or "risk-free" bet with Caesars Sportsbook in the absence of these deceptive promises. Large-scale marketing of Caesars Sportsbook by the Defendant, including in television and print advertisements, in-arena marketing, and extensive internet and social media advertising, are and have been led with the false "free bet," "risk-free bet" and a specified amount "on Caesars" promises. Those advertisements contain materially deceptive representations while omitting any warnings regarding the acute and immediate risk that an initial bet is not without risk and not, in fact, "free." Those representations and omissions, which Plaintiff relied upon, are false and misleading. These marketing representations and omissions violate state consumer protection law and violate the duty of care owed. Consumers, including Plaintiff, were fraudulently induced to place bets with Caesars Sportsbook because of its misrepresentations. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured by signing up for and using Caesars Sportsbook for so-called "free" or "risk-free" initial bets that actually cost them money. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of themself, and the putative Classes, because the Plaintiff should not be responsible for monetary losses incurred because of bets that were promised to be "risk free" and "free," says the complaint. The Plaintiff signed up for Caesars Sportsbook. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. is a gambling and entertainment company with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street N W, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com - and - Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: 305-975-3320 Email: adam@edelsberglaw.com CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Hernandez Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping -------------------------------------------------------------- Marilyn Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00520-ELH (D. Md., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought against Carnival for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.carnival.com, in violation of the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act and constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors. Carnival procures third-party vendors, such as Microsoft Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code") on Carnival's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic communications with the Carnival website, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time ("Website Communications"). These third-party vendors (collectively, "Session Replay Providers") create and deploy the Session Replay Code at Carnival's request. After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, Carnival and the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.carnival.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to Carnival for analysis. Carnival's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results is the electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the Carnival website for the entire duration of their website interaction. While visiting Carnival's website, Plaintiff fell victim to Defendant's unlawful monitoring, recording, and collection of Plaintiff's Website Communications with www.carnival.com. Unknown to Plaintiff, Carnival procures and embeds Session Replay Code on its website. During her visit to Carnival's website, the Session Replay Code instantaneously captured her Website Communications throughout her visit. Indeed, through Carnival's procurement of Session Replay Code, Plaintiff's Website Communications were automatically and secretly intercepted while using Carnival's website. Further, without her consent, Carnival procured Session Replay Providers to obtain certain information about her device, browser, and create a unique ID and profile for her. The Plaintiff and Class Members did not provide prior consent to Carnival's interception of their Website Communications, nor could they, as the interception begins immediately upon arriving at www.carnival.com. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of all Maryland citizens whose Website Communications were intercepted through Carnival's procurement and use of Session Replay Code embedded on www.carnival.com, as well as its subpages, and seeks all civil remedies provided under the causes of action, including but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has visited www.carnival.com and certain of its subpages on her computer while in Maryland. Carnival is a cruise line that offers cruise vacations throughout the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10034 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 111 W. Washington, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Email: katrina@lcllp.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: 610.234.6486 Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com CATALENT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that purchasers or acquirers of Catalent, Inc. (NYSE: CTLT) securities between August 30, 2021 and October 31, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until April 25, 2023 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Catalent class action lawsuit. Captioned City of Warwick Retirement System v. Catalent, Inc., No. 23-cv-01108 (D.N.J.), the Catalent class action lawsuit charges Catalent and certain of Catalent's current and former top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Catalent class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-catalent-inc-class-action-lawsuit-ctlt.html You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Catalent is a multinational corporation that manufactures and packages drugs into delivery devices fit for human consumption pursuant to long-term supply contracts with pharmaceutical companies. The Catalent class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Catalent materially overstated its revenue and earnings by prematurely recognizing revenue in violation of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (ii) Catalent had material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting related to revenue recognition; (iii) Catalent falsely represented demand for its products while it knowingly sold more products to its direct customers than could be sold to healthcare providers and end consumers; and (iv) Catalent disregarded regulatory rules at key production facilities in order to rapidly produce excess inventory that was used to pad Catalent's financial results through premature revenue recognition in violation of GAAP and/or stuffing its direct customers with excess inventory. On August 29, 2022, Catalent disclosed that demand for its COVID-related products was facing substantial headwinds. On this news, the price of Catalent's stock price declined more than 7%. Then, on September 20, 2022, the Washington Post reported that the release of COVID-19 vaccines produced by Catalent had been delayed by regulators because of improper sterilization at one of Catalent's key facilities. On this news, Catalent's stock price declined by more than 9%. Finally, on November 1, 2022, Catalent revealed that its quarterly earnings had declined to zero and Catalent lowered its financial guidance, indicating falling demand. Catalent also disclosed that regulatory issues at its key facilities were negatively impacting its financial results. On this news, Catalent stock declined by more than 31%, further damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired Catalent securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Catalent class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Catalent class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Catalent class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Catalent class action lawsuit. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors in 2021 - more than triple the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN] CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Caro Sues Over Massive Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Caro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01113 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought seeking to redress Defendant's unlawful and negligent disclosure of approximately 617,000 CentraState patients' Sensitive Information in a massive data breach that occurred on or before December 29, 2022 (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"), in violation of state statutory and common law. The Plaintiff and other Class Members are individuals whose Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Personal Health Information ("PHI"; collectively with PII, the "Personal Information")--including name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license number, financial account information, health insurance policy number, Medical Record Number, Medicaid or Medicare ID, and health information such as treatment and diagnostic information--was compromised due to the Defendant's failure to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect such information in the Defendant's custody and control. The Defendant's inadequate security measures allowed unauthorized individuals to access the Defendant's computer network and obtain a copy of the Plaintiff's and other Class Members' Personal Information. On February 8, 2023, CentraState announced that their patients' information was part of the Data Breach. The Defendant has a duty to safeguard and protect customer information entrusted to them and could have prevented this theft with adequate security measures. The Plaintiff and Class Members entrusted the Defendant with, and allowed the Defendant to gather, highly sensitive information relating to their health and other matters as part of seeking medical treatment. They did so in confidence, and they had the legitimate expectation that the Defendant would respect their privacy and act appropriately, including only sharing their information with vendors and business associates who were equipped to protect it. As a result of the Defendant's failure to protect the consumer information they were entrusted with safeguarding, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered a loss of the value of their Personal Information--and have been exposed to or are at imminent and significant risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and other identity-related fraud into the indefinite future. Defendant's intentional, willful, reckless, unfair, and negligent conduct--failing to prevent the breach, failing to limit its severity, and failing to detect it in a timely fashion--harmed the Plaintiff and Class Members uniformly, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received medical services from the Defendant and supplied the Defendant with her Personal Information as a precondition for receiving such care. CentraState, based in Freehold, New Jersey, is a private, not-for profit health organization established in 1971 that serves New Jersey patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 228-9898 Fax: 973-228-0303 Email: mrm@mazieslater.com - and - Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: 914-298-3284 Fax: 914-908-6722 Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Unprotected Health Info --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action accuses CentraState Healthcare System and Executive Director of Health Information Management and Privacy Officer Shaunna Ellison of failing to protect patients' personal data from a December 2022 cyberattack. According to the 46-page lawsuit, the computer system used by the New Jersey-based healthcare provider was infiltrated by an unauthorized third party on or around December 29, compromising the sensitive data of CentraState's patients and their families. The suit relays that the personal and medical information accessed in the data breach included, but is not limited to, patients' names, home addresses, dates of birth, telephone numbers, email addresses, demographic information, medical record numbers, patient account numbers and treatment details. The case charges that the highly sensitive data in CentraState's medical record systems was stored in a "vulnerable" and "dangerous condition," and that the cyberattack occurred as a result of the defendants' failure to implement adequate cybersecurity practices to protect it. What's more, the complaint claims that CentraState was well-aware of the threat of a ransomware attack given that the highly valuable nature of the information stored in its systems and prevalence of data breaches in the medical industry. The plaintiff, a Georgia resident and former patient, received notice on February 8, 2023, that her personal information had been compromised in the data breach, the filing says. CentraState's "reckless" and "wrongful" conduct and the resultant cyberattack have put the plaintiff and other victims at an "imminent, immediate and continuing . . . risk of identity theft, identity fraud and medical fraud," the case contends. The lawsuit looks to represent any current or former patients of CentraState, or any of its affiliates, who had their personal information compromised by an unknown third party as a result of the December 2022 data breach. [GN] CENTRIC HEALTH: Cordova Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centric Health. The case is styled as Tania Diane Cordova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Centric Health, Case No. BCV-23-100571 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 23, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Centric Health -- https://www.centrichealth.ie/ -- provides Primary Healthcare Services to over 550,000 patients across Ireland each year.[BN] CHRISTMAS MOUSE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Christmas Mouse, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Christmas Mouse, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01519 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Christmas Mouse -- https://www.christmasmouse.com/ -- offers Christmas ornaments, Christmas decorations and collectibles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CIRCLES OF CARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Circles of Care's Negligence to Blame for 2022 Data Breach, Class Action Claims. A class action lawsuit claims that Circle of Care's inadequate cybersecurity measures resulted in a cyberattack in September 2022 that affected about 61,170 patients. A proposed class action lawsuit claims that Circle of Care's inadequate cybersecurity measures resulted in a cyberattack in September 2022 that affected about 61,170 patients. The 45-page complaint says that the network servers of the prominent Florida-based behavioral health care provider were hacked by data thieves on September 6, resulting in the exposure of patients' personal information. Per the suit, patients' full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, home addresses, phone numbers, driver's license numbers, bank account details, medical account numbers, provider names, service dates, diagnoses and medical procedure codes were among the compromised data. In its privacy policy, Circles of Care recognizes its legal obligation to protect the personal data stored in its network and promises to do so with utmost care, the suit says. Despite these assurances, the health care organization failed to implement basic cybersecurity procedures and "ultimately allowed nefarious third-party hackers to breach [its] data servers," the case charges. As the filing contends, Circles of Care "opted to maintain an insufficient and inadequate [cybersecurity] system" in spite of the frequency of ransomware attacks in recent years, particularly within the healthcare industry. What's more, the defendant also purportedly failed to notify victims of the data breach until weeks after the incident, which only "magnified" the damages for those affected, the complaint claims. Per the suit, the plaintiffs, both Florida residents and former patients, received notice on December 29, 2022, that their personal information had been compromised in the data breach. As a result of the cyberattack, the plaintiffs now face an "imminent, immediate, and continuing risk of harm" from medical fraud, identity theft, and other illegal schemes for years to come, the case states. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who received a notice informing them that their personal information had been exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of Circles of Care's September 2022 data breach. [GN] CREDIT COLLECTION: Lackey Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Collection Services. The case is styled as Kaila Lackey, on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated v. Credit Collection Services, Case No. 2382CV00183 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cty., Feb. 23, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Torts. Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a nationally licensed provider of customized, performance-driven receivables management services that was founded in 1989.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Easley Apostola, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 660 Broadway Patterson, NJ 07514 CULTURAL ELEMENTS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cultural Elements, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cultural Elements, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01476 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cultural Elements -- https://www.culturalelements.com/ -- produce and offer culturally inspired jewelry and decoration items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com CVS HEALTH CORPORATION: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health Corporation. The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Health Corporation, Case No. 0:23-cv-00442-PAM-DTS (D. Minn., Feb. 22, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CVS Health Corporation -- https://www.cvshealth.com/ -- is an American healthcare company that owns CVS Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain; CVS Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager; and Aetna, a health insurance provider, among many other brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC One Central Avenue West, Suite 203 St. Michael, MN 55376 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Fax: (763) 226-2515 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com - and - Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET & MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE LLC One Central Avenue West, Suite 101 St. Michael, MN 55330 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com D.W.M. INTERNATIONAL: Wang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Quanbin Wang, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. D.W.M. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION d/b/a Friendship BBQ; WEIMING DU a/k/a Wei Ming Du, and HONG YAN ZHANG a/k/a Hongyan Zhang, Case No. 8:23-cv-00491-AAQ (D. Md., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought to recover from the Defendants overtime wages, liquidated damages, and/or attorneys' fees and costs, for violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWCPL") and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL") arising from the Defendants various willful, malicious, and unlawful policies, patterns and/or practices. The Defendants did not keep any records of the Plaintiff's working time. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment he was paid a flat compensation of four thousand two hundred dollars per month. The Plaintiff flat compensation did not include pay for any hours worked in a week beyond the 40th hour. The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff a wage state statement with each payment of wages listing the following: the dates of work covered by that payment of wages; his name; his employer's name, address, and telephone number; his regular and overtime rates of pay and the bases thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other; her gross wages; any deductions from her wages; any allowances claimed as part of the minimum wage; and his net wages. The Defendants committed the foregoing acts knowingly, intentionally, willfully and maliciously against the Plaintiff, the collective and the class, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from about December 10, 2019 to July 18, 2021 to work as a Fry Wok at Defendants business known as "Friendship BBQ." DWM International Corporation is a domestic business corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 DABUR INTERNATIONAL: Rose Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carla G. Rose, Dollie Dillon, Theresa L. Baldwin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Dabur International Ltd., Namaste Laboratories LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02686 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 22, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01051 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. Dabur International Limited -- https://www.daburinternational.com/ -- was founded in 2003. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of soap and other detergents.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hannah Pfeifler, Esq. Jennifer Hoekstra, Esq. Ephraim S. Geisler, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: HPfeifler@awkolaw.com JHoekstra@awkolaw.com sgeisler@awkolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Donna M. Welch, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2000 Email: dwelch@kirkland.com DARTMOUTH CO-OPERATIVE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dartmouth Co-operative Society, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dartmouth Co-operative Society, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01568 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dartmouth Co-operative Society, Inc. -- https://www.dartmouthcoop.com/ -- is the premier Dartmouth College gear store with all the best spirit wear and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com DECKER AND SONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Decker and Sons, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Decker and Sons, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01574 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Decker and Sons, Inc. -- https://www.deckersons.com/ -- is a locally owned appliance & electronics retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com DEL MONTE FOODS: Bryan Sues Over Deceptive, Misleading Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kerstine Bryan, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Del Monte Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00865-KAW (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading practices with respect to its marketing and sale of its food products (collectively, the "Product" or "Products"). Despite the representations made on the Products' labels which lead reasonable consumers to believe that the Products are "natural," they are not. The brand has grown significantly, and this growth was not by accident. Rather, it developed from specifically targeting the "natural" market with intense focus. Defendant's marketing efforts stress the purported "natural" composition of their Products. Notably, the principal display panel of all of the Products states that the Products are "Naturals." The word "Naturals" is a representation to a reasonable consumer that the Product contains only natural ingredients. This represents that the Product is "natural" to consumers. Reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, interpret "natural" to mean that the product does not include synthetic ingredients. Despite this representation, the Products are not natural because they include multiple synthetic ingredients. Specifically, the Products contain the following synthetic ingredients: Citric Acid, Sodium Benzoate, Potassium Sorbate, and Methylcellulose Gum. The Plaintiff relied on Defendant's misrepresentations that the Products are "natural" when purchasing the Products. Reasonable consumers purchased the Products believing, among other things, that they were accurately represented. Specifically, reasonable consumers believed that the Products contained accurate label information and representations. Reasonable consumers would not have purchased the Products if they had known about the misrepresentations or would have purchased them on different terms, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Oregon who purchased the Products. The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells its Products throughout the United States including the States of Oregon and California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq. GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP 2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (310) 274-4663 Email: jrg@ggallp.com - and - Amir Shenaq, Esq. SHENAQ PC 3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500 Atlanta GA 30326 Phone: (888) 909-9993 Email: amir@shenaqpc.com - and - Steffan T. Keeton, Esq. THE KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S Commons, Ste 102 Pittsburgh PA 15212 Phone: (888) 412-5291 Email: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com DLOCAL LIMITED: Zappia Sues Over Materially Misleading Documents ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Zappia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DLOCAL LIMITED, SEBASTIAN KANOVICH, DIEGO CABRERA CANAY, ALBERTO EDUARDO AZAR, ANDRES BZUROVSKI BAY, SERGIO ENRIQUE FOGEL KAPLAN, JACOBO SINGER, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, CITI GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., and UBS, Case No. 151778/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired DLocal securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about June 22, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), arising from DLocal's materially misleading Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO. On May 5, 2021, DLocal filed a registration statement on Form F-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after amendment, was declared effective on June 2, 2021 (the "Registration Statement"). On June 4, 2021, DLocal filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). On that same day, DLocal conducted the IPO pursuant to the Offering Documents, issuing 29,411,765 Class A common shares of the Company's securities to the public at the Offering price of $21.00 per share, of which approximately $87,088,241 went to the Company as proceeds before expenses and after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions. The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, the Offering Documents were false or misleading or failed to disclose that: DLocal was misrepresenting its Total Processing Volume ("TPV"); and DLocal misrepresented its foreign currency receivables, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired DLocal securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents. DLocal purports to be an online payments manager in emerging markets facilitating currency conversions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com - and - Joshua E. Fruchter WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G Monsey, NY 10952 Phone: 866-833-6245 Email: ifruchter@wohlfruchter.com DNC PARKS: Perez Class Cert Bid Reset to March 27 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perez v. DNC Parks & Resorts at Asilomar, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00484 (E.D. Cal., Filed April 12, 2019), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone entered an order resetting motion to certify class for March 27, 2023 at 1:30 PM, to April 5 2023 at 10:00 AM. The nature of suit states labor litigation.[CC] DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Wins Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelli Salazar, et al., v. Driver Provider Phoenix LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05760-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Class certification be granted on Claim III of the Fourth Amended Complaint, violation of the Arizona Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), and denied without prejudice as moot on Claim II of the Fourth Amended Complaint in violation of the Arizona Wage Act ("AWA"). The Court further ordered: (a) The Rule 23 Count III Claim is hereby certified as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) with respect to the following class: "All current and former employees of The Driver Provider who performed chauffeur services in Arizona at any time from December 6, 2016 to the present." Excluded from the class are all owners, managers, supervisors, dispatchers, or other employees whose primary job responsibilities were not the provision of chauffeur services. (b) The named Plaintiffs are appointed class representatives for purposes of the Rule 23 Class claims alleged in Count III of the Fourth Amended Complaint. (c) The law firm of Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. is appointed Class Counsel for purposes of the Rule 23 Class claims alleged in Count III of the Fourth Amended Complaint. (d) Within 14 days after entry of this Order, the Defendants shall provide the Plaintiff's Counsel with a list of all current and former employees and workers as described by Paragraph (a) that includes the names, position(s) held, employment dates, employment location(s), the entity for whom the employee worked or works, the last known address, e-mail address, telephone number(s) (home and cell, if applicable), date of birth, and social security number (the "Rule 23 List"). The Court finds that Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. has the necessary experience in employment, wage and hour, and class action litigation to represent this class, has committed the necessary resources to this litigation, and has sufficiently demonstrated their capability to understand the law and claims at hand. The Court thus certifies Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. as Class Counsel. Driver Provider is a car rental company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KM8BEu at no extra charge.[CC] DUNGARVIN OHIO: Second Joint Bid for Conditional Cert. OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 granting the second joint motion for conditional certification and to approve the Parties' proposed notice and consent. The Court hereby conditionally certifies the following collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All Ohio current and former hourly Direct Support Professional ("DSP") employees (including those with different titles whose primary job function was to perform DSP duties) of Dungarvin Ohio, LLC (including anyone who allegedly was employed by another Dungarvin entity) who (i) worked in Ohio; (ii) were paid for 40 or more hours of work in any workweek since February 1, 2020; and (iii) traveled to multiple clients' homes within the same day during such workweek(s) ("Potential Opt-Ins"). The Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs' counsel a list (in Microsoft Office Excel format) containing the names, last known addresses (including zip code), cellular telephone numbers, and personal email addresses (to the extent that the Defendants have email addresses) of/for the Potential Opt-Ins within 14 days of the date of this Order. Dungarvin Ohio provides a variety of supports to children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L06gWT at no extra charge.[CC] EPIC LANDSCAPE: Gomez, et al., Seek FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE GONZALEZ GOMEZ, On behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. EPIC LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., Case No. 2:22-cv-02198-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying a class, composed of: "all current and former lawn and landscape workers, who worked for the Defendants at any time from three years and 120 days from the date of the Court's Order certifying the action to the Present;" 2. Requiring the expedited issuance of the notice form as set forth in Exhibit D to those class members, and setting a deadline of 90 days after the date of the Court's Order granting certification, for which putative class members can join this matter; 3. Requiring the Defendants to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel a list both electronically (in an Excel spreadsheet with each item of the employee's name and address designated as a separate field) and by hard copy, of all individuals who meet the above class description, including their current or last known address, phone number, and e-mail address, within 15 days of the issuance of the order; 4. Requiring the Defendants to post notices and opt-in forms at time clocks, and other conspicuous locations (such as bulletin boards or bulletin boards where job notices are posted) at Defendants' locations for a period of 90 days where employees can see such notices; 5. Tolling the statute of limitations period for the putative class members from the date of filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification until the close of the opt-in period; 6. Designating Plaintiffs Jose Gonzales Gomez as class representative for the collective class; 7. Approving Plaintiffs' counsel to act as class counsel in this matter; and 8. Granting such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. This is not a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather, this Motion is brought pursuant to the collective action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), EPIC Landscape Productions specializes in designing and building creative, functional and fabulous landscapes. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z8NOiN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3609 SW Pryor Rd. Lee's Summit, MO 64082 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com - and - Timothy R. West, Esq. BERTRAM & GRAF, L.L.C. 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1925 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 523-2205 Facsimile: (816) 523-8258 E-mail: tim@bertramgraf.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Torres Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O., Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02056-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to certify the action as a class action. Equifax provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZexrRP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren Kw Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW , LLC 660 Broadway Paterson, NJ 07514 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 Facsimile: (973) 282-8603 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com ETHEREUMMAX: Celebrities File Motion to Dismiss Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wahid Pessarlay, writing for Coingeek, reports that a number of celebrities identified in promoting failed digital currency project EthereumMax (EMAX) has asked the court to dismiss the suit from disgruntled investors. The celebrities, led by reality TV star Kim Kardashian and boxing legend Floyd Mayweather, argued that the class action lawsuit filed against them portrays the "same basic theory" that the courts have already struck out. In 2022, the court dismissed an initial lawsuit on the grounds that the celebrities' actions in advertising the tokens did not amount to a pump-and-dump scheme. "The Court otherwise dismissed the prior complaint in full due to fundamental flaws. The addition of new claims, Defendants, and over 100 pages of largely irrelevant allegations does not cure the defects," the defendant's filing read. The plaintiffs argue in their updated filing that the celebrities promoting the project influenced them to buy EMAX tokens. In their defense, the defendants claim that aside from pushing an already rejected basic theory, the EMAX investors "suffered no injury from merely holding onto the tokens." Other points from the defendants include an argument that the plaintiff's claims are barred because they relied on state consumer laws and an argument that the plaintiffs cannot prove that the defendant's action caused a fall in EMAX tokens. The filing goes on to poke holes in the plaintiff's move to advance a "guilty-by-social-acquaintance theory" and its decision to add "irrelevant and boilerplate allegations." In October 2022, Kardashian reached a $1.26 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for failing to disclose that she was paid $250,000 to promote the Ethereum Max project on Instagram. SEC sends strong warning note to celebrities shilling digital currencies On February 17, SEC Chair Gary Gensler issued a strongly worded warning to influencers and celebrities promoting digital currencies to properly disclose the amounts they received to make the promotions. "The federal securities laws are clear that any celebrity or other individual who promotes a crypto asset security must disclose the nature, source, and amount of compensation they received in exchange for the promotion," Gurbir Grewal, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said. Grewal stated that the requirement is to allow investors to decide whether or not the security promoter is unbiased. At the moment, the SEC is pursuing enforcement action against NBA Hall of Famer Paul Pierce for his role in promoting EMAX tokens. [GN] ETHOS GROUP: Fedorys Suit Consolidated with Gorman, Harper Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL FEDORYS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ETHOS GROUP INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02573-M (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn entered an order granting consolidation and appointing Interim Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel. Movant requests that the Fedorys action be consolidated with two other cases also pending before this Court, Gorman v. Ethos Group Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-2898, and Harper v. Ethos Group Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00184 (together, along with Case No. 3:22-cv-2573, the "Related Cases"). The certificate of conference attached to the Motion for Order Granting Consolidation indicates that Defendant Ethos Group Inc. is not opposed to consolidation. The Plaintiffs in Gorman and Harper have each filed a status report in their respective cases, indicating their agreement that consolidation of the related actions is appropriate as each action arises out of the same factual allegations concerning Defendant Ethos Group Inc.'s alleged failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information of consumers and each seeks relief on behalf of overlapping class definitions. In light of the parties' agreement, the Court concludes that the Related Cases present common questions of law and fact for determination, and are appropriate for consolidation for all purposes including trial. Accordingly, it is therefore ordered that Case Nos. 3:22-cv-2573-M, 3:22-cv-02898-M, and 3:23-cv-184-M are consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) All pleadings, motions, and other papers will be filed in Fedorys v. Ethos Group Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-2573, and bear only the caption of Case No. 3:22-cv-02573, along with the legend "(Consolidated with Civil Action Nos. 3:22-cv-02898-M and 3:23-cv-184-M)." Movant further requests that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), the Court appoint Scott Edward Cole of Cole & Van Note as Interim Lead Counsel and Debbie Branscum as Liaison Counsel. By March 7, 2023, Plaintiffs in Gorman and Harper shall respond to Movant's request for appointment of interim class counsel, including discussing whether the appointment of interim class counsel prior to class certification is appropriate, and if so, whether the Court should consider other applicants for appointment. Within 21 days after the Court resolves Movant's request for appointment of interim class counsel, the Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated class action complaint. Thge Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated class action complaint within 21 days after being served with the consolidated complaint. Ethos Group provides franchised automotive dealerships. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IDxekd at no extra charge.[CC] EVOLUTION WELL: Settlement Agreement in Copley Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN COPLEY, PAT MCGEENEY, JOE TILLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EVOLUTION WELL SERVICES OPERATING, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01442-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement; 2. certifying, for settlement purposes only and pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Pennsylvania Class and the Ohio Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), and approving final certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C.section 216(b); 3. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; 4. appointing the Plaintiffs' Counsel, Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr. and Elizabeth Pollock-Avery of Lynch Carpenter LLP, as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23; 5. approving the form and manner of Notice to be provided to the Settlement Class; 6. setting a deadline to opt-out/object of 60 days after dissemination of Class Notice; and 7. setting a date for a Final Approval Hearing no sooner than 120 days after entry of a Preliminary Approval Order. The Court will now address provisional certification of the settlement class. The Plaintiffs define two classes -- a Pennsylvania class and an Ohio class—as follows: Ohio Class: All current and former rotational, non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendant, and who worked for Defendant in the State of Ohio on or after August 26, 2018 and who have not opted-out of the Settlement, pursuant to Ohio state wage and hour laws. Pennsylvania Class: All current and former rotational, non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendant, and who worked for Defendant in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on or after February 1, 2019 and who have not opted-out of the Settlement, pursuant to Pennsylvania state wage and hour laws. In this case, there is a bona fide dispute as to whether FLSA collective members were entitled to the time spent traveling from their homes to remote work location and from employer-sponsored housing to their daily work sites. In addition, the settlement amount, which constitutes approximately 80% of the alleged damages, is fair and reasonable. Finally, the court finds that the requested attorney's fees are reasonable, given that counsel is seeking 33% of the settlement fund, which is 67% of their lodestar and, under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), attorney's fees are mandatory in FLSA cases In brief, the Plaintiffs filed their operative Second Amended Complaint on February 24, 2021, naming as defendants Evolution Well Services, LLC and Evolution Well Services Operating, LLC. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KCg8ph at no extra charge.[CC] EXPERIAN INFO: Case Management Conference Scheduling Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY BOYCE-LAZARE, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03752-ALC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a order scheduling initial case management conference: -- 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. -- It appearing to the Court that no initial case management conference has yet taken place in this action, it is hereby ordered that an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. will be held on April 25, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. -- The Court further ordered that counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) no later than 21 days prior to the initial case management conference. No later than one week (seven calendar days) prior to the conference, the parties shall file a Pre- Conference Statement, signed by counsel for all parties. Experian operates as an information services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YercMH at no extra charge.[CC] FALCONS MANAGEMENT: Ware Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Ware, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. FALCONS MANAGEMENT GEORGIA, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00302-CB (W.D. Pa., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought challenging policies and practices of the Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") by failing to pay minimum wages. The Defendant paid its servers the tipped minimum wage and utilized the tip credit available under federal and state law to meet its obligation to pay servers the mandatory minimum wage. However, the Defendant did not satisfy the strict requirements under the FLSA or Pennsylvania law that would allow it to take a tip credit. Defendant also maintained a policy and practice whereby servers were required to spend a substantial amount of time, more than 20 percent of the time or for a continuous period of time exceeding 30 minutes, performing non-tip producing side work related to the servers' tipped occupation. By engaging in these unlawful practices, Defendant lost all or part of its right to claim any tip credit toward its obligation to pay Representative Plaintiff and those similarly situated the minimum wages required by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by as a server at the Defendant's TGIF restaurant. The Defendant owns and operates a chain of TGI Fridays restaurants in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St NW, Ste. B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Fax: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 East 9th Street, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: 330-754-1430 Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com FIRST UNITED BANK: Kerrigan Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First United Bank & Trust Company. The case is styled as Bradley Kerrigan, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated v. First United Bank & Trust Company, Case No. 6:23-cv-00071-JAR (E.D. Okla., Feb. 24, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. First United Bank is a progressive and innovative community banking organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Waller, Esq. WALLER JORGENSON, PLLC 401 S Boston Ave, Ste 500 Tulsa, OK 74103 Phone: (918) 582-1734 Fax: (918) 582-1780 Email: mwaller@wjwattorneys.com FMA ALLIANCE: Genger Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------- Yehuda Genger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FMA ALLIANCE, LTD., Case No. 505749/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA" or "Act") as a result of the Defendant's use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. Some time prior to January 10, 2023, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt to non-party Citibank N.A. ("Citibank"). Citibank is a "creditor." Citibank contracted with the Defendant for the purposes of debt collection. Therefore, Defendant is a "debt collector." On January 10, 2023, Defendant sent the Plaintiff an initial collection letter ("the Letter"). The Letter provides multiple addresses where the Defendant will allegedly receive correspondence. The bottom of the first page of the Letter includes an address in the left corner which includes an address of DEPT 287 5544807223012, PO Box 4115, Concord, CA 94524. The presentation of that address, immediately over the Plaintiff's name and home address, creates the appearance that the same represents a return address. Near that address, also on the bottom of the same page, there is an address listed as follows: CITIBANK, N.A., PO Box 369, Houston, Texas 77001-0369. This, alone, is misleading for the least sophisticated consumer because the address is listed as being for the original creditor, Citibank, rather than the Defendant, who actually sent the Letter and is statutorily required to respond to any dispute. Finally, in the top left corner of the Letter, a third address is listed as FMA Alliance, Ltd., 12339 Cutten Road, Houston, Texas 77066. In addition to listing three separate addresses on a single correspondence, the Letter also provides an address for the original creditor Citibank as the entity to mail the payment coupon to, despite the letter being mailed by the Defendant. As such, the least sophisticated consumer would be confused as to why the bottom address identifies the original creditor as the recipient, but the Letter states that the dispute is to be made with the Defendant. Additionally, in the body of the Letter, Defendant states that it will accept the Plaintiff's dispute either on the forms attached or via a separate written communication. However, Defendant wholly fails to identify which address such a dispute should be sent to. Plaintiff therefore did not know how to properly dispute the debt and exercise his rights under the FDCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings. FMA Alliance, Ltd. is a "debt collector."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Yusko, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com FRANK STRADA: Hart Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frank Strada. The case is styled as Curtis Daniel Hart, all other inmates similarly situated in the T.D.O.C. v. Frank Strada, Commissioner of T.D.O.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-00009 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Frank Strada was appointed Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction by Governor Bill Lee effective January 9, 2023.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Irene Gonzalez, Francine McGivern, Sheldon Schlesinger, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center, Case No. 22CECG03762 was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00280-EPG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Fresno Community Hospital & Medical Center provides medical and surgical hospital services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mike Montalban Arias, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. Michael Anthony Jenkins, Esq. Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: (310) 844-9696 Fax: (310) 861-0168 Email: mike@aswtlawyers.com arnold@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Teresa Carey Chow, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Phone: (310) 820-8800 Fax: (310) 820-8859 Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com - and - Alexander Vitruk, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 3rd Ave, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 566-7092 Email: avitruk@bakerlaw.com FRUTH PHARMACY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fruth Pharmacy, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fruth Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01478 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fruth Pharmacy -- https://fruthpharmacy.com/ -- offers all the services of large chain drug stores while maintaining principles that make Fruth "Your Hometown, Family Pharmacy."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com FUTURE ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Illicit Activities ------------------------------------------------------------ Lillian Roy of CTVNewsMontreal reports that a proposed suit targets Future Electronics Inc., claiming its employees were involved in "the commission of his illicit activities," according to the application. "What we find is that several of their employees were involved, who then also were promoted throughout the ranks of Future Electronics," Consumer Law Group founder Jeff Orenstein told CTV News in an interview. "We believe that there is vicarious liability for the corporation." Orenstein said the complex nature of Miller's assets also contributed to the decision to file against the tech company. "Just during the research, we found that his personal house is not owned by himself. It's owned by a corporation of which the shareholders are not disclosed," Orenstein claimed. "So there is a lot of corporate red tape around here. And that was also one of the reasons why our action was filed not just against Mr. Miller, but against Future Electronics." A class-action lawsuit request was filed against a tech company and its founder, Robert Miller, a Montreal billionaire accused by multiple women of paying them for sex when they were underage. The lawsuit's applicant, who is unnamed in the request, alleges she was paid thousands to have sex with Miller when she was between the ages of 17 and 19. Miller, 79, stepped down as CEO of Future Electronics early February after a Radio-Canada/CBC report surfaced the allegations of 10 women, some as young as 14 at the time of the alleged events. The report alleged that between 1994 and 2006, Miller arranged for his associates to bring underage girls to his Montreal hotel room and his home in Westmount to perform sexual acts. The Canadian law firm Consumer Law Group is seeking additional plaintiffs, aiming to grant them each $1.5 million in punitive damages and various amounts for psychological injury. In a statement issued earlier this month, Future Electronics said Miller "adamantly and vehemently denies" these allegations, claiming they result from a "bitter divorce" and are being resurfaced for "financial gain." Montreal police (SPVM) investigated Miller between 2008 and 2009, but no charges were laid. The lawsuit's applicant, now 45 years old, claims her ongoing sexual relationship with Miller began around 1996 after she responded to a newspaper ad for accessory models. "She met with a man who told her that she had been 'chosen.' This man took a picture of the Applicant, had her sign a modelling contract, and stated that he would be in touch," the lawsuit application alleges. Afterwards, Miller reportedly began calling her on the phone and told her he was a businessman from New York named Bob Adams. Soon after, the pair allegedly began meeting in person to engage in sexual acts. After each meeting, the applicant alleges Miller gave her an envelope containing between $1,000 and $2,000 and, in one instance, $3,000. "This experience had a serious negative psychological effect on the Applicant. She felt bad about herself and her self-worth, shameful, guilty, she was depressed, and she self-medicated with drugs and alcohol - though she had never been able to make the connection between these paid sexual encounters and her negative feelings toward herself," the application states. It wasn't until she saw Radio-Canada/CBC's report that she was motivated to come forward, the document continues. "When she watched this episode, all of the negative feeling came back, and she was re-traumatized [. . .] Now, she realizes that she was not alone in her experience and wishes to come forward to help others get justice." [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Preliminary Pretrial Order Modified in Riley ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order granting joint motion to modify preliminary pretrial order: The Parties seek to modify the Scheduling Order to extend the deadlines (i) for GM to disclose expert information under Rule 26(a) (2) from March 6 to April 6, 2023, (ii) to complete expert depositions from April 5 to April 19, 2023, and (iii) for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification from May 5 to May 19, 2023. All other deadlines in the Preliminary Pretrial Order remain unmodified. General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41GiKsj at no extra charge.[CC] GENESCO INC: Grajales Suit Removed to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Edwin Grajales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genesco, Inc., Case No. 22-CA-009983 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Feb. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00420-SCB-TGW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute. Genesco Inc. -- https://www.genesco.com/ -- is an American publicly owned specialty retailer of branded footwear and accessories and is a wholesaler of branded and licensed footwear based in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq. KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A. 2110 West Platt Street Tampa, FL 33606 Phone: (813) 422-7782 Fax: (813) 422-7783 Email: ben@thekrfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Nick Cordova, Esq. Rand McClellan, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 228-1541 - and - Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 649-4699 Email: ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Stellman Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Michael Stellman, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-05273 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 23, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01532-PKC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Google LLC -- https://www.google.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Phone: (917) 336-0171 Fax: (917) 336-0177 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Carlynne A Wagner, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore Walter Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com The Defendants are represented by: Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 947-2000 Fax: (415) 947-2099 Email: jsessions@wsgr.com GRAND CANYON: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Recommended ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE GRAND CANYON EDUCATION, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 20-639-MN-CJB, Consolidated (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recommends the denial of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. In this consolidated securities class action case, the Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants Grand Canyon Education, Inc. ("GCE"), Brian E. Muelle, and Daniel E. Bachus, pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and United States Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. Presently before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Lead Plaintiffs in the case are Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado ("Colorado FPPA"), Oakland County Employees' Retirement System ("Oakland County ERS") and Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust (collectively with Oakland County ERS, "Oakland County"). Colorado FPPA is a benefit pension plan that purchased shares of GCE stock during the Class Period. Oakland County are entities that provide retirement benefits to employees of Oakland County, Michigan and that also purchased GCE stock during the Class Period. These Lead Plaintiffs are bringing the instant action individually and on behalf of all other persons who purchased the common stock of GCE during the Class Period. The Class Period runs from Jan. 5, 2018 through Jan. 27, 2020. GCE is a public company and a Delaware corporation. It operated as a for-profit Christian University from 2004 until July 2018, when it became an online program management company that provides management, back-office, and other services to educational institutions. Mueller is GCE's CEO (having held that role since July 2008) and Chairman (having held that role since January 2017). He also has served as President of Grand Canyon University ("GCU" or "University") since 2012. Bachus is GCE's CFO; he has held that role since 2008. The SAC alleges that the case arises from the Defendants' materially false and misleading statements or omissions about the Conversion. The Defendants allegedly claimed that the Conversion would result in GCU becoming an independent, non-profit institution under separate management from GCE, that the Conversion was virtually identical to other approved transactions, and that after the Conversion, GCE would merely act as a third-party service provider to GCU. These claims allowed the Defendants to avoid the "'stigma'" of for-profit education and to market GCU as a non-profit for 18 months during the Class Period, which drove higher enrollment and boosted GCE's profit margins. In reality, the SAC alleges that the Defendants Mueller and Bachus omitted or mispresented key terms of the Conversion, such that investors were unable to accurately assess the risk of a DOE denial of GCU's request for non-profit status -- even while the Defendants understood the real risks of denial, given their knowledge of the terms of the Conversion. Despite knowing that there was a substantial risk that the DOE would not approve the Conversion, a risk Defendants concealed from investors, Defendants chose to move forward with the Conversion anyway, in light of the logistical, regulatory and financial benefits that this approach provided to them. In addition to misrepresenting the structure of and status of the Conversion, the Defendants are also alleged to have misrepresented GCE's financial performance by engaging in accounting fraud. They are said to have falsely claimed that a post-Conversion GCU would be a non-profit, despite the fact that GCU would violate the "'most basic tenet of nonprofit status.'" This allowed them to treat the new GCU as an improper off-balance-sheet entity -- which GCE then used to hide expenses and costs while retaining a disproportionate amount of revenue, thereby inflating GCE's financial results. The SAC alleges that once the DOE denied the Defendants' attempt to have GCU classified as a non-profit entity, Defendants' misstatements and omissions came to light. GCE's inflated stock price plummeted thereafter, all at the expense of the Defendants' investors and shareholders. At issue in the briefing on the Motion are the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding: (1) the types of false and/or misleading statements and omissions that allegedly fueled the scheme; (2) facts demonstrating that Defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) facts regarding loss causation. The consolidated securities class action arises out of two class action Complaints filed in the Court on May 12, 2020 and on June 12, 2020, (Civil Action No. 20-801-MN), respectively. On Aug. 13, 2020, United States District Judge Maryellen Noreika consolidated the two cases in the instant action and appointed Colorado FPPA and Oakland County to serve as Lead Plaintiffs in this suit on behalf of themselves and others. On Oct. 15, 2020, Judge Noreika ordered that the cases be referred to the Court to hear and resolve all pre-trial matters, up to and including the resolution of expert discovery matters. The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 20, 2020, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 21, 2020. The Court heard oral argument on the first motion to dismiss on May 26, 2021. Thereafter, on Aug. 9, 2021, it issued a Report and Recommendation granting the first motion to dismiss in its entirety (the "first R&R"). After neither party filed objections, Judge Noreika adopted the first R&R on Aug. 23, 2021; Judge Noreika permitted the Plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint to correct the deficiencies outlined in the first R&R. The Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on Sept. 28, 2021, which they thereafter amended by filing the SAC on Jan. 21, 2022. The Defendants then filed the instant Motion on March 15, 2022. At the Plaintiffs' request, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion on Oct. 25, 2022. Subsequent to that, the Plaintiffs filed an additional motion asking that the Court take judicial notice of certain statements when resolving the Motion; briefing on the motion for judicial notice was completed on Jan. 19, 2023. The Defendants challenge the SAC's allegations on three grounds: (1) failure to sufficiently plead scienter; (2) failure to sufficiently allege actionable false or misleading statements or omissions; and (3) failure to sufficiently plead loss causation. Judge Burke begins by addressing whether the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged falsity, then moves to consider whether the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged scienter, and finally, whether the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged loss causation. As to the SAC's allegations of false or misleading statements and/or omissions, Judge Burke holds that the Plaintiffs adequately alleged material misrepresentations/omissions. He finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the statements on GCU's purported independence from GCE, risks to GCU's non-profit label, the scope and risks of the DOE review, the Conversion's similarities to the Purdue-Kaplan Deal, and GCE's compliance with GAAP were false or misleading. Having found that the Plaintiffs adequately alleged material misrepresentations/omissions, Judge Burke turns to scienter. He begins with an examination of scienter-specific legal standards, then moves on to examine the merits. Ultimately, he concludes that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged scienter. Judge Burke finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Defendants either knew or recklessly disregarded facts that contradicted their above-referenced public statements (or that should not have been omitted from their public statements). Even having so concluded, he nevertheless goes on to engage in the "inherently comparative" process of considering the Plaintiffs' theory of fraudulent conduct along with the Defendants' theory as to why no fraud has occurred. Among other things, Judge Burke concludes that the Plaintiffs' overall theory (i.e., as to why Defendants had an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud) is at least as cogent as the Defendants' competing theory of no fraud. With the SAC's allegations, the Plaintiffs have overcome the problems that beset their prior pleading. In the SAC, the Plaintiffs have now added numerous factual allegations meant to answer the questions. These new allegations provide additional needed context and help articulate how the Plaintiffs' theory of the fraud scheme is cogent. They render it more understandable why the Defendants might have reasonably thought that their odds for success had changed. For all of these reasons, Judge Burke believes that with the new allegations in the SAC, the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged scienter. Finally, the Defendants challenge the SAC's loss causation allegations. The SAC alleges that the Defendants artificially inflated the price of GCU stock by falsely stating or omitting: (1) the truth about the relationship between GCE and GCU; (2) the true risk that the DOE would not approve the transaction; and (3) GCE's financial results and improper accounting treatment of GCU. Judge Burke concludes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged loss causation. He concludes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently asserted, at the motion to dismiss stage, that the Citron Report acted as a partial corrective disclosure based, in part, on previously undisclosed information. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Burke recommends that the Motion be denied. Responses, if any, must be filed by March 9, 2023. The parties are directed to the Court's Standing Order for Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated March 7, 2022, a copy of which is available on the District Court's website, located at http://www.ded.uscourts.gov. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Report & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2why335 from Leagle.com. GUNNAR OPTIKS: Gimenez Sues Over Defective Eyeglasses ----------------------------------------------------- Gaston Procopio Gimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GUNNAR OPTIKS, LLC, 37-2023-00007453-CU-FR-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Sam Diego Cty., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought for damages relating to the Defendant's formulation, manufacture, testing, marketing, promotion, distribution, and sale of its defective blue light blocking eyeglasses product including, but not limited to, the Gunnar Onyx Vinyl Crystalline Glasses (the "Gunnar Glasses" or the "Product"). The Defendant advertises the Gunnar Glasses as doctor recommended to "block blue light", "reduce digital eyestrain", "prevent dry eyes", "minimize glare", and sleep better. Gunnar Glasses have quickly grown to be one of the most widely sold blue light blocking eyewear products in the country, primarily due to Defendant's marketing. This includes the notable packaging and influential ambassadors backing Gunnar Glasses'--advertising in various channels, including through social media and big names like "Call of Duty" and "Marvel" endorsements, and that it was featured on "Shark Tank" and recommended by "Rolling Stone" magazine." When used as intended, the Product does not protect the consumer as Defendant claims with their "Gunnar Blue Light Filer ("GBLF")" or protect it as represented in comparison with other named brands, such as "Hyperx", "Oakley", "Gamer" and "Zenni". Per Defendant's lens comparison, their GBLF consists of four levels of blue light protection, 98%, 90%, 65%, and 35%, which Defendant's website makes clear relates to the percentage of blue light it claims is blocked by the Product. The "GBLF scale measures eye protection at the peak of the blue light spectrum. However, the Product falls well short of the represented amount of blocked blue light. The Product lacks the protections claimed and Defendant has failed to adequately inform consumers or take adequate action to protect the public as it continues to manufacture, market, and sell the Product even though it does not meet these representations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Gunnar Onyx Vinyl Crystalline Product from Amazon. Gunnar manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells the Product.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Chase, Esq. Ian M. Silvers, Esq. BISNAR | CHASE LLP 1301 Dove Street, Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 752-2999 Facsimile: (949) 752-2777 Email: bchase@bisnarchase.com isilvers@bisnarchase.com HANES BRANDS: Ramon Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Veronica Ramon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hanes Brands, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-01770 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on Feb. 23, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00173 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Hanesbrands Inc. -- https://www.hanes.com/ -- is an American multinational clothing company based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Email: lvn@colevannote.com cab@colevannote.com sec@colevannote.com The Defendants are represented by: Amy P. Lally, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of The Stars 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 595-9662 Fax: (310) 595-9501 Email: alally@sidley.com - and - Christopher Michael Griffin, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 896-6000 Fax: (213) 896-6600 Email: cgriffin@sidley.com HEALTH & WELLNESS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Health & Wellness Center, Inc. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. The Health & Wellness Center, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01487 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023) The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Health & Wellness Center offers a variety of wellness programs and primary care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (917) 796-7437 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com HIGHMARK HEALTH: Waruszewski Sues Over Failure to Protect Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Caitlyn Waruszewski, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HIGHMARK HEALTH, Case No. 2:23-cv-00276-NR (D. Pa., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to customers' PII/PHI. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, consumers' private information was exactly that—private. Not anymore. Now, consumers' private information is forever exposed and unsecure. Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, receiving a breach notice in February 2023. She brings this class action on behalf of herself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current customer of the Defendant. The Defendant is a "blended health organization" with multiple businesses including health insurance, health care delivery, population health management, dental solutions, and reinsurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Bailey, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-8282 Fax: (215) 496-0999 Email: ebailey@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. Brittany Resch, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com raina@turkestrauss.com brittanyr@turkestrauss.com HIGHMARK INC: Marshall Sues Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------- Wendy Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HIGHMARK, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00290-NR (W.D. Pa., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent data breach (the "Data Breach") involving Highmark, which collected and stored certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and/or protected health information ("PHI") of the Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, all of whom have PII/PHI on Highmark servers. According to Highmark, the PII/PHI compromised in the Data Breach included highly-sensitive information including but not limited to: names, Social Security numbers, and may include enrollment information such as group names, identification numbers, claims or treatment information such as claim numbers, dates of service, procedures, prescription information as well as in some cases financial information, addresses, and email addresses. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII/PHI. Inexplicitly, the Defendant has acknowledged that the cybersecurity attack occurred in December 15, 2022, but it has only recently begun contacting Class Members. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff individually as well as all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII/PHI that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was unsecured and left open to the unauthorized access of any unknown third party, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a client of Defendant. The Defendant is a national healthcare organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha Holbrook, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Hwy E., Fl. 2, Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 772-7200 Fax: (856) 210-9088 Email: jshub@shublawyers.com bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com HOLIDAY INN CLUB: Lingard Sues Over Unlawful Timeshare Loans ------------------------------------------------------------ Angelique L. Lingard and Sudarien D. Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOLIDAY INN CLUB VACATIONS, INC. f/k/a ORANGE LAKE COUNTRY CLUB, INC. and WILSON RESORT FINANCE, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00323 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought seeking to void timeshare loans that violate the Military Lending Act ("MLA"), which was enacted to protect members of the United States Military from an epidemic of predatory lending that endangers our Nation's military readiness and impacts servicemember retention. Holiday Inn sells vacations, or more accurately, the potential to book a future vacation through a complex system of vacation club points that are tied to timeshare properties that are owned by a trust controlled by Holiday Inn. As part of the transaction, Holiday Inn traps servicemembers into a loan that can never be repaid because of accompanying maintenance fees. Accordingly, Holiday Inn targets military consumers by, among other things, offering free stays to military families and offering them discounts. Once they agree to a free vacation, Military families are lured into high-pressure timeshare sales presentations and are frequently convinced to purchase vacation points that represent timeshare interests at a Holiday Inn timeshare location. Although it targets military families, Holiday Inn's standard course of business violates the MLA. Specifically, it fails to provide the required MLA disclosures; unlawfully requires mandatory binding arbitration; and unlawfully refinances, rolls over or consolidates previous timeshare loans. As a result, the timeshare loans made to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated servicemembers are void from inception pursuant to the MLA. This lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to void the credit agreements of Plaintiffs and the Class, as well as restitution damages to recover the money paid to Holiday Inn, and other actual damages caused to Plaintiffs and the Class by Holiday Inn's routine violations of the MLA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were on active duties in the United States Air Force. Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Inc. sold, sells, and finances timeshare interests in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Erika R. Willis, Esq. Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Phone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com ewillis@vandwlaw.com mpeterson@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com HONEST COMPANY: Sucharow Files Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cody Dixon v. The Honest Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-07405-MCS-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff Labaton Sucharow asks the Court fan order: 1. certify the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3); 2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as representative of the proposed Class; and 3. appointing Labaton Sucharow as Class Counsel. Labaton Sucharow, in its capacity as Lead Counsel, has performed substantial work in identifying and investigating the claims asserted in this Action, has substantial experience handling class actions asserting claims of this type, has committed and will continue to commit substantial resources to representing the Class, and has worked vigorously to prosecute this Action. Honest Company is an American digital-first consumer goods company, based in Los Angeles and founded by actress Jessica Alba. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z8Dl6W at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Gardner, Esq. David J. Schwartz, Esq. Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq. Joseph N. Cotilletta, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com dschwartz@labaton.com afatale@labaton.com jcotilletta@labaton.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. Rina Restaino, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2406 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (213) 519-5876 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com rina@schallfirm.com HOWARD MEMORIAL: Teague Files Suit in W.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Howard Memorial Hospital. The case is styled as Keri Teague, Jason Teague, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Howard Memorial Hospital, Case No. 4:23-cv-04016-SOH (W.D. Ark., Feb. 23, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Howard Memorial Hospital -- https://www.howardmemorial.com/ -- has been providing comprehensive, patient-focused, inpatient, outpatient and emergency care for 60 years.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Filing Settlement Claims in Fires Suit Until July 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------- FastCompany reports that it's important that you submit a claim on the official settlement website by July 7, 2023, which is the cutoff date for claims to be made. Kia parent Hyundai Motor Group has agreed to a class action settlement surrounding claims that ABS systems on certain models could cause fires. If you own a certain type of Kia, the company may owe you money. And no, this has nothing to do with TikTok users revealing how easy it is to steal some Kia models. Instead, this is due to a class action settlement Kia has agreed to after claims that the anti-lock brake systems (ABS) on certain models sold between 2006 and 2021 could cause fires because of a defect, according to the website Top Class Actions. Kia owner Hyundai Motor Group hasn't admitted to any wrongdoing, but it will nevertheless provide the owners of affected models with one or more of the following: A warranty extension of 5 to 7 additional years covering qualifying repairs from the date of first use or the date of original retail delivery. Compensation to those who have had repairs done on their affected Kia ABS module. If repairs were previously made, the owners can also get reimbursements for towing costs and car rentals, if those were needed. A free, one-time inspection of their ABS module when they bring their car into a Kia dealership. If an ABS module fire was directly related to a total loss of a vehicle, claimants are guaranteed "maximum value compensation" plus a $140 payment So how do you know if Kia owes you money? The official settlement website has a VIN lookup tool that will tell you if your specific Kia is eligible for the class action settlement. Kia vehicles that may be eligible include: 2006-2010 Kia Sedona 2007-2009 Kia Sorento 2008-2009 Kia Sportage 2013-2015 Kia Optima 2014-2015 Kia Sorento 2014-2021 Kia Sportage 2016-2018 Kia K900 2017-2019 Kia Cadenza 2018-2021 Kia Stinger After using the VIN lookup tool to see if your Kia is covered by the settlement, it's important that you submit a claim on the official settlement website by July 7, 2023, which is the cutoff date for claims to be made. [GN] IAVARONE ENTERPRISES: Puntaloro Sues Over Unpaid Compensations -------------------------------------------------------------- Luigi Puntaloro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IAVARONE ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a IAVARONE BROS., JONATHAN IAVARONE and JOSEPH IAVARONE, as individuals, Case No. 2:23-cv-01417 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wage. Although the Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 60 hours or more hours each week from August 2019 until January 2023, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Further, the Plaintiff was not compensated at all by the Defendants for his last week of employment. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 2019 until January 2023. IAVARONE ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a IAVARONE BROS, is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 INMAR INC: Holmes Amended Bid to Certify Class OK'd ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holmes v. Inmar Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02093 (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an order on motion to certify class Pursuant to the court's Text Order entered Feb. 15, 2023 -- The court construes the filing of as Plaintiff's amended motion to certify Class. -- The Clerk is directed to moot the original motion. -- The Defendant's deadline to file a response to remain March 23, 2023. The nature of suit states torts -- personal property diversity fraud. Inmar develops technology and data analytics services.[CC] INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Ulery Sues Over Unwanted Prerecorded Message ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Ulery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSURANCE SUPERMARKET, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00490 (S. Colo., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), including for playing prerecorded messages during autodialed calls to Plaintiff and others, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. While promoting and selling its services, Defendant and/or its agents placed thousands of nonconsensual automated or prerecorded calls to consumers' telephone numbers nationwide using an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff and each Class Member received unwanted telephone robocalls from the Defendant without proper regard to the TCPA, the Do-Not-Call Rules, and in disregard for individual privacy. The Plaintiff and Class Members' phone numbers were registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry. This lawsuit challenges all calls that were sent by Defendant to Plaintiff and Class Members from approximately February 2019, through the date of preliminary approval of class certification, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's domicile is in Colorado Springs, Colorado. INSURANCE SUPERMARKET operates a website known as insurance supermarket.com, which describes itself as a company that provides a full range of life insurance and investment products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Phone: 954-889-3359 Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com mpascucci@JusticeEamed.com - and – Jordan Richards, Esq. JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Avenue, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 871-0050 Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com INTERFACE INC: Court Vacates Steamfitters' Bid to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Swanson v. Interface, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05518 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 12, 2020), the Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan entered an order vacating Steamfitters' motion to certify class in light of the scheduling order. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Interface is a global manufacturer of commercial flooring with an integrated collection of carpet tiles and resilient flooring, including luxury vinyl tiles and nora brand rubber flooring.[CC] INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Pre-Motion Conference Class Cert. Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALLACE et al. v INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKE, LLC, d/b/a iHop et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-06993-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs file a letter motion requesting a pre-motion Conference for their motion for conditional collective class Certification. The parties have conferred and agree to the following briefing schedule: -- Opening Brief: March 15, 2023 -- Defendants' Opposition: April 3, 2023 -- Plaintiffs' Reply: April 17, 2023 A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SC7klj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com ISLAND JAY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Island Jay, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Island Jay, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01498 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Island Jay -- https://islandjay.com/ -- offers a unique mix of beach clothing and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Lightoller Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping ---------------------------------------------------------- Anne Lightoller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00361-H-KSC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought against JetBlue for wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to its website, www.jetblue.com, in violation of the Invasion of Privacy Act and constitutes the torts of invasion of the privacy rights and intrusion upon seclusion of website visitors. JetBlue procures third-party vendors, such as FullStory, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code ("Session Replay Code") on JetBlue's website, which then deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose of intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic communications with the JetBlue website, including their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web pages visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time ("Website Communications"). These third-party vendors (collectively, "Session Replay Providers") create and deploy the Session Replay Code at JetBlue's request. After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, JetBlue and the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.jetblue.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to JetBlue for analysis. JetBlue's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the JetBlue website for the entire duration of their website interaction. While visiting JetBlue's website, Plaintiff fell victim to Defendant's unlawful monitoring, recording, and collection of Plaintiff's Website Communications with www.jetblue.com. Unknown to Plaintiff, JetBlue procures and embeds Session Replay Code on its website. During the website visit, Plaintiff's Website Communications were captured by Session Replay Code and sent to various Session Replay Providers. Plaintiff and Class Members did not provide prior consent to JetBlue's interception of their Website Communications, nor could they, as the interception begins immediately upon arriving at www.jetblue.com. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of all persons in California whose Website Communications were intercepted through JetBlue's procurement and use of Session Replay Code embedded on the webpages of www.jetblue.com and seeks all civil remedies provided under the causes of action, including but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has visited www.jetblue.com on her computer and/or smartphone while in California to, inter alia, obtain information on flight pricing. JetBlue operates the website www.jetblue.com. JetBlue is a commercial airline which provides both national and international flights to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10034 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Stephen B. Murray, Esq. Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq. Arthur M. Murray, Esq. Thomas M. Beh, Esq. THE MURRAY LAW FIRM 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250 New Orleans, LA 70139 Phone: (504) 525-8100 Email: Tbeh@Murray-lawfirm.com JILL-EST: Class Certification Scheduling Order Amended in Smith --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. Jill-Est Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00980 (N.D. Tex., Filed May 2, 2022), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an amending class certification scheduling order as follows: -- The mediation deadline is extended April 10, 2023 to: -- All proceedings in this matter are April 28, 2023 stayed until: -- The parties Must file a Joint Status April 28, 2023 Report on or before: -- The parties shall submit a proposed April 28, 2023 scheduling order to conclude the remaining deadlines in the class certification phase of discovery on or before that same day: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] JMJ ENTERPRISES: Seeks to Decertify Wade Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tiffany Wade, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JMJ Enterprises, LLC and Traci Martin, Case No. 1:21-cv-00506-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order decertifying the Plaintiffs' conditional collective action. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JexJmp at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Angela Newell Gray GRAY NEWELL THOMAS, LLP. 7 Corporate Center Court, Suite B Greensboro, NC 27408 Telephone: (336) 285-8151 Facsimile: (336) 458-9359 E-mail: angela@graynewell.com JOHN DEERE: DOJ Supports 'Right To Repair' Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Karl Bode of TechDirt reports that DOJ supports 'Right To Repair' class action against John Deere. U.S. consumer protection in general has had an ugly few decades. One bright spot however has been the shift in the "right to repair" movement from niche nerdy fare to the mainstream. Not only have corporate efforts to monopolize repair resulted in a flood of proposed state and federal laws, the Biden Administration's executive order on monopoly power and competition urged the FTC to tighten up its rules on repair monopolization efforts, whether it's ham-fisted DRM, or making repair manuals, parts, and diagnostics hard to come by. At the receiving end of much of the movement's ire has been John Deere, whose draconian repair restrictions on agricultural equipment often result in customers having to pay an arm and a leg, or drive hundreds of additional, costly miles to get their tractors repaired. Last week, the DOJ announced it had filed a "Statement of Interest" in a class action lawsuit currently waddling through the Northern District of Illinois, alleging John Deere of illegally monopolizing the repair of its tractors. In it, the DOJ makes clear that "right to repair" is lodged squarely in the heart of the government's painfully inconsistent interest in antitrust reform: "Consistent with Supreme Court precedent, the policy of the United States is 'to enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony -- especially as these issues arise in . . . agricultural markets, . . . repair markets,' and elsewhere too." Regardless, right to repair activists like U.S. PIRG say they appreciate the help: We thank the DOJ for standing up for farmers and pointing out something that should be common-sense: We should be able to fix our stuff. Farmers rely on this equipment to grow our food, and make a living doing so. Selling farmers equipment and then refusing to allow them to access the materials necessary to keep it running is simply unacceptable. The facts continue to show that is the case, and so Right to Repair continues to move forward. This filing sends Deere a strong signal. Granted not all is well in the right to repair movement. The federal effort to pass a new right to repair law appears stuck in neutral, and in states where a law has been passed -- such as in New York State -- lobbyists have shown how easy it was to get NY Governor Kathy Hochul to water down the legislation after it passed, rendering it little more than a performative victory. [GN] JOHN HANCOCK: Stipulation for Leave to File FAC OK'd in Kroetz -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SILVINA KROETZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.) and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02117-TJH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. entered an order granting joint stipulation for leave to file first amended complaint substituting proposed class representative and modifying case schedule to account for substitution. -- The Plaintiff Silvina Kroetz's claims against Defendant shall be dismissed without prejudice to her proceeding as a putative absent class member in this action. -- The Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment shall be deemed withdrawn without prejudice. -- The Parties shall meet and confer and propose a case schedule to the Court 20 Defendant determines whether it will file a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. John Hancock is a Boston-based insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y98iXn at no extra charge.[CC] JUUL LABS: Agrees to Settle E-Cigarette Class Suit for $438.5-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ OpenClassActions.com reports that a nearly half-Billion dollar class action settlement has been agreed upon with Juul. Juul Labs, a leading e-cigarette maker that's taken the globe by storm, is ready to pay this hefty price for its monumental rise in the tobacco, nicotine and cigarette market. As part of the Juul Class Action Settlement, a $438.5 Million fund will be established after class action lawsuits and investigations that lasted 2 years. The Juul class action lawsuits made claims that Juul and other e-cigarette manufacturers unlawfully marketed their products to minors and did not adequately disclose potential health risks. Juul has also agreed to own an independent monitor oversee its business practices going forward. It's also one more signal that regulators are moving past catch-up mode when it involves controls on e-cigarettes and taking a harder look at how companies like Juul advertise their products. The case was first filed as an investigation into whether Juul had violated New York's public health law. This settlement doesn't mean that Juul is banned from selling flavored e-cigarettes. However, it does mean that the venture must limit selling flavored e-cigarettes and nicotine pods, including mint and candied flavors. This represents a big blow to Juul. Not only does it need to pay out almost half a billion dollars, but it also should surrender equity to try and do so and comply with having an independent monitor oversee its business practices. It's also a large complication, because the company seeks FDA approval for its own e-cigarettes. While Juul has maintained that its products are intended for adult smokers, the venture is additionally aware that the products are very hip with teens and is trying to avoid a crackdown just like the one that followed the increase of e-cigarettes during the last decade. One report found that 72% of youth who vape have tried Juul a minimum of once. To make matters worse, they're also relatively easy to induce hold of; Juul has been hawking its products in convenience stores across America with no age restrictions or warnings about the health risks related to vaping. The settlement could lead to Juul putting in additional efforts to keep more minors away from addictive substances like nicotine. The venture has already taken some steps in this direction, like removing some flavors from its website and adding an ID check when someone tries to form a procurement online. Juul is additionally working with the FDA to assist combat underage use of its products. As a part of that agreement, Juul has agreed to form a brand new "digital tool" for parents and teenagers to access information about the risks related to vaping, still as the way to quit if they're already hooked on nicotine. To qualify for a payment, you need to be a US resident and have purchased a minimum of one Juul product. You want to also not have reported your claim before the settlement. If you provide relevant criteria, the class action administrator will review your information and payment details and pay out if you qualify and the Juul class action has been approved for disbursement of funds. You may be eligible for a payment under the terms of the settlement. The quantity of your payment will rely on what number of people file a claim and also the total amount of the settlement fund. If you are injured by a Juul product, then your compensation payout is likely to be greater. If the court approves the settlement, a notice will be published in newspapers, and on the internet, and here on OpenClassActions.com. You will be able to also join up for email updates about the settlement at the Electronic Cigarette Settlement website. The venture has sent out a lot of emails to those that may be eligible for his or her money, but if you haven't gotten one yet, don't worry. If you file a claim, you may receive a payment, because the settlement fund is offered. Overall, the settlement could be a major setback for Juul, which has maintained that its products are intended for adult smokers. One more indication is that regulators are going to control e-cigarettes sales and taking a harder look at how companies like Juul advertise their products. In the end, the Juul class action settlement should lead to Juul putting in a significant amount of effort to make sure that its Juul e-cigarettes are kept far away from minors. [GN] KANSAS CITY TREE: Court Overrules Bid to Decertify as Untimely -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM PRINCE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. KANSAS CITY TREE CARE, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02653-KHV (D. Kan), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil sustains plaintiff's motion and overrules defendant's motion to decertify as untimely. The Court further ordered that: -- the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's objection to the Defendant's motion To decertify the conditional certification class and for leave to file the Defendant's motion out of time filed February 10, 2023 is overruled. -- the Defendant's motion To decertify conditional certification and brief in support filed February 1, 2023 is overruled. William Prince filed suit against Kansas City Tree Care, LLC, alleging putative collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). In the Pretrial Order filed December 1, 2022, the defendant stated that it intended to file a motion to decertify or prevent the temporary certification of the class from becoming permanent. The Defendant agreed that any dispositive motions or motions relating to class certification must be filed by January 4, 2023. The Defendant filed its motion to decertify on February 1, 2023 -- 28 days beyond the agreed deadline in the pretrial order. That same day, plaintiff filed an objection to the untimely motion. Nine days later, the defendant responded to plaintiff's objection and now belatedly seeks leave to file its motion to decertify out of time. The Plaintiffs have not identified any specific prejudice. Even so, if the Court grants defendant leave to file its motion to decertify at this stage, plaintiffs would have to expend resources for their counsel to respond to the untimely motion. This factor therefore slightly weighs in favor of plaintiffs. Kansas City provides landscaping services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3miRSyz at no extra charge.[CC] KENTECH CONSULTING: Abrogina Seeks to File Class Cert Exhibit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIRGINIA ABROGINA, individually, on behalf of other similarly situated indivduals, and on behalf of the general public, v. KENTECH CONSULTING, INC. a foreign corporation doing business in California, and DOES 1 – 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-00662-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Virginia Abrogina applies to the Court for an Order allowing her to file Exhibit No. 10 in support of her motion for class certification under seal as provided in the Court's Protective Order dated March 21, 2022. The reasonfor sealing is that the exibit is that that it contains consumer report which contain personal identifying information relating to individual consumers which Defendant is bound to keep confidential and subject to the Court's Protective Order. Kentech is a revolutionary provider of investigative background check technology. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SC5bpZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin H. Fok, Esq. Ainat KieweEsq. DHF LAW, APC 2304 Huntington Drive, Suite 210 San Marino, CA 91108 Telephone: (888) 651-6411 Facsimile: (818) 484-2023 E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com ainat@devinfoklaw.com - and - Joseph Lee, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH LEE 1055 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 500 Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (626) 474-1120 Facsimile: (626) 899-4788 E-mail: joseph@lawjoelee.com KEURIG DR PEPPER: $10-M Recyclable Pod Settlement Granted Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Natalie Hanson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. will pay $10 million to settle with a class of plaintiffs who claimed the company misleads consumers with claims that its plastic single-serve coffee pods are recyclable. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland approved a $10 million settlement plus a total of $6,000 in incentives for two plaintiffs who actively aided in gathering documents for discovery during the litigation process. The plaintiffs filed the consumer class action against the single-serve coffee giant years ago claiming the "recyclable" labeling on plastic coffee pods is false and misleading. The class claimed municipal recycling facilities are not properly equipped to handle the coffee pods, which are small and easily contaminated with foil and food waste. The plaintiffs said the coffee pods often end up in landfills as there are limited markets to reuse them or convert them into reusable material, making them an environmental hazard. Claims included violations of Massachusetts' Consumer Protection Act, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, declaratory relief and violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. Households who submit a claim with proof of payment will receive 35 cents for every 10 pods purchased, with a minimum payment of $6 regardless of quantity purchased to a maximum of $36. Keurig -- formerly known as Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. -- will also start placing a disclaimer on products to read "Check Locally — Not Recycled in Many Communities." It must be placed beside any verbiage that the pods are recyclable, including on boxes and cartons and on Keurig's website. The settlement sets the minimum standards to ensure that the qualifying statement is reasonably visible anywhere it appears. Gilliam gave preliminary approval of the settlement agreement this past July. In their revised settlement motion filed in November 2022, the plaintiffs said, "By requiring changes to the labels and advertising of the challenged products, and by making this substantial fund available, the settlement provides an immediate, significant and positive result for the class. "In turn, Keurig will receive a release of all claims that were or could have been raised in the complaint relating to its labeling, marketing and advertising of the challenged products as recyclable. This settlement was reached after several years of contentious litigation, extensive discovery and rigorous and informed negotiations between the parties and their experienced class action counsel in a process that was overseen by a seasoned, neutral mediator." Any unclaimed settlement money will be donated to the Ocean Conservancy, a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization, which will take 75% of unclaimed funds. Consumer Reports, Inc., a nonprofit consumer protection organization, will take the remaining 25% of unclaimed funds. The attorneys requested and received $3 million for fees and $568,180 in total costs. "We are pleased the court granted final approval of the settlement, and are proud of the great result achieved in this case on behalf of consumers across the country," class attorney Howard Hirsch said in a statement on Feb. 27. "We also hope it sends a message and deters other companies from misleading consumers about the environmental attributes and recyclability of their single use plastic products." Keurig spokesperson Katie Gilroy said "clearly communicating to consumers how to recycle our K-Cup pods where accepted is a responsibility that we take seriously," adding that "while we believe our marketing and labeling is truthful and accurate, we agreed to a negotiated settlement that will result in a modification of our existing recyclability disclaimer on our packaging." [GN] KEURIG DR PEPPER: Verdin Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Verdin, individually and for others similarly situated v. KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-10425-NMG (D. Mass., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Defendant Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc. ("KDP") under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and California wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the PMWA and California law, KDP misclassified the Plaintiff as exempt and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for KDP as a Warehouse Supervisor in California and Pennsylvania. KDP bills itself as "a leading beverage company in North America that is committed to sourcing, producing, and distributing beverages responsibly" throughout the United States, including in Pennsylvania and California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gordon, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP 585 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-536-1800 Facsimile: 617-536-1802 Email: pgordon@gordonllp.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713.352.1100 Facsimile: 713.352.3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due May 1 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gamboa v. Kiss Nutraceuticals, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01141 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order that: -- The deadline for filing of Class May 1, 2023 Certification Motion(s) is extended to: -- The Response and Reply deadlines are extended a commensurate amount of time. Kiss Nutraceuticals provides packaging solutions. The Suit alleges violation og the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD JOLLY, ET AL., On Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, v. KNIGHTSBRIDGE MANAGEMENT, INC. D/B/A KNIGHTSBRIDGE RESTAURANT GROUP, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02163-TNM (D.D.C.), the the Plaintiffs, Ronald Jolly and Amir Ziagham, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and Defendants, Knightsbridge Management, Inc. D/B/A Knightsbridge Restaurant Group, Rasika West End, LLC, and Ashok Bajaj file a third joint motion to extend time to file motion for class certification and other related deadlines. On January 18, 2023, the Court granted the Parties' joint motion extend time to file for class crtification and other related deadlines in order to provide the parties with the opportunity to engaged in settlement discussions and conduct a mediation. Since this time, the Parties have been conducted a mediation with Linda Singer at JAMS and are close to reaching a resolution. Unfortunately, the parties require additional time to engage in further settlement discussions. The Parties have conferred and agreed on the following modified schedule for all outstanding deadlines: Description Current Requested Deadline Extension Deadline to file Motion for Feb. 24, 2023 Mar. 24, 2023 Class Certification and to decertify Collective Action Deadline for Defendants' Mar. 13, 2023 Apr. 13, 2023 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kH73kI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael K. Amster, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 8399142 E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Nat P. Calamis, Esq. Brian M. O'Shea, Esq. Carr Maloney P.C. 2020 K Street, NW, Suite 850 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 310-5500 Facsimile: (202) 310-5555 E-mail: nat.calamis@carrmaloney.com brian.o'shea@carrmaloney.com KNOX COUNTY: Court Disallows Class Certification in Day Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN DAY, et al., v. KNOX COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, et al., Case No. (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton L. Corker entered an order disallowing class certification and permissive joinder of Plaintiffs in this action and order each Plaintiff wishing to proceed in a section 1983 suit to file an individual complaint and either pay the filing fee or submit the necessary documents to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiffs have classified their initial complaint as a class action, which the Court construes as a request for class certification. To permit this action to proceed as a class action, the Court must be satisfied that a number of grounds are met, one of which is that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court otherwise notes that Rule 20(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the permissive joinder of plaintiffs in a single action if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kCe6ei at no extra charge.[CC] KROGER CO: Class Certification Deadliness Amended in Womick Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Womick v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 3:21-cv-00574 (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Nancy J Rosenstengel entered an order amending the class certification deadliness as follows: -- Depositions of Plaintiff(s) shall June 1, 2023 be taken by: -- Depositions of Defendant(s) shall June 1, 2023 be taken by: -- Expert witnesses for Class Certification, if any, shall be disclosed, along with a written report prepared and signed by the witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2): -- for Plaintiff(s) expert(s): June 1, 2023 -- for Defendant(s) expert(s): July 15, 2023 -- Depositions of Class Certification expert witnesses must be taken by: -- for Plaintiff(s) expert(s): June 30, 2023 -- for Defendant(s) expert(s): August 15, 2023 -- Plaintiff(s) Motion for Class September 15, 2023 Certification and Memorandum in Support shall be filed by: -- The Defendant(s) Memorandum in October 16, 2023 Opposition to Class Certification shall be filed by: -- The Plaintiff(s) Reply Memorandum, November 6, 2023 if any, must be filed by: Kroger, is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United States. The nature of suit states torts -- personal property – fraud.[CC] LABORATORY CORP: Supplementation of Record in Anderson Suit OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERYL ANDERSON, et al., v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No. 1:17-cv-00193-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order permitting the supplementation of the record with the Affidavit of Jeffrey Frist and the credit card authorization form as it considers Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification. Laboratory Corporation is an American healthcare company headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z8B6Aw at no extra charge.[CC] LEFT LEAD: Court OKs Boyll Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyll v. Left Lead Liquors, LLC, et al., Case No. 9:22-cv-04520 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks entered an order granting the motion to certify class. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act involving denial of overtime compensation.[CC] LENOVO (UNITED STATES): Filing of Class Status Bid Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD and ELIOT BURK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties files fourth stipulation to extend class certification deadlines as follows: event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Deadline to file motion for Jul. 19, 2023 Aug. 23, 2023 class certification and to serve Plaintiffs' expert disclosures and reports Deadline to produce Sep. 6, 2023 Oct. 11, 2023 Plaintiffs' experts for deposition Deadline to file opposition Nov. 1, 2023 Dec. 6, 2023 to motion for class certification and to serve Defendant's expert disclosures and reports Deadline to produce Dec.13, 2023 Jan. 17, 2023 Defendant's experts for deposition Deadline to file reply Jan. 17, 2023 Feb. 21, 2024 re motion for class certification Lenovo operates as a software and hardware reseller. A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zy7PiM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Rozenblatt, Esq. Seth W. Wiener, Esq. EDGE, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1341 La Playa Street 20 San Francisco, CA 94122 Telephone: (415) 515-4809 E-mail: daniel@edge.law seth@edge.law - and - Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Laura E. Goolsby, Esq. CAPTSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq. Alyssa Sones, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com asones@sheppardmullin.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: Court OKs Sealing of Class Cert Materials in TVPX ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for CONSOLIDATED WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LTD., and VIDA LONGEVITY FUND, L.P., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-02989-RBS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge R. Barclay Surrick entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for continued sealing of certain materials filed in connection with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Defendants' opposition to class certification, and Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification. The redacted and under seal portions of the materials filed in connection with the class certification briefing, set forth in Exhibit A to Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Continued Sealing, shall remain under seal until further order, and shall be filed in redacted form and under seal. Lincoln National provides insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kCT5QB at no extra charge.[CC] LITIGATION PRACTICE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carolyn Beech, on behalf of herself and the class members described below, v. The Litigation Practice Group, PC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00057-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting LPG a 28-day extension of time to file a response in opposition to the Plaintiff Carolyn Beech's motion for class certification. The response date is currently February 24, 2023, and with the unopposed extension, the new due date would be March 24, 2023. LPG needs additional time to compose its opposition and to compile the accompanying evidential materials associated with LPG's response. In addition, on February 20, 2023, the Plaintiff moved for leave to amend its Complaint to add eight additional defendants, five of whom are individuals and three of whom are business entities. LPG asserts that the Plaintiff's proposed amendment significantly alters the landscape of this litigation, with a large impact on Plaintiff's currently pending Motion for Class Certification, as currently written. Therefore, in light of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave and proposed accompanying amendment, LPG requires additional time to fully review and investigate with its counsel the proposed amended complaint and the potential interplay, or effect on, the Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zp6ZVy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca J. Mansell, Esq. ROLFES HENRY CO., LPA 2113 Government Street, Suite H-2 Ocean Springs, MS 39564 Telephone: (228) 207-1366 Facsimile: (513) 579-0080 E-mail: rmansell@rolfeshenry.com lmoore@rolfeshenry.com - and - Christopher R. Pettit, Esq. Matthew T. Anderson, Esq. Kyle T. Anderson, Esq. LUPER NEIDENTHAL & LOGAN 1160 Dublin Road, Suite 400 Columbus, OH 43215-1052 Telephone: (614) 221-7663 Facsimile: (866) 345-4948 E-mail: cpettit@LNLattorneys.com manderson@LNLattorneys.com kanderson@LNLattorneys.com LOREAL USA: Edwards Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mmrenee Edwards, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Loreal USA, Inc., Loreal USA Products, Inc., Softsheen-Carson, Inc., Softsheen-Carson LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02687 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 22, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01052 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- manufactures and markets cosmetic products. The Company's cosmetic line includes brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hannah Pfeifler, Esq. Jennifer Hoekstra, Esq. Ephraim S. Geisler, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: HPfeifler@awkolaw.com JHoekstra@awkolaw.com sgeisler@awkolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Dennis Sean Ellis, Esq. Katherine Frenck Murray, Esq. Nicholas J. Begakis, Esq. Serli Polatoglu, Esq. ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 274-7100 Fax: (310) 275-5697 Email: dellis@egcfirm.com kmurray@egcfirm.com nbegakis@egcfirm.com spolatoglu@egcfirm.com - and - Jonathan Barrett Blakley, Esq. GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI One North Franklin Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 619-4915 Email: jblakley@grsm.com LOREAL USA: Wall Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jennifer Wall, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Loreal USA Products, Inc., Softsheen-Carson, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-06128 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 23, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01063 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- manufactures and markets cosmetic products. The Company's cosmetic line includes brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline, Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Kuntz, Esq. Vanessa H. Gross, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer Thomas P. Cartmell WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 701-1100 Email: jkuntz@wcllp.com vgross@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com tcartmell@wcllp.com - and - Hannah Rodgers Pfeifler Jennifer M. Hoekstra AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Fax: (850) 916-7449 Email: hpfeifler@awkolaw.com jhoekstra@awkolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: James C. Morris, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 100 S. 4th Street, Suite 550 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 856-2473 Email: jmorris@grsm.com - and - Katherine C Battisti, Esq. GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI - STL 211 North Broadway, Suite 2150 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 685-8470 Email: kbattisti@grsm.com LUMIO INC: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lumio Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cathy Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Levin, Lumio Inc., Lumio HX, Lumio Holdings, Case No. 2:23-cv-00138-RJS-JCB (D. Utah, Feb. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Lumio Inc. -- https://www.lumio.com/ -- enhances and enables the communications, computing and entertainment experience through innovative virtual interface technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared D. Scott, Esq. Jacob W. Nelson, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W Broadway, Ste. 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 534-1700 Fax: (801) 364-7697 Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com jnelson@aklawfirm.com LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Simons Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lutheran Social Services of Illinois. The case is styled as Maria Simons, Ermelinda Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lutheran Social Services of Illinois, Case No. 1:23-cv-01106 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Navy Federal Credit Union -- https://www.navyfederal.org/ -- is a global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, chartered and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mason A Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 5the Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com M & R PIZZA: Marquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ariel Marquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. M & R PIZZA, INC. (D/B/A SOFIA'S PIZZA), NICHOLAS AGOLA, Case No. 1:23-cv-01412 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to stocking drinks, making and storing pizza boxes, refilling the ice machine, and counting and organizing every receipt before closing the store (hereafter the "non-tipped duties"). The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants employed and accounted for the Plaintiff as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the restaurant. The Defendants own operate, or control a pizza restaurant, located in South Ozone Park, New York, under the name "SOFIA'S PIZZA."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MAKER ECOSYSTEM: Black Thursday Class Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates reports that Maker defendants win dismissal of 'Black Thursday' class action. On February 22, 2023, Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action brought against Skadden clients Maker Ecosystem Growth Foundation and Maker Ecosystem Growth Holdings, Inc. The case concerned the MakerDAO system, a decentralized finance protocol built on the Ethereum blockchain. The plaintiff asserted claims for intentional and negligent misrepresentation and negligence, alleging that he and others suffered losses on the system when the price of Ether suddenly collapsed on March 12, 2020 -- an event the plaintiff referred to as "Black Thursday." The court dismissed all claims asserted. [GN] MANITOBA: Faces Class Suit Over Overcharge Photo Radar Tickets -------------------------------------------------------------- The Staff of The Canadian Press reports that a Winnipeg man is trying to launch a class-action lawsuit against the Manitoba government, alleging it overcharged people an estimated $36 million in photo radar tickets. William Acheson's statement of claim alleges the government did not follow its own regulations in fines handed out between November 2017 and November 2021. The lawsuit alleges the government charged people for every kilometre per hour over the speed limit, while provincial regulations for photo radar state fines start at 10 kilometres an hour over the limit. Lawyer Naomi Kovak says she estimates there were roughly 470,000 tickets handed out in those years, and drivers were overcharged at least $77 each time. The statement of claim was recently served on the government and contains allegations that have not been proven in court. The province has not filed a statement of defence and there is no court date set for a hearing. [GN] MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Robinson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maria Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District d/b/a Valleywise Health, Case No. 2:22-cv-00943-DWL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification. Robinson has met her burden to provide "substantial allegations" that Valleywise's workers were paid under the same pay practices following Valleywise's Kronos timekeeping and payroll outage. The certification schedule should accommodate the follow-up of Putative Collective Members by telephone if their Notice and Consent Forms are undeliverable. Maria Robinson was a non-exempt worker for Valleywise during the payroll outage. Ms. Robinson seeks to allow her coworkers -- other nonexempt Valleywise workers who were subject to the same faulty time and pay systems -- to receive notice of this collective action and recover their valuable back wages. Robinson's evidence meets and surpasses the lenient standard for conditional certification, and the Court should certify this collective action and order notice to be sent to putative collective members. Valleywise is a public health care system operating in Maricopa County. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J4wi9O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Rd., 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com MATCO TOOLS: Munger Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Munger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:23-cv-00337-DAR (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 22, 2023), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII") of more than 14,000 individuals, including, but not limited to, name, Social Security number, driver's license number, and/or financial account information. Prior to and through March 1, 2022, Defendant obtained the PII of the Plaintiff, including by collecting it directly from the Plaintiff. The Defendant stored the PII of the Plaintiff, unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendant's network. On December 8, 2022, Defendant learned of a data breach on its network that occurred on or around March 1, 2022 (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an unknown actor accessed and/or acquired the PII of the Plaintiff. On January 26, 2023, Defendant began notifying various states Attorneys General of the Data Breach. The Defendant began notifying the Plaintiff of the Data Breach. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of the Plaintiff, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII that was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized actor included name, Social Security number, driver's license number, and/or financial account information. The PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of the Plaintiff. In addition to the Defendant's failure to prevent the Data Breach, Defendant waited more than three months after the Data Breach occurred to report it to the states Attorneys General and affected individuals. The Defendant has also purposefully maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the breach and has not informed the Plaintiff of that information. As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, including the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive information. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida residing in Sarasota, Florida. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Stow, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse A. Shore, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, KENTUCKY PLLC 300 Madison Avenue, Suite 200 Covington, KY 41011 Phone: (859) 899-8786 Facsimile: (859) 899-8807 Email: jshore@forthepeople.com - and - Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX Business Division 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmaxey@ForThePeople.com MCADOO'S SEAFOOD: Brixey Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Brixey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McAdoo's Seafood Company, LLC d/b/a McAdoo's Seafood Co. & Oyster Bar; and Wiggins Hospitality Group, LLC d/b/a La Cosecha Mexican Table, Case No. 5:23-cv-00232 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standars Act ("FLSA") for the underpayment of wages owed to the Defendants employees--Plaintiffs and other employees like Plaintiffs--including the Defendants failure to pay the minimum wage rate mandated by federal law. The Defendants pay their servers and bartenders—including Plaintiff wages that are less than the minimum wage. Instead of paying the minimum wage, it appears Defendants are attempting to take credit for the tips its employees earn to meet the minimum wage requirement. The Defendants violated the FLSA by paying Plaintiff and the Collective Members less than minimum wage and Defendants committed multiple violations of the tip credit and therefore cannot rely on tips to supplement the subminimum hourly wages they paid to the Plaintiffs. As a result of these violations, Defendants have lost the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for all hours worked. In other words, Defendants must account for the difference between the wages paid to Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and the minimum wage rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at, both, McAdoo's and La Cosecha as, both, a server and bartender. The Defendants own and operate the dining establishments commonly known as "La Cosecha Mexican Table" and "McAdoo's Seafood and Oyster Bar" where they employ servers and bartenders to serve customers who are dining at their restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: 817-479-9229 Fax: 817-840-5102 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Poppe RPNS Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poppe v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00870 (W.D.N.Y., Filed June 28, 2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the Rock-n-Play Sleepers (RNPS) are sufficient to establish standing for jurisdictional purposes, the Court says. The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on standing grounds. The court previously issued a decision certifying an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. The court identified causation for purposes of NY GBL section 349 as well as damages as subject to individual proof. The court also noted that the Defendants intended to challenge the standing of Plaintiffs' sole New York class representative, Elizabeth Alfaro. Ms. Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September 2017, she or her husband-it makes no difference here-purchased an RNPS for her newborn son for $50 at a Target store. Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half of his daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the first six months of his life. The child suffered no ill consequences from sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed it. He was followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping in the RNPS and did not use the product much during her infancy. In April 2019, Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS supervised by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. She participated in the recall and received a plush child's toy. The Defendants placed a value of $30 on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children did not like to play with the toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the full price her family paid for the RNPS. The Poppe Case is consolidated in MDL No. 1:19-md-2903 RE: FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LITIGATION. The suit alleges violatiob of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving diversity-product liability. Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo, California. The company has presence in 35 countries and territories and sells products in more than 150 countries. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZdUkoe at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Shaffer v. Mattel ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaffer v. Mattel, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00667 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the Rock-n-Play Sleepers (RNPS) are sufficient to establish standing for jurisdictional purposes, the Court says. The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on standing grounds. The court previously issued a decision certifying an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. The court identified causation for purposes of NY GBL section 349 as well as damages as subject to individual proof. The court also noted that the Defendants intended to challenge the standing of Plaintiffs' sole New York class representative, Elizabeth Alfaro. Ms. Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September 2017, she or her husband-it makes no difference here-purchased an RNPS for her newborn son for $50 at a Target store. Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half of his daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the first six months of his life. The child suffered no ill consequences from sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed it. He was followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping in the RNPS and did not use the product much during her infancy. In April 2019, Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS supervised by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. She participated in the recall and received a plush child's toy. Defendants placed a value of $30 on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children did not like to play with the toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the full price her family paid for the RNPS. The Shaffer Case is consolidated in MDL No. 1:19-md-2903 RE: FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LITIGATION. The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving diversity-product liability. Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo, California. The company has presence in 35 countries and territories and sells products in more than 150 countries. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z8mDEE at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2903: Class Action Dismissal Bid Tossed in Wray RPNS Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wray v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01067 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 13, 2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the Rock-n-Play Sleepers (RNPS) are sufficient to establish standing for jurisdictional purposes, the Court says. The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on standing grounds. The court previously issued a decision certifying an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. The court identified causation for purposes of NY GBL section 349 as well as damages as subject to individual proof. The court also noted that the Defendants intended to challenge the standing of Plaintiffs' sole New York class representative, Elizabeth Alfaro. Ms. Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September 2017, she or her husband-it makes no difference here-purchased an RNPS for her newborn son for $50 at a Target store. Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half of his daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the first six months of his life. The child suffered no ill consequences from sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed it. He was followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping in the RNPS and did not use the product much during her infancy. In April 2019, Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS supervised by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. She participated in the recall and received a plush child's toy. The Defendants placed a value of $30 on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children did not like to play with the toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the full price her family paid for the RNPS. The Wray Case is consolidated in MDL No. 1:19-md-2903 RE: FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LITIGATION. The suit alleges violatiob of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving diversity-product liability. Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing company founded in January 1945 and headquartered in El Segundo, California. The company has presence in 35 countries and territories and sells products in more than 150 countries. Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys for infants, toddlers and preschoolers, headquartered in East Aurora, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZaNMXa at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Clayton v. Blackbaud --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clayton, et al., v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01058 (D.S.C., Filed Apr. 9, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Clayton Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xJoWlD at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Cohen v. Blackbaud ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cohen v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00948 (D.S.C., Filed Mar. 31, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Cohen Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41g1yK7 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Duranko v. Blackbaud --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Duranko v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00054 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 7, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Duranko Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IpDNqb at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Eisen v. Blackbaud ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Philip Eisen v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04358 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 15, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Eisen Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3INDQOh at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Faszczewski v. Blackbaud ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Faszczewski v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00012 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 4, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows: Event Deadline -- Blackbaud's opposition to class May 16, 2023 certification: -- Blackbaud's rebuttal class May 16, 2023 certification expert disclosure: -- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on May 16, 2023 the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiff's response in June 13, 2023 opposition to Blackbaud's Daubert motions on: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification July 11, 2023 experts Blackbaud's reply in support of its Daubert motion on Plaintiffs' class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support July 11, 2023 of their motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions July 11, 2023 on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Blackbaud's response in August 8, 2023 opposition to Plaintiffs' Daubert motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support September 5, 2023 of their Daubert Motions on Blackbaud's rebuttal class certification experts: -- Hearing on class certification TBD and Daubert Motions: The Faszczewski Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972. The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their personal information to those entities have suffered damages, including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients affected by the data breach. Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations, and individual change agents. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZeElpK at no extra charge.[CC] MEC HOLDING: Sends Mass Automated Marketing Calls, Perez Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEC HOLDING COMPANY D/B/A FONTANA NISSAN, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00279 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2023) seeks to secure redress for Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses prerecorded messages to send mass automated marketing calls to Plaintiff and other individuals' cellular phone numbers without first obtaining the required express written consent. The prerecorded voice message calls state that they were being sent by "Fontana Nissan" and offer discounts like 10% if Plaintiff goes to Defendant's store and has service work on her automobile performed, says the suit. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. MEC Holding Company operates as a new and used car dealership which also offers maintenance and service of automobiles to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 1925 Century Park, E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (786) 289-9471 E-mail: Scott@Edelsberglaw.com MEDCAN HEALTH: Class Action Over Vacation, Holiday Pay Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caroline DeBruin, Esq., of Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP, disclosed that in Curtis v. Medcan Health Management Inc., 2022 ONSC 5176 ("Medcan"), the Divisional Court certified a class action against an employer for unpaid vacation and holiday pay calculated on employees' variable compensation. The plaintiff class members claimed that their employer violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 ("ESA") when it calculated vacation and holiday pay based on salary alone, ignoring other elements of their remuneration. Background Facts The employer provided its employees with variable compensation, consisting of a base salary, commissions, and/or bonuses. In 2019, an employee who earned a base salary, commissions, and bonuses notified the employer that it violated the ESA by only paying vacation and public holiday pay on base salary alone. In response to this notification, the employer retroactively provided all current and former employees with unpaid vacation pay and public holiday pay. However, the employer elected to correct its error for only the two-year period preceding the complaint (2017 to 2019), relying on the basic limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002. In 2020, various employees commenced a proposed class action to claim unpaid vacation and public holiday pay on their variable compensation (i.e., commissions and bonuses) dating back to 2003. In its Statement of Defence, the employer alleged that the claim was untimely and barred by full and final releases that the employees had signed. This Medcan decision deals solely with the certification of the proposed class proceeding. The Decision At the original certification motion, a lower court judge refused to certify the proposed class action based on the plaintiffs' failure to meet the "preferable procedure" criterion of the class proceeding process. On appeal, however, the Ontario Divisional Court found that the lower court had made an error in principle and certified the class proceeding. The Test for Class Action Certification Section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 states that a class proceeding shall be certified if: -- the pleadings or notice of application disclose a cause of action; -- there is an identifiable class of two or more persons that would be represented by the representative plaintiff or defendant; -- the claims or defences of the class members raise common issues; -- a class proceeding is the preferable procedure to resolve the common issues; and -- there is a representative plaintiff or defendant who: (a) would fairly represent the interests of the class; (b) has produced a plan that sets out a workable method for advancing the proceeding on behalf of the class and of notifying class members of the proceeding; and (c) would not have a conflict of interest with other class members on the common issues. Was the Proposed Class Action the "Preferable Procedure?" To demonstrate that a class action is the "preferable procedure," a representative party must show that a class action is the superior means to resolving a dispute. In doing so, the representative party should address the goals of class actions: judicial economy, behaviour modification, and access to justice. In allowing the appeal, the Divisional Court found that the lower court judge failed to properly consider whether certification of the proposed class action would promote access to justice. Notably for employers, the Divisional Court highlighted the following access to justice considerations that favoured the certification of the class proceeding: A class proceeding would remove restrictive barriers for individuals who may have only small claims against the employer. Some individuals represented by the class had claim to only a few hundred dollars of vacation and holiday pay. It would be difficult for them to obtain counsel given the low value of their claims as compared to the cost of litigation. The class proceeding would provide anonymity and security in numbers to current employees who were owed vacation and holiday pay. This enhanced access to justice as current employees may be reluctant to bring individual claims due to fear of reprisal. Individuals may be unaware that they had a claim for unpaid vacation and holiday pay. The class action's notice requirements would ensure that these individuals were aware of their ability to make such a claim. A class action would be preferable for class members who, due to psychological and economic barriers (e.g., limited language skills, frail emotional or physical states, alienation from the legal system, etc.), could be prevented from bringing individual claims. In addition, the Divisional Court found that the lower court judge had failed to adequately consider the behaviour modification criterion. The Court emphasized how certification of a class action of Medcan's nature could achieve behaviour modification (emphasis added): In employment cases such as this one, class proceedings would serve the goal of behaviour modification because they would signal to employers that they are expected to be informed of and to comply with their statutory obligations regarding employee compensation. Individual claims under the ESA and individual actions would be much less effective in achieving this goal because the amounts recovered would be relatively small. Moreover, individual claims would never result in the employer being held entirely accountable for the "full costs of their conduct." The Divisional Court also noted that "class proceedings have repeatedly been found to be the preferable procedure for employment and ESA-related cases" (para 54). Check the Box The Medcan decision acts as a wake-up call for employers to re-assess and ensure that all statutory obligations are properly followed. In addition, Medcan indicates that Ontario courts are increasingly favouring class action proceedings to address employment-related claims. Given the significant liability that may result from a successful class action, legislative compliance is now all the more important for employers. Need More Information? For more information or assistance with legal compliance issues affecting your business, contact Caroline DeBruin at cdebruin@filion.on.ca or your regular lawyer at the firm. [GN] MEDILODGE GROUP: Witte Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Medilodge Group, Inc. The case is styled as Karyn Witte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Medilodge Group, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-10461-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., Feb. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Medilodge -- https://medilodge.com/ -- nursing care is a leading provider of skilled facilities in Washington, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Clifton Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com META PLATFORM: Westport District Joins Youth Mental Health Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SouthCoastToday reports that Westport Community Schools are now part of a national mass action suit against a number of social media companies whose platforms are popular among school-age children, including TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube, alleging these services have contributed to a "youth mental health crisis." The School Committee voted unanimously to join the suit, being filed by San Diego-based Frantz Law Group, at their February meeting earlier in February. The lawsuit alleges that the companies behind Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube "are substantially contributing to the mental health crisis America's youth are facing," according to a memo from the law firm, which lists increased rates of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders and suicide in as some of the results of youth use, or overuse, of the platforms. "The harms allegedly caused by these companies include, but are not limited to, intentionally designing, marketing, and operating their exploitive social media platforms to be extremely popular with youth users, despite research confirming the severe and wide-ranging effects of social media on youth mental health," the document reads. The defendants and their online platforms named in the lawsuit are: Meta, Platforms, Inc. and subsidiaries (Facebook, Instagram) Snap Inc. (Snapchat) TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc. (TikTok) Alphabet Inc., XXVI Holdings Inc., Google LLC, YouTube LLC (YouTube) As noted by School Committee Chair Nancy Stanton-Cross at the committee's Feb. 2 meeting, there is no cost to the district in signing on as a plaintiff. More Mass. districts may join lawsuit William Shinoff, an attorney with Frantz Law Group, told The Standard-Times that the litigation on the social media lawsuit was still in early stages having begun about a month ago; and, as of Feb. 22, Westport was one of "less than five" Massachusetts districts to have signed on. Shinoff declined to name the other districts for confidentiality. "I can let you know that there's about 80 [statewide school districts] that are going to be voting this month or two to get involved," he said. Out of the South Coast area school districts The Standard-Times attempted to contact, only New Bedford Public Schools and Old Rochester Regional School District responded, confirming they are not involved in the lawsuit. Superintendent: Social media poses 'special' challenges for schools Superintendent Thomas Aubin says Westport schools, "like every other school district," are all too familiar with the harmful effects alleged in the lawsuit. And while academia has always had its share of social, disciplinary and other issues to contend with, when it comes to social media, Aubin said, "This is something special." "We're dealing with it on a daily basis," he said relative to the kinds of problems outlined in the lawsuit, going on to cite new CDC data released on Feb. 13. "When you get a report that one in three high-school-age women have contemplated or attempted suicide, I think it's time to pump the brakes and try to figure out what's going on here." Upcoming digital literacy curriculum to address social media One underlying aspect of social media that makes it especially dangerous, Aubin says, is how it tends to blur the line between reality and façade. "That's why this district is moving hard to develop a robust digital literacy program," he said. "One of the biggest things kids are going to face is having to delineate truth from fiction, and because they get most of their information from social media, it's critically important that they are very sophisticated consumers of that medium." According to Aubin, the K-12 curricula, currently being developed in conjunction with financial literacy programming, are part of the district's strategic planning for coming years, and should be ready to launch around 2025, he estimates. Westport, other districts await word on vape settlement Westport schools' entry into the social media lawsuit comes as districts that had joined another national lawsuit filed by Frantz against nicotine vape-maker Juul Labs Inc. await word on how much they will receive on a Dec. 6 settlement in that case. According to national media reports, that settlement amount is $1.2 billion. Shinoff declined to confirm the amount but said "a significant portion" of it would go to the school districts involved. Westport school officials had voted to sign onto the Juul lawsuit on Oct. 20, joining 13 other Mass. school districts, including Wareham Public Schools, and the city of Brockton. Shinoff said related litigation against partial Juul owner Altria Group Inc. is still ongoing. [GN] MG BILLING: Class Certification Deadline Extended to Oct. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vandiver v. MG Billing Limited, Case No. 1:21-cv-02960 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswel entered an order extending the class certification deadline to October 31, 2023. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC] MI CASA: Pardini Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander Pardini, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Mi Casa Su Casa, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00796-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certifying collective action and notice to potential collective members. Pardini's evidence meets and surpasses the Ninth Circuit's lenient standard for conditional certification, and the court should. Pardini has met his burden to provide "substantial allegations" that Mi Casa 18 Su Casa's workers were paid under the same, illegal overtime pay practice. Pardini requests the Court grant this motion and approve the proposed Notice & Consent Form and opt-in procedures. Mi Casa Su Casa did not pay its hourly employees the overtime wages required under federal law. Mi Casa Su Casa uniformly failed to factor into its hourly employees' overtime rates any alternate, higher compensation rate, shift differentials, or non-discretionary bonuses, such that their overtime premiums were at least 1.5x their regular rate of pay. Instead, Mi Casa Su Casa simply paid them at their same hourly rate for the job they were performing (the equivalent of straight-time-for-overtime for these hours). This practice flagrantly violates the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA). Pardini seeks to allow his coworkers -- other hourly employees subject to the same illegal pay practice -- to receive notice of this collective action. Pardini and Mi Casa Su Casa's workers were all subject to the same unlawful pay scheme -- which paid them on an hourly basis without accounting for all financial remuneration paid to them during the workweek, including but not limited to the employee's alternate, higher compensation rate, shift differentials, and non-discretionary bonuses. Mi Casa provides residential care services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ZoLJ1Pat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 999-5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 N. 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 328-0262 E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com MICKS IN COOPERSTOWN: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Micks in Cooperstown, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Micks in Cooperstown, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01571 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Micks in Cooperstown, Inc. doing business as Mickey's Place -- https://www.mickeysplace.com/ -- is Cooperstown's premier baseball emporium.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com MIDDLESEX WATER: Scheduling Order Entered in Lonsk Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LONSK v. MIDDLESEX WATER COMPANY, et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-19808-EP-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The Plaintiff's Motion for class October 9, 2023 certification and Plaintiff's class certification expert reports, if any, due on: -- The Defendants shall depose January 9, 2024. Plaintiff's class certification expert(s) and Defendants shall serve their opposition to class certification and class certification expert reports, if any, by: -- The Plaintiff shall depose March 25, 2024 Defendants' class certification expert(s) and Plaintiff shall serve her Reply in support of class certification and class certification rebuttal expert reports, if any, by: Middlesex Water is a water utility based in the U.S. state of New Jersey that was first incorporated in 1897. The company declared an annual net income of $33.8M, with a revenue of $135.5M for fiscal year 2019. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KOj8ip at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Donald J. Camerson, II, Esq. Bressler Amery & Ross 325 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 301 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 514-1200 Facsimile: (973) 514-1660 E-mail: djcamerson@bressler.com MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Settles CRT Class Action Suit for $33-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- OpenClassActions.com reports that a $33 Million Open Class Action Lawsuit has been settled regarding Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT's). "CRTs" are (or used to be) extremely common in households and offices since they were the most popular form factor for TVs and computer monitors. The CRT class action lawsuit alleged that certain CRT manufacturers, such as Mitsubishi, conspired together in order to set high, monopolized prices for CRTs sold to consumers, leading intentionally to much higher prices for TVs and computer monitors. This is just the latest, newest class action settlement in a series of lawsuits that have added up to nearly $600,000,000 in CRT class action settlement funds. This settlement, in addition to all of the other 9 settlement now includes the following CRT manufacturers: -- Mitsubishi Electric -- Chunghwa -- LG -- Philips -- Panasonic -- Hitachi -- Toshiba -- Samsung SDI -- Thomson -- Technologies Displays America The $33 Million CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) Class Action Settlement with Mitsubishi will be open to claims until June 13, 2023. To qualify, file a claim before the deadline. You must be an individual or business that purchased CRT monitors or TVs indirectly. Indirectly in this case, means you purchased the CRT monitor (except for Sony branded monitors or TVs) from someone other than the direct manufacturer. For instance, you purchased a CRT TV from Best Buy, Costco, Amazon.com, and so forth. Only some states qualify. If you did not file a class action claim form in the previous $576 Million collection of settlements, or you need to make a new claim for states that were not included, you can file a claim form by June 13, 2023 to qualify. Find a claim form by googling "CRT Class Action". A minimum payment of $10 will be made to all valid claimants who file on time. The maximum payment that will be distributed is capped at 3 times the estimated damages done to each person in this settlement. Please note that these plans for distribution of money is subject to changes the court, judge, and any appeals processes result in. Payments will be made to qualified class action members who file a legitimate claim form on time. These payments will be determined on a "pro-rata" schedule, meaning the amount that each person gets paid will be determined by the total amount of valid claims filed and the types of CRT monitors or TVs to be reimbursed. Since the different types of CRT TVs and monitors get paid differently, based on their sizes (size of screen) and other factors, the final payment amount can vary. Until all claims have been filed and checked, it is impossible to know how much money will actually be paid to each person that files a valid claim form in the CRT settlement. [GN] MUNDI 910 VICTORIA: Exclusion With Fire Class Action Until May 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CFM Lawyers LLP of News Wire reports that if a victim does not wish to participate in the class action he /she must take action to exclude himself / herself before May 24, 2023. This will be his / her only opportunity to opt out of the class action. If you opt out: -- You will not be eligible to participate in the ongoing class action, and you will not be bound by the outcome of the class action, including any judgment on the common issues for the class, whether favourable or not, and you will not receive any money from the class action, but you will be able to start or continue your own case against the Defendants regarding the claims made in the class action. If you wish to opt out of the class action you must do so on or before May 24, 2023 by sending a letter or email, signed by you, stating that you are opting out of the Class Action to Class Counsel. The letter or email must also include: (i) your full name, (ii) your current address, (iii) your telephone number, and (iv) a statement that you wish to opt-out of the Class Action. A class action lawsuit about the July 8, 2020, fire at the Prince George Econo Lodge City Centre Inn has been allowed to proceed by the British Columbia Supreme Court. The plaintiff, Leonard Hay, has filed the class action to seek compensation for himself and other Class Members who suffered losses or injuries as a result of the fire. You may be a Class Member if: You were a registered guest at the City Centre Inn on July 8, 2020; You were present at the City Centre Inn on July 8, 2020 at the time of the fire; You were present at Yolks All Day Family Restaurant on July 8, 2020 at the time of the fire; or You are a family member of one of the victims who was killed in the fire. However, you are not a Class Member if you intentionally started the Fire, conspired to start the Fire, or were an employee of one of the defendants in the class action. The defendants are: Mundi 910 Victoria Enterprises Ltd.; Choice Hotels Canada Inc.; The City of Prince George; and All Points Fire Protection. The class action will seek to claim compensation for Class Members who suffered losses as a result of the fire, including: Wrongful death; Personal injury, including physical and psychological injuries; Lost or damaged possessions; Room costs that were not refunded; and Expenses caused by the fire, such as transportation and hotel costs. Participating in the Class Action Your legal rights will be affected if you are a Class Member. You do not need to sign up for the class action for your legal rights to be affected. If you do nothing: you will be eligible to participate in the ongoing class action, and you will be bound by the outcome of the class action, including any judgment on the common issues for the class, whether favourable or not, and you may receive money from the class action, but you will not be able to start or continue your own case against the Defendants regarding the claims made in the class action. If you believe you are a Class Member and would like to know more about your rights and the class action, please contact Class Counsel for more information. You should save any documents you have that might relate to your losses, such as receipts for any expenses you incurred because of the fire, medical records, and booking information with the City Centre Inn. To contact class counsel please send a letter to: CFM Lawyers 400 - 856 Homer Street Vancouver, B.C., V6B 2W5 ATTN: Amy Mileusnic The law firms of CFM Lawyers LLP and Dick Byl Law Corporation represent Class Members. If the Class Action is successful, Class Counsel will ask the court for approval of their fees, which will be a percentage of the money recovered from the defendants. To find out more, please visit www.cfmlawyers.ca or www.dbylaw.com or contact Class Counsel through the address and email above. [GN] NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Class Cert Responses Due March 23 in Sweeney --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sweeney, et al., v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01569 (SD. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to file response as to motion to certify class. -- Responses due is by March 23, 2023. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) involving employee benefits. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and affiliated companies, commonly shortened to Nationwide, is a group of large U.S. insurance and financial services companies based in Columbus, Ohio. The company also operates regional headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona; Des Moines, Iowa and San Antonio, Texas.[CC] NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Sanchez Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navy Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Sharlene Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 5:23-cv-00285 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Navy Federal Credit Union -- https://www.navyfederal.org/ -- is a global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, chartered and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Ave Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com NESTLE WATERS: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to Nov. 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patane, et al., v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381 (D. Conn., Filed Aug. 15, 2017), the Hon. Judge S. Dave Vatti entered an order on motion for extension of time: -- Motions for class certification November 16, 2023 and for summary judgment are due by: -- Opposition briefs by: January 17, 2024 -- Reply briefs by: February 16, 2024 -- The Joint Trial Memorandum March 4, 2024 is due by: The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud. Nestle Waters North America is a leading Healthy Hydration company dedicated to enhancing quality of life and contributing to a healthier future.[CC] NEW HAMPSHIRE BOWL: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Hampshire Bowl & Board, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. New Hampshire Bowl & Board, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01502 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New Hampshire Bowl and Board -- https://www.newhampshirebowlandboard.com/ -- makes wood salad bowls, wood carving boards, wooden spoons, and wood utensils.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Sow Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sow, et al., v. City Of New York, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00533 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Colleen Mcmahon entered an order as follows: -- Any motions for class certification March 31, 2023 must be filed by: -- Opposition to motions for class May 10, 2023 certification must be filed by: -- Reply briefs, if any, are due on: May 31, 2023 -- Expert Discovery due by: Nov. 3, 2023 -- Fact Discovery due by: July 14, 2023 -- Motions due by: March 31, 2023 -- Replies due by: May 31, 2023 -- Responses due by: May 10, 2023 The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely populated borough that's among the world's major commercial, financial and cultural centers. A copy of the dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lWv8UH at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Yates Class Cert Bids Must be Filed by March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yates, et al., v. City Of New York, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01904 (S.D.N.Y., Filed March 4, 2021), the Hon. Judge Colleen Mcmahon entered an order as follows: -- Any motions for class certification March 31, 2023 must be filed by: -- Opposition to motions for class May 10, 2023 certification must be filed by: -- Reply briefs, if any, are due on: May 31, 2023 -- Expert Discovery due by: Nov. 3, 2023 -- Fact Discovery due by: July 14, 2023 -- Motions due by: March 31, 2023 -- Replies due by: May 31, 2023 -- Responses due by: May 10, 2023 The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely populated borough that's among the world's major commercial, financial and cultural centers. A copy of the dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EIkbN5 at no extra charge.[CC] NEWBURY COMICS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newbury Comics, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Newbury Comics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01505-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Newbury Comics -- https://www.newburycomics.com/ -- is an independently owned retail company with stores throughout New England and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fisher Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norfolk Southern Corporation, et al. The case is styled as William Lee Fisher, Helen Gould, Donna Holzer, Robert Holzer, Taylor Holzer, Melinda Hutton, Jennifer Kidder, Joseph Kidder, Julie Richeal, Keith Richeal, George A. Psomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, ABC Corporations 1-20, Names Unknown, Case No. 4:23-cv-00350-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 23, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land. Norfolk Southern Corporation -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- is one of the nation's premier transportation companies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 721-1178 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Nils Paul Johnson, Jr. JOHNSON & JOHNSON 12 West Main Street Canfield, OH 44406 Phone: (330) 533-1921 - and - Nils Peter Johnson JOHNSON & JOHNSON 120 West Main Street Canfield, OH 44406 Phone: (330) 533-1921 Fax: (330) 533-0887 Email: nilspeter@johnsonandjohnsonohio.com - and - Todd B. Naylor GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Fax: (513) 345-8294 Email: tnaylor@gs-legal.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Ste. 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com NORTHPOINT SENIOR: Summers Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Amerla Summers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NORTHPOINT SENIOR SERVICES, LLC D/B/A PRESTIGE HEALTHCARE, and NOBLE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00759-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 23, 2023), is brought against Defendants for Defendants' willful failure to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages as well as failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, ("the Ohio Wage Act"), and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"), (the Ohio Wage Act and the OPPA will be referred to collectively as "the Ohio Acts"). The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and the Ohio Acts by failing to pay its hourly workers, including Named Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Collective and Ohio Class, for all compensable hours each day worked, including, upon information and belief, by deducting time and/or not compensating at all for a "meal period" in the amount of at least 30 minutes each day even though the "meal period" was regularly missed, shortened, and/or interrupted by job duties at the Defendants' direction and for Defendants' benefit., says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly state tested nurse assistant ("STNA") from February 16, 2022 until January 27, 2023 at one of Defendants' senior living facilities in Delaware, Ohio. The Defendants operate at least 17 nursing rehabilitation and long-term care facilities throughout the State of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com NUMERADE LABS: Ghanaat Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Information ------------------------------------------------------------------- Star Ghanaat and Vedant Thakkar, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NUMERADE LABS, INC. d/b/a NUMERADE, Case No. 3:23-cv-00833 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendant surreptitious disclosure of its subscribers' personally identifying information in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA"), which generally prohibits the knowing disclosure of information which identifies a consumer as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services. Specifically, Numerade uses a "Pixel" tracking cookie to disclose to Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta," formerly known as Facebook ("Facebook")) a record of its digital subscribers' identities side by side with the specific videos its digital subscribers requested or obtained. Numerade does so without their "informed, written consent." The Plaintiffs are victims of Numerade's misconduct. Numerade disclosed to Facebook Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information, including their Facebook ID ("FID"), along with the video title and the video's URL identifying each video Plaintiffs requested or obtained (together, "Personal Viewing Information"). The Plaintiffs have never consented, agreed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Defendant to disclose their Personal Viewing Information to Facebook. The Plaintiffs have never been provided any written notice that Defendant discloses its digital subscribers' Personal Viewing Information, or any means of opting out of such disclosures of their Personal Viewing Information. The Defendant nonetheless disclosed Plaintiffs' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are subscribers to Numerade. The Defendant owns and publishes www.numerade.com, which is an educational technology website that offers subscribers the opportunity to request and view pre-recorded video courses, notes and exams, and test preparation for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics topics.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 305 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com mboyle@meyerwilson.com - and - Brian Levin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2b Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 402-9050 Fax: (305) 676-4443 Email: brian@levinlawpa.com ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Carroll Class Certification Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN CARROLL, et al., v. ORANGE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00614-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order granting final approval of class certification and award of attorney fees. The Court approves two late claims that were submitted since September 23, 2022. By agreement, the Parties may agree to approve any additional late claims received up to the time of distribution, without the need for further stipulation or review by the Court. Should the Parties disagree as to the approval of a claim, they shall advise the Court. The sole objection was submitted by an individual who stated that they were objecting only because they were not an eligible class member because they had not received/sought General Relief benefits. The objection is unrelated to the terms of the Settlement so no further action is necessary to address the objection. -- Payment of the Class Fund, Attorneys' Fees, and Distribution to the Class. The Court approves total litigation costs of $450, which the filing fee for this action paid by Plaintiffs' Counsel. There are no costs of administration. The Court approves a fee award of $150,000, which is independent of the settlement fund and equivalent to 60% of the lodestar. This award is justified by the fact that the the Plaintiffs' attorneys achieved significant results for the class and undertook the risk of litigation. The Plaintiffs' Counsel filed documentation of their fees totaling 3 $252,527.50. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kCTDG9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brooke Weitzman, Esq. William Wise, Esq. ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER 1535 E 17th Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 617–5353 E-mail: bweitzman@eldrcenter.org bwise@eldrcenter.org - and - Carol A. Sobel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL SOBEL 1158 26th Street, #552 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 E-mail: carolsobellaw@gmail.com - and - Paul L. Hoffman, Esq. SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS & HOFFMAN 9415 Culver Boulevard, #115 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com OUR OWN CANDLE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Our Own Candle Company, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Our Own Candle Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01510 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Our Own Candle Company, Inc. -- https://www.ourowncandlecompany.com/ -- offers scented mason jar candles with fast and easy delivery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com P.F. CHANG'S: Cookson Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KYLE COOKSON and EDGAR VILLALOBOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC. a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00045709-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Feb. 21, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00341-GPC-DDL to the proceeding. The complaint alleges 10 causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to pay reporting time pay; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (7) failure to timely pay wages at separation; (8) failure to reimburse necessary expenses; (9) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (10) violation of California Business & Professions Code. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. is an American-based, casual dining restaurant chain.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Christopher W. Decker, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com christopher.decker@ogletree.com PANERA LLC: Ladonski Sues Over Deceptive and Untruthful Promises ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Ladonski, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PANERA, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01101 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendant, arising from its deceptive and untruthful promises to provide FREE, $1 or flat fee, low-cost delivery on food deliveries ordered through its App and website. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Panera has moved aggressively into the food delivery business, exploiting an opportunity presented by Americans' reduced willingness to leave their homes. To appeal to consumers in a crowded food delivery marketplace, Panera has prominently marketed a FREE, $1 or flat fee, low-cost "Delivery Fee" in its mobile application and on its website. Reasonable consumers like Plaintiff understand Panera's prominent "Delivery Fee" promises to represent the total marginal cost they will pay for having Panera food delivered to their homes, over and above what they would pay if they picked up food in-store. Indeed, this is precisely how the term "Delivery Fee" is used across the food delivery industry and how the term is understood by reasonable consumers: a "Delivery Fee" is a promise that such fee is what covers delivery costs. Panera's "Delivery Fee" representations, however, were and are false. Panera actually imposes additional, hidden delivery charges on its customers that far exceed the promise of FREE, $1 or flat fee, low-cost delivery. Specifically, Panera secretly marks up food prices for delivery orders only by 5%-7%. In other words, the identical sandwich costs approximately $1 more when ordered for delivery than when ordered via the same mobile app for pickup, versus when ordered in-store. This secret menu price markup was specifically designed to cover the costs of delivering food and profit on that delivery. It was, in short, exclusively a charge for using Panera's delivery service and was, therefore, a delivery charge. Worse, Panera designed its app and website to make it impossible for consumers to catch its hidden menu price inflation. The company ensured that food prices were only displayed on the app or website after a customer chose delivery or pickup, ensuring delivery customers could not see the price inflation Panera was imposing on delivery orders only. This hidden delivery upcharge makes Panera's flat, low-cost delivery promises false. The true delivery costs are obscured, as described above, and far exceed the prominent flat, low-cost promises. By falsely marketing flat, low-cost delivery, Panera deceives consumers into making website or mobile app food purchases they otherwise would not make, says the complaint. The Plaintiff used the Panera app to make a purchase of food on September 8, 2021, in the total amount of $16.23. Panera, LLC is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal business offices in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com - and – Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue Aventura, FL 33180 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street N W, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 950 Gilman Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielpllc.com PARTNERS BANCORP: Juan Monteverde Investigates Linkbancorp Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Partners Bancorp. (NASDAQ: PTRS), relating to its proposed sale to LINKBANCORP, Inc.. Under the terms of the agreement, PTRS shareholders are expected to receive 1.15 shares of LINKBANCORP stock per share they own. Click here for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/partners-bancorp. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. About Monteverde & Associates PC We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases. If you own common stock in PTRS and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] PATREON INC: Court Dismisses in Part Stark's 1st Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BRAYDEN STARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PATREON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-03131-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part Patreon's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Plaintiffs Brayden Stark and Judd Oostyen bring the putative class action against Patreon, asserting claims under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") and California law based on Patreon's alleged sharing of user data with Facebook. Patreon allows its users or members to access a variety of content on its website, including music, podcasts, and video content posted by content creators. The Plaintiffs assert that Patreon is therefore a "video tape service provider" as that term is defined in the VPPA because it engaged in the business of delivering audiovisual materials that are similar to prerecorded video cassette tapes and those sales affect interstate or foreign commerce. The Plaintiffs are current users of both Patreon and Facebook, the ubiquitous social network. They pay Patreon subscription fees of around $15 and $5 respectively per month and regularly watch prerecorded video content on Patreon's website. Their Facebook profiles include their names and other personal details, and they have used the same devices and browsers to access Patreon that they use to access Facebook, while logged into Facebook. When users view video content on Patreon's website, Patreon transmits the title of the video they are viewing, as well as the user's Facebook ID ("FID") to Meta, the company that owns Facebook, using a tracking tool created by Meta called the "Pixel." The Plaintiffs assert that they did not know of or authorize Patreon sharing their video usage information with Meta, and that the "Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, Data Practices, and Cookie Policy" included on Patreon's website do not inform users of Patreon's use of the Meta Pixel or its practice of sharing Users' personal information and video content choices with Meta in a way that allows Meta to identify their specific video-watching preferences. In any event, Patreon never obtained a standalone agreement from users to share that information as required by the VPPA. The Plaintiffs contend that Patreon profited from this conduct and that they and the other putative class members suffered harm in that Patreon shared data that users expected would be kept private, users lost the potential to obtain any value for that data themselves, and users paid greater subscription fees to Patreon than they would have if they had known how Patreon was sharing their data. The Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) violation of the VPPA; (2) violation of the "unlawful," "unfair," and "fraudulent" prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"); (3) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA"); and (4) unjust enrichment. The Court previously granted a motion to dismiss some of the Plaintiffs' claims for failure to allege that the videos at issue were prerecorded, a defect that Plaintiffs have remedied in their amended complaint. That previous order declined to reach Patreon's constitutional challenge to the VPPA. In conjunction with its previous motion to dismiss, Patreon requested that the Court takes judicial notice of the various versions of its terms of use, privacy policy, and cookie policy that were in effect during the period at issue, arguing that the Plaintiffs' complaint incorporated those documents by reference. Judge Spero states that the Court previously found those documents subject to judicial notice for the purpose of showing what Patreon disclosed to its users, but held that at the pleading stage, they could not be used to contradict the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding how Patreon operates its business. Patreon contends that the VPPA violates the First Amendment by imposing a content-based restriction on speech without sufficiently compelling reason. It contends that a substantial number of the VPPA's potential applications are unconstitutional, rendering the statute subject to facial invalidation. According to Patreon, the VPPA is not narrowly tailored to serve any compelling interest, and it also arbitrarily excludes other speech that would presumably implicate the same interests it is intended to serve, like disclosure of consumer information by libraries or bookstores. Patreon also contends that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the heightened pleading standard for claims sounding in fraud with respect to their claims under the CLRA and the fraud prong of the UCL, because they do not allege that they actually reviewed any purportedly misleading statements giving rise to a duty to disclose Patreon's use of the Pixel (thus failing to sufficiently allege causation), and because they have not specifically identified any such statements. The United States intervened in the case to defend the constitutionality of the VPPA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 517 and 2403(a) and Rules 5.1(c) and 24(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It argues that although the VPPA has not previously been subject to a constitutional challenge, three decisions from the Southern District of New York upholding an analogous Michigan statute are persuasive authority that the VPPA does not violate the First Amendment. It also contends that the VPPA primarily regulates commercial speech, which is not subject to overbreadth analysis, and that it withstands the intermediate scrutiny applicable to such speech. The United States' brief does not address whether the VPPA would survive strict scrutiny. See generally id. The Plaintiffs argue that the VPPA protects private information and privacy interests that courts have recognized as constitutionally significant, and that the speech it restricts does not implicate matters of public concern. Like the United States, they contend that it restricts only commercial speech based on a broader definition of such speech than that propounded by Patreon, and that Patreon's examples of the VPPA regulating less clearly commercial speech are implausible and unlikely to arise often. The Plaintiffs also argue that the statute is content-neutral because it does not discriminate by viewpoint or turn on whether the government agrees or disagrees with a speaker's message. They argue that the VPPA is subject to and survives intermediate scrutiny. In a short paragraph, they argue that it would also survive strict scrutiny. They contend that they have sufficiently alleged their CLRA and UCL claims. As to Patreon's consitutional challenges, Judge Spero finds that (i) the VPPA's regulation of video service providers disclosing consumers' personal information -- as opposed to any other information -- is content-based; (ii) the statute's regulation of commercial disclosures similar to those at issue do not support Patreon's contention that the VPPA violates the First Amendment; (iii) the Court is aware of no other decision holding that any comment that touches on a commercial transaction (like a video rental or purchase) is commercial speech subject to reduced constitutional protection, and declines to so hold; (iv) Patreon's facial challenge premature on a motion to dismiss. He denies Patreon's motion to dismiss the VPPA claim without prejudice to Patreon reasserting its constitutional arguments on a factual record. Judge Spero also finds that without allegations that they actually read the terms of use and other documents containing purportedly misleading partial representations, the Plaintiffs' amended complaint does not sufficiently support an inference that their misunderstanding of how Patreon used their data was caused by Patreon's failure to disclose that information in conjunction with its purported partial representations. Therefore, Patreon's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's CLRA claim and UCL fraud claim is therefore granted, with leave to amend if the Plaintiffs can allege that they read the relevant documents. Because those claims are subject to dismissal on that basis, Judge Spero does not reach the question of whether the Plaintiffs must allege the specific partial representations at issue with particularity under the circumstances of the case, where Patreon previously offered the documents containing them for judicial notice and the Court has already identified representations therein that could support the Plaintiffs' claims. To avoid an unnecessary third motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs are encouraged to include such allegations if they amend their complaint to pursue these claims. For the reasons he discussed, Judge Spero denies Patreon's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim under the VPPA, and grants its motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under the CLRA and the fraud prong of the UCL with leave to amend. If the Plaintiffs wish to pursue those claims, they may file a second amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycks655m from Leagle.com. PEPSICO INC: Gumner Sues Over Unlawful Marketing ------------------------------------------------ David Gumner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-00332 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendant to enjoin the Defendant from unlawfully marketing Gatorade Fit, and to recover compensation for injured Class Members. Pepsi sells a line of Gatorade "Fit" drinks (the "Products") that it markets and labels as "Real Healthy Hydration" because, inter alia, it has "No Added Sugar" and is an "Excellent Source of Vitamin A & C." But Pepsi's use of these claims renders the Gatorade Fit products misbranded because they do not meet the specific requirements necessary to make these claims. The Plaintiff bought Gatorade Fit in reliance on these claims and was economically injured. The Plaintiff paid more for Gatorade Fit because of the Misbranded Claims. The Plaintiff would not have purchased Gatorade Fit or would only have been willing to pay less, absent the Misbranded Claims. Gatorade Fit cost more than it would have without the Misbranded Claims. By using the Misbranded Claims, Pepsi was able to gain a greater share of the relevant drink market than it would have otherwise and also increased the size of the market. The Plaintiff would not have purchased Gatorade Fit if he had known that the Products were misbranded pursuant to California and federal labeling laws and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Gatorade Fit in November of 2022 from the Walmart located on Alicia Parkway in Laguna Niguel, California. Pepsi owns the Gatorade brand and sells Gatorade Fit on a nationwide basis, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Paul K Joseph, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. Trevor M Flynn, Esq. Caroline S Emhardt FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Phone: (619) 215-1741 Email: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com PFLUG PACKAGING: Bahena Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pflug Packaging & Fulfillment, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Bahena, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pflug Packaging & Fulfillment, Inc., Empire Workforce Solutions, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0001617 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 22, 2023). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Pflug Packaging & Fulfillment, Inc. -- http://www.pflugpackaging.com/-- provides packaging, warehousing, and fulfillment services. The Company offers product recall, fulfillment center, wine storage, shrink film, metal detection, inspection, bagging, and contract packaging services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com PISA GROUP: Court Certifies TCPA Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman, writing for TCPAWorld, reports that a properly defended TCPA DNC case should almost never be certified. Individualized issues lurk everywhere. Did consent exist to place each call? Did an EBR exist? Was the phone used for residential purposes? Who placed the number on the DNC list? Was there an inquiry? Surmounting these - and other - issues using common evidence across an entire class is usually impossible. And a class that is defined without taking these issues into account should ALWAYS be doomed to failure - class members will have claims of different strength turning on different evidence and their claim will not all rise and fall based on common issues. So a class like this one should NEVER be certified: All natural persons in the United States who, within four years preceding the filing of this case, received more than one telephone solicitation call from PGI within a 12-month period telemarketing newspaper subscriptions more than 31 days after registering their telephone number with the National Do-Not-Call Registry And yet . . . In Williams v. The PISA Group, Inc. 2023 WL 2227697, Case No. 18-4752 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2023) the court certified just such a class. The reason? As far as I can tell the Defendant failed to make an adequate showing of how differences in EBR information would lead to individual merits showings for each class member. And, if I'm right, that's a pretty big miss. Jumping to the punchline here - the Court found the class was "easily" certifiable because the class claims could be measured based upon the Defendant's CRM data. But that's the wrong analysis. More precisely it is only half of the right analysis. Step one is, indeed, to confirm that data needed to test the class member's claim is available. But step two is more important - assessing whether the same data exists across the entire class. But of course, it will not. Specifically, each class member would have had a relationship that ended at a different time and in a different manner. Some class members may have had follow up inquiries after their subscription ended. And some would, perhaps, never have had a subscription at all. Determining which groups of class members fall into each bucket is the individualized inquiries that the Defendant should have pointed to. And yes, a good Plaintiff's lawyer with a good expert could probably have roughed it out and found a narrow class of individuals that mirrored the Plaintiff-but a huge wide ranging class of everyone that was called should NEVER have been called here. Indeed, the mere fact that some class members received calls that were legal should INSTANTLY have destroyed commonality - there is no commonality where some class members have valid claims and some do not. So the certification process should never have gotten past 23(a) analysis, much less the more rigorous 23(b)(3) analysis. The bad part for all of us, of course, is now this case is out there and a danger to everyone - bad precedent that other courts may follow in the mistaken belief that these sorts of cases are certifiable. No good. Just another reminder that TCPAWorld is not for the faint of heart, or the green of horn . . . [GN] PRO CUSTOM: Ct. Adopts Recommendations to Certify Class in Murrell ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murrell, et al., v. Pro Custom Solar LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02656 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order adopting Report and Recommendations (R&R) for motion to certify class and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action. The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Cheryl Pollak's comprehensive and well-reasoned R&R dated February 2, 2023, to which no party has objected. Because no party has objected to the R&R within the statutory 14-day period, the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." The nature of suit states civil rights – employment. Pro Custom Solar LLC, doing business as Momentum Solar, provides renewable energy services.[CC] R&L CARRIERS: Seeks Denial of Class Certification in Johnson ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v. R&L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company; R&L CARRIERS, INC., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-01619-MCS-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion seeking denial of class certification and to strike the Plaintiff's representative allegations under Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) should be granted. Here, the complaint simply tracks the language of the PAGA statute, and is far too conclusory to properly put R&L on notice of the claims asserted. Further, the First Amended Complaint (FAC) fails to identify the aggrieved employees with sufficient specificity, as it describes the "Aggrieved Employees" as "past and present non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of Defendants who worked in California during the applicable statute of limitations period," devoid of names, titles, or job duties. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m1Q9NO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Cheryl L. Schreck, Esq. Anet Drapalski, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 E-mail: cschreck@fisherphillips.com adrapalski@fisherphillips.com - and - Anthony C. White, Esq. J. Timothy McDonald , Esq. THOMPSON HINE, LLP 41 South High Street, Suite 1700 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 469-3200 Facsimile: (614) 469-3361 E-mail: Tony.White@ThompsonHine.com Tim.McDonald@ThompsonHine.com RAGAN & RAGAN: Class Action Settlement in Rubino Gets Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEFANO RUBINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RAGAN & RAGAN, P.C.; Case No. 2:21-cv-20288-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge André M. Espinosa entered a final approval order of the class action settlement as follows: 1. On October 18, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the Class Settlement Agreement reached between Plaintiff and Defendant for the claims alleged in the case filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Court approved a Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement for mailing to the class as well as a Claim Form. The Court is informed that said Notice was sent by first-class mail, via the United States Postal Service (USPS) to 1,008 individuals who are deemed Settlement Class Members. 2. As of the date of this Declaration, Simpluris has received a total of 72 Claim Forms, which have been deemed timely and valid, and are therefore eligible for payments. 3. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation, the Plaintiff and Class Representative, the other Settlement Class Members, and the Defendant. 4. The Court finds that the distribution of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement as provided for in the Preliminary Approval Order constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all Persons within the definition of the Class, and fully met the requirements of New Jersey law and due process under the United States Constitution. 5. The Court approves the Class Action Settlement which includes a release, and other terms, as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate as to the Parties. The Parties are directed to perform in accordance with the terms set forth in the Agreement. 6. Except as to any individual Settlement Class Member who has requested exclusion from the Class, all claims of the Plaintiff and the other Settlement Class Members, against the Defendant are dismissed without prejudice. The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the Agreement. 7. For purposes of settlement the parties stipulate to the following class: "All New Jersey consumers who were sent letters from Defendant which included an information subpoena and/or a Notice of Waiver of Rights, in an attempt to collect a judgment on behalf of any creditor. The Court designates the National Consumer Law Center as the cy pres recipient. The Claims Administrator shall issue the cy pres award to the National Consumer Law Center within 30 days of the Void Date, and mail to Class Counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zwav05 at no extra charge.[CC] RCX LLC: Cline-Thomas Bid to Dismiss Class Action Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA THOMPSON, et al., v. RCX, LLC d/b/a STADIUM CLUB, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03386-CJN (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Carl J. Nichols entered an order denying the Defendant Rudolph Cline-Thomas's motion to dismiss class action. The Court further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action and issuance of notice is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), this case is conditionally certified as a collective action on behalf of the following class: "All persons who (i) are currently employed as an exotic dancer at Stadium Club or were employed within the two-year statute of limitations period, as set forth in 29 U.S.C. section 256(b); (ii) are or were classified by the Defendants as an independent contractor and subject to the Defendants' wage and tip policies; and (iii) choose to opt into this action." Within seven days of the date of this Order, Defendants' counsel shall provide to Plaintiffs' counsel the names, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, mobile phone numbers, and dates of employment of all dancers who have worked at Stadium Club at any time in the two years preceding the date of this Order. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kClFSe at no extra charge.[CC] REALPAGE INC: Deadline Suspended to Respond to Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kate Kramer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. REALPAGE, INC.; ALLIED ORION GROUP, LLC; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BELL PARTNERS, INC.; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; and UDR, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03835-TSC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan entered an order suspending deadline for certain defendants to respond to complaint. 1. The deadline for Defendants RealPage, Inc., Allied Orion Group, LLC, AvalonBay Communities, Inc., Avenue Residential, LLC, Bell Partners, Inc., Bozzuto Management Company, Camden Property Trust, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., Equity Residential, Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, Highmark Residential, LLC, and UDR, Inc. (the "Stipulating Defendants") to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Complaint is hereby suspended. 2. The deadline for the Plaintiff to move for class certification as required by LcvR 23.1(b) is hereby suspended. 3. The Plaintiff and Defendants RealPage, Inc., Allied Orion Group, LLC, AvalonBay Communities, Inc., Avenue5 Residential, LLC, Bell Partners, Inc., Bozzuto Management Company, Camden Property Trust, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., Equity Residential, Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, Highmark Residential, LLC, and UDR, Inc. shall meet and confer and file a status report with the Court by March 15, 2023. RealPage is an American multinational corporation that provides property management software for the multifamily, commercial, single-family and vacation rental housing industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZsyEEK at no extra charge.[CC] RELIANCE FIRST: Bid to Dismiss Davis Complaint Nixed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM DAVIS , on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RELIANCE FIRST CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-00018-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle entered an order denying the defendant' motion to dismiss and/or strike. The Defendant makes various arguments as to why the plaintiff s three proposed Classes should be stricken. However, at this stage in this case, defendant' s arguments are premature, the Court says. The Plaintiff, a North Carolina citizen, owns a cellphone that is listed on the Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff does not perform any commercial activity on that cell phone. The Plaintiff alleges that, on November 20, 2021, at 9:23 am, he received a voicemail from RFC. The Plaintiff alleges that he could tell from the tone and cadence that the voice was pre-recorded. Reliance First Capital provides home loan programs, refinancing options, and custom mortgage lender services for first time and existing homeowners. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z7DB6m at no extra charge.[CC] RICE DRILLING: Court Resets Class Certification Hearing in J&R -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J&R PASSMORE, LLC, et al., v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01587-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order resetting class certification hearing. Due to a conflict with the Court's trial calendar, the Class Certification Hearing is rescheduled for Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Court Room 1, Room 331 of the U.S. Courthouse located at 85 Marconi Boulevard, Columbus, Ohio. The Class Certification Hearing in this case may not be continued by stipulation of the parties or counsel, but only by an order of the Court on good cause shown. Any request for a continuance should be made promptly after the reason for seeking the continuance becomes known. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J5e3RB at no extra charge.[CC] RIVERBEND OIL & GAS: Black Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riverbend Oil & Gas VIII LLC. The case is styled as Aaron Parish Black, as Trustee of the Reba J. Parish Trust; Norma J. Bryant, Dan Larry Pennington, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Riverbend Oil & Gas VIII LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00140-KGB (N.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Riverbend Energy Group -- https://riverbendenergygroup.com/ -- is an energy investment firm that creates and executes superior opportunities in onshore energy projects across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George A. Barton, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Phone: (913) 563-6250 Email: george@bartonburrows.com seth@bartonburrows.com stacy@bartonburrows.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mark Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Roald Mark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07974 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01087 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital media.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: mreich@rgrdlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: John J. Delionado, Jr., Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 333 S.E. 2 Avenue, Ste. 2400 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 536-2752 Fax: (305) 810-2460 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Murray Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Liam Murray, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00295 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01088 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital media.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul C. Whalen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C. 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 426-6870 SANTA MONICA, CA: Scheduling Order Entered in Murcia Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA, et al., v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an order regarding pretrial and trial dates, trial requirements, and conduct of attorneys and parties as follows: Trial and Final Pretrial Court Order Conference Dates -- Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend May 19, 2023 Pleadings or Add Parties [Friday] -- Last Date to Hear Motion for Class Sep. 1, 2023 Certification [Friday] -- Fact Discovery Cut-Off [Friday] Mar. 22, 2024 -- Expert Disclosure (Initial) Mar. 29, 2024 -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) Apr. 12, 2024 -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off Apr. 26, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y5KJyK at no extra charge.[CC] SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Order Continuing Hearing Entered ---------------------------------------------------------- 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. ("Betsy") Chestney entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time for the Plaintiffs to file a reply to the Defendant's Response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for issuance of notice of collective action and to reset motion hearing. Schlumberger Technology operates as an oilfield services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZoP9Sr at no extra charge.[CC] SCRANTON QUINCY HOSPITAL: Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Scranton Quincy Hospital Company LLC, Scranton Hospital Company, LLC, Wilkes-Barre Hospital Company, LLC, Case No. 23CV238 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 22, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00318-MEM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Scranton Quincy Hospital Company doing business as Moses Taylor Hospital provide quality health care that is patient- and community-focused for obstetrics, neonatal care and senior behavioral health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Heim, Esq. George Bochetto, Esq. Ryan T. Kirk, Esq. BOCHETTO & LENTZ, P.C. 1524 Locust St. Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 735-3900 Fax: (215) 735-2455 Email: dheim@bochettoandlentz.com gbochetto@bochettoandlentz.com rkirk@bochettoandlentz.com - and - David Warden, Esq. Foster C. Johnson, Esq. John A. O'Connell, Esq. Weining Bai, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713) 655-1101 - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Ste. 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: raina@turkestrauss.com The Defendants are represented by: Lyle Washowich, Esq. BURNS WHITE LLC Burns White Center 48 26th Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 995-3004 Email: ldwashowich@burnswhite.com - and - Stuart T. O'Neal, III, Esq. BURNS WHITE LLC 100 Four Falls, Suite 515 1001 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (484) 567-5700 Email: soneal@burnswhite.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fernandez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. The case is styled as Nelson Fernandez, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-20730-RKA (S.D. Fla., Feb. 24, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. -- https://www.spservicing.com/ -- is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas John Patti, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 907-1136 Fax: (954) 529-9540 Email: tom@jibraellaw.com - and - Victor Zabaleta, Esq. PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP 3325 Northwest 55th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Phone: (561) 866-3584 Email: victor@pzlg.legal SELECT PORTFOLIO: Scheduling Order Entered in Evans Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Evans v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05985 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Levy entered a scheduling order as follows: -- If the Parties cannot reach agreement, they shall submit their competing proposals to the Court for resolution. -- In the event Judge Chen denies defendants Rule 72 objections, the defendants shall produce the requested discovery within 14 days of Judge Chens decision. -- Counsel shall submit a joint status reports on the progress of discovery 60 days after Judge Chens decision on the Rule 72 objections. -- The Plaintiff shall file a pre-motion conference letter requesting leave to file a motion for class certification within 30 days of the close of fact discovery. The nature of suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act involving consumer credit. Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and Jacksonville, Florida.[CC] SEQUOIA CAPITAL: O'Keefe Sues Over Cryptocurrency Exchange Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- Connor O'Keefe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-20700-JEM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought seeking damages for the Defendants' knowing and substantial assistance in furtherance of Sam Bankman-Fried ("SBF")'s fraud. Through his cryptocurrency exchange, FTX, SBF preyed on naive, young investors, persuading them to deposit hard-earned monies into accounts on the exchange, promising them the funds would be safe and garner returns other financial institutions could not provide. Both were lies. SBF was in fact running a Ponzi scheme, whereby he took in FTX customer funds, transferred those funds to entities he separately owned, and then spent the money on things of unmatched luxury, including a Formula One team, beachfront property in The Bahamas, expensive cars, and private jets. SBF swindled more than $8 billion from FTX customers in this way. Though FTX customers could not see that SBF was misappropriating their deposits on vice, vanity, and speculative personal investments, Defendants had full view. Through diligence on FTX and close ties with SBF, Defendants learned that FTX was operated as SBF's personal piggy bank, that as quickly as FTX customer funds flowed into FTX, they flowed back out to other entities SBF separately owned or controlled, and that FTX lacked the most basic internal controls, such that the enterprise was in fact a house of cards. But Defendants did not care. They, too, had money to make in the scheme, and their interests aligned with SBF's. SBF's fraud relied on two objectives: first, to keep FTX customer funds flowing into accounts on the exchange; second, to keep the fraud concealed from the public eye. Defendants shared these objectives, as each Defendant benefited from the steady, and increasing, flow of customer funds into FTX accounts. Various banks ("Defendant Banks"), where FTX held multiple accounts, benefited billion-dollar increases in their low-cost deposit bases derived from FTX customer funds. Defendant venture capitalists ("Defendant VCs"), who invested more than $2 billion in FTX, benefited from the astronomical valuation that increasing deposits generated for FTX, upon which the value of Defendant VCs' stakes in the company astronomically grew. Defendant Fenwick & West and Defendant accounting firms ("Defendant Accounting Firms"), meanwhile, benefited from the premium fees they could continue to extract for services to FTX, paid for with FTX customer proceeds. SBF could not have perpetuated the fraud without this assistance from Defendants. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated ("Class Members"), seeks damages for Defendants' knowing and substantial assistance in furtherance of SBF's fraud, says the complaint. The Plaintiff O'Keefe deposited these funds by direct transfer of US dollars from his bank account to an account he understood to be held by FTX. Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC is a venture capital firm based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy A. Kolaya, Esq. Jorge A. Perez Santiago, Esq. Amy M. Bowers, Esq. STUMPHAUZER KOLAYA NADLER & SLOMAN, PLLC 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 614-1400 Fax: (305) 614-1425 Email: tkolaya@sknlaw.com jperezsantiago@sknlaw.com abowers@sknlaw.com - and - James R. Swanson, Esq. Kerry J. Miller, Esq. Benjamin D. Reichard, Esq. C. Hogan Paschal, Esq. Monica Bergeron, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD L.L.P. 201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170-4600 Phone: (504) 586-5252 Fax: (504) 586-5250 Email: jswanson@fishmanhaygood.com kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com breichard@fishmanhaygood.com hpaschal@fishmanhaygood.com mbergeron@fishmanhaygood.com SETTON PISTACHIO: Judge Recommends Denial of Ali Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LILIA ALI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SETTON PISTACHIO OF TERRA BELLA INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:19-cv-00959-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara McAuliffe recommended that Ali's motion for class certification be denied because she finds that Ali fails to satisfy the commonality and predominance requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) for the proposed classes. 1. Ali's motions to strike be denied; 2. Setton Pistachio's motion to strike be denied; and 3. Ali's motion for class certification be denied. Ali's remaining classes are derivative and based on certification of the rounding class. As the Court intends to recommend that Ali's motion to certify the rounding class be denied, it is unnecessary to address the derivative classes. The Plaintiff Ali filed suit against a pistachio grower and processor, Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella, Inc., alleging that Setton Pistachio violated California wage-and-hour laws by enforcing an unlawful rounding policy that failed to compensate hourly employees for all hours worked. Ali filed this lawsuit against Setton Pistachio on April 27, 2016, in Tulare County Superior Court, and filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on September 2, 2016. Setton Pistachio removed the action to this Court on July 12, 2019, under the Class Action Fairness Act. The FAC raises six causes of action on behalf of Ali and a putative class: (1) failure to pay overtime wages, Cal. Labor Code sections 510, 1194; (2) failure to pay minimum wages, Cal. Labor Code section 1197 and applicable Wage Orders; (3) failure to pay separation wages, Cal. Labor Code sections 201-203; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage statements, Cal. Labor Code section 226; (5) unfair competition law violations, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code section 17200, et seq.; and (6) a claim for 10 civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code section 2699. The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the following classes: -- Rounding Class: "All California-based hourly employees employed by the Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2012 to the present to whom the Defendant paid based on their rounded rather than actual hours worked;" -- Labor Code section 203 Class: "All California-based hourly employees employed by the Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2013 to the present who were not paid all wages owed upon separation as a result of Defendant's rounding policy;" -- Wage Statement Class: "All California-based hourly employees employed by the Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2015 to the present to whom the Defendant provided wage statements that did not comply with Labor Code section 226 as a result of Defendant's rounding policy;" and -- 17200 Class: "All California-based hourly employees employed by the Defendant during the time period from April 27, 2012 to the present to whom the Defendant has engaged in unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business acts or practices in the form of Labor Code and Wage Order violations as a result of the Defendant's rounding policy regarding payment of all wages, payment of final wages and proper wage statements. Setton Pistachio processes pistachios at its facility in Terra Bella, California, which is a 3 200-acre campus-like facility with approximately twenty buildings and multiple fields. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3klTHdz at no extra charge.[CC] SIG SAUER: Court Tosses Ortiz Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derick Ortiz, v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01025-JL (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante entered an order denying the Ortiz's motion for class certification. In sum, reliance is an individual issue, which defeats predominance. The court therefore denies the motion to certify any class as to the fraudulent concealment claim. The adjudication of the class's unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment claims requires individualized inquiries into numerous legal and factual issues. These individualized assessments create manageability issues that foreclose a finding of superiority. Ortiz filed suit against Sig Sauer in 2019, asserting contract, breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims premised on a purported design defect in the P320 that makes it susceptible to "drop firing," or discharging after being dropped. Following a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, only Ortiz's fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment claims are subject to this class certification motion. Ortiz seeks to certify a nationwide class of individuals from 50 states, who purchased the P320 prior to August 8, 2017. Alternatively, Ortiz moves to certify an unjust enrichment subclass and a fraudulent omission subclass, each of which limits its membership to P320 owners from specific states. Sig Sauer argues that class certification of the nationwide class and either subclass is improper under Rule 23. Sig Sauer s a New Hampshire-based firearms manufacturer that produces the P320 pistol. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xW3KJq at no extra charge.[CC] SMUGGLER LLC: Costa FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as J. Costa, K. Payne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Smuggler, LLC formerly known as: Smuggler, Inc., Rare Bird Holdings, Inc., Brian Carmody, Patrick Milling-Smith, Division 7, LLC, Doe 1 through and including Doe 10, Case No. 23STCV01163 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01468-SVW-RAO to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act SMUGGLER -- https://smuggler.xyz/ -- is a Film, TV, Commercial and Music Video production company representing a roster of award winning directors.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dale Alan Harris, Esq. David Covington Garrett, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS AND RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (323) 962-3777 Fax: (323) 962-3004 Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com The Defendants are represented by: Scott J. Witlint, Esq. Michael Witczak, Esq. BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 284-3880 Fax: (310) 284-3894 Email: scott.witlin@btlaw.com michael.witczak@btlaw.com SOUTHERN COMPANY: Bid to Compel Astrom's Claims Granted ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Victoria Marie Calvert entered an order granting Southern's motion to compel Astrom's claims in this case to arbitration. In the meantime, the case is stayed and administratively closed pending the outcome of arbitration. Either party may, by motion, reopen the case once arbitration is complete. The Court further ordered that: 1) Southern's motion to stay discovery and pretrial deadlines pending resolution of motion to compel arbitration is denied as moot; 2) Astrom's motion to certify class and facilitate notice to potential class members s denied as moot; 3) and JSG's motion to intervene as defendant, to compel arbitration, and to stay proceedings is denied as moot. Because JSG hired Astrom, classified him as an employee, decided how to pay him, assigned him to work at Southern, calculated his wages, and paid his wages, Astrom's FLSA claim against Southern also implicates JSG even if JSG was not named a defendant in this case. Though not dispositive, the Court is also persuaded by the fact that Astrom's Amended Complaint alleges that "Southern did not require its staffing companies to pay [him] time and a half overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek." Southern Company is an American gas and electric utility holding company A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y7Cl1B at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHERN COMPANY: Scheduling Order Entered in Drummond Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM DRUMMOND and RICHARD ODOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES, INC.; THE SOUTHERN COMPANY PENSION PLAN; and THE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, Case No. 2:22-cv-00174-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steve C. Jones entered a scheduling order as follows: -- This matter is assigned to a four month discovery track. -- Discovery and all related deadlines will proceed in accordance the Local Rules of this Court as well as the Federal Rules of Federal Procedure following the Court's ruling on the outstanding motion to dismiss. -- As well, the parties may seek discovery extension and/or resubmit their respective proposals regarding class certification and expert discovery after the Court's ruling on the outstanding motion to dismiss. Southern Company provides administrative and operational services to all of Southern Company's operating divisions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 21, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SE2V1a at no extra charge.[CC] SRG GLOBAL COATINGS: Peeler Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SRG Global Coatings, LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Peeler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SRG Global Coatings, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00023-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., Feb. 23, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Torts. SRG Global -- http://www.srgglobal.com/-- is one of the world's leading manufacturers of high value coatings on plastic for the automotive and commercial truck industries with a manufacturing presence in major world regions including North America, Western and Central Europe and Asia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Francis Garvey, Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 374-6306 Email: jackg@bsjfirm.com ST. JOHN KNITS: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Ostrovskaya ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRINA OSTROVSKAYA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ST. JOHN KNITS, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-03243-DMG-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order approving joint stipulation to extend deadlines regarding early mediation and certification deadlines as follows: Matter Date Early Mediation Deadline Apr. 18, 2023 Class Certification Motion Aug. 29, 2023 (filing deadline) Opposition to Class Certification Oct. 30, 2023 Motion Reply in Support of Class Dec. 29, 2023 Certification Motion Hearing on Class Certification Motion Jan. 12, 2024 Contentions of Fact/Law June 25, 2024 Final Pretrial Conference Jul. 16, 2024 Jury Trial Aug. 13, 2024 St. John designs, manufactures, and markets women's clothing and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IWgYft at no extra charge.[CC] ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Jones Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK JONES, et al., v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00600-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an order denying the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Plaintiffs allege Defendant City of St. Louis has a widespread practice of macing detainees without warning or provocation, and for the purpose of inflicting punishment or pain. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant City of St. Louis failed to provide reasonable accommodation to detainees, including Plaintiffs Withers and Rusan, with known disabilities, such as asthma and epilepsy, that make them particularly susceptible to serious harm from its use of force practice involving chemical agents/macing. Failure to make modifications for qualified individuals with a disability to existing facilities and practices is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The Plaintiffs plausibly plead that their rights under the ADA were violated when Defendant City of St. Louis used force against them while detained. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim under Title II. On May 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs initiated this 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against the City of St. Louis and certain employees of the St. Louis City Justice Center (CJC). On June 21, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, which Defendants moved to dismiss Counts One through Four and Count Six for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff and representative for the putative class and proposed medical subclass. On June 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, to identify the "Doe Defendants" as to Plaintiff Withers claims. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kyOnDy at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: M&M Rental Sues Over Underpaying Policyholders ---------------------------------------------------------- M&M Rental Property LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-05011-MDH (W.D. Mo., Feb. 23, 2023), is brought against the Defendant systematically underpaying its policyholders, concerning claims in which Defendant accepted coverage and then Defendant chose to calculate actual cash value ("ACV") pursuant to the replacement cost less depreciation methodology, as opposed to a fair market value approach. The Coales paid Defendant premiums in exchange for insurance coverage. The required premiums were paid at all times relevant to this pleading. On April 7, 2013, the Coales' Property suffered structural damage covered by the Policy. The damage to the Coales' Property required replacement and/or repair. The Coales timely submitted a claim to Defendant requesting payment for the covered loss ("the Coales' Claim"). Plaintiff alleges generally that all conditions precedent occurred or were performed relating to the Coales' Claim. Defendant determined the loss to the Coales' Property was covered by the terms of the Policy. The Defendant's sole methodology for calculating the ACV of structural damage losses in Missouri, including the Coales' Claim, was to estimate the cost to repair or replace the damage with new materials (replacement cost value, or "RCV"), and then to subtract depreciation. In adjusting the Coales' Claim, Defendant affirmatively and unilaterally chose to use this "replacement cost less depreciation" methodology to calculate the loss and to make its ACV payment. Defendant did not use any other methodology to calculate the Coales' ACV payment or the payments of the putative class members. The Policy, and other property insurance forms issued by Defendant to similarly situated class members, does not permit the withholding of non-material depreciation, including future labor, as depreciation. "Labor" as used in this pleading, means intangible non-materials, specifically including both the future labor costs and the future laborers' equipment costs and contractors/laborers' overhead and profit necessary to restore property to its condition status quo ante, as well as the future removal costs to remove damaged property, under commercial claims estimating software. After the loss was reported, Defendant sent an adjuster to inspect the Coales' Property and estimate the ACV. Defendant uses commercially-available computer software to estimate RCV, depreciation, and ACV. The software used to calculate the ACV payment to the Coales is called Xactimate. ACV coverage is paid by Defendant prospectively, before repairs are made. As it relates to ACV coverage, this lawsuit does not seek to address the propriety of depreciating any labor incorporated or embedded within a building or building product. Plaintiff does not dispute that both labor and materials incurred to create a building product become integrated with the home or building and may be depreciated following a casualty loss as part of the calculation of ACV benefits. However, when Defendant calculated Plaintiff's ACV benefits owed under the Policy, Defendant withheld costs for both the materials and future labor required to repair or replace the Plaintiff's building as depreciation, even though future labor does not "depreciate" before it has even been incurred. Defendant withheld future labor costs throughout its ACV calculations as depreciation. The Defendant's withholding of future labor costs as depreciation associated with the repair or replacement of the Coales' Property resulted in an ACV payment less than the amount the insureds were entitled to receive under the Policy. Defendant breached its obligations under the Policy by improperly withholding the cost of future labor as depreciation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an assignee of contract with the Defendant for an insurance policy providing coverage for certain losses to the Coales' Property. The Defendant is an insurance company organized and existing under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. David T. Butsch, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 863-5700 Fax: (314) 863-5711 Email: Roberts@ButschRoberts.com Butsch@ButschRoberts.com STONEWALL KITCHEN: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stonewall Kitchen, LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Stonewall Kitchen, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01515-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stonewall Kitchen -- https://www.stonewallkitchen.com/ -- is a specialty food producer based in York, Maine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com SUTTER HEALTH: Lockhart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region, et al. The case is styled as Anthony Lockhart, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggreived employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region, Sutter Medical Center, Sacramento, Sutter Valley Hospitals, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00335131-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 22, 2023). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Sutter Health is a family of doctors and hospitals, serving more than 100 communities in Northern California including Sacramento, San Francisco.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 SYNCHRONY BANK: Williams FCRA Suit Removed to D. Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Roy Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Synchrony Bank, Synchrony Financial, Case No. FST-CV-23-6059808-S was removed from the Circuit Court of the Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on Feb. 24, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00252 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Synchrony -- http://www.synchrony.com/-- is a consumer financial services company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: James T. Shearin, Esq. PULLMAN & COMLEY 850 Main St., Po Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006 Phone: (203) 330-2000 Email: jtshearin@pullcom.com SYNGENTA CROP: Status Conference in Generic Class Suit Set April 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Todd Neeley of Progressive Farmer reports that the court has scheduled a status conference for April 6, 2023 in Winston-Salem, as the beginning of what usually is a years-long process for class-action lawsuits. Farmers are turning out in droves in the federal court system to file class-action lawsuits against Syngenta, Corteva, CHS Inc., Nutrien, BASF and others, alleging the farmers suffered financial losses as a result of the companies paying distributors to block competitors from selling less-expensive generic crop protection products. As of February 23, 2023, at least 26 lawsuits have been filed by individual farmers and farms. Those lawsuits were transferred or are in the process of being transferred from federal courts in Indiana, Illinois and Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for the District of Middle North Carolina, including five on February 22, 2023. armers started lining up to cash in after the Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general from California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin, filed a lawsuit alleging the companies violated the Sherman Act and its antimonopoly provisions. Syngenta and Corteva recently filed motions to dismiss the FTC and states' lawsuit. In filing the motions, the companies defended the legality of the loyalty programs at the center of the lawsuits. Earlier this week, the court gave the companies until March 3 to file additional documents on the motion. The FTC and the states have alleged distributors only get paid if they limit business with competing manufacturers. Such arrangements, the complaint said, are "cutting off" competition and allowing the companies to "inflate their prices and force American farmers to spend millions of dollars more for their products." In particular, the FTC lawsuit alleged Syngenta has a monopoly and market power on the fungicide azoxystrobin and the herbicides mesotrione and metolachlor. The suit cites Corteva's herbicides rimsulfuron and acetochlor and the insecticide and nematicide oxamyl. Syngenta and Corteva are two of the largest pesticide manufacturers operating in the United States. Syngenta, based in Switzerland, is a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned company. Corteva, headquartered in Indianapolis, is the company formed as part of a merger between DuPont and Dow Chemical Company. In a September 2022 news release, the FTC and the 10 state attorneys general said, "Cutting off competition has allowed the defendants to inflate their prices and force American farmers to spend millions of dollars more for their products." In January 2023, Syngenta and Corteva filed separate motions asking the court in North Carolina to dismiss the lawsuit. Both companies defended the use of loyalty programs. The companies said in those motions that loyalty programs are legal. "Plaintiffs ignore the fact that loyalty discounts, which come in many forms, are not only 'extremely common' but also 'presumptively lawful in all but a few carefully defined circumstances,'" Corteva said in a motion to dismiss. Syngenta said in its motion to dismiss that the lawsuit advances an "unprecedented and unfounded theory" that an industry-standard rebate program offering a "modest, optional discount" to customers to incentivize increased purchases violates antitrust laws. "Rebate programs that reduce prices to above-cost levels are permissible as a matter of law, except in narrow circumstances where customers are forced to participate by coercive non-price features," Syngenta said. "Nothing of the sort is pleaded or present here." [GN] TASTE INC: Jarrell Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Jarrell, Clare Vesel, Kelsey Hyde, Ashanti Towns, Lauren Ashley Bailey, and LaDonna Dolby, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. TASTE, INC., d/b/a VINO VOLO, Case No. 2:23-cv-00725-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 22, 2023), is brought to collect unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"). Defendant pays their tipped employees below the federal and Ohio minimum wage by taking advantage of the FLSA and OMWFSA's tip credit provisions. Under these provisions, an employer of a tipped employee may, under certain circumstances, pay those employees less than the applicable minimum wage by taking a tip credit against the employer's minimum wage obligation. However, an employer may not pay less than the minimum wage to tipped employees and require those tipped employees to perform non-tipped work that is unrelated to the tipped occupation. As a result of these violations, Defendant lost the right to utilize the tip credit for its employees and therefore must compensate Plaintiffs and the putative class at the full minimum wage rate for all hours worked. The Defendant must also compensate Plaintiffs and the putative class at one- and one-half times the full minimum wage rate for all overtime hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium at a rate of one- and one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendant knew or should have known that its policies and practices violated the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been employed with the Defendant in various Associate roles. Taste, Inc., d/b/a Vino Volo is a restaurant and wine bar with locations in more than 30 airports across the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carrie J. Dyer, Esq. Greg R. Mansell, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Phone: 614-610-4134 Fax: 614-547-3614 Email: Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com Greg@MansellLawLLC.com TASTY PALATE: Hsu Sues to Recover Unpaid Tips and Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Joy Hsu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TASTY PALATE, INC. d/b/a OCEANIQUE, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-01151 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for failure to comply with provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Illinois Minimum Wage Act ("IMWA"), and to recover applicable tips and minimum wages for certain hours worked for herself and all Restaurant Servers. The Defendant pays its tipped employees a reduced hourly wage for each hour worked in an effort to avail itself of the tip-credit provisions of the IMWL and FLSA. These tip credit provisions permit employers of customarily tipped employees to pay wages less than the full minimum wage, so long as employers comply with specific notice requirements, pay the appropriate reduced wage, and do not require the tipped employees to share tips with customarily non-tipped employees. The Defendant has enforced policies of failing to pay Servers proper wages during training, failing to provide Servers with sufficient notice of the federal and state tip credit, requiring Servers to share portions of their hard-earned tips with ineligible participants, requiring Servers to spend more than 30 continuous minutes performing non-tipped duties and side work, and requiring Servers to spend more than 20% of their workweek performing non-tipped duties and side, all of which have resulted in violations of the FLSA and IMWA. The Plaintiff seeks to recover the tip credit taken by Defendant for herself and all members of the putative class, as well as the tips that were improperly misappropriated, and to otherwise stop Defendant from engaging in this unlawful conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Server. The Defendant operates Oceanique restaurant in Evanston, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS–JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com Catherine@usaemploymentlawyers.com TAXACT INC: Smith-Washington Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Nicolas C. Smith-Washington, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TaxAct, Inc., Case No. 23CV026204 was removed from the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 23, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00830-AGT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. TaxAct, Inc. -- https://www.taxact.com/ -- is an American tax preparation software company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian Ari Hammond, Esq. Polina Brandler, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 11780 W Sample Road, Suite 103 Coral Springs, FL 33065 Phone: (310) 601-6766 Fax: (310) 295-2385 Email: JHammond@hammondlawpc.com pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com - and - Adrian John Barnes, Esq. BEESON, TAYER & BODINE 483 Ninth Street, 2nd Floor Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 625-9700 Fax: (510) 625-8275 Email: abarnes@beesontayer.com - and - Ari Nathan Cherniak, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1201 Pacific Avenue, Ste 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 Phone: (559) 917-4917 Email: acherniak@hammondlawpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Sheila Anil Gogate Armbrust, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 772-7430 Fax: (415) 772-7400 Email: sarmbrust@sidley.com - and - James W. Ducayet, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1 South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 853-7000 Fax: (312) 315-2908 Email: jducayet@sidley.com - and - Michele L. Aronson, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 736-8000 Email: maronson@sidley.com TESLA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 28, 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 27 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) between February 19, 2019 and February 17, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 28, 2023. SO WHAT: If you purchased Tesla securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Tesla class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12483 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 28, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants had overstated the efficacy, viability, and safety of the Company's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving "FSD" technologies; (2) Tesla's Autopilot and FSD technologies created a serious risk of accident and injury; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Tesla was subjected to an increased risk of regulatory and governmental scrutiny and enforcement action, as well as reputational harm; (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Tesla class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12483 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TESLA INC: Shareholders File Class Action Over Autopilot Tech ------------------------------------------------------------- Shivdeep Dhaliwal, writing for Benzinga, reports that shareholders of Tesla Inc sued the automaker and CEO Elon Musk on Feb. 27, alleging that both overstated the effectiveness and safety of the company's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technologies. What Happened: The proposed class action lawsuit was filed in San Francisco federal court, reported Reuters. According to the shareholders, Tesla deceived them over a span of four years by making false and misleading statements that concealed the fact that its technologies, believed to be responsible for deadly accidents, "created a serious risk of accident and injury," according to the report. The shareholders said due to Tesla's wrongful acts and omissions and "the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock" the members of the class suffered "significant losses and damages." Why It Matters: The plaintiff in the case is shareholder Thomas Lamontagne, who is seeking unspecified damages. Defendants also include Tesla CFO Zachary Kirkhorn and his predecessor, Deepak Ahuja, reported Reuters. The lawsuit reportedly states that Tesla's share price declined multiple times when the truth about Autopilot and Full Self-Driving became known and after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began probing these technologies. In February, Tesla shares slid sharply after the NHTSA found that Tesla vehicles featuring FSD software presented safety challenges around intersections. Tesla then recalled 362,758 vehicles. Price Action: On Feb. 27, Tesla shares closed 5.5% higher at $207.63 in the regular session and gained 0.7% in the after-hours trading, according to Benzinga Pro data. [GN] TJ INSPECTION: Cox Sues to Recover Unpaid Lost Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Shawn Cox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TJ INSPECTION, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00187-G (W.D. Okla., Feb. 24, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid lost wages and additional damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Korey Farmer sued the Defendant in January 2022 for overtime pay under the FLSA on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The court certified Farmer as a collective action and 78 inspectors (including Shawn Cox) joined by filing consents. Within weeks of Farmer's resolution, the Defendant retaliated against Farmer plaintiffs by sending newly hired inspectors to work in their stead. Because the FLSA prohibits this kind of discrimination, the Plaintiff brings this collective action to recover unpaid lost wages and additional damages under the FLSA. On August 3, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a consent in the Farmer collective action "to purse his claims of unpaid overtime" against the Defendant. The members of the FLSA Class claimed overtime by filing similar consent forms in Farmer or otherwise notifying the Defendant of their claim through counsel. Within weeks of Farmer's dismissal, the Defendant laid off or did not send the Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Class out to work on their next rotation or project. the Defendant does not lack available work. The Defendant refusal to assign work to the Plaintiff and the FLSA Class is not the result of market conditions. The Defendant has enough demand for inspectors that while it was denying work to the Plaintiff and the FLSA Class, it hired new inspectors to take their places. The Defendant denied the Plaintiff and the FLSA Class work because they claimed overtime in Farmer. the Plaintiff has diligently sought employment, but because the Defendant denied him work, he remains unemployed and suffers financially because of lost wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an Inspector for the Defendant from May 2022 to December 2022. the Defendant is a pipeline inspection company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com TMONE LLC: Randolph Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sharhonda Randolph, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMONE, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00141-KGB (E.D. Ark., Feb. 22, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"), for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendant. The Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees were classified as hourly employees and paid an hourly rate. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff a regular rate of $15.00 an hour for all hours worked, including hours worked over 40 in a workweek. As a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff one-and-one-half times her regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff was not paid a lawful overtime rate for hours worked over 40 in a week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee. TMone, LLC is a provider of call center operations, including front office, back office, inbound and outbound customer support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. WHLAW | WE HELP Riverfront PL – Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@wh.law TOM VILSACK: Chen Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tom Vilsack, et al. The case is styled as Haiyan Chen, Kenya Watson, S.O., Hana Broome, Mei Ieng Lee, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Tom Vilsack, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA); Cindy Long, in her official capacity as Administrator of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service; Case No. 1:23-cv-01440 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision. Thomas James Vilsack is an American politician serving as the 32nd United States Secretary of Agriculture in the Biden administration.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George A. Barton, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS LLC 5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 Phone: (913) 563-6250 Email: george@bartonburrows.com seth@bartonburrows.com stacy@bartonburrows.com TOP QUALITY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Top Quality Supplements, LLC. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Top Quality Supplements, LLC doing business as: Sunday Scaries, Case No. 1:23-cv-01418 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Top Quality Supplements, LLC doing business as Sunday Scaries -- https://sundayscaries.com/ -- provides stress relief products with CBD and vitamins.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com TRIAD HUNTER: Starcher Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triad Hunter, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Denver Starcher, on behalf of himself and all other persons and entities similarly situated v. Triad Hunter, LLC doing business as: Triad Hunter, SWN Production (Ohio), LLC, SWN Production Company, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00061-JPB (N.D.W. Va., Feb. 22, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Triad Hunter, LLC was founded in 2009. The company's line of business includes operating oil and gas field properties.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian E. Turak, Esq. Jeremy M. McGraw, Esq. Gold, Khourey & Turak, LC 510 Tomlinson Ave. Moundsville, WV 26041 Phone: (304) 845-9750 Fax: (304) 845-1286 Email: cet@gkt.com jmm@gkt.com - and - Daniel J. Guida, Esq. 3374 Main St Weirton, WV 26062 Phone: (304) 748-1213 Fax: (304) 748-1225 Email: guidalaw@comcast.net TRUGREEN LP: Motion to Strike TCPA Class Action Granted ------------------------------------------------------- Richard B. Newman, Esq., of Hinch Newman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, disclosed that a TCPA defendant's motion to strike class action allegations was recently granted by the Northern District of Illinois. The court held that individual questions of consent and the availability of the established business relationship defense made the claims unsuitable for class treatment. In the matter of Sorsby v. TruGreen L.P., 2023 WL 130505 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2023), the plaintiff alleged that she cancelled her TruGreen lawn-care service and asked TruGreen not to call her after she had alleged received numerous phone calls to a number purportedly on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The plaintiff further alleged that her phone number should have been on TruGreen's internal DNC suppression list. TruGreen moved to strike the plaintiff allegations. In doing so, the company argued that the plaintiff could not satisfy class certification requirements because her claims were not "typical" of the claims of the class, did not share commons questions of law or fact, questions or law or fact were not predominate. The court agreed and struck the class allegations. The court opined that the TCPA does not prohibit solicitations to customers with whom a business has an established business relationship. Despite the plaintiff claiming that she had terminated her established business relationship, the issue of the availability of the established business relationship defense as to other class members was individualized and not capable of being determined on a class wide basis. Here, the parties agreed that the established business relationship defense would be available only to the named plaintiff and a subset of class members. Thus, the issue was likely to be a significant focus of the litigation. In considering class certification requirements, the court held "no single source of information that would demonstrate whether all class members had successfully terminated their business relationship." A a determination that would therefore "require individualized inquiries" not suitable for class treatment. Takeaway: Availability of the established business relationship defense may result in early disposition of DNC class allegations if the defense is only applicable to a subset of potential class members. [GN] TWITTER INC: Weitzman Data Breach Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CASEY WEITZMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. CGC-23-604035, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 21, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00766 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that, in December 2021, a security vulnerability in Twitter's platform allowed "threat actors . . . to scrape information from the accounts of 5.4 million Twitter users." The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated compromised in the Twitter data breach, asserts causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Twitter, Inc. is an American social media company based in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Stephen A. Broome, Esq. Viola Trebicka, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com - and - Casey J. Adams, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Ave. 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: caseyadams@quinnemanuel.com UNITED PARCEL: Rietheimer Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BRANDON RIETHEIMER and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2023CV30000, was removed from the District Court for Adams County, Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on Feb. 21, 2023. The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00477 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of two putative classes: residents of Colorado who were employed with Defendant UPS under the Central Region collecting bargaining agreement (CBA) and worked in interstate commerce and were not provided paid sick leave in 2021, 2022, and 2023; and residents of Colorado who were employed with Defendant UPS since September 1, 2022 as regular full-time package drivers as defined by Article 22 of the CBA. Specifically, the complaint alleges Defendants' violations of the Colorado Healthy Families and Workplaces Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act. United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American multinational shipping and receiving and supply chain management company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: T. Markus Funk, Esq. Daniel Graham, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 1400 Denver, CO 80202-5255 Telephone: (303) 291-2300 Facsimile: (303) 291-2400 E-mail: MFunk@perkinscoie.com DGraham@perkinscoie.com UNITED STATES: $1.175-M Deal in Immigration Suit Granted Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- SPLC disclosed that a federal judge on Feb. 27 approved a final settlement in a class action lawsuit challenging an April 2018 workplace immigration raid at a meat processing plant in East Tennessee. The settlement provides over $1 million to workers detained in the raid, which was the largest workplace raid in nearly a decade at the time. The plaintiffs -- represented by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the Southern Poverty Law Center and several private practice attorneys acting on a pro bono basis –- allege that armed U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and IRS officers illegally targeted the Latinx workers for detention, excessive force and false arrest. "Someone asked me if I am happy about the result of this case," said Martha Pulido, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and resident of Morristown, Tennessee. "The question brought me back to that day. Everything was normal, and then in an instant everything changed. Now, I live with the aftermath of that bad experience. It will stay with all of the families forever. I am not happy, but I am content to see that justice prevailed over injustice. I am thankful to the legal team and the class members, who stuck together throughout this time. We will always remember that we are one." The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee certified the case as a class action in a precedent-setting decision in August, paving the way for classwide relief for the unlawful policing and racial profiling alleged in the lawsuit. Class members are approximately 100 Latinx workers who were detained during the workplace raid. On Feb. 27, the court granted the plaintiffs' and individual defendants' motion for final approval of the settlement of the class-action claims against federal agents from the IRS and DHS – including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection. The court determined the settlement was reasonable and the relief provided to the class was adequate. Over 95% of class members submitted claims forms to access the settlement's benefits. "Nearly five years after the raid that tore apart families -- but galvanized a community -- the final approval of this class settlement is a milestone in the fight for justice," said Michelle Lapointe, deputy legal director at NILC. "Our courageous plaintiffs and class members worked long hours in grueling conditions to provide food for this country. While the settlement cannot heal the wounds caused by the violent 2018 raid, we are pleased with this hard-fought vindication of their rights and the power of community organizing." Meredith Stewart, senior supervising attorney with the SPLC's Immigrant Justice Project, noted the message sent by the decision. "Justice was served to the Latinx workers, and their community, who took a stand against federal agents targeting them because of their ethnicity," Stewart said. "The unprecedented, court-approved settlement demonstrates that we, as a nation, will not tolerate racial profiling. That type of policing goes against not only our rights but also our values. We look forward to the workers receiving the relief the settlement provides." The devastating impacts of the 2018 raid were far-reaching, but the community came together to demand justice. The Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC) was on the ground within hours, working to reunite families, locate detained people and meet families' immediate needs. "The ruling is a testament to the incredible power and resiliency of immigrant workers and their communities," said Lisa Sherman Luna, executive director at TIRRC. "Violent enforcement tactics like workplace raids are designed to keep immigrant families living in fear, but these plaintiffs and class members refused to stand by when they knew their rights had been violated. This settlement sends a clear message: No matter who we are or where we are from, we all deserve the freedom to work and live safely in our communities." Under the $1.175 million settlement, class members will receive a total of $550,000 and, upon request, a letter from ICE confirming their membership in the class that can be included in any applications for immigration relief. The settlement also requires the United States to pay $475,000 to the six individual plaintiffs to resolve their Federal Tort Claims Act claims, including excessive force and unlawful arrest, and $150,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to the SPLC and NILC. "This settlement exemplifies that courage and perseverance can bring justice and resolution," said Eben Colby, a pro bono attorney on the lawsuit. "It is a consequential moment in addressing illegal targeting of workers due to their ethnicity, as well as overly aggressive and abusive enforcement activities. We are pleased that the court system provided dozens of Latinx workers with what they are owed. This settlement is a historic step in advancing dignity and justice for all immigrant workers." [GN] UNITED STATES: Class Action Filed v. ICE Over Alleged Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Davis Vanguard reports that a "Hunger Strike Support Coalition" on Feb. 24 announced a class action lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and GEO Group, the private, for-profit prison company that owns and operates the ICE's migrant detention centers, because of mistreatment and retaliation of those participating in a hunger strike that began Feb. 17. The coalition also has met with the California Congressional Delegation to "draw attention to the strikers' demands for release and the shutdown of Mesa Verde and Golden State Annex, given ICE's well-documented history of abuse within detention facilities nationwide." The lawsuit alleges five people and "other detained people have faced retaliation, including threats of solitary confinement and bans on family visitation, for engaging in a collective hunger strike to demand their release from immigration custody and the shutdown of both facilities." "The (five) plaintiffs—are among the approximately 82 detained people who declared a hunger strike on Feb. 17, 2023. They argue that retaliation against any striker violates their right to peacefully speak out against their mistreatment and violates their right to petition the government for a redress of their grievances," said the coalition. The Hunger Strike Support Coalition includes the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance, Centro Legal de la Raza, Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity, El Concilio Family Services, Freedom for Immigrants, Free Them All Coalition SD, Kern Welcoming and Extending Solidarity to Immigrants, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement Sacramento Chapter, La Voz de los Trabajadores, Latino Coalition for Health Equity, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers' Guild, Pangea Legal Services and Papeles Para Todos, and Rapid Response Network of Kern County. "Since the hunger strike began, ICE and GEO Group have harassed them by threatening to place them in solitary confinement, making the temperature of the dorms painfully cold, and taunting them with food…officials have denied them family visitation, access to worship services, and access to the detention center yard, among other recreational activities," the coalition added. "We are hunger-striking because we see the pain that everyone in here is going through. When I look at everyone and how much they believe in the fact that putting themselves through this can make a change, it gives me hope," said plaintiff Guillermo Medina Reyes. Reyes added, "We are all humans. There are people here who are fathers, brothers, and husbands. They deserve a real chance to fight their case and to have a chance at liberty as well. That's why we started the strike and this lawsuit." The coalition explained, "For years, peaceful protests at Mesa Verde and the Golden State Annex have been met with retaliation," and that's why "The 2022 complaint prompted 16 members of the California Congressional Delegation to send a letter to DHS regarding the allegations of disturbing conditions and retaliation." "The 2023 complaint concerns widespread reports from detained people that they have been subject to sexually abusive pat-downs in retaliation for engaging in constitutionally protected, free speech activity," said the support coalition, noting this led to "The hunger strike (and) follows years of peaceful advocacy by people detained… to demand fair wages, better conditions, and humane treatment." The coalition added, "The people detained in these horrific detention centers have undeniable First Amendment rights to speak out against their abuse . . . ICE detains people indefinitely under hideous living conditions, including facilities rife with black mold, while GEO Group profits from their labor by paying workers in custody $1 a day." The coalition said, "In a separate lawsuit challenging the meager pay for detained workers at another immigration detention facility in Adelanto, Calif., also run by GEO Group, a court expert calculated that the private prison company has made an extra $26.7 million dollars in profit between 2011 and 2019 due to low-wage work performed by detained immigrants." [GN] VITAMIN COTTAGE: Levine Seeks to Certify Class of Asst. Managers ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC. d/b/a NATURAL GROCERS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00261-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class under Rule 23 for violations of Colorado Wage and Hour Law: "All persons employed by Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets, Inc. d/b/a Natural Grocers as Assistant Store Managers and who were classified as exempt from the overtime requirements of Colorado Wage and Hour Law at any time between April 1, 2017 and the date of final judgment in this matter. This is the type of case for which the class action device is designed. Plaintiff, a former Assistant Store Manager ("ASM") employed by the Defendant, challenges Natural Grocers' company-wide policy of classifying all ASMs as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Colorado Wage Claim Act. The Defendant admits that ASMs all perform the same expected job duties (which are listed on a uniform job description), are all uniformly classified as exempt from overtime compensation, and should be treated as one homogenous group for purposes of determining whether Natural Grocers willfully violated state and federal law. The Plaintiff commenced this action on January 31, 2020 seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA on behalf of exempt ASMs. On April 1, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his amended class and collective action complaint to assert claims on behalf of a class of Colorado ASMs seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to Colorado Wage and Hour Laws. On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff moved for conditional collective action certification of his FLSA claims. At Defendant's request, the Court permitted Natural Grocers to conduct merits-discovery of Plaintiff and four individuals who had opted-in in order to respond to the Plaintiff's FLSA Motion. Following the conclusion of that written and deposition discovery, the Court granted Plaintiff's FLSA Motion and conditionally certified a nationwide collective comprising ASMs who worked for Defendants between January 31, 2017 to November 6, 2020. Vitamin Cottage is a Colorado based health food chain. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zz23xo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 278-4782 Facsimile: (215) 278-4807 E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com - and - Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com WALDORF ASTORIA: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Violations ------------------------------------------------------ KITV reports that an employee of Waldorf Astoria filed a class action lawsuit against the employer, alleging wage and other violations. The complaint alleges that the Waldorf Astoria hotel misclassified hundreds of spa and salon workers, groundskeepers, facilities maintenance staff, and window washers as independent contractors at two of its landmark hotels, the Grand Wailea on Maui and Beverly Hills Waldorf Astoria. The employee further alleges that Waldorf Astoria broke several federal and state laws by failing to pay these workers a minimum wage and overtime pay, as well as failing to make federal income tax contributions toward their social security and unemployment insurance. The employee also claims the company did not provide mandatory health coverage, temporary disability insurance, and workers' compensation benefits. The lawsuit claims that, despite being placed on notice, the company continued its alleged illegal practices. The lawsuit seeks compensation, punitive damages, and restitution of all of the money earned from the company's alleged illegal activity. [GN] WALGREENS CO: Reaches $54.1-Bil. Prelim. Settlement in Opioid Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ OpenClassActions.com reports that after Years of Courts, CVS and Walgreens have finally reached preliminary settlements in opioid claims totaling $10 billion. Walmart has agreed to a $3.1 Billion provisional settlement structure over opioids, bringing the grand total opioid open class action settlement funds tentatively to over $54.1 Billion in the United States alone. To date, the total amount of opioid settlements reached or in a preliminary stage has reached over $54 Billion. The United States has been suffering an opioid and painkiller abuse epidemic for decades, and these settlements aim to keep merchants and pharmacies accountable for enabling the death and suffering at the hands of opioids that many have had to endure. The latest settlements are over CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart pharmacies To settle class action lawsuits filed by states and local governments claiming that CVS and Walgreens mismanaged prescriptions of opioid medicines that led to deaths and overdoses, CVS and Walgreens have tentatively agreed to pay a combined record breaking $10 billion settlement amount. Walmart has provisionally settled similar claims for $3.1 billion. The settlement won't be completed or approved until a sufficient number of states, counties, and towns accept the conditions. Since 2013, a growing number of state, municipal, and tribal governments have sought to make firms throughout the pharmaceutical sector pay to minimize the continuing costs of addiction, death, and crime caused by the opioid crisis. While most major opioid producers and distributors have paid billions in national settlements in recent years, major retail chains have been resistant to reaching a similar agreement. Opioid commonly involved in settlements are: -- Oxycodone -- OxyContin -- Roxicodone -- Morphine -- Hydrocodone -- Roxicodone -- Oxecta -- Methadone -- Fentanyl (known for its extremely high rate of deaths and overdoses as it is cut with heroin sold on the streets illegally) There has been a sudden and dramatic shift in the storyline with retailers the subject of more recent opioid class action lawsuits. According to a CVS public statement, if a settlement is struck, the company will pay nearly $5 billion over the following 10 years, starting in 2023. A total of $4.9 billion will be paid out to states and local governments, while Native American tribes will get $130 million to settle their opioid claims. According to CVS, the cash settlement would "significantly end all opioid litigation and claims against the corporation by states, governmental subdivisions such as counties, towns, and tribes." The CVS announcement states that the deal would settle any claims going back at least ten years without admitting responsibility or misconduct. The opioid issue has only worsened while litigation and settlement discussions have dragged on. Statistics from the United States show that in 2017, an all-time high number of people lost their lives due to an opioid overdose, with fentanyl and other illegal street opioids being the primary causes. Pharmacy chains were often the last to be designated as defendants in the opioid case, but they were also among the most eager to test the validity of their claims in court. However, a federal court in August ordered the three companies to pay $650 million to two counties in Ohio. Other claims were launched in Florida, West Virginia, and two counties in New York, all of which the firms eventually resolved. The pharmacies at the center of investigations and class action lawsuits denied any role in the outbreak for a long time, saying that they had only dispensed legally prescribed drugs. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs, however, claimed that drug manufacturers ignored red warnings about the potentially dangerous volumes of opioid prescriptions they were doling out. The drug manufacturers of opioids claim to have spent substantial expenditures in technology and processes to assist its pharmacists in fulfilling their professional responsibilities and in rules, procedures, and controls pertaining to dispensing restricted medications to combat opioid misuse. Walgreens said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it planned to spend nearly $4.79 billion on remediation payments spread out over 15 years, including on class action payouts. This figure included around $154 million for participating tribes and more than $750 million for legal expenses. All of the major players in the opioid supply chain—from producers to wholesalers to retailers—have made offers to settle claims that might total more than $50 billion. Lastly, we'd like to remind you that the three companies reached a settlement with municipal, state, and tribal governments on November 2, 2022. They have reached a deal for a total of $13.8 billion, bringing the total amount of settlements between opioid manufacturers and American governments to around $54.07 billion (some of which have been completed, while others are still in the works): The "big three" distributors—McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, and Cardinal Health—contribute an additional $7.5 billion from the top three companies for a total of $26 billion. On February 25, 2022, they concluded their settlement deal. Depending on whether or not the transaction is upheld on appeal, Purdue will contribute between $5.5 and $6 billion. After years of battle and months of bankruptcy-initiated mediation processes, the manufacturer's settlement plan achieved complete countrywide (political) support on March 3, 2022. However, its non-debtor release clauses have not been upheld in federal court. Assuming the Second Circuit upholds the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the settlement agreement, Purdue expects it to take at least two to three months before the business exits from bankruptcy. It is expected that Mallinckrodt will contribute $1.7 billion. In 2020, the company filed for bankruptcy, and its restructuring plan, which includes a $1.7 billion (formerly $1.6 billion) set aside to settle its opioid epidemic obligations, was met with early, widespread approval from state and local government lawyers. While the merger ultimately received court clearance on February 3, 2022, it was not without its fair share of Purdue-style concerns. Teva Pharmaceuticals, a publcaly traded pharma company that is at the center of the opioid epidemic, is expected to contribute a massive $4.25 billion to the total. Separate from this is the manufacturer's announcement of a preliminary agreement in principle on July 26, 2022. A whopping $2.37 billion comes from Allergan, a division of AbbVie. The "companion agreement" between the company and the government was announced on July 29, 2022. Additionally, Endo Pharmaceuticals will provide $450 million. The bankruptcy petition and the preliminary deal with state attorneys general were both published by the company fairly recently. [GN] WASHINGTON COUNTY, AL: Lang Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONY GENE LANG, et al., individually and on behalf of all inmates in the Washington County Jail in Chatom, Alabama, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ALABAMA, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00057-JB-MU (S.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff Class, and the Mobility Disability Subclass meet all four requirements of Rule 23(a), as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) The proposed class and subclass satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) on two grounds. -- First, Defendants, through the polices, practices, and procedures enacted at the jail, have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the proposed classes. Thus, a declaration that the jail should cease policies, patterns, and practices which result in the constitutional violations described above would benefit every member of the proposed classes. -- Second, the named Plaintiffs' request for relief satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) because the remedy sought would provide relief to both current and future individuals housed at the jail. For example, an injunction requiring that the Defendants ensure all individuals have access to medical assistance would ensure that future inmates of the jail would have access to their medication or medical assistance when needed. A jail population is inherently transitory. A class action is virtually the only vehicle to remedy the constitutional violations taking place at a jail. It is likely that, by the time this case comes to trial, none of the current class representatives will still be incarcerated in the jail. Absent class certification, their claims would be moot, and the jail could continue to violate, with impunity, the rights of future inmates. As such, the transitory nature of the proposed class and its representatives strongly support class certification. Class certification is still appropriate even though several named plaintiffs are no longer incarcerated. This case concerns the inhumane conditions at the Washington County Jail in Chatom, Alabama. The named Plaintiffs are individuals who are or were incarcerated within the jail at the time the Amended Complaint was filed. The Defendants' inhumane treatment of the inmates includes inadequate medical and mental health care; failure to protect; lack of exercise, fresh air, or sunlight; exposure to grave fire hazards; insufficient diets; lack of access to legal materials; inaccessible facilities posing barriers to inmates with disabilities, and other serious rights violations. The Plaintiffs propose to certify named Plaintiffs Tony Lang, Timothy Williams, John Michael Taylor, Justin Adams, Cameron Adams, Michael Patterson, Joshua Diamond, Joshua Odom, Thomas Lassiter, Benjamin Hoven III, Justin McGowan, and Kenneth Turner to represent a general class of: "all individuals currently housed or who will be housed in the Washington County Jail who are subject to the policies and practices of the jail." Unfortunately, named plaintiff Matthew Utsey passed away on January 15, 2023. His estate will not be substituted in as a plaintiff. Defendants maintain a consistent roster of inmates; thus, such definition is both adequately defined and ascertainable. In addition, plaintiffs seek certification of a "mobility disability subclass" consisting of "all individuals currently housed or who will be housed in the Washington County Jail who are subject to the policies and practices of the jail and who have a mobility disability." Named plaintiff Justin McGowan will represent the mobility disability subclass. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J2dc4e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shandra N. Monterastelli, Esq. Katrina M. Smith, Esq. ALABAMA DISABILITIES ADVOCACY PROGRAM 2008 12th Street Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0395 Telephone: (205) 348-4928 Facsimile: (205) 348-3909 E-mail: smonterastelli@adap.ua.edu ksmith@adap.ua.edu - and - Henry Brewster, Esq. HENRY BREWSTER, LLC 205 N. Conception Street Mobile, AL 36603 Telephone: (251) 338-0630 E-mail: hbrewster@brewsterlaw.net - and - David Gespass, Esq. GESPASS & JOHNSON 40 Echo Lane Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (205) 566-2530 E-mail: pass.gandjlaw@gmail.com - and - David I. Schoen, Esq. 2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6 Montgomery, AL 36106 Telephone: (334) 395-6611 E-mail: Schoenlawfirm@gmail.com - and - Martin Weinberg, Esq. Shannon, AL 35142 Telephone: (205) 910-3722 Facsimile: (205) 413-8717 E-mail: attorneyweinberg@bellsouth.net WASHINGTON: Reaches Settlement for Youth in Foster Care ------------------------------------------------------- Children's Rights reports that Washington State reaches groundbreaking Federal Class-Action Settlement for youth in foster care. February 24, 2023, Washington's Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) settled D.S. v. Washington State DCYF, a federal class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of hundreds of youth in the state's foster care system. In the agreement, DCYF promises to implement new statewide models for supporting youth in foster care and their families and to collaborate in additional ways with child welfare clients, alumni, and stakeholders to improve its policies and practices. The lawsuit was brought by Disability Rights Washington and three young people in foster care on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated foster children. The named Plaintiffs, all of whom identified as having behavioral health conditions, described their experiences of being separated from their families, being sent to out-of-state institutions, and spending time in single night placements or hotels over significant time periods. Over the past eleven months, the parties negotiated in good faith with the assistance of a mediator and ultimately reached agreement on a settlement to present to the Court for approval. Recognizing that foster children who experience hotel, one-night, and out-of-state placements are often survivors of complex trauma and disproportionately identify as Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) and LGBTQIA+, the parties negotiated sweeping system improvements that will be trauma-informed, culturally-responsive, and LGBTQIA+-affirming. Per the terms of the settlement, DCYF committed to implement the following reforms as alternatives to relying on hotel stays, one-night placements, and congregate care facilities: Creating more nurturing alternative living arrangements, which will include an Emerging Adulthood Supported Housing Program for older youth who would prefer to live more independently, a statewide "Hub Home" program to provide resources for "satellite" families raising foster children, and a Professional Therapeutic Foster Care program to help children with intensive behavioral health conditions stabilize and reunify with their families; Updating foster care licensing standards to more realistically fit the developmental needs of foster children; and Establishing a more comprehensive and objective evaluation process for determining whether it is appropriate and necessary to place a child in a group care facility. DCYF also agreed to enhance its engagement with individuals with lived experience in the child welfare system and stakeholders to develop better practices around involving and supporting extended families, working with families to identify and meet needs through group planning, and mitigating the destabilizing and triggering impacts that foster children experience during referral and transition periods. DCYF will hire a facilitator to convene individuals and stakeholders to hear about their experiences, and will compile a public report with feedback and recommendations for what practice and policy changes DCYF should implement. DCYF will also publicly release an implementation plan describing how it will make the changes promised in the agreement. Kathleen Noonan will serve as a monitor to review DCYF's implementation plan, as well as performance and outcomes. Under the agreement, whether DCYF can reduce placement disruptions and eliminate hotel and one-night placements will be among the factors the Court will consider in determining whether DCYF has met its settlement obligations. The parties will submit their agreement to the Honorable Judge Barbara Rothstein of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington for approval. Upon the Court's preliminary approval, notice of the settlement will be sent to the class, and the Court will schedule a hearing to determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. DCYF Assistant Secretary Steven Grilli explained, "The commitments we are making today build upon our overarching commitments to safely reduce the number of children in out-of-home care, to strengthen families and communities, and to promote equity." According to Disability Rights Washington Attorney Susan Kas, "Our organization brought this case because far too many foster children with disabilities were becoming strangers to their own families and communities of origin due to the failures of traditional child welfare models." Children's Rights Attorney Leecia Welch added, "DCYF's commitments in this settlement are crucial steps towards reimagining the child welfare system to provide for healing, community, and lasting relationships with supportive adults for all children, regardless of their race, gender, or disabilities." The National Center for Youth Law, Disability Rights Washington, Carney Gillespie PLLP, Children's Rights, and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP represent the Plaintiffs. Contact: Willis Jacobson, National Center for Youth Law: wjacobson@youthlaw.org | media@youthlaw.org; Susan Kas, Disability Rights Washington: susank@dr-wa.org; Camilla Jenkins, Children's Rights: cjenkins@childrensright.org; Jason Wettstein, Department of Children, Youth, and Families: Jason.Wettstein@dcyf.wa.gov[GN] WHITE CASTLE: Court Rules Claims Accrue Under BIPA in Cothron Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, LATRINA COTHRON, Appellee v. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM, INC., Appellant, Case No. 128004 (Ill.), Judge Elizabeth M. Rochford of the Supreme Court of Illinois concludes that the plain language of Sections 15(b) and 15(d) shows that a claim accrues under the Biometric Information Privacy Act with every scan or transmission of biometric identifiers or biometric information without prior informed consent. The case requires the Supreme Court to construe section 15(b) and 15(d) of the Act (740 ILCS 14/15(b), (d) (West 2018)) in an action alleging that an employer violated the Act when it repeatedly collected fingerprints from an employee and disclosed that biometric information to a third party without consent. The controversy arises from a proposed class action filed by Cothron, on behalf of all Illinois employees of White Castle. The Plaintiff originally filed her action in the circuit court of Cook County against White Castle and its third-party vendor, Cross Match Technologies. Cross Match Technologies removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453 (2018)). She later voluntarily dismissed Cross Match Technologies from her action and proceeded solely against White Castle in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. According to her complaint, the Plaintiff is a manager of a White Castle restaurant in Illinois, where she has been employed since 2004. Shortly after her employment began, White Castle introduced a system that required its employees to scan their fingerprints to access their pay stubs and computers. A third-party vendor then verified each scan and authorized the employee's access. Generally, the Plaintiff's complaint alleged that White Castle implemented this biometric-collection system without obtaining her consent in violation of the Act (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (West 2018)), which became effective in 2008. She asserted that White Castle did not seek her consent to acquire her fingerprint biometric data until 2018, more than a decade after the Act took effect. Accordingly, she claimed that White Castle unlawfully collected her biometric data and unlawfully disclosed her data to its third-party vendor in violation of section 15(b) and 15(d), respectively, for several years. In relevant part, White Castle moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Plaintiff's action was untimely because her claim accrued in 2008, when White Castle first obtained her biometric data after the Act's effective date. The district court denied White Castle's motion. It later certified its order for immediate interlocutory appeal, finding that its decision involved a controlling question of law on which there is substantial ground for disagreement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit accepted the certification. It observed that the answer to the claim-accrual question would determine the outcome of the parties' dispute, the Supreme Court could potentially side with either party on the question, the question was likely to recur, and it involved a unique Illinois statute regularly applied by federal courts. Id. at 1166. Thus, finding the relevant criteria favored certification of the question, the Seventh Circuit certified the question to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court chose to answer that question. The Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Retail Litigation Center, Inc., Restaurant Law Center, National Retail Federation, Illinois Manufacturers' Association, National Association of Manufacturers, Illinois Health and Hospital Association, Illinois Retail Merchants Association, Chemical Industry Council of Illinois, Illinois Trucking Association, Mid-West Truckers Association, and Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce were granted leave to file amicus curiae briefs in support of White Castle's position. The American Association for Justice, Employment Law Clinic of the University of Chicago Law School's Edwin F. Mandell Legal Aid Clinic, NELA/Illinois National Employment Law Project, Raise the Floor Alliance, and Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) were granted leave to file amicus curiae briefs in support of the Plaintiff's position. The certified question asks: Do section 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person's biometric identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to a third party, respectively, or only upon the first scan and first transmission? White Castle argues that section 15(b) and 15(d) claims can accrue only once -- when the biometric data is initially collected or disclosed. According to it, the plain meaning of each verb used in section 15(d) implicates the disclosure of biometrics by one party to a new, third party -- said differently, a party that has not previously possessed the relevant biometric identifier or biometric information. As it argues for section 15(b) claims, White Castle contends that occurs only on the first instance of disclosure or dissemination. The Plaintiff responds that the plain meaning of the statutory language demonstrates that claims under section 15(b) and 15(d) accrue every time a private entity collects or disseminates biometrics without prior informed consent. She maintains that section 15(b) applies to every instance when a private entity collects biometric information without prior consent. To resolve the parties' dispute and answer the certified question, Judge Rochford focuses on the language of the Act itself. The cardinal principle and primary objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature. Where the language is clear and unambiguous, the Supreme Court must apply the statute without resort to further aids of statutory construction. Only if the statutory language is ambiguous may the Supreme Court look to other sources to ascertain the legislature's intent. When answering this question, Judge Rochford assumes, without deciding, that White Castle's alleged collection of the Plaintiff's fingerprints and transmission to a third party was done in violation of the Act. Judge Rochford agrees with the federal district court that a party violates Section 15(b) when it collects, captures, or otherwise obtains a person's biometric information without prior informed consent. This is true the first time an entity scans a fingerprint or otherwise collects biometric information, but it is no less true with each subsequent scan or collection. The appellate court has reached the same conclusion, determining that the plain language of section 15(b) establishes that it applies to each and every capture and use of a plaintiff's fingerprint or hand scan. Almost every substantive section of the Act supports this finding. As with section 15(b), Judge Rochford concludes that the plain language of section 15(d) applies to every transmission to a third party. She finds that the plain language of section 15(d) supports the conclusion that a claim accrues upon each transmission of a person's biometric identifier or information without prior informed consent. She believes that the plain language of section 15(b) and 15(d) demonstrates that such violations occur with every scan or transmission. Judge Rochford is also not persuaded by White Castle's nontextual arguments in support of its single-accrual interpretation. She rejects White Castle's argument that the Supreme Court should limit a claim under section 15 to the first time that a private entity scans or transmits a party's biometric identifier or biometric information. No such limitation appears in the statute. They cannot rewrite a statute to create new elements or limitations not included by the legislature. Ultimately, Judge Rochford continues to believe that policy-based concerns about potentially excessive damage awards under the Act are best addressed by the legislature. She respectfully suggests that the legislature reviews these policy concerns and makes clear its intent regarding the assessment of damages under the Act. In sum, Judge Rochford concludes that the plain language of section 15(b) and 15(d) shows that a claim accrues under the Act with every scan or transmission of biometric identifiers or biometric information without prior informed consent. A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 17, 2023 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddc35be from Leagle.com. YALE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Checks Sent to 6,000 Union Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Zaretsky, writing for New Haven Register, reports that checks for up to $1,300 have gone out to more than 6,000 union workers at Yale University as a result of a class-action lawsuit settlement of a case involving a workplace wellness program that employees alleged required what amounted to involuntary participation unless they were willing to pay "opt-out" fees. The Health Expectations Program, or HEP, which was negotiated into the contracts of Yale's Unite Here Local 34 and Local 35 unions, required workers and spouses to submit to medical testing such as mammograms, colonoscopies and diabetes screenings, with Yale wellness vendors gaining access to results, the suit alleged. Workers who wanted to keep their information private or who did not want to submit to tests were charged an "opt-out" fee of $25 per week -- up to $1,300 per year, said Lisa Kwesell of East Haven, who was among the named plaintiffs. AARP joined with individual members of the Yale unions in the suit. AARP previously had litigated issues involving similar programs elsewhere. "It was part of the new contract and the union and the university starting sending out notifications that they were going to implement the wellness program and we had certain notifications that we should apply for it," said Kwesell, who has worked at Yale since 2005, currently as service assistant at Benjamin Franklin College. Kwesell waited until near the deadline date to sign up, then, on a weekend, went online to read the terms and conditions," and I said 'Oh, my God!'" She got the ball rolling on the litigation, for which a proposed settlement was reached last March, because "I really disagree with this. I don't think my employer has a right to know my medical condition" and "I don't think that they have the right to fine us for our (lack of) compliance." Kwesell did research and found that AARP had done and won litigation for similar issues, so "I reached out to the attorneys that had done and won it." Before filing suit, she said she went back to the unions and Yale and said she had a problem with it. "They said there was nothing they could do. It was in the contract." Then, "when I explained the magnitude of it and that it wasn't just me; it was every single employee in Local 34 and 35, they wanted to meet with other employees and not just me," she said. Employees had different reasons for not wanting to participate. One of the other plaintiffs got involved because "they were badgering her to get a mammogram and she had had a double mastectomy," Kwesell said. That employee did not return a call for comment. Kwesell had a number of problems with the the program, including that it "was very cookie-cutter." Among other things, she had she had to provide a letter from her out-of-network doctor "and a copy of my cancelled check to prove to them that I had complied." The wellness program also wouldn't accept an at-home colon cancer screening test in lieu of a colonoscopy, even though her doctor said it would be OK, she said. People's health "should be between you and your doctor," Kwesell said. "The health information shouldn't be data-mined." She said she wants her fellow employees to know "that the checks are real. They should definitely go and deposit them" as soon as possible. "If people were a part of this wellness program and they didn't receive a check, they should get a hold of the claims administrator" by calling 866-742-4955 or emailing info@rg2claims.com. Another of the named plaintiffs, Jason Schwartz, said the main point of contention was defining the term "voluntary." Yale said it was, "but it wasn't voluntary" because there were financial costs if someone didn't comply," he said. "There was a big problem with it for me because, for one, I'm a grown adult. ... I didn't need anyone dictating to me what I do and what I don't have to do," Schwartz said. "Plus, if you didn't comply, they docked you. "I just felt it was wrong and a lot of people were complaining about it," he said. "A lot of people were unhappy with it and a lot of people were afraid to speak out," he said. "Once they started to dock my paycheck, I said, 'Let's go forward with this.'" He said he was happy with the settlement. "We got everything that we were looking for," he said. "Most people were happy with the settlement. . . . Hopefully, they'll think twice before they institute something like it. . . . I'm for personal liberty and this was just an overreach." One of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Joshua Goodbaum of Garrison, Levinson-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, said of the settlement, "I'm grateful for the courage of the employees who came forward and told their stories and I'm pleased with the significant compensation that we were able to secure for our clients." Adam Marchand, a chief steward for Local 34 -- and city alder -- who works on health policy for the union, said, "The union was not a party to the lawsuit. . . . We had zero involvement in the lawsuit. When our members ask us about it, we simply refer them to the AARP attorneys." Asked for comment on the payout, Yale spokesperson Karen Peart emailed a statement. "Yale University and certain of its employees have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit, Kwesell v. Yale University, subject to Court approval," the statement said. "The lawsuit alleges that Yale's Health Expectations Program violated federal statutes because it required employees and their spouses to either participate in the wellness program, which requires routine checkups and diagnostic testing, or pay a weekly opt-out fee. "Under federal law, voluntary employer wellness programs are permissible," but "the Plaintiffs alleged that the $25 opt-out fee rendered the program involuntary under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act," it said. "We designed the Health Expectations Program with our union partners and the advice of healthcare and legal experts," said Stephanie Spangler, Yale's vice provost for health affairs and academic integrity. "Nevertheless, we feel it is best to resolve what would have been expensive litigation and move forward. Our relationship with our employees is an important priority." Under the settlement agreement, Yale will continue to offer the Health Expectations Program, but will not charge opt-out fees for a four-year period and will change its practices regarding the transfer of health data in connection with the program, the statement said. Yale also agreed to pay $1.29 million, distributed among employees who were covered by the program and to cover plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs to the extent approved by the court. [GN] ZIPRECRUITER INC: Approval of Settlement Deal Pending ----------------------------------------------------- ZIPRECRUITER, INC. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2023, that the Company anticipates approval of the settlement agreement in 2023. In April 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by a former employee in the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act as well as owed certain compensation to employees. In January 2020, the former employee filed a related representative action in the Los Angeles Superior Court under the Private Attorney General Act alleging similar claims regarding compensation owed to employees. In January 2021, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, which was granted in part and denied in part. As of September 30, 2021, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit for an immaterial amount and accordingly, the Company recorded a liability within accrued expenses. The settlement must be approved by the Court before it can be finalized. As of December 31, 2022, the Company anticipates that the settlement agreement will be approved in 2023. ZipRecruiter Inc. is a two-sided marketplace for work. The company generates substantially all of its revenue from fees paid by employers to post jobs and access other features in its marketplace. The company is based in Santa Monica, California. ********* 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 ***