/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240108.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 8, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 6
Headlines
156-40 GRILL: Appeals Ruling in Juarez FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
23ANDME INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Breach
3M CO: Contamination Suit Settlements Worth Millions, Experts Say
3M COMPANY: Camden Suit Seeks Final Nod of Class Settlement
3M COMPANY: Removes Ates Suit to Northern District of Alabama
4CIS INC: Defaulted Defendants Must Show Cause by Jan. 17
ABM INDUSTRY: Removes Martinez Suit to C.D. California
ADAMS BANK: Longwolf Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
AETNA LIFE: Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal in Howard Suit
ANCESTRY.COM: Plaintiffs Seek to File Supplemental Authority
ARDEN GLEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chocktoot Alleges
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 28
ASAD BUSINESSES: Fails to Pay Cashiers' OT Wages Under FLSA
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class Action
BASCOM'S STEAKHOUSE: Seghrouchni Seeks to Certify Collective Action
BLUE RIDGE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 5
BON SECOURS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bishop Alleges
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Tosses as Moot Bid to Certify Class
CENTRAL GARDEN: Class Cert Hearing Set for August 29
CENTURION CONSULTING: Class Cert Discovery in Zuniga Due March 27
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Lifts Stay of Harper Suit
COMCAST CORP: Faces Class Suit Over October 2023 Data Breach
CONOPCO INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Candelaria Due Feb. 16
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES: Fails to Pay Installers' OT Wages Under FLSA
DAIFUKU NORTH: Seeks More Time for Filing Class Cert Opposition
DELTA AIR: Faces Class Suit Over Genetic Information Privacy Law
DOLLAR GENERAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 26
DRG HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Alleges
DRIVEN BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 20
EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Feb. 9
EMBANET-COMPASS KNOWLEDGE: Marquez Seeks to Recover 60 Days Wages
ER CARPENTER: Fails to Provide Adequate COBRA Notice, Marrow Says
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Losson Balks at Personal Info Disclosure
FIFTH THIRD: Faces Perez Class Suit Over Unlawful Charging Fees
FIVE STAR: Fails to Pay Car Valet's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
FLO HEALTH: Parties Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Docs
FRANKLIN, IL: Maurer Placeholder Bid to Certify Class Tossed
GENERAL MOTORS: Notice of Parties Revised Class Cert Proposal Filed
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bid to File Materials Under Seal OK'd
GLENCO CONTRACTING: Rivero Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
GLENN O. HAWBAKER: Defeats Insurance Coverage Battle Class Suit
GOLDEN STATE: Romero Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal.
GOOD WORLDWIDE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Slade Says
GOOGLE LLC: Settles Class Action Over Incognito Mode for $5 Bil.
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND: Appeals Remand Ruling in Morgan to 9th Cir.
HANOVER COUNTY, VA: Hatcher Seeks Conditional Certification
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rejoice Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class
HEALTHY PAWS: Joint Bid to Seal Docs Partly Granted in Benanav
HEATH CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barb Alleges
HERSHEY CO: Faces Class Action Over Peanut Butter Pumpkins
HUMANA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 14 in Elliot
ILLUMINA INC: Faces Roy Securities Suit Over 5.6% Stock Price Drop
INSPIRE MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 20
INSPIRE MEDICAL: City of Hollywood Sues Over Drop in Share Price
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL: Appellate Court Revives Fiduciary Class Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Must Face Talc Shareholder Class Action
KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Flaherty Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
KASHI JAPANESE: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Pagan Class Suit Over Jell-O Gelatin False Ads
LITTLE CAESAR: Horner Suit Seeks Notice to Collective Members
M&R PLAZA DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blanco Alleges
MADISON MONROE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Debt Settlement
MAISON SOLUTIONS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
MAJESTIC RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Has Until Jan. 12 to Respond to Class Suit
MCKINSEY & CO: Agrees to Settle Opioid Class Suit for $78MM
MESA AZTECA: Perez Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
META MATERIALS: Announces Consolidated Securities Class Settlement
MILLIMAN INC: Class Cert Deadlines Extended in Healy Lawsuit
MR. COOPER: Faces Class Suit Over October 2023 Cyberattack
NATIONSTAR FINANCIAL: Robertson Sues Over Cybertattack, Data Breach
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PA: Gallagher Appeals Dismissal Ruling
OXFORD INDUSTRIES: Completion of Non-Expert Discovery Due March 30
PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Caloto Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
PROFESSIONAL LABOR: Appeals Atty. Fees' Ruling in Walters FLSA Suit
PUERTO RICO POLICE BUREAU: Carbonell Suit Seeks to Certify Class
R&L CARRIERS: Rubalcaba Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Cal.
REGIS UNIVERSITY: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
RUSSELL SPEEDER'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez Alleges
SAGESURE INSURANCE: Stephens Sues Over Employment Discrimination
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Sued Over Disclosure of Info to 3rd Parties
SOUTH BAY: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Unpaid Wages
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 26
STATE FARM: Hearing on Bid for Class Cert Rescheduled
TACTICAL FORCE: Nida Sues Over Security Officers' Unpaid Overtime
TAXACT INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended
TISHMAN SPEYER: Fails to Disclose Total Ticket Costs, Norcross Says
TRC SOLUTIONS: Bandy Class Cert Hearing Set for Jan. 10
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Remuneration Fees
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Osterhaus Sues Over Breach of Contract
VNET GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 26
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Suit Over Gender Pay Gap
WARNER NORCROSS: Appeals Ruling in Kingen Suit to 6th Cir.
YODLEE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 13
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Rivera Files Suit Over Data Breach
ZUFFA LLC: Parties Seek More Time to Extend Class Cert Reply
[*] Bill to Amend Korea Securities Class Action Act Proposed
*********
156-40 GRILL: Appeals Ruling in Juarez FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
156-40 Grill LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's Order
dated November 28, 2023 and Judgment dated December 1, in the
lawsuit entitled Marco Antonio Sanchez Juarez and Janet Gutierrez
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 156-40
Grill LLC d/b/a Taverna Greek Grill, Greek Grill Crossbay Corp.,
d/b/a Taverna Greek Grill, Evangelos Pollatos, Maria
Karras-Pollatos, Michael Siderakis, and Konstantinos Siklas, Case
2:15-cv-05081, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.
The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
On November 28, 2023, the Court awarded Plaintiffs' damages in the
amount of $168,962.04 to Sanchez consisting of (1) $84,481.02 in
unpaid wages and (2) $84,481.02 in liquidated damages. The Court
also awarded damages against Defendants in the amount of $22,312.22
to Gutierrez consisting of (1) $11,156.11 in unpaid wages and (2)
$11,156.11 in liquidated damages. If the amounts awarded remain
unpaid within 90 days after judgment or after the time to appeal
has expired if no appeal is pending, the total amount will be
increased by fifteen percent in accordance with N.Y.L.L. Section
198(4). Defendants Pollatos, Siderakis, and Siklas are jointly and
severally liable for damages incurred through September 2013, and
Pollatos is responsible for damages for the remainder of the
relevant time period. Clerk's Judgment was entered on December 1.
The appellate case is captioned as Sanchez Juarez et al v. 156-40
Grill LLC, Case No. 23-7972, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on December 11, 2023.[BN]
23ANDME INC: Faces Another Class Action Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that genetic
testing company 23andMe Inc. faces another class action lawsuit
following an Oct. 6 data breach.
Unauthorized actors reportedly accessed 23andMe accounts, including
millions of customers' sensitive Personal Identifiable Information
(PII), such as their names, usernames, regional locations, birth
years, profile pictures and ethnicities.
Plaintiff Alyson Hu, a 23andMe customer, filed the 23andMe data
breach class action lawsuit Dec. 26. She previously received notice
her PII had been compromised.
"Since the [23andMe data breach] occurred, several news sources
have reported that threat actors listed mass amounts of the stolen
data for sale on the dark web," Hu alleges.
"Defendant has failed to address these reports, failed to inform
victims when and how the data breach occurred and has even failed
to say whether the security threat is still a risk to customers."
Plaintiff argues adequate cybersecurity measures could have
prevented 23andMe data breach
23andMe offers customers personalized genetic reports that include
ancestry composition, DNA relatives, genetic health
predispositions, genetic traits and other individualized genetic
information.
To register for 23andMe genetic testing, customers purchase a
genetic testing kit and provide 23andMe with detailed information
about themselves. 23andMe then collects further individualized
genetic information from customers, including their saliva sample
information.
However, 23andMe failed to adopt adequate cybersecurity measures to
protect customers' PII from unauthorized actors, Hu alleges.
Genetic testing companies are "treasure troves" of sensitive
information and therefore valuable targets for cybercriminals, the
23andMe class action lawsuit claims.
The lawsuit also alleges 23andMe has not been forthcoming with
information about the data breach and attempted to blame customers
with "recycled login credentials."
While the threat actors accessed a limited number of 23andMe
accounts, Hu says the cybercriminals accessed the PII of nearly 7
million individuals through 23andMe's DNA relatives feature.
As a result of the 23andMe data breach, customers like Hu face the
risk of identity theft well into the future and must spend time and
money to mitigate the damage.
The 23andMe class action lawsuit asserts claims for negligence and
violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act.
A separate consumer filed a 23andMe data breach class action
lawsuit in October, shortly after 23andMe announced the breach.
Were you affected by the 23andMe data breach? Tell us about your
experience in the comments.
Hu is represented by Katrina Carroll of Lynch Carpenter LLP and
Jonathan M. Jagher, Michael E. Moskovitz and Nia-Imara Barberousse
Binns of Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.
The 23andMe data breach class action lawsuit is Alyson Hu v.
23andMe Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-17079, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]
3M CO: Contamination Suit Settlements Worth Millions, Experts Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Mentzer, writing for Wisconsin Public Radio, reports that the
individuals and municipalities involved in lawsuits over PFAS
contamination face yearslong litigation in complex cases that could
involve new and untested legal theories, experts say.
Increasing awareness of the risks of chemical contamination by the
class of synthetic chemicals widely used in household products has
led to thousands of lawsuits across the nation. Late last month,
the city of Wausau filed suit against 15 manufacturers and another
61 insurance companies. It is the latest PFAS lawsuit in Wisconsin,
and follows legal action by the city of Eau Claire, residents in
the town of Campbell, residents near Rhinelander and others. Such
lawsuits are typically targeted at manufacturers, including 3M or
Tyco, known to have produced PFAS.
In some cases, companies have chosen to settle similar lawsuits on
the local and national levels. But the path to resolution takes
years and involves complex scientific and legal work.
In the case of the Wausau lawsuit, for example, individual
manufacturers may argue that their company is not responsible for
the contamination but another company is. In the legal process
known as discovery, both sides would try to bolster their claims by
seeking company records and performing complex scientific testing
on the city's water, which in 2022 was found to be contaminated
with PFAS in all its municipal wells.
"There can be some ability to trace that, because each company
would be producing, potentially, different types of PFAS that could
be linked back to them," said Steph Tai, a law professor and
associate dean of the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an expert on environmental
law.
That process will likely involve opposing scientific experts from
the plaintiffs and the defense.
A winning lawsuit doesn't require proof company knew risks of PFAS
contamination
Long-term PFAS exposure has been linked to an increased risk of
some cancers, including prostate and testicular cancer. It can also
cause increased cholesterol levels and reduced fertility in women.
Our understanding of PFAS and its risks over time are relatively
new, and in many places regulators have only recently begun to
grapple with how to define water standards. The federal
Environmental Protection Agency is working to finalize national
drinking water standards for PFAS, EPA Administrator Michael Regan
told WPR in November.
But those filing PFAS lawsuits, whether on behalf of municipalities
or affected residents, likely do not need to show that
manufacturers knew the risks of the chemicals at the time they
allowed them to enter the water system, said attorney Philip
Comella of the Chicago firm Taft Stettinius and Hollister, who has
worked extensively on PFAS cases.
"It's strict liability, which means that if you produced a product
and it causes harm, you don't have to know that it was going to
cause injury," Comella said.
Evidence of negligence or other wrongdoing can strengthen a
plaintiff's claims, Comella said, but typically are not necessary
in such cases.
Then there is the question of harm. In the case of Wausau or other
municipalities, they will seek to show that the city incurred
costs. In January, Wausau unveiled a new water treatment plant with
upgraded filtration systems that will cost about $800,000 per year
to maintain. The city argues that manufacturers should be
responsible for those costs, incurred by the city's taxpayers.
Proving actual health effects is more complicated, Comella said.
PFAS exposure leads to increased risk of some health issues, but it
is difficult to prove that any given person is suffering from a
particular malady as a result of exposure. In at least one past
case, individuals have argued that manufacturers should pay for the
cost of medical monitoring "to make sure to catch whatever illness
early, so it could be treated," Comella said. But different states
have different policies around this, and it's a less well-defined
area of law. As a result, though possible, medical monitoring is
typically not part of PFAS settlements.
Companies may choose to settle instead of going to trial
In many cases, companies have chosen to settle lawsuits rather than
bring them to trial. That may in part be a public relations
calculation, Tai said, or an attempt to avert the long and costly
trial process. In 2021, Tyco Fire Products and other manufacturers
agreed to a $17.5 million settlement with residents of the area
around Peshtigo where chemicals used at a firefighting training
facility contaminated the water.
"Usually, the closer it gets to a potential trial date, the more
worried companies might get," Tai said.
Many PFAS lawsuits are class-action suits, meaning they are filed
on behalf of a group of people such as residents of a given area
who have dealt with contamination. In at least one case, a massive,
multistate class action lawsuit led to a proposed $10.3 billion
settlement from the Minnesota-based manufacturer 3M. In Wisconsin,
Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul have called on the
group to reject that proposal, saying it would not provide enough
funding to cover costs for affected communities. [GN]
3M COMPANY: Camden Suit Seeks Final Nod of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v.
3M COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03147-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:
-- Granting their Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement;
-- Finding the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and
adequate;
-- Finding that, for settlement purposes only, the Settlement
Class
satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
-- Dismissing Claims in the Litigation asserted by Class Members
against Released Parties; and
-- Granting permanent injunction prohibiting any Class Member
from
asserting or pursuing any Released Claim against any Released
Party in any forum.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in
the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer
goods.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47ffK7N at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. London, Esq.
DOUGLAS AND LONDON P.C.
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 566-7500
Facsimile: (212) 566-7501
E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
- and -
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
Napoli Shkolnik, Esq.
NSPR LAW
1302 Avenida Ponce de León
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (833) 271-4502
Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com
- and -
Scott Summy, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
- and -
Joseph Rice, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.,
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
- and -
Robert Klonoff, Esq.
LEWIS & CLARK SCHOOL OF LAW
10101 S. Terwilliger Boulevard
Portland, OR 97219
Telephone: (503) 768-6600
E-mail: klonoff@usa.net
3M COMPANY: Removes Ates Suit to Northern District of Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JAMES L. ATES, et al., individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Circuit Court of the State of Alabama, County of Jefferson
(Case No. 01-CV-2023-904145) to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama on Dec., 21, 2023.
The clerk of court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01743-JHE. The case is assigned to John H England,
III.
3M COMPANY conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Telephone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
4CIS INC: Defaulted Defendants Must Show Cause by Jan. 17
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Weitlauf v. Hopkins et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01052 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 27, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo entered an order directing the
defaulted defendants to show cause, by Jan. 17, 2024, why the Court
should not decide the motion based only on the plaintiff's
submission.
The plaintiff moved to open discovery on class certification and
damages as to the defaulted defendants, 4CIS, Inc.; Asset Retention
Group, LLC; RJR Org. LLC; and Standard Management Associates, LLC.
The defaulted defendants have not responded to that motion, and the
time to do so has passed.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act
involving consumer credit.[CC]
ABM INDUSTRY: Removes Martinez Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of KENNETH MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. ABM
INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendant, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 23STCV26491) to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec.
21, 2023.
The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-10687. The case is assigned to Stephen V Wilson,
and referred to Magistrate Steve Kim.
ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC provides facility services. The Company
offers electrical lighting, HVAC installation, landscape
maintenance, and janitorial services. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul M. Teinert, Esq.
Kaitlin J. Hall, Esq.
ROSS, WOLCOTT, TEINERT & PROUT LLP
3151 Airway Ave., Suite S-1
Costa Mesa, CA92626
Telephone: (714) 444-3900
Email: PMT@RossLLP.com
KJH@RossLLP.com
ADAMS BANK: Longwolf Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------
TINA TRUJILLO LONGWOLF, on behalf of herself individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADAMS BANK &
TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-05005-RFR-CRZ (D. Neb., Dec. 18,
2023) is a class action seeking to remedy harms on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals whose personally
identifying information was accessed during the recent cyberattack
and data breach that was perpetuated against Defendant.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which was entrusted to Defendant -- was compromised and
unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. As a result of the data
breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a present
and continuing risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and
Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their
financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including improvements
to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and
adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant.
Adams Bank & Trust is a commercial bank with its principal office
located in Ogallala, Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
AETNA LIFE: Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal in Howard Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW HOWARD, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01505-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal.),
Aetna applies for leave to file the following documents under
seal:
1. Portions of Aetna's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify
Class Action containing Private Health Information ("PHI") of
non-parties;
2. Aetna's Exhibit A containing PHI of Plaintiff Andrew Howard;
and
3. Aetna's Exhibits B and F-S containing PHI of non-parties.
Aetna offers a broad range of traditional and consumer-directed
health insurance products and related services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48xLkyR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph E. Laska, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Cohen, Esq.
Justin Jones Rodriguez, Esq.
Rebecca Finkel, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 291-7400
Facsimile: (415) 291-7474
E-mail: jlaska@manatt.com
nacohen@manatt.com
jjrodriguez@manatt.com
rfinkel@manatt.com
ANCESTRY.COM: Plaintiffs Seek to File Supplemental Authority
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY SESSA AND MARK
SESSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation;
ANCESTRY.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW
(D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
them leave to file additional authority in support of their Motion
for Class Certification.
Ancestry.com provides online family genealogy information and
resources.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H0Dkuu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703-3515
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
sam@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC
5510 S. Fort Apache Rd., Suite 30
Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700
Telephone: (702) 856-7430
Facsimile: (702) 552-2370
- and -
Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
102 Bergen Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (347) 645-0464
E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
ARDEN GLEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chocktoot Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE CHOCKTOOT; DARNEECE VEAZEY; LESLIE JOHNSON; and MURILLO
MILLIN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ARDEN GLEN HEALTHCARE, LLC; RILEY CORBIN; NATALIE
LAW; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-at-01311 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff.
ARDEN GLEN HEALTHCARE, LLC operates a skilled nursing facility in
Sacramento, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PC
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
Email: jwatson@justice4you.com
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due March 28
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCIA CAMPBELL,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ARIZONA
BEVERAGES USA LLC and HORNELL BREWING CO., INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-02752-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered
an order granting joint stipulation to extend deadline for class
certification briefing as follows:
Event Deadline
Class certification motion and Plaintiffs' Mar. 28, 2024
class certification expert disclosures due
Deadline to complete depositions of Apr. 28, 2024
Plaintiffs' class certification experts
Defendant's class certification opposition; May 30, 2024
class certification expert disclosures; and
Daubert motions concerning Plaintiffs class
certification experts due
Deadline to complete depositions of July 1, 2024
Defendants' class certification experts
Plaintiffs' class certification reply; July 15, 2024
opposition to Defendants' class
certification Daubed motions; and
affirmative class certification Daubert
motions due
Defendants' Daubert reply and opposition Aug. 14, 2024
to Plaintiffs Daubert motions due
Plaintiffs' Daubert reply due Aug. 29, 2024
Arizona Beverage produces and supplies non-alcoholic beverages.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48z41lO at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103.
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 274-4663.
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert P. Donovan, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE
669 River Drive, Suite 201
Elmwood Park, NJ 07407
Telephone: (201) 857-6778
Facsimile: (610) 371-7938
E-mail: robert.donovan@stevenslee.com
- and -
Jason H. Wilson, Esq.
Kirby Hsu, Esq.
WILLENKEN LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 955-9240
Facsimile: (213) 955-9250
E-mail: jwilson@willenken.com
khsu@willenken.com
ASAD BUSINESSES: Fails to Pay Cashiers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARIF SHEIKH, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ASAD BUSINESSES INC and IMRAN HAMANI, Case
No. 4:23-cv-04772 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 21, 2023) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants allegedly required the Plaintiff to work more than
40 hours a week as a cashier without overtime pay in violation of
federal law. But the Defendants paid the Plaintiff the same hourly
rate for his regular and overtime hours.
The lawsuit claims that the Defendants cannot satisfy their burden
to show that any FLSA exemption applies to the Plaintiff or similar
employees. As such, the Defendants owe the Plaintiff and Class
Members back pay at the time and one-half rate for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Class Members are all of the Defendants' hourly paid employees
that received straight time for overtime who worked for the
Defendants throughout the state of Texas during the three-year
period before the filing of this Complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants at their 10619 South
Gessner Road Valero branded gas station from February of 2022 to
September of 2022.
Asad is the operating company responsible for a chain of gas
stations operating throughout the state of Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
5612 Chaucer Drive
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF TAYLOR GENERAL
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. ASTEC INDUSTRIES, INC., BENJAMIN G.
BROCK and DAVID C. SILVIOUS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00024-CEA-CHS (E.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- Certifying case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
-- appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative, and
-- approving its selection of The Rosen Law Firm P.A. as Class
Counsel.
Astec is a manufacturer of specialized equipment for asphalt road
building, aggregate processing and concrete production.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TGmdWl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Daniel Tyre-Karp, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37215-0734
Telephone: (615) 248-2828
Facsimile: (866) 816-4116
E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com
Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com
BASCOM'S STEAKHOUSE: Seghrouchni Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALI SEGHROUCHNI, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. BASCOM'S STEAKHOUSE,
INC., and FRED B. BULLARD JR., individually, Case No.
8:23-cv-02568-WFJ-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying collective action under the Fair
Labor
Standards Act (FLSA);
"All servers who worked for Defendant within the five years
preceding this lawsuit."
2. Certifying this case as a class action under Rule 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
3. Naming Abdelali Seghrouchni as class representative;
4. Naming Attorneys Carlos Leach and T'Keara N. Watson as Class
Counsel;
5. Directing the Defendants to produce, in an electronic
readable
format, to undersigned counsel within 14 days of the Order
granting this Motion a list containing the names, the last
known
addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and e-mail
addresses of putative class members who worked for Defendants
five years prior to the filing of this lawsuit; and
6. Directing the Parties to jointly prepare a sample Notice
document to be distributed to each class member and to
present
such Notice document to the Court along with an agreed upon
plan
for the Notice process within 14 days of the Order certifying
the class action.
The Plaintiffs only seeks to facilitate notice to the limited class
of servers who worked for Defendants who were paid the tipped
minimum wage1 for any period of their employment within the statute
of limitations.
In addition, the Plaintiffs request the entry of an Order
certifying the class in this matter pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for servers forced to participate
in the Defendants' illegal tip pool based on the foregoing
arguments.
The minimum wage violations alleged by Plaintiff are simple. First,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' restaurant required servers to
share tips with non-tipped employees (scrapers/dishwashers) which
is an obvious violation of the tip credit/minimum wage laws.
Bascom's is a refined dining restaurant with traditional steakhouse
offerings.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47g6pgd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
T'Keara N. Watson, Esq.
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
E-mail: twatson@theleachfirm.com
cleach@theleachfirm.com
BLUE RIDGE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 5
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. (NYSE
American: BRBS) between March 10, 2023 and October 31, 2023, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important February 5,
2024 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first
filed by the Firm.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Blue Ridge 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 Blue Ridge class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20587 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 February 5, 2024.
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. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely
middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that
actually litigate the cases. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions. 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, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Blue Ridge
Bankshares, Inc.'s financial statements from March 10, 2023 to the
present included certain errors; (2) as a result, Blue Ridge
Bankshares would need to restate its previously filed financial
statements from March 10, 2023 to October 31, 2023; and (3) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Blue Ridge class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20587 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.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
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]
BON SECOURS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bishop Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS BISHOP and CHARLES METZGER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BON SECOURS MERCY
HEALTH, INC.; and PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00385-TMR-PBS (S.D., Ohio., Dec. 22, 2023) alleges
that the Defendant allowed cybercriminals to steal the sensitive
and confidential medical transcription records of the Plaintiff and
the Class.
According to the complaint, on March 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs and
the Class members' personal information contained in medical
transcription records was accessed and stolen from the Defendants'
network servers.
The Defendants failed to comply with regulatory, ethical, and
industry standards for cybersecurity and confidentiality of patient
records, failed to take the most basic security measures such as
encryption of data, destruction of obsolete date, employee training
to prevent phishing attacks, and robust password requirements, and
failed to prevent, detect, and adequately respond to a foreseeable
data breach carried out by cyber criminals.
As a result, criminals gained access to, copied, and stole the
Plaintiffs' and the Class members' protected health information,
says the suit.
BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH, INC. operator of the health care system
based in Cincinnati, Ohio. The company's hospitals offer acute
care, psychiatric care, nursing care, assisted living, hospice and
other related services, enabling the patients to get effective
treatment. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANN LAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
Email: notices@dannlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Court Tosses as Moot Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Boston Scientific Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-12225 (D. Mass., Filed Dec.
16, 2020), the Hon. Judge Allison D. Burroughs entered an order
denying as moot motion to certify class.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act involving
contract -– stockholders suits.
Boston Scientific is a biomedical/biotechnology engineering firm
and multinational manufacturer of medical devices used in
interventional medical specialties.[CC]
CENTRAL GARDEN: Class Cert Hearing Set for August 29
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HILLORI GRAHAM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-06507-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting motion
for class certification and disclose experts in support of class
certification by May 15, 2024:
-- The Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and disclose experts in opposition to
class certification on July 24, 2024.
-- The Plaintiff shall file her reply in support of class
certification by August 14, 2024.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard
on
August 29, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.
Central Garden is an innovator, marketer and producer of quality
branded products for the lawn & garden and pet supplies markets.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tAgYgm at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
CENTURION CONSULTING: Class Cert Discovery in Zuniga Due March 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL D ZUNIGA, v.
CENTURION CONSULTING SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No.
5:23-cv-01985-CJC-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney
entered a scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(f):
1. All discovery, including discovery March 27, 2025
motions, shall be completed by:
2. The parties shall have until May 26, 2025
to file and have heard all
other motions, including motions
to join or amend the pleadings:
3. A pretrial conference will be held on: July 28, 2025
4. The case is set for a jury trial: Aug. 5, 2025
Centurion is a management and strategy consulting firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47g5NXX at no extra charge.[CC]
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Lifts Stay of Harper Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
rperIn the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL
SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all
aggrieved employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William B. Shubb
entered an order denying as moot Harper's motion to vacate the
order compelling his arbitration and lift the stay.
The Court further ordered that:
-- The plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay and reconsider various
orders are granted in the following respects:
(1) the stay as to all of Harper's and Sinclair's claims
is lifted; and
(2) the court's order compelling arbitration is vacated solely
as
to Harper's claims. The Plaintiffs' motion is otherwise
denied.
-- Harper's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses is
denied
without prejudice.
Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RUegeR at no extra charge.[CC]
COMCAST CORP: Faces Class Suit Over October 2023 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Tonya Riley of Bloomberg Law reports that Comcast Corp. was hit
with a pair of putative class actions on December 19, 2023 alleging
the company failed to properly secure valuable personally
identifiable information of customers.
The pair of suits, both filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, claim Comcast was negligent in protecting consumers'
data and exposed them and similarly situated plaintiffs to a
lifetime of potential identity theft.
Comcast filed notice on December 18 that hackers exploited an
unpatched vulnerability between October 16 and October 19 that
allowed them to access the data of approximately 36 million
customers. PII exposed in the breach included names, passwords and
the likes. [GN]
CONOPCO INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Candelaria Due Feb. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Candelaria v. Conopco,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06760 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic
Block entered an order that the Plaintiff's deadline to take the
first step related to a motion for class certification is Feb. 16,
2024.
The Court reminded the Plaintiffs that any motion practice must be
initiated in strict compliance with the Individual Rules of the
assigned District Judge.
The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Injury - Product
Liability.
Conopco provides personal care products.[CC]
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES: Fails to Pay Installers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON ARGENY BATISTA SIMON and LEONARDO JESUS PASTRAN GARBAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CONSULTING NY INC. d/b/a CELTIC SCAFFOLD and
STEPHEN MCKENNA, as an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-11058
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2023) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and
a half (1.5) for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work
week. The Plaintiff was regularly required to work 64 to 78 hours
per week from September 2022 until October 5, 2023. The Plaintiff
was paid by the Defendants a flat hourly rate of $23.00 per hour
for all hours worked from September 2022 until October 5, 2023, the
suit claims.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff Ramon Argeny Batista Simon was not
compensated at all by the Defendants for approximately seven weeks
of his employment. The Plaintiff Leonardo Jesus Pastran Garban was
paid approximately was not compensated at all by the Defendants for
approximately four weeks of his employment. Due to the Defendants'
violations, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the
Defendants, jointly and severally, their unpaid overtime wages and
an amount equal to their unpaid overtime wages in the form of
liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
of the action, including interest, asserts the suit.
Plaintiff Ramon Argeny Batista Simon was employed as a scaffolding
installer while performing related miscellaneous duties for the
Defendants, from September 2022 until October 5, 2023.
Plaintiff Leonardo Jesus Pastran Garban was employed by the
Defendants as a scaffolding installer and laborer, located at 2515
Newbold Avenue, Bronx, NY 10462 from June 20, 2023 until July 24,
2023.
Construction Services is a construction and consulting firm.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718)263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
DAIFUKU NORTH: Seeks More Time for Filing Class Cert Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SHAW, on behalf of
the State of California, v. DAIFUKU NORTH AMERICA HOLDING COMPANY,
ELITE LINE SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
1:21-cv-01084-NODJ-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants file ex parte
application to continue class certification opposition filing
deadline and related dates:
Event Current Date Proposed
New Date
Defendants' Opposition Filing Dec. 22, 2023 Feb. 5,
2024
Deadline:
Plaintiff's Reply Filing Jan. 8, 2024 Feb. 22,
2024
Deadline:
Motion Hearing Date: April 6, 2024 April 22,
2024
Daifuku is a manufacturer of material handling systems.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S0n3fn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard Simmons, Esq.
Jason W. Kearnaghan, Esq.
Rachel P. Howard, Esq.
Raymond J. Nhan, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: (213) 620-1780
Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
E-mail: rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com
jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com
rhoward@sheppardmullin.com
rnhan@sheppardmullin.com
DELTA AIR: Faces Class Suit Over Genetic Information Privacy Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a class action lawsuit has been
lodged against Delta Airlines, making the airline one of the latest
large employers operating in Illinois to be targeted with a
potentially big money claim under the state's genetic information
privacy law for allegedly asking job applicants about their medical
histories.
"This case concerns the misuse of individuals' genetic information
in Illinois by one of the largest operators of an international
commercial airline," says the lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit
Court. "As a condition of employment, Defendant requires potential
employees to undergo a rigorous application process, including
phone conversations with Delta Airlines' recruiters and physical
exams, during which genetic information in the form of their family
medical history is requested."
The Illinois Genetic Information Privacy (GIPA) prohibits companies
from soliciting genetic information of a person or family member,
the lawsuit states.
"Genetic information, including familial health history, is a
uniquely private and sensitive form of personal information," the
lawsuit states. "The genetic information contained therein reveals
a trove of intimate information about that person's health, family,
and innate characteristics. In requiring prospective employees,
such as Plaintiff, to disclose their family medical histories,
Defendant has violated Plaintiff's and the other putative Class
members' statutory right to genetic privacy."
The lawsuit seeks $15,000 for each intentional violation and $2,500
for each negligent violation, plus attorney fees and court costs.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Timothy P. Kingsbury,
Andrew T. Heldut and Joseph Dunklin, of McGuire Law PC, of Chicago.
[GN]
DOLLAR GENERAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Dollar General Corporation
(NYSE: DG), and Estee Lauder Companies Inc. (NYSE: EL).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Dollar General Corporation (NYSE: DG)
Class Period: May 28, 2020 - August 31, 2023 (Common Stock Only)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 26, 2024
The Dollar General class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Dollar General stores were
chronically understaffed and suffering from logistical and
inventory management problems which left stores with tens of
millions of dollars' worth of outdated and unwanted inventory,
mispriced goods, and lost and damaged items; (ii) large backlogs of
unsellable merchandise had built up at Dollar General's stores,
which inventory had not been timely written down due to
understaffing and Dollar General's failure to manage its inventory;
(iii) the allotment of employee hours per store per week imposed by
Dollar General management placed employees in virtually impossible
situations where assigned tasks, including those necessary to
effective store operations, could not be completed within the
allotted time; (iv) Dollar General was systematically overcharging
customers for items upon checkout above the listed price in
violation of state laws, including state law violations identified
by state regulators in Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, and Ohio; (v) Dollar General's reported revenue and
earnings during the Class Period were artificially inflated by
defendants' over-pricing scheme; (vi) Dollar General's failure to
manage store inventories and accurately price items upon checkout
risked the loss of customers, lower sales, adverse regulatory
actions, and reputational fallout; and (vii) Dollar General was not
on track to achieve its guidance during the Class Period and such
guidance lacked a reasonable factual basis.
On February 23, 2023, Dollar General announced that fourth quarter
of 2022 sales and earnings would come in materially below what
Dollar General had led investors to expect as recently as December
2022. On this news, the price of Dollar General common stock fell.
Then, on March 16, 2023, Dollar General revealed, among other
things, that it missed its prior annual net sales guidance by
approximately $140 million. On this news, the price of Dollar
General common stock fell nearly 3%.
Thereafter, on June 1, 2023, Dollar General reported first quarter
of 2023 revenue of $130 million below analysts' estimates. Dollar
General also slashed its full year 2023 financial forecast and that
it further only expected full year 2023 net sales growth in the
range of 3.5% to 5%, down 26% at the midpoint from the prior 5.5%
to 6% range provided in March 2023. On this news, the price of
Dollar General common stock fell nearly 20%.
Finally, on August 31, 2023, Dollar General reported lower than
expected second quarter of 2023 financial results and again slashed
its sales and profit outlook for full year 2023. Dollar General
blamed weaker consumer spending on non-essential purchases and
increasing theft for the shortfall. On this news, the price of
Dollar General common stock fell more than 12%.
For more information on the Dollar General class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/DG
Estee Lauder Companies Inc. (NYSE: EL)
Class Period: August 18, 2022 - May 2, 2023 (Common Stock Only)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 5, 2024
The filed complaint alleges that defendants misled investors with
unrealistic and materially false statements about market demand
Estee's products and its inventory levels. These statements
concealed the truth about Estee's weakness in the market until, on
May 3, 2023, Estee announced weaker sales and profit for the year
than estimated and accordingly cut its fiscal year outlook for a
third consecutive time.
As a result, the price of Estee stock declined from $245.22 per
share on May 2, 2023 to $202.70 per share on May 3, 2023.
For more information on the Estee class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/EL
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
DRG HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
J'ON ALEXANDER; and JUAN IZQUIERDO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DRG HOSPITALITY GROUP,
INC. d/b/a DELMONICO'S, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11101
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.
DRG HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. is a boutique catering concept
specializing in custom culinary events. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
DRIVEN BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due February 20
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 31
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:
DRVN) between October 27, 2021 and August 1, 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 February 20, 2024.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Driven Brands common stock 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 Driven Brands class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18662 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 February 20, 2024.
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 made
numerous materially false and misleading statements and omissions
that fall into two categories: (i) statements concerning Driven's
ability to efficiently and effectively integrate a high volume of
acquired businesses, including statements related to the status of
integrating its U.S. auto glass businesses; and (ii) statements
concerning the performance and competitive position of Driven's car
wash business segment. Specifically, throughout the Class Period,
defendants repeatedly touted Driven's ability to execute and
integrate acquisitions as a "core strength," and assured investors
that it had made "significant progress" integrating the auto glass
businesses it had acquired. Driven also represented that the large
scale of its car wash business served as a "competitive moat" that
would preserve Driven's competitive position. While Driven
acknowledged some "softness" in customer demand for its car wash
business segment, Driven downplayed that issue and pointed
investors to the growth of its car wash subscriptions, which Driven
labeled as the "Holy Grail" in the car wash business. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Driven Brands class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18662 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.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
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]
EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Feb. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP reminds investors that a complaint has
been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise
acquired Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Eagle" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: EGRX) securities between August 8, 2023 and November 28,
2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Click Here to Join the
Action.
If you purchased Eagle securities during the Class Period and would
like to discuss our investigation, your rights, or your interests
please click here. You may also contact us by emailing
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com or calling (212) 329-8571.
If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than February 9, 2024 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
purported class. If you have losses, we encourage you to contact
us to learn more about the lead plaintiff process. You need not
seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible
recovery.
On November 9, 2023, Eagle announced "it was delaying the release
of its third quarter 2023 results and investor conference call
because the Company ‘requires more time to review potential
adjustments relating to the reporting of sales of PEMFEXY(R) prior
to filing its Form 10-Q.' The Company also disclosed it ‘expects
to revise its previously disclosed 2023 full year guidance
downward.'"
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.16, or 30.4%, to
close at $9.54 per share on November 9, 2023, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The Complaint further alleges that "on November 29, 2023, before
the market opened, Eagle Pharmaceuticals disclosed that Scott
Tarriff, the Company's Founder, President and CEO resigned." On
this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.55, or 31%, to close
at $5.68 per share on November 29, 2023, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
WHY CONTACT KAPLAN FOX - Kaplan Fox is a leading national law firm
focusing on complex litigation with offices in New York, Oakland,
Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey. With over 50 years of
experience in complex litigation, Kaplan Fox offers the
professional experience and track record that clients demand.
Through prosecuting cases on the federal and state levels, Kaplan
Fox has successfully shaped the law through winning many important
decisions on behalf of our clients. For more information about
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, you may visit our website at
www.kaplanfox.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
If you have any questions about this notice, your rights, or your
interests, please contact:
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, New York 10022
(212) 329-8571
E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
Laurence D. King, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, California 94612
(415) 772-4704
Fax: (415) 772-4707
E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com [GN]
EMBANET-COMPASS KNOWLEDGE: Marquez Seeks to Recover 60 Days Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS MARQUEZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EMBANET-COMPASS KNOWLEDGE GROUP INC. d/b/a
BOUNDLESS LEARNING, Case No. 6:23-cv-02467 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 22,
2023) seeks to recover damages in the amount of 60 days'
compensation and benefits, under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.
On August 16, 2023, the Named Plaintiff was notified that he was
being terminated from his employment, without cause on his part, by
the Defendant, effective August 28, 2023.
On August 16, 2023, or within 30 days thereof, and thereafter, the
Named Plaintiff and approximately 200 other employees of the
Defendant were terminated as part of or as the reasonably expected
consequence of the terminations that occurred on or August 16, 2023
or within 30 days thereof.
The Defendant's failure to provide employees with the legally
required advance written notice, mandated by the WARN Act is a
particularly egregious violation because the Defendant's need for
layoffs was reasonably foreseeable well in advance of 60 days
before it decided to terminate Plaintiffs, the lawsuit claims.
In fact, the Defendant's actions in June 2023, which required some
planning and information prior to making the decisions to end 401k
contributions and severance policies demonstrate the Defendant had
foreseen its business situation, the lawsuit adds.
The Defendant's mass layoffs deprived the Plaintiffs " . . . and
their families of some transition time to adjust to the prospective
loss of employment, to seek and obtain alternative jobs and, if
necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow
these workers to successfully compete in the job market."
Plaintiff Alexis Marquez reported to the Defendant's Orlando,
Florida, facility.
The Defendant designs "workforce-aligned experiences" for
"organizations and corporations around the world" and has launched
"more than 450 online programs with Pearson Online Learning
Services."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
ER CARPENTER: Fails to Provide Adequate COBRA Notice, Marrow Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAROYA MARROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. E. R. CARPENTER COMPANY, INC. d/b/a CARPENTER CO., Case
No. 8:23-cv-02959 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 22, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant failed to provide her and the putative class adequate
notice of their right to continued health care coverage under the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.
According to the complaint, the Defendant, the plan sponsor of the
Health Plan, has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
insurance coverage following an occurrence of a "qualifying event"
as defined by the statute.
On March 18, 2022, the Defendant mailed the Plaintiff the
[deficient] COBRA notice. The COBRA notice was not written in a
manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant.
The Defendant's COBRA notice allegedly violates 29 C.F.R. Section
2590.606–4(b)(4)(v) because it fails to provide an explanation of
the plan's procedures for electing continuation coverage, including
an explanation of the time period during which the election must be
made, and the date by which the election must be made. As a result
of these violations, which threaten Class Members' ability to
maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiff seeks statutory
penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
and other appropriate relief, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant during which time she
obtained medical insurance for herself and dependents through the
Defendant's group health plan. On March 9, 2022, the Plaintiff's
employment was terminated. The Plaintiff was not terminated for
"gross misconduct" and the Plaintiff was therefore eligible for
continuation coverage.
ER Carpenter operates as a chemical company. The Company offers
manufactures resins, synthetic rubbers, and fibers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Losson Balks at Personal Info Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY LOSSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE FOOTBALL
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-06500-SK (N.D. Cal., Dec.
18, 2023) arises from Defendant's alleged practice of knowingly
disclosing Plaintiff and other digital subscribers' personally
identifiable information and viewed video media to a third party,
Meta Platforms, Inc., in violation of the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly installed the
Facebook Pixel tool onto UEFA.com and UEFA.tv and controlled which
types of information and data was tracked and transmitted to
Facebook. In conjunction with this, Defendant purposefully and
specifically chose to: (1) track and record its digital
subscribers' viewed video media, (2) disclose that information to
Facebook alongside its digital subscribers' individual Facebook IDs
and other persistent identifiers, and (3) did this without its
digital subscribers' knowledge or consent using surreptitious
technology. The Defendant profited from its practice of disclosing
digital subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook, and
it did so at the expense of its digital subscribers' privacy and
their statutory rights under the VPPA, the suit alleges.
Further, Defendant allegedly chose to disregard Plaintiff's and
hundreds of thousands of other digital subscribers' statutorily
protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to
Facebook.
Federation Internationale de Football Association is an
international football organization that owns and operates The
United European Football League, and its corresponding website,
UEFA.com and UEFA.tv.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-7047
E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (704) 941-4648
E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
FIFTH THIRD: Faces Perez Class Suit Over Unlawful Charging Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN PEREZ, JORGE PEREZ, ANNETTE GRENIER, and BERNARD GRENIER,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals v. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP, DIVIDEND FINANCE INC., DIVIDEND
SOLAR FINANCE LLC, DIVIDEND SOLAR, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01665 (D.
Conn., Dec. 22, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' unlawful use of
solar panel sales and installation company Vision Solar LLC -- a
now-insolvent New Jersey-based company -- to unfairly and
deceptively originate thousands of residential and home improvement
loans to purchase unpermitted, unlicensed, non-functioning Solar
Panel Systems which failed to deliver the promised financial
benefits.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants earned millions of dollars
by charging fees for lending money to Plaintiffs and members of the
class, charging fees for loan servicing (i.e., enabling borrowers
to make payments), charging interest on loan principal balances,
and charging fees to third parties for securitizing these loans.
Unfortunately for the Plaintiffs and members of the Class -- but
well known to Defendants -- Vision Solar drove sales and loan
originations by engaging in an illegal common and systematic course
of unfair and deceptive business practices, including (1) uniform
written misrepresentations that Vision Solar would obtain all
necessary permits and licenses required to install Solar Panel
Systems, (2) relying on high pressure sales tactics deliberately
targeted vulnerable populations (including low-income, disabled,
and elderly individuals) for sales calls and in home visits, and
(3) systematically misrepresenting the benefits of Solar Panel
Systems including homeowners' eligibility for tax credits, the
performance of the Solar Panel Systems, and the financial terms of
the loans and leasing transactions with Defendants, the suit says.
The Defendants incentivized Vision Solar to engage in this behavior
by paying Vision Solar compensation amounting to at least 90% of
the amount borrowed by homeowners from the Defendants.
Specifically, the Defendants paid Vision Solar 30% of the loan
balance upon electronic receipt of a signed financing agreement
from a homeowner, with another 60% paid to Vision Solar upon
receipt of a photograph purporting to show installation of a
functioning Solar Panel System. The Defendants took no steps to
actually verify that any Solar Panel System sold by Vision Solar
was functioning, the suit adds.
Vision Solar installed the Solar Panel System in the first week of
January 2023 without obtaining permits and never obtained the
required permits. As a result, the Solar Panel System installed at
the Perez residence has never obtained permission to operate from
their municipality, has never functioned at all, and is not hooked
up to the power grid.
Perez Plaintiffs have also been damaged by Vision Solar's shoddy
construction and workmanship, such as the Solar Panel System
failing an inspection due to missing DC converters and also failing
local fire inspections.
The Defendants' conduct has saddled thousands of homeowners
throughout the United States with tens of thousands of dollars of
oppressive debt taken out for the purchase of what turned out to be
non-functioning, non-permitted Solar Panel Systems installed on
their residences that the Defendants are actively seeking to
collect on, the suit further asserts.
The Plaintiffs and members of the Class thus seek relief from the
Defendants in the form of restitution, disgorgement of profits,
recession of the sales and financing agreements, and damages.
Plaintiffs Evelyn and Jorge Perez are and were at all relevant
times domiciled in the State of Florida. Evelyn Perez is 63 years
old, and Jorge Perez is 68 years old.
Fifth Third operates the residential and home improvement financing
business branded "Dividend Finance."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
Krystyna Gancoss, Esq.
Kate Sayed, Esq.
Brett Burgs, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, Floor 15
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com
jseredynski@sgtlaw.com
kgancoss@sgtlaw.com
ksayed@sgtlaw.com
bburgs@sgtlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey Gentes, Esq.
CONNECTICUT FAIR HOUSING CENTER
60 Popieluszko Court
Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (860) 263-0741
Facsimile: (860) 247-4236 fax
E-mail: jgentes@ctfairhousing.org
- and -
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumeradvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
FIVE STAR: Fails to Pay Car Valet's Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Ortiz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. FIVE STAR VALET SERVICES
LLC, BRYAN LOPEZ AND JOPHN GARCIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-23256 (D.N.J.,
Dec. 20, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
wages, pursuant to the Federal Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.
The Plaintiff Ortiz was employed as a car valet at 5 Star Valet
from July 2021 through and including January 21, 2022, and from
April 19, 2022 through and including July 13, 2022. Throughout his
employment, the Plaintiff worked four days per week, from 4:00 P.M.
to 1:00 A.M. or 3:00 A.M., for a total period of 72-60 hours during
each of the weeks. However, the Plaintiff never received an
overtime premium of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay
for those hours in excess of 40. The Defendants also did not
compensate him for one hour's pay at the basic minimum hourly wage
rate for each day his shift exceeded ten hours, the Plaintiff
alleges.
The Plaintiff's wages only consisted of gratuities received from
customers, he was paid with tips, he allegedly received daily $40
to $60. He also seeks to recover liquidated and statutory damages,
pre-and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Five Star is a full-service professional luxury parking company
offering customized parking solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL P.C
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
E-mail: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
FLO HEALTH: Parties Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Docs
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, et al., v.
FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
FLURRY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to
permanently seal portions of the parties' papers and supporting
documents filed in connection with the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
On September 21, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification along with 121 exhibits. On October 30, 2023, the
Defendants filed their Joint Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for
Class Certification, along with an Appendix of Evidence.
On November 30, the Plaintiffs filed their Reply In Support of
Class Certification. In the interest of efficiency, and to avoid
the filing of voluminous or multiple administrative motions to
seal, the Parties stipulated to, and the Court ordered, a modified
sealing procedure for material submitted in connection with the
Parties' briefing of Plaintiffs' Class Certification motion.
Flo Health provides women's health mobile application services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vgmRQb at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
John A. Macoretta, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: dzinser@srkattorneys.com
jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com
jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
David Saldamando, Esq.
Danielle Izzo, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
mcanty@labaton.com
dsaldamando@labaton.com
dizzo@labaton.com
- and -
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
- and -
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
- and -
Kent Morgan Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
1632 Homestead Trail
Long Lake, MN 55356
Telephone: (612) 940-4452
E-mail: williamslawmn@gmail.com
- and -
William Darryl Harris, II, Esq.
HARRIS LEGAL ADVISORS LLC
605 N High Street, Suite 146
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 504-3350
Facsimile: (614) 340-1940
E-mail: will@harrislegaladvisors.com
- and -
James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
Frank Busch, Esq.
WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 725
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 357-8900
Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
busch@wvbrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ashley Rogers, Esq.
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
Lauren Blas, Esq.
Joseph R. Rose, Esq.
Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 698-3100
Facsimile: (214) 571-2900
E-mail: ARogers@gibsondunn.com
CChorba@gibsondunn.com
LBlas@gibsondunn.com
JRose@gibsondunn.com
ABarrera@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Benjamin Sadun, Esq.
Brenda R. Sharton, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
US Bank Tower
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900
Los Angeles, CA
Telephone: (213) 808-5700
Facsimile: (213) 808-5760
E-mail: benjamin.sadun@dechert.com
brenda.sharton@dechert.com
- and -
Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq.
Tiffany Lin, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
One Front Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 858-7400
Facsimile: (415) 858-7599
E-mail: BHur@willkie.com
SAgnolucci@wilkie.com
ESantacana@wilkie.com
TLin@wilkie.com
- and -
Jason J. Kim, Esq.
Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
Samuel A. Danon, Esq.
John J. Delionado, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 S. Hope St., Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 532-2000
Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
E-mail: KimJ@HuntonAK.com
AMortimer@HuntonAK.com
sdanon@HuntonAK.com
jdelionado@HuntonAK.com
FRANKLIN, IL: Maurer Placeholder Bid to Certify Class Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maurer v. Franklin City,
et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-02303 (S.D. Ill., Filed June 30, 2023),
the Hon. Judge entered an order on motion to certify class.
The Plaintiff Jason Maurer filed a placeholder motion to certify
class and Memorandum in Support just two days after initiating this
action.
Previously, in the Seventh Circuit, a placeholder motion to certify
class was necessary to prevent an offer of judgment or settlement
offer that could moot the plaintiff's claims. Damasco v. Clearwire
Corp. , 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011).
However, Damasco was overruled by the Seventh Circuit in Chapman v.
First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("We overrule
Damasco and similar decisions to the extent they hold that a
defendant's full offer of compensation moots the litigation or
otherwise ends the Article III case or controversy.").
After Chapman was decided, the Supreme Court similarly held that an
unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's complaint
in a putative class action. Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663,
668-72 (2016). In light of the current state of the law related to
unaccepted offers of judgment in putative class actions, the Court
sees no need for a placeholder motion at this time.
The motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice. The parties shall
adhere to the class certification briefing schedule set forth in
the Scheduling and Discovery Order.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Notice of Parties Revised Class Cert Proposal Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA KIRIACOPOULOS,
CRAIG JOHNSON, BEVERLY TREVETHAN, SARAH BURNS, GERALYN DARR, STEVE
FIENE and THOMAS GRAHAM, ADARIUS BLAKE and AMY HENNING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:22-cv-10785-MAG-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs file a notice
of Parties' November 28 2023 submission of Revised Proposed
Stipulated Order Extending the Class Certification Deadlines:
1. Under the current schedule, the Plaintiffs' Jan. 2,
2024
Motion for Class Certification is due:
GM's Response to the Motion for Class Jan. 30,
2024
Certification is due:
Plaintiffs' Reply is due: Feb. 13,
2024
2. On November 13, 2023, the Parties March 22,
2024
submitted their initial Proposed
Stipulated Order Extending the Class
Certification Deadlines via
Utilities, requesting that the Court
extend the Plaintiffs' class
certification deadline to:
GM's response to class certification May 3, 2024
deadline to:
The Plaintiffs' reply deadline to: May 20,
2024
3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Feb. 1,
2024
Certification and supporting expert
reports due:
4. GM's Response to Motion for Class Feb. 22,
2024
Certification and supporting expert
reports due:
5. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion March 7,
2024
for Class Certification due:
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41FKRZ7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
eeh@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
jerrodp@hbsslaw.com
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bid to File Materials Under Seal OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peter Trauernicht, et al.
v. GENWORTH FINANCIAL INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-REP (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order granting the
Defendant's motion to file material under seal.
-- The Genworth's memorandum of law in opposition to the
Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and exhibits to the Declaration
of
Anna Casey in support of Genworth's opposition to the
Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification are filed under seal; provided,
however, that appropriately redacted versions thereof are filed
in
the public record.
Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance,
mortgage insurance, and annuities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NL3k0F at no extra charge.[CC]
GLENCO CONTRACTING: Rivero Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHERMAN RIVERO and CARLOS MANUEL VARGAS, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. GLENCO CONTRACTING
GROUP INC, Case No. 1:23-cv-11087 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2023) seeks
to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
Specifically, despite requiring employees to clock-in-and-out on a
tablet each day, the Defendant rounded down, one directionally,
employees' punch-times. The Plaintiffs also allege that the
Defendant would automatically deduct for 30-minute meal breaks even
though most meal breaks actually lasted about ten minutes before
employees were instructed to go back to work.
During Plaintiff Rivero's employment, the Plaintiff was scheduled
to work five days per week. Each day was scheduled to begin at 7:00
am and scheduled to end at 3:30 pm, with a thirty (30) minute lunch
break automatically deducted from employees' wages. The Plaintiff
Rivero was compensated by the Defendant at an hourly rate of $28.00
per hour. The Plaintiff worked his scheduled hours, plus additional
hours that went uncompensated by the Defendant, the suit says.
Plaintiff Rivero further brings additional claims, on behalf of
himself and a subclass of employees, pursuant to the New York State
Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law due to the
deprivation of his and subclass members' statutory rights caused by
the Defendant's discrimination due to their immigration and
citizenship statuses, and their perceived alienage and citizenship
statuses; and retaliation against the Plaintiff Rivero and subclass
members.
Further, the Plaintiff also brings claims due to the actions of the
Defendant's supervisor who discriminatorily targeted the putative
subclass and demanded the putative subclass pay them $200 each week
under the continuous threat of retaliatorily terminating their
employment.
In January 2023, the Plaintiff Rivero was hired by the Defendant's
manager Santiago Alvarez to work as a Laborer/Carpenter.
Glenco operates a construction company, specializing in foundation
work & superstructure concrete work, masonry, concrete renovations
& restorations throughout New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
GLENN O. HAWBAKER: Defeats Insurance Coverage Battle Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bret Pallotto of Yahoo! News reports that a major construction
contractor that is one of the largest employers in Centre County
was handed another legal defeat on December 19, 2023, the latest in
a string of mounting legal woes.
Glenn O. Hawbaker Inc.'s insurance company does not have to provide
coverage, including any defense, for the business as it fights two
class-action lawsuits, Chief U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew
Brann ruled for a second time.
Hawbaker asked the federal judge to reconsider his August ruling,
which found Twin City Fire Insurance had no obligation to provide
coverage for any claims that arise from allegations of unpaid wages
or benefits.
Messages left with attorneys for Hawbaker and the insurance company
were not immediately returned on December 20, 2023.
Each of the ongoing class-actions lawsuits against the company
allege Hawbaker failed to pay wages in a timely fashion,
misappropriated retirement funds and violated state and federal
wage payment and collection laws.
At least one suit covers more than 1,250 current or former hourly
wage employees who worked on prevailing wage projects from Sept. 1,
2015 through Dec. 31, 2018.
The business pleaded no contest in 2021 to illegally diverting
millions of dollars and other benefits from its workers to pad its
profits, undercut competitors and pay for internal projects and
company bonuses.
Hawbaker agreed to repay more than $20 million to workers and hired
a corporate monitor to provide oversight. In exchange, state
prosecutors agreed to not bring criminal charges against
executives, shareholders or employees.
In short order, the company and its executives found themselves on
the wrong side of the lawsuits. Hawbaker claimed it was covered
under its insurance policy, but was turned away by both the
insurance company and Brann.
"A finding of no coverage in this case is consistent with the
purpose of wage and hour exclusions, which is to avoid the 'moral
hazard' created by an incentive to violate wage and hour laws and
offload the cost to the insurer," Brann wrote in August. "It is of
little significance that GOH has made a restitutionary payment to
the Class Action Plaintiffs. The temptation to violate wage and
hour laws would still exist if the only consequence was to pay
restitution and employers could externalize any subsequent
liabilities."
It's the second legal loss for Hawbaker in less than a month.
Pennsylvania's highest court in November ruled the state
Transportation Department has the authority to pursue a potential
suspension that'd prevent the company from doing state work for up
to three years.
Hawbaker has been pre-qualified to bid on PennDOT projects for
decades. The business booked $1.7 billion in state transportation
construction contracts between 2003 and 2018. [GN]
GOLDEN STATE: Romero Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LETICIA ROMERO, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOLDEN STATE
SUPPLY, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV27375 (Filed Nov. 7, 2023), was removed
from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the Central District
of California on Dec. 18, 2023.
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10578 to the
proceeding.
The suit alleges failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to
authorize and permit rest period; failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at
termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
and unfair competition.
Golden State is an automotive parts retailer.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
Robert Yang, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
Rob.Yang@jacksonlewis.com
GOOD WORLDWIDE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Slade Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. GOOD WORLDWIDE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10748-AT (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2023) is a
civil rights action against Good Worldwide for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Good Worldwide provides to their
non-disabled customers through its website, www.thissaveslives.com.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under ADA, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Good Worldwide's policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, the suit asserts.
Good Worldwide Inc. is a media company with principal place of
business in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
GOOGLE LLC: Settles Class Action Over Incognito Mode for $5 Bil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Euronews reports that Google agreed to settle a $5 billion (EUR4.5
billion) privacy lawsuit that alleges the tech multinational
collected personal data even when users were in "private browsing
mode".
The private mode on Google's Chrome browser is called the
"incognito mode".
The class-action lawsuit said Google misled users into believing it
wouldn't track their internet activities while using the private
mode.
It alleges that when a user accessed a website running Google's
technologies, the company continued to track the users' site visits
and activities despite being in "private" browsing mode.
Plaintiffs also charged that Google's activities yielded an
"unaccountable trove of information" about users who thought they'd
taken steps to protect their privacy.
The settlement must still be approved by a federal judge in the
US.
Terms weren't disclosed, but the suit originally sought $5 billion
on behalf of users; lawyers for the plaintiffs said they expect to
present the court with a final settlement agreement by February
24.
Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the
settlement. [GN]
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND: Appeals Remand Ruling in Morgan to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in
the lawsuit entitled Nathaniel Morgan, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rohr, Inc.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on March 27,
2019, Plaintiff Nathaniel Morgan commenced the putative
wage-and-hour class action complaint in the Solano County Superior
Court, on behalf of all other non-exempt employees who worked for
Defendants Rohr, Inc., Hamilton Sundstrand d/b/a UTC Aerospace
Systems d/b/a Collins Aerospace and United Technologies
Corporation.
On April 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC"), which added an allegation regarding the tolling of the
statute of limitations, in Solano County Superior Court.
On May 6, 2019, Defendants removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging
diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). On June 10, 2019, the Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the FAC or alternatively, to transfer venue and
dismiss or strike allegations in the FAC.
On March 26, 2020, Judge Troy Nunley of the Eastern District
granted Defendants' motion to transfer, denied the motion to
dismiss and motion to strike without prejudice as moot and
transferred the case to the Southern District of California.
On April 7, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. On
April 17, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint (SAC).
On May 4, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on July 7, 2023.
On Aug. 4, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the July 7, 2023 order dismissing their claim for restitution
under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Hearings were
held on September 15, 2023, and October 20, 2023.
On Nov. 15, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration. The Court concluded that precedent and interests
in fairness and economy all favor remand. Remand will return the
UCL claim to the state court more efficiently. The Plaintiffs' UCL
claim is to be severed and remanded to state court.
The appellate case is captioned Morgan, et al. v. Hamilton
Sundstrand Corporation, et al., Case No. 23-4236, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December
18, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 26,
2023;
-- Appellant Appeal Transcript Order was due on December 29,
2023;
-- Appellant Appeal Transcript Due is due on January 29, 2024;
-- Appellant Opening Brief is due on March 8, 2024; and
-- Appellee Answering Brief is due on April 8, 2024. [BN]
HANOVER COUNTY, VA: Hatcher Seeks Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER HATCHER
individually on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. DAVID R. HINES, SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF
HANOVER, VIRGINIA, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00325-JAG (E.D. Va.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); and
-- granting conditional certification and Notice to Putative
Collective Members.
Hanover is located in the east-central Piedmont and Coastal Plain
areas of Virginia, between the Chickahominy and Pamunkey Rivers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ty8bLP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
The Defendant is represented by:
William W. Tunner, Esq.
William D. Prince, IV, Esq.
Peter S. Askin, Esq.
THOMPSONMCMULLAN, P.C.
100 Shockoe Slip, 3rd Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 649-7545
Facsimile: (804) 780-1813
E-mail: wtunner@t-mlaw.com
wprince@t-mlaw.com
paskin@t-mlaw.com
- and -
David P. Corrigan. Esq.
Melissa Y. York, Esq.
Sarah Marie Carroll, Esq.
HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN P.C.
Richmond, VA 23255
Telephone: (804) 747-5200
Facsimile: (804) 747-6085
E-mail: dcorrigan@hccw.com
scarroll@hccw.com
myork@hccw.com
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rejoice Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REJOICE! COFFEE COMPANY,
LLC, a California limited liability company, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; SENTINEL INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., a Connecticut corporation; Case No.
3:20-cv-06789-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
(1) Certifying a class of "All persons and entities who paid
insurance premiums to Defendants THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC. and SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
for
property and casualty insurance policies in California,
covering any period from April 1, 2020, through December 31,
2020" with respect to Counts I and II of the First Amended
Complaint;
(2) Appointing Named Plaintiff REJOICE! COFFEE COMPANY, LLC as
class representative; and
(3) Appointing BERDING & WEIL LLP and BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES as
class counsel.
This class action challenges Defendants unfair application of
pre-pandemic insurance rates for its Spectrum Business Owner's
Policies during the changed circumstances created by the COVID-19
pandemic.
At issue in this case is Sentinel's "Spectrum Business Owner
Policy" line, which provides insurance coverage for small
businesses for property and casualty risks, including the insurance
policies purchased by Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unfairly collected and
retained excessive premiums given the reduction in liability risk
caused by the decreased operations of Spectrum insured business
owners as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and government mandates
to shelter-in-place.
The Plaintiff and all putative class members purchased the Spectrum
policy to provide them with security against risk in exchange for
payment of insurance premium. The premium was set to reflect the
amount of risk they presented to the insurance pool.
After the pandemic hit, the risk of the entire insurance pool fell
precipitously. Yet Hartford took unfair advantage of the pandemic
at the expense of its policyholders by refusing to provide premium
relief.
Hartford is a Delaware based insurance company and the owner of its
wholly owned subsidiary, Defendant Sentinel Insurance Company,
Ltd.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vccnkR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Rottinghaus, Esq.
Fredrick A. Hagen, Esq.
Gordon A. Walters, Esq.
BERDING & WEIL LLP
2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 838-2090
Facsimile: (925) 820-5592
E-mail: drottinghaus@berdingweil.com
fhagen@berdingweil.com
gwalters@berdingweil.com
- and -
David M. Birka-White, Esq.
Laura A. Carrier, Esq.
BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
178 E. Prospect Avenue
Danville, CA 94526
Telephone: (925) 362-9999
Facsimile: (925) 362-9970
E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com
lcarrier@birka-white.com
HEALTHY PAWS: Joint Bid to Seal Docs Partly Granted in Benanav
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BENANAV, et al., v.
HEALTHY PAWS PET INSURANCE LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00421-LK (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order granting in
part and denying in part joint motion to seal:
-- The following docket entries may remain under seal: Dkt. Nos.
120, 123, 124-1, 124-2, 124-3, 124-4, 171, 171-5, 171-6, 171-7,
171-9, 171-12, 171-13, 171-15, 171-25, 171-27, 195, 195-1,
195-3,
195-4, 195-5, 195-6, and 198.
-- The parties and Insurers must publicly file redacted copies of
the
documents at docket entries 120,8 124-1, 195, 195-1, 195-3,
195-4,
195-5, 195-6, and 198 within 30 days of the date of this
Order.
-- The parties and Insurers must replace the documents at docket
entries 125, 173-1, 173-9, 173-17, 173-19, 173-39, and 175 with
corrected redacted versions in accordance with this Order
within
30 days.
-- The Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the following
docket
entries: 124, 138, 139, 162, 171-1, 171-2, 171-3, 171-4, 171-8,
171-10, 171-11, 171-14, 171-16, 171-17, 171-18, 171-19, 171-20,
171-21, 171-22, 171-23, 171-24, 171-26, 171-28, 195-2, and
195-7.
-- The Insurers or a party must show cause within 14 days of the
date
of this Order why docket entries 146, 185 and exhibits 2, 12,
13,
and 14 within docket entry 120 should remain under seal.
-- Docket entries 146 and 185 will be unsealed if cause is not
shown
to allow them to remain under Seal.
The Plaintiffs filed this action in March 2020 asserting individual
and class claims against Defendant Healthy Paws Pet Insurance, LLC
for misleading them into believing that their pet insurance
premiums would increase only as the costs of veterinary medicine
increased.
In reality, their insurance costs increased substantially as a
result of other undisclosed factors, including the age of their
pets.
Healthy Paws markets and administers pet insurance policies to
consumers on behalf of insurance companies.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47kgOY6 at no extra charge.[CC]
HEATH CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barb Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BARB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HEATH CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00058-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va., Dec. 22, 2023) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Barb was employed by the Defendant as a utility locator.
HEATH CONSULTANTS, INC. provides line clearing services. The
Company offers corrosion testing and engineering, leak detection,
meter reading, instrument repairing, and one-call locating
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
Email: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (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
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
HERSHEY CO: Faces Class Action Over Peanut Butter Pumpkins
----------------------------------------------------------
David Moye, writing for HuffPost, reports that a woman in Tampa
Bay, Florida, is seeking class-action status for a lawsuit against
the Hershey Co. after the packaging for its Peanut Butter Pumpkins
left a sour taste in her mouth.
Cynthia Kelly filed a proposed class-action complaint in federal
court on Dec. 28 accusing the company of "falsely" representing
some of its Reese's Peanut Butter products, according to the CBS
affiliate WTSP-TV in Tampa.
The woman's beef with the candy started in October when she paid
$4.49 for a pack of the pumpkin-shaped Reese's at an Aldi grocery
store because she assumed "the product contained a cute looking
carving of a pumpkin's mouth and eyes as pictured on the product
packaging," the filing said.
Upon opening one of the treats, she discovered the product was
fully covered with chocolate with none of the detailed carving she
claimed inspired her to buy the product.
Kelly said she never would have purchased the pumpkins had she
known they were just pumpkin-shaped Reese's and didn't have the
pumpkin face.
Kelly's petition accuses Hershey of trying to convince people to
buy the pumpkin peanut butter candy "by means of untrue,
misleading, deceptive, and/or fraudulent" representations.
But Kelly isn't stopping with pumpkins.
Reuters noted that her lawsuit would seek damages for all
Floridians who purchased the "deceptive" products, including White
Ghost, Peanut Butter Bats and Peanut Butter Footballs. In seeking
class-action status, the filing claimed damages would exceed $5
million.
HuffPost reached out to Hershey for comment, but no one immediately
responded. A company spokesperson told Fox Business it does not
comment on pending litigation.
Although Kelly is the first person to sue Hershey regarding the
lack of a face on the actual Reese's pumpkins, she's not the first
to gripe about it.
One YouTube video from 2019 cited in Kelly's lawsuit calls the
design of the Reese's pumpkins a "monstrosity" but admits the taste
is "quite nice." [GN]
HUMANA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 14 in Elliot
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, v. HUMANA
INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge
Colin H. Lindsay entered an order granting joint motion to modify
the scheduling order and extending discovery filed by the Parties:
(1) The Parties shall complete all fact March 13, 2024.
discovery no later than:
(2) Identification of experts in
accordance with Rule 26(a)(2) shall
be due by
Plaintiff no later than: April 10, 2024
Defendant no later than: May 24, 2024
(3) the parties shall file a joint April 22, 2024
status report with the Court that
includes the parties' positions on
mediation by no later than:
(4) A telephonic status conference May 16, 2024
before the undersigned is
scheduled on:
(5) The Parties shall complete all June 14, 2024
expert discovery no later than:
(6) The motion for class certification June 14, 2024
shall be filed no later than:
(7) All Daubert and dispositive motions July 26, 2024
shall be filed no later than:
Humana is a for-profit American health insurance company based in
Louisville, Kentucky.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RZvk3l at no extra charge.[CC]
ILLUMINA INC: Faces Roy Securities Suit Over 5.6% Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANAND ROY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ILLUMINA, INC., FRANCIS A. DESOUZA, and JOHN THOMPSON,
Case No. 3:23-cv-02327-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2023) is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Illumina securities between August 18, 2021 and
October 16, 2023, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In 2015, Illumina formed GRAIL, Inc. as a corporate subsidiary to
develop a blood-based cancer detection test. After several capital
financing rounds, Illumina spun off GRAIL in February 2017 and
retained a stake of approximately 20%. After GRAIL raised $1.9
billion through venture capital and strategic partners, Illumina
announced plans to reacquire GRAIL in September 2020 and completed
the acquisition on August 18, 2021. However, on September 6, 2022,
the European Union's European Commission issued a decision
prohibiting the acquisition.
On August 10, 2023, after the market closed, Illumina revealed that
the SEC was investigating the Company's statements regarding GRAIL,
including "conduct and compensation of certain members of Illumina
and GRAIL management. On this news, the Company's stock price fell
$4.64, or 2.5%, to close at $180.48 per share on August 11, 2023.
October 17, 2023, Carl Icahn filed a complaint against current and
former directors of Illumina, alleging direct and derivative claims
of breaches of fiduciary duty. On this news, the Company's stock
price fell $7.42, or 5.6%, to close at $124.45 per share on October
18, 2023.
The Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to investors: that
certain of the Company’s insiders had personal financial motives
for acquiring GRAIL; and that, contrary to Illumina's attempts to
discount Icahn's criticism, Icahn had accurately concluded that
insiders' interests did not align with the Company's best
interests; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’
positive statements about the Company’s business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased Illumina securities during the Class
Period.
Illumina is a genetic and genomic analysis company with a portfolio
of integrated sequencing and microarray systems, consumables, and
analysis tools designed to accelerate and simplify genetic
analysis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Emma Gilmore, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
egilmore@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
INSPIRE MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Inspire Medical Systems,
Inc. (NYSE: INSP), and Driven Brands Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: DRVN).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. (NYSE: INSP)
Class Period: May 3, 2023 - November 7, 2023 (Common Stock Only)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 20, 2024
Inspire Medical is a medical technology company that develops and
commercializes minimally invasive products for patients with
obstructive sleep apnea ("OSA") that require prior authorizations
from doctors. In 2022, Inspire Medical introduced a pilot program
(the "Acceleration Program") through which the Company's Advisor
Care Program team, with the customer on the phone, would directly
access doctors' electronic schedules and schedule doctor
appointments online, without the need for phone calls. Throughout
the Class Period, Defendants touted the Acceleration Program's
effectiveness, claiming that the program had achieved a "30%
improvement in physician appointments," and that by August 2023,
"about 60-plus centers are using the tool right now."
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) despite the
Acceleration Program, customers were encountering challenges with
the prior authorization submission process, including with the
scheduling of appointments; (2) a slowdown in prior authorization
submissions arising from these challenges led to a shortfall of
hundreds of procedures to implant the Company's OSA device; and (3)
as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
financial guidance, business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
After the close of markets on November 7, 2023, the Company
announced disappointing earnings results for the third quarter of
2023, including "a decline in prior authorization submissions for
patients seeking Inspire therapy." Inspire Medical further admitted
it had started to "track" problems with the Acceleration Program no
later than the second quarter of 2023, the Company "had strong
confirmation" of the problems with the Acceleration Program, and
the Company "realized we needed to take some corrective action." In
response to this news, shares of Inspire Medical declined
approximately 20%, from a closing price of $161.74 per share on
November 7, 2023, to a closing price of $129.95 per share on
November 8, 2023.
For more information on the Inspire Medical class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/INSP
Driven Brands Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: DRVN)
Class Period: October 27, 2021, - August 1, 2023 (Common Stock
Only)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 20, 2024
Driven is the largest automotive services company in North America.
Through its portfolio of brands, Driven provides customers with a
range of automotive needs, including paint, collision, glass, oil
change, maintenance, and car wash. Those brands include, among
others: Take 5 Oil Change(R), Take 5 Car Wash(R), Meineke Car Care
Centers(R), MAACO(R), CARSTAR (R), 1-800-Radiator & A/C (R), and
Auto Glass Now(R). The Company operates through four reportable
business segments: Maintenance; Car Wash; Paint, Collision and
Glass; and Platform Services.
Driven's acquisition of existing businesses in the automotive
services industry, and its integration of those businesses, has
been a core component of the Company's growth strategy. Over the
last several years, Driven expanded its operations to offer car
washes and extended its reach in the auto glass market. In August
2020, Driven acquired International Car Wash Group, the world's
largest car wash company by location count. In late December 2021,
Driven acquired Auto Glass Now, through which Driven expanded its
auto glass business into the U.S. market. Through a series of
subsequent acquisitions, Driven quickly became the second-largest
auto glass repair business in North America.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made numerous materially false and misleading statements and
omissions that fall into two categories: (i) statements concerning
Driven's ability to efficiently and effectively integrate a high
volume of acquired businesses, including statements related to the
status of integrating its U.S. auto glass businesses; and (ii)
statements concerning the performance and competitive position of
Driven's car wash business segment. Specifically, throughout the
Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted Driven's ability to
execute and integrate acquisitions as a "core strength," and
assured investors that it had made "significant progress"
integrating the auto glass businesses it had acquired. The Company
also represented that the large scale of its car wash business
served as a "competitive moat" that would preserve Driven's
competitive position. While Driven acknowledged some "softness" in
customer demand for its car wash business segment, the Company
downplayed that issue and pointed investors to the growth of its
car wash subscriptions, which Driven labeled as the "Holy Grail" in
the car wash business.
However, Driven was several quarters behind on integrating its auto
glass businesses, and the Company's car wash business was faltering
and more exposed to a decline in demand from retail customers than
Defendants represented to investors. As a result, the Company's
statements concerning its business and prospects, including its
fiscal year 2023 financial guidance, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On May 8, 2023, Driven revealed that, on May 4, 2023, the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Tiffany L. Mason
("Mason"), had abruptly left the Company under unusual
circumstances. Mason's exit came just one day after Driven reported
its financial results for the first quarter of 2023.
Then, on August 2, 2023, Driven reported earnings for the second
quarter of 2023 that missed expectations, including disappointing
results for its Paint, Collision and Glass business segment as well
as its Car Wash segment. With respect to its auto glass business,
the Company admitted that it was at least "several quarters" behind
on its integration of the businesses it had acquired. In addition,
regarding Driven's Car Wash segment, the Company disclosed that
increased exposure to "intensified competitive intrusion"
negatively impacted demand from Driven's high-margin retail car
wash customers. As a result of delays in Driven's integration of
its acquired auto glass businesses and the faltering performance of
its car wash businesses, the Company slashed its full-year earnings
guidance for fiscal 2023, despite having reaffirmed that guidance a
little over two months earlier. These disclosures caused the price
of Driven common stock to decline by $10.63 per share, or 41%.
For more information on the Driven class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/DRVN
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
INSPIRE MEDICAL: City of Hollywood Sues Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSPIRE
MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.; TIMOTHY P. HERBERT; and RICHARD J. BUCHHOLZ,
Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-03884 (D. Minn., Dec. 22, 2023) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased Inspire Medical's common stock between May
3, 2023 and November 7, 2023, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the press releases made
by the Defendants were materially false and misleading and failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not false and
misleading. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) despite the Acceleration Program, customers
were encountering challenges with the prior authorization
submission process, including with the scheduling of appointments;
(2) a slowdown in prior authorization submissions arising from
these challenges led to a shortfall of hundreds of procedures to
implant the Company's OSA device; (3) as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's financial guidance,
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Inspire Medical's stock price fell $31.79 per share, or nearly 20
percent, from a closing price of $161.74 per share on November 7,
2023, to a closing price of $129.65 per share on November 8, 2023.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in market value of the Company's common stock
when the truth was disclosed, Plaintiff and other Class members
have suffered significant losses and damages.
INSPIRE MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. operates as a medical technology
company. The Company develops implantable neurostimulation systems
to treat obstructive sleep apnea. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
Kate Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 596-4007
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
Email: gmfishbein@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
Email: lhooker@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Marco A. Dueñas, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
10 Bank Street, Suite 882
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 437-8551
Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
Email: mduenas@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
7080 NW 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
Email: bob@robertdklausner.com
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL: Appellate Court Revives Fiduciary Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton of Investment Executive reports that an Ontario
court is breathing new life into a potential class action lawsuit
against a couple of former mutual fund representatives and their
dealer, alleging they breached their fiduciary duty to a group of
investors in connection with the sale of promissory notes.
The proposed lawsuit alleges that the reps, John Sanchez and Javier
Sanchez, and their firm, International Capital Management Inc.
(ICM), breached their duty to 170 investors when they sold
promissory notes to the investors, ostensibly to invest in a
non-arm's-length company, Invoice Payment Systems Corp. (IPS).
The allegations have not been proven.
In 2021 a motion judge declined to certify the case as a class
action, finding it didn't disclose a viable cause of action for the
whole class of investors.
In that ruling, the court indicated that establishing that a
fiduciary relationship existed requires a case-by-case analysis of
each investor's financial circumstances, risk tolerance, expertise
and experience, among other factors. And so, the case was not
suitable to be a class action, it said.
That decision was upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court in 2022,
albeit in a divided ruling.
The majority ruled that the case for establishing a fiduciary
relationship between the reps and all the clients was entirely
based on the fact that they were subject to the rules of the Mutual
Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA), and that this wasn't
adequate.
However, the dissenting judge maintained that the MFDA rules and
requirements were only one factor in determining whether a
fiduciary relationship existed, and that the motion judge erred in
failing to consider those other factors.
Now, the Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned the majority
Divisional Court decision, siding with the dissenting judge.
"I agree with [the dissent] that the professional rules governing
the Sanchez defendants are but one fact supporting the claim that,
when the proposed class members purchased IPS notes, there was a
fiduciary relationship between them and their financial advisors,
and those advisors were acting in breach of their fiduciary
duties," the Appeal Court said.
"The certification judge erred in principle in failing to consider
those other facts in conjunction with the Sanchez defendants'
breaches of professional rules," it noted.
The Appeal Court said the claim argues that the relationship
between the reps and the investors "was one of vulnerability, trust
and reliance, in which the Sanchez defendants undertook to act in
their clients' best interests."
It noted that the reps prepared and monitored financial plans for
their clients, recommended the notes to clients, and solicited
those investments.
"By reviewing the [investors'] financial plans and choosing to whom
to recommend the 'opportunity' to invest in the IPS notes, the
Sanchez defendants unilaterally exercised their discretion in
respect of the proposed class members," the Appeal Court said. It
added that they controlled the disclosure provided about the
investments, leaving investors vulnerable to their advice.
"In this case, the relationships between the [reps] and the
[investors] appear to be long-standing: the latter were selected
from the roster of existing Sanchez defendants' clients, by the
Sanchez brothers," the court noted. It said those investors "had
the right to expect that their professional advisors would act in
their best interests … the proposed class members had the right
to trust their financial advisors."
The investors "should not have needed to protect themselves from
the advice and recommendation of their financial advisors," the
court said.
In 2018 the Sanchez brothers were banned from the industry in a
settlement with the MFDA, and John Sanchez was also disciplined by
the FP Canada Standards Council, the court noted.
In the settlement with the MFDA, they admitted to violating the
self-regulatory organization's rules in connection with the sale of
$25.8-million worth of promissory notes in IPS, generating about $3
million in sales commissions, including admissions that their
conduct gave rise to conflicts that weren't resolved in the best
interests of clients, among other violations. Alongside the market
ban, they were also fined a combined $150,000 and ordered to pay
$25,000 in costs.
While the Appeal Court overturned the lower court's ruling and
declared that the proposed class action claim does disclose a
viable cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty to all the
investors, it didn't immediately certify the case as a class
action.
Instead, it sent the case back to the Superior Court of Justice for
a fresh determination — by a different judge — of whether the
case can be certified based on whether it meets the other criteria
used to determine whether a class action can proceed. [GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Must Face Talc Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Devdiscourse reports that a federal judge said Johnson & Johnson
shareholders may pursue as a class action their lawsuit accusing
the company of fraudulently concealing how its talc products were
contaminated by cancer-causing asbestos. U.S. District Judge Zahid
Quraishi in Trenton, New Jersey, on Dec. 29 allowed shareholders
from Feb. 22, 2013, to Dec. 13, 2018, to pursue their securities
fraud claims as a group. [GN]
KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Flaherty Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CODY FLAHERTY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit captioned entitled Cody Flaherty, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Kanaway Seafoods, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00155-SLG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Alaska.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
is filed against the Defendant to recover unpaid compensation under
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, and the Alaska
Wage and Hour Act.
On Apr. 18, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Sharon L. Gleason on Nov. 15, 2023.
The Court held that the Defendant has shown that there were
agreements between the parties regarding compensation for overtime
work, the agreements provided that waiting and sleep time were not
compensable working time, and the agreements were reasonable
because they allowed for an accurate computation of compensable
overtime and accounted for the pertinent facts. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice. The remaining
motions were denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Flaherty, et al. v. Kanaway
Seafoods, Inc., Case No. 23-4223, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 18, 2023. [BN]
KASHI JAPANESE: Ruiz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD RUIZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. KASHI JAPANESE RESTAURANT, KASHI JAPANESE, S & L
TRADEMARK CORP. d/b/a KASHI JAPANESE and XIANG LIN, individually,
Case No. 2:23-cv-09477 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2023) seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff brings this action because the Defendants failed to
pay the Plaintiff weekly as he was manual laborer in violation of
New York Labor law section 191 frequently of wage payment; and for
the Defendants' failure to provide wage notices and wage statements
under the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief against the Defendants' unlawful
actions, compensation for their failure to pay overtime wages and
liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to
the FLSA and NYLL.
From April 2021 until December 2021, Mr. Ruiz worked as a busboy
and barback for the Defendants at their Rockville Centre location.
The Defendant operates restaurant business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
250 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Pagan Class Suit Over Jell-O Gelatin False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE PAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-10945
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2023) alleges that the Defendant markets its
Jell-O gelatin snack products in a systematically misleading manner
by misrepresenting that the Products do not contain artificial
preservatives.
The Defendant's "No Artificial Preservatives" representation is
featured on the Products' labeling in order to induce
health-conscious consumers to purchase foods that are free from
artificial preservatives. This representation is false and/or
misleading because the Products contain citric acid -- a known
artificial preservative commonly used in food products, the
Plaintiff contends.
The Defendant has profited unjustly as a result of its deceptive
conduct. The Plaintiff therefore asserts claims on behalf of
himself and similarly situated purchasers for violation of New York
General Business Law sections349 and 350, breach of express
warranty, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff and New York
Subclass members suffered ascertainable loss as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's GBL violations in that they
would not have purchased the Products had they known the truth, and
they overpaid for the Products on account of the "No Artificial
Preservatives" misrepresentation, the suit alleges.
On behalf of himself and other members of the New York Subclass,
the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendant's unlawful acts and
practices, to recover his actual damages or $50, whichever is
greater, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and any other just
and proper relief available under GBL section 349.
Plaintiff Pagan has purchased the Products on numerous occasions
within the last three years. Most recently, the Plaintiff purchased
a pack of strawberry flavored Jell-O gelatin snacks from a from a
Fine Fare Supermarket store in New York, New York in July
2023.
The Defendant formulates, advertises, manufactures, and/or sells
the Products throughout New York and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
Alec Leslie, Esq.
Israel Rosenberg, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com
jdiamond@bursor.com
irosenberg@bursor.com
LITTLE CAESAR: Horner Suit Seeks Notice to Collective Members
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GORDON HORNER and ANN
MARIE HUDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., Phoenix Nexus Limited
Liability Company, Main St LC LLC, Salina St SY LC LLC, Onondaga
Blvd SY LC LLC, Manlius St SY LC LLC, Wolf St SY LC LLC, Bartell Rd
SY LC LLC, Second St SY LC LLC, State RT SY LC LLC, North ST SY LC
LLC, Seventh ST SY LC LLC, Central Ave SY LC LLC, Oswego RD SY LC
LLC, Main St SY LC LLC, and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-100, Case No.
5:22-cv-01324-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order permitting Court supervised notification to putative
collective members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and granting equitable tolling for members of the
putative collective action.
Little Caesar is an American multinational chain of pizza
restaurants.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aCRxLF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
E-mail: mmoreno@vandallp.com
M&R PLAZA DELI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blanco Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN GALICIA BLANCO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M&R PLAZA DELI INC.; and RASHAD
MUSTAFA ALMALIKI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-09408 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 21, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Blanco was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen
staff.
M&R PLAZA DELI INC. owns and operates a restaurant in Queens, 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
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
MADISON MONROE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Debt Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a class action lawsuit accuses
Madison Monroe & Associates of allegedly misleading consumers about
their ability to negotiate their debt, instead making their bad
financial situation worse.
"Defendant targets consumers who are in significant debt with
promises to improve their financial situation, and credit outlook,"
says the lawsuit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court. "These
consumers, like Plaintiff, are especially vulnerable: relentless
collection letters, calls, and even
lawsuits can, and do, drive them to seek an escape valve for their
financial issues."
Debt settlement companies make "enticing promises to consumers in
debt, claiming that they can significantly lower their payments and
help them resolve their debt problems, once and for all," the
lawsuit states. "However, these promises are often broken, leaving
the consumer deeper in debt and in a much worse place than where
they started."
Lead plaintiff Suzannah Lovelace paid the company fees to help
settle her debt and was told to stop making her monthly payments to
creditors.
"Defendant's strategy only caused Plaintiff's financial situation
to deteriorate further, as her creditworthiness was destroyed," the
suit says. "Plaintiff was forced to pay substantial amounts of
money to Defendant even though Defendant did not provide the
services as promised."
The lawsuit seeks money damages, plus legal fees.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Bryan P. Thompson and
Robert W. Harrer, of the Chicago Consumer Law Center, of Lisle; and
Seth McCormick, of the Great Lakes Consumer Law Firm, of Chicago.
[GN]
MAISON SOLUTIONS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: New York, N.Y., December 31, 2023. Rosen Law Firm, a global
investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential
securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Maison Solutions
Inc. (NASDAQ: MSS) resulting from allegations that Maison Solutions
may have issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Maison Solutions securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21393 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.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 15, 2023, Hindenburg Research
published a series of social media posts in which it announced,
among other things, that it was shorting Maison Solutions stock.
Hindenburg Research also stated its belief "that retail
shareholders will once again be left holding the bag on a massively
overvalued company that has become bloated in size due to illegal
and nefarious pumping/manipulation."
On this news, Maison Solutions' stock price fell $12.71 per share,
or 83%, to close at $2.50 per share on December 15, 2023.
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. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. 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.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
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]
MAJESTIC RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROSARINA ROSARIO, v. MAJESTIC RESTAURANT INC. (DBA MAJESTIC
DOMINICAN RESTAURANT) and HENRY RODRIGUEZ, Individually, Case No.
1:23-cv-11042 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023) is a class action seeking
to recover minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The lawsuit claims that the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week
at the beginning of her employment. When her schedule changed, she
started working 63 hours per week. The Defendants only initially
compensated the Plaintiff at a rate of $10.00 and $14.28 per hour
and failed to pay the Plaintiff her lawful overtime pay for that
period from March 25, 2020, until January 2, 2023, where she worked
well in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit adds.
The Defendants' conduct allegedly extended beyond the Plaintiff to
all other similarly situated employees, and the Defendants maintain
a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other
employees to work without providing the minimum and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations,
says the lawsuit.
The Plaintiff further brings this action under the Wage Theft
Prevention Act for Defendants' failure to provide written notice of
wage rates in violation of said laws. She also seeks liquidated
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
From approximately March 25, 2020 until January 2, 2023, the
Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at their 711 E 187th St,
Bronx, NY 10458 facility, where the Plaintiff worked as a cook.
Majestic offers home-style authentic Dominican home-style
food.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL P.C
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
E-mail: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Has Until Jan. 12 to Respond to Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Carroll, writing for Aspen Daily News, reports that foreign
interns allegedly working as cheap substitutes for domestic labor
put Aspen employers on alert that they could be violating terms of
the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program.
A former J-1 intern at St. Regis Aspen Resort Hotel filed a
class-action lawsuit in October against the luxury hotel brand's
owner, Marriott International Inc., claiming that he and other
foreign workers were exploited by working for "low-wages" and
performing "menial work" in violation of federal law.
Daniel Esteban Camas Lopez, in his late 20s, alleged that he came
to Aspen from Mexico in 2020 with a J-1 Exchange Visitor Program
sponsorship with the understanding that the experience would
elevate his talents as a chef and set him on a solid career path.
Lopez's suit said the hotel worked him up to 72 hours a week when
he was transferred to St. Regis Aspen because it was thin-staffed
and he and other J-1 holders provided cheap labor to the five-star
resort.
"I think the bigger picture is, this doesn't happen again," Lopez
told the Aspen Daily News. "The J-1 program needs to be respected
and it needs to be honored. When I arrived here in the valley . . .
I realized that the hotels and restaurants could not function
without J-1s. There's a need for domestic employees to be the
actual backbone and then the J-1s come and learn and support the
rest of the employees. It needs to be honored. This doesn't need to
be happening; that is the bigger picture of justice -- the J1s need
to be compensated fairly. And the J1 needs to be trained."
What's next: The suit was transferred from Pitkin County District
Court to the U.S. District Court of Colorado on Dec. 15. Marriott
has until Jan. 12 to file a response to the suit, according to
court documents. The number of members participating in the
lawsuit, which requires a judge's certification to reach
class-action status, has yet to be determined. The Denver nonprofit
legal organization called Towards Justice filed the suit. [GN]
MCKINSEY & CO: Agrees to Settle Opioid Class Suit for $78MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Landon Mion, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that consulting
firm McKinsey & Co. has agreed to pay $78 million to settle claims
by U.S. health insurers and benefit plans that its work with drug
companies helped fuel an epidemic of opioid addiction.
The settlement, disclosed in documents filed on Dec. 29 in federal
court in San Francisco, must still be approved by a judge. Under
the agreement, McKinsey would establish a fund to reimburse
insurers, private benefit plans and others for some or all of their
prescription opioid costs.
The class action settlement resolves claims by so-called
third-party payers such as insurers that provide health and welfare
benefits.
The agreement is the final of a series of settlements McKinsey has
reached to resolve lawsuits over the U.S. opioid epidemic. The firm
previously paid $641.5 million to resolve claims by state attorneys
general and another $230 million to resolve claims by local
governments. It has also settled cases brought by Native American
tribes.
JUDGE CERTIFIES JOHNSON & JOHNSON SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION OVER
TALC DISCLOSURES
The litigation has resulted in more than $50 billion in settlements
with drugmakers, distributors and pharmacy chains.
Plaintiffs accused McKinsey of contributing to the deadly drug
crisis by helping drug manufacturers, including Purdue Pharma --
the maker of OxyContin -- create deceptive marketing strategies to
increase sales of painkillers. Insurers said these tactics forced
them to pay for prescription opioids instead of safer,
non-addictive and lower-cost drugs, including over-the-counter pain
medication, and that they had to pay for the opioid addiction
treatment that followed as a result.
McKinsey did not admit wrongdoing and said in a statement that it
maintains that its past work was lawful. The group also said it had
committed in 2019 to no longer advise clients on any opioid-related
business.
APPLE WINS APPEAL TO TEMPORARILY PAUSE APPLE WATCH BAN
But Paul Geller, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement
the drug crisis stemmed from an oversupply of dangerous addictive
drugs and that the case was brought to "recover some of the money
spent on the over-prescribed pills."
Nearly 645,000 people died in the U.S. from overdoses involving
prescription and illicit opioids from 1999 to 2021, according to
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a challenge to
Purdue Pharma's multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy settlement
resolving related claims against the drugmaker.
Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report. [GN]
MESA AZTECA: Perez Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANTIAGO SERRANO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. MESA AZTECA CORP. (D/B/A MESA AZTECA),
JOAQUIN F. VELAZQUEZ, GUSTAVO ROSAS, and CESAR REYES, Case No.
1:23-cv-09374 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week. But the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium, the lawsuit asserts.
Further, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff
Serrano the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he
had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended
beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The
Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of requiring
the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations, says the lawsuit.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of this action as a collective
action on behalf of himself, individually, and all other similarly
situated employees and former employees of the Defendants pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker, dishwasher, and
cook by the Defendants at Mesa Azteca from February 2022 until May
5, 2023.
Mesa owns, operates, or controls a Mexican restaurant, located at
91 Wyckoff Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11237, under the name "Mesa
Azteca."[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
META MATERIALS: Announces Consolidated Securities Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! News reports that Meta Materials Inc. (the "Company" or
"META") (NASDAQ:MMAT), an advanced materials and nanotechnology
company, on December 21, 2023 announced a proposed settlement in
two class action cases, following a successful mediation.
As previously disclosed, both a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit, captioned In re Meta Materials Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-07203, pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York ("Federal Class
Action"), and a breach of fiduciary duty class action lawsuit,
captioned Denton v. Palikaras, et al., No. A-23-878134-C, pending
in the Eight Judicial District Court Clark County, Nevada ("Nevada
Class Action") were filed against the Company and certain of our
former officers and directors.
On December 20, 2023, the parties in these actions reached an
agreement to settle both cases on a class-side basis for a combined
$3 million, of which at least $2.85 million will be paid by the
Company's insurers ("Proposed Class Actions Settlement"). The terms
of the Proposed Class Actions Settlement, do not include or
constitute any admission of liability, wrongdoing, or fault on
behalf of the Company. The Proposed Class Actions Settlement will
be subject to execution of a final settlement agreement, the
court's preliminary approval, and, following notice to the class,
final approval.
The Company, its board of directors, and its management team
believe the Proposed Class Actions Settlement is in the best
interests of our shareholders. Upon approval by the court, it
removes uncertainty related to the Federal Class Action and Nevada
Class Action and allows the Company to move forward in achieving
its business objectives.
About Meta Materials Inc.
Meta Materials Inc. (META) is an advanced materials and
nanotechnology company. We develop new products and technologies
using innovative sustainable science. Advanced materials can
improve everyday products that surround us, making them smarter and
more sustainable. META® technology platforms enable global brands
to develop new products to improve performance for customers in
aerospace and defense, consumer electronics, 5G communications,
batteries, authentication, automotive and clean energy. Learn more
at www.metamaterial.com.
Media and Investor Inquiries
Rob Stone
Vice President, Corporate Development and Communications
Meta Materials Inc.
media@metamaterial.com
ir@metamaterial.com
Forward Looking Information
This press release includes forward-looking information or
statements within the meaning of Canadian securities laws and
within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
regarding the Company, which may include, but are not limited to,
statements with respect to the business strategies, product
development, restructuring plans and operational activities of the
Company. Often but not always, forward-looking information can be
identified by the use of words such as "pursuing", "potential",
"predicts", "projects", "seeks", "plans", "expect", "intends",
"anticipated", "believes" or variations (including negative
variations) of such words and phrases, or statements that certain
actions, events or results "may", "could", "should", "would" or
"will" be taken, occur or be achieved. Such statements are based on
the current expectations and views of future events of the
management of the Company and are based on assumptions and subject
to risks and uncertainties. Although the management of the Company
believes that the assumptions underlying these statements are
reasonable, they may prove to be incorrect. The forward-looking
events and circumstances discussed in this release may not occur
and could differ materially as a result of known and unknown risk
factors and uncertainties affecting the Company, the capabilities
of our facilities, research and development projects of the
Company, the total available market and market potential of the
products of the Company, the market position of the Company, the
need to raise more capital and the ability to do so, the
scalability of the Company's production ability, capacity for new
customer engagements, material selection programs timeframes, the
ability to reduce production costs, enhance metamaterials
manufacturing capabilities and extend market reach into new
applications and industries, the ability to accelerate
commercialization plans, the possibility of new customer contracts,
the continued engagement of our employees, the technology industry,
market strategic and operational activities, and management's
ability to manage and operate the business. More details about
these and other risks that may impact the Company's businesses are
described under the heading "Forward-Looking Information" and under
the heading "Risk Factors" in the Company's Form 10-K filed with
the SEC on March 23, 2023, in the Company's Form 10-K/A filed with
the SEC on March 24, 2023, in the Company's Form 10-Q filed with
the SEC on November 13, 2023, and in subsequent filings made by
Meta Materials with the SEC, which are available on SEC's website
at www.sec.gov. Although the Company has attempted to identify
important factors that could cause actual actions, events or
results to differ materially from those described in
forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause
actions, events or results to differ from those anticipated,
estimated or intended. Accordingly, readers should not place undue
reliance on any forward-looking statements or information. No
forward-looking statement can be guaranteed. Except as required by
applicable securities laws, forward-looking statements speak only
as of the date on which they are made and the Company does not
undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any
forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information,
future events, or otherwise, except to the extent required by law.
[GN]
MILLIMAN INC: Class Cert Deadlines Extended in Healy Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES HEALY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLIMAN, INC., d/b/a
INTELLISCRIPT, Case No. 2:20-cv-01473-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order granting stipulated
motion to extend trial date and related deadlines as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Deadline for the parties 10 days from order
on
to propose changes to pending motions
class notice
Deadline to opt out of 45 days from class
class notice mailing
Deadline to file motions Jan. 25, 2024 7 days from
deadline
in limine (to be filed to file proposed
in a single, joint brief) pretrial order,
proposed jury
instructions, and
proposed verdict
form
Trial (ten days) Feb. 12, 2024 14 days from
deadline
to file trial
briefs
Milliman is an international actuarial and consulting firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TCBjvV at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
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
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Rodney L. Umberger, Esq.
Daniel Brown, Esq.
Jeffery M. Wells, Esq.
WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC
601 Union Street, Suite 4100
Seattle, WA 98101-2380
Telephone: (206) 628-6600
Facsimile: (206) 628-6611
E-mail: rumberger@williamskastner.com
dbrown@williamskastner.com
jwells@williamskastner.com
MR. COOPER: Faces Class Suit Over October 2023 Cyberattack
----------------------------------------------------------
Anitra Johnson of Delaware Online reports that One of the country's
largest mortgage servicers, Mr. Cooper confirmed in an SEC filing
that it was the target of a cybersecurity attack resulting in the
theft of personal information belonging to applicants and
customers.
On Nov. 2, Mr. Cooper, previously known as Nationstar, revealed
that it had been hacked by cybercriminals on Oct. 31. In response,
the lender blocked access to their systems. Customers were unable
to log into their accounts. Mr. Cooper now admits that the breach
resulted in the theft of sensitive information belonging to nearly
15 million current and former customers and applicants.
Who was impacted?
In a notice to the Maine Attorney General, the company included a
letter addressed to the 14.7 million impacted consumers. In the
letter, it explained that, beyond Mr. Cooper's customers, the
personally identifiable information was stolen from a wide range of
consumers, including:
-- Those who had a mortgage that was acquired or serviced by
Nationstar Mortgage LLC or Centex Home Equity.
-- Those who had a mortgage that is or was serviced by a sister
brand.
-- Those who have a mortgage from a company whose service
partner is or was Mr. Cooper.
-- Those who applied for a home loan.
What type of personal data was stolen?
The letter details that along with names, addresses and phone
numbers, stolen personal information included:
-- Social Security numbers.
-- Dates of birth.
-- Bank account numbers.
In the SEC statement, the Texas-based mortgage servicer advised it
was amending its report to include $25 million to cover the cost of
providing identity protection services for two years. Acknowledging
the increased risk of affected individuals being targeted by
phishing scams, fraud and identity theft, the financial services
company said it will provide them with free credit monitoring of a
single credit bureau for 24 months.
A class-action lawsuit filed against Mr. Cooper
A class-action lawsuit has been filed in response to the Oct. 31
data breach. Filed in Texas on Nov. 6, the 43-page lawsuit alleges
that Mr. Cooper was negligent in safeguarding personally
identifiable information stored on its servers. Among its claims,
it contends that the defendant failed to employ recommended data
security procedures and practices to protect its systems.
The suit is open to representing all individuals in the United
States whose private information was exposed to unauthorized third
parties as a result of the breach discovered by Mr. Cooper. [GN]
NATIONSTAR FINANCIAL: Robertson Sues Over Cybertattack, Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEIRA ROBERTSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR FINANCIAL, INC., D/B/A MR. COOPER
AND MR. COOPER GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02733-N
(N.D. Tex., Dec. 11, 2023) arises from a recent cyberattack and
data breach which resulted in unauthorized actors viewing and
accessing the personally identifiable information of a significant
number of individuals, including Plaintiff, whose loan were
serviced by Mr. Cooper Group.
On October 31, 2023, Mr. Cooper suffered a data breach in which an
unauthorized third party obtained PII of some of its customers. The
cyberattack caused Mr. Cooper to shutdown its technology systems
preventing millions of borrowers from making payments on their
loans between November 1, 2023, and November 4, 2023.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and the Class members'
rights were disregarded by Mr. Cooper's negligent or reckless
failure to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data
systems were secure and the PII entrusted to it would not be
stolen. Mr. Cooper also failed to disclose the material fact that
it did not have adequate information security controls to safeguard
PII, failed to take foreseeable steps to prevent the data breach,
and failed to monitor and timely detect the data breach. As a
result of the data breach, Plaintiff's and Class members' PII has
been and will continue to be exposed to criminals for misuse, says
the suit.
Nationstar Financial, Inc. is owned by Mr. Cooper Group Inc., a
company that provides financial services and offers home loan
services for single-family residences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
FERRER POIROT FELLER DANIEL
2603 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-4412
E-mail: epresby@lawyerworks.com
- and -
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
- and -
F. Peter Silva, II, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: psilva@tzlegal.com
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PA: Gallagher Appeals Dismissal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs JOHN F. GALLAGHER, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated December 6, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled JOHN F. GALLAGHER, MELISSA M. GALLAGHER, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTHAMPTON
COUNTY REVENUE APPEALS BOARD, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY TAX CLAIM BUREAU,
BETHLEHEM AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, BETHLEHEM TOWNSHIP, PORTNOFF LAW
ASSOCIATES, LTD, STACY GOBER, ANDREW FREDA, STEPHEN J BARRON, JR,
and PORTNOFF LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD., Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-03275-JMG, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On August 23, 2023, the Plaintiffs brought this suit against the
Northampton County Revenue Appeals Board, Northampton County Tax
Claim Bureau, Bethlehem Township, Bethlehem Area School District,
Portnoff Law Associates, Ltd., Stephen Barron, Andrew Freda, and
Stacy Gober. In Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, Plaintiffs assert that
Pennsylvania's tax laws and enforcement mechanisms violate their
federal Constitutional Rights. Also, Plaintiff brings a Civil RICO
claim under 18 U.S.C. 1962 against Portnoff Law Associates Ltd.,
Stacy Gober, Andrew Freda, and Steven Barron for their attempts to
collect taxes from Plaintiffs.
All Defendants moved for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1). The Defendants assert that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction because the Tax Injunction Act states that "The
district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the
assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a
plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such
State." Beyond the legalese and jargon in Plaintiffs' Complaint,
the Complaint in total amounts to Plaintiffs' desires to not pay
their taxes. Specifically, Plaintiffs take issue with how their
local taxes are determined, collected, and enforced.
As the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how the legal
apparatuses of Pennsylvania are inadequate or unavailable to hear
their legal dilemmas, Plaintiff's federal Counts 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11
were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on December
6.
For Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10 in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges state claims. Given the Complaint's reference to alleged
constitutional violations, although minimal, the Court found it has
federal question jurisdiction. However, the Complaint failed to
sufficiently plead a federal claim of which the Court has
jurisdiction over. Because all federal claims were being dismissed,
the Court did not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any
potential state law claims.
The Plaintiffs are now appealing the order of the District Court
with respect to the court's dismissal of Count V (5th/14th
Amendment to the U.S. Const.), Count VII (4th/14th Amendment to the
U.S. Const.) and Count VIII (8th/14th Amendment to the U.S. Const.)
of Plaintiffs' Complaint on the basis described in said order.
The appellate case is captioned as John Gallagher, et al. v.
Northampton County Revenue Appeals Board, et al., Case No. 23-3171,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed
on December 11, 2023.
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[BN]
OXFORD INDUSTRIES: Completion of Non-Expert Discovery Due March 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLELIS HERNANDEZ, v.
OXFORD INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-08362-JLR-GWG (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered a scheduling order as
follows:
a. Document requests and initial Dec. 30, 2023
interrogatories:
b. Deadline to amend pleadings/Joinder Dec. 30, 2023
of Parties:
c. Completion of non-expert discovery: March 30, 2024
d. Disclosures of the identities and April 30, 2024
reports of experts will occur by:
e. Depositions of experts shall be May 30, 2024
completed by:
The Plaintiff brings this class-action against Defendant on both an
individual basis and on behalf of a nationwide class against
Defendant for its violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
Specifically, the Defendant failed to design the website that it
owns and operates, Duckhead.com, to be equally accessible to the
visually impaired as it is to sighted individuals. Defendant's
website offers an array of goods and services that consumers can
purchase online, including clothing and accessories, the Plaintiff
contends.
Oxford Industries is a publicly traded clothing company in the
United States that specializes in high-end clothing and apparel.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RFsJdj at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian Piasecki, Esq.
Patrick W. Gallagher, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 595-6200
E-mail: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com
pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sean Joseph Kirby, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Telephone: (212)-653-8700
E-mail: skirby@sheppardmullin.com
PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Caloto Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS H. CALOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYCOM SOFTWARE, INC.; CHAD RICHISON; and
CRAIG E. BOELTE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11086 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
21, 2023) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers
of Paycom common stock between February 9, 2022 and October 31,
2023, inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the statements made by
the Defendants in their press releases and SEC reports were
materially false and misleading at the time they were made, and
omitted to state required material information because they failed
to disclose the following adverse information that was then known
to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (a) that Paycom
had been relying upon a significant, but undisclosed, amount of
one-off payroll correction fees to fuel its past outsized revenue
growth; (b) that increased adoption of Beti by Paycom's payroll
customers was cannibalizing the fees the Company had previously
been charging to correct common payroll mistakes and to provide
related services; (c) that the increased Beti adoption was
decreasing Paycom's gross profit margins; and (d) that, as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' statements about Paycom's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
The market price of Paycom common stock crashed with $94.08 per
share, or 38.5 percent, from its close of $244.45 per share on
October 31, 2023 to close down at $150.37 per share on November 1,
2023, on unusually high trading volume of more than eleven million
shares trading, or almost four times the average daily volume over
the preceding ten trading days. Paycom common stock had not traded
this low since 2019, says the suit.
PAYCOM SOFTWARE, INC. designs and develops software solutions. The
Company provides data analytical software products to manage the
employment life cycle from recruitment to retirement. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
PROFESSIONAL LABOR: Appeals Atty. Fees' Ruling in Walters FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Labor Group, LLC filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated November 9, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled JAMES WALTERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL LABOR GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02831-JRS-MJD, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 22, 2021, the
class action is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
After two rounds of summary judgment briefing, an intervening
motion for interlocutory appeal, and eve-of-trial factual
stipulations, the Court ruled that Professional Labor Group is
liable for $199,209.81 in actual and liquidated damages to Walters
and the collective he represents. The Court vacated the trial date
and set the issue of attorney fees for briefing, in anticipation of
PLG's intended appeal.
On November 9, 2023, the Court entered an Order wherein Walters'
Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs was granted except as to the
expert witness costs, for a total of $381,195.50 in attorney fees
and $15,826.23 in costs.
The appellate case is captioned as James Walters v. Professional
Labor Group, LLC, Case No. 23-3346, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on December 11, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before February 20, 2024 for
Professional Labor Group, LLC;
-- Appellee's brief is due on or before March 21, 2024 for James
Walters; and
-- Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before April
11, 2024 for Appellant Professional Labor Group, LLC.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant PROFESSIONAL LABOR GROUP, LLC is represented
by:
John J. Morse, Esq.
MORSE & BICKEL, P.C.
1411 Roosevelt Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46201
Telephone: (317) 686-1540
- and -
Vincent T. Norwillo, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT T. NORWILLO, LLC
1309 Ridge Road
Hinckley, OH 44233
Telephone: (330) 278-1136
Plaintiff-Appellee JAMES WALTERS, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, II, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
4200 Regent Street
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
- and -
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street, N.W.
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
PUERTO RICO POLICE BUREAU: Carbonell Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA E. CARBONELL;
ROBERTO A. WHATTS OSORIO; ELBA Y. COLON NERY; BILLY NIEVES
HERNANDEZ; NELIDA ALVAREZ FEBUS; LINDA DUMONT GUZMAN; SANDRA
QUIÑONES PINTO; YOMARYS ORTIZ GONZALEZ; CARMEN BERLINGERI PABON;
MERAB ORTIZ RIVERA; JANET CRUZ BERRIOS, individually and as
representatives of the requested class, v. ANTONIO LOPEZ FIGUEROA,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Puerto Rico Police
Bureau; MICHELLE MOURE, in her official capacity as Human Resources
Director of the Puerto Rico Police Bureau; UNION OF ORGANIZED
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, Case No. 3:22-cv-01236-WGY (D.P.R.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion
for class certification and appointment of class counsel.
The Puerto Rico Police Bureau ("PRPB") employs Plaintiffs and class
members as civilian employees in a bargaining unit the Union of
Organized Civilian Employees exclusively represents -- and that has
been the case at all relevant times. Plaintiffs invoke the First
and Fourteenth Amendment protections of the United States
Constitution against Defendants Antonio Lopez Figueroa, in his
official capacity as PRPB Commissioner, Michelle Moure in her
official capacity as PRPB Human Resources Director, and the Union.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class: PRPB
employees who at any time on or after May 24, 2021, and continuing
until the court enters injunctive relief
(1) were employed by PRPB and exclusively represented by the
Union,
(2) were not Union members, and
(3) were paid $100 monthly or less as the employer contribution
for procuring health insurance and thus not the $25 monthly
additional employer contribution union members were paid.
Puerto Rico Police is a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction
over the entire Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48dZKEr at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Angel J. Valencia-Gatell, Esq.
Heidi E. Schneider, Esq.
Milton L. Chappell, Esq.
NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK
LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, INC.
8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
Springfield, VA 22160
Telephone: (703) 321-8510
Facsimile: (703) 321-9319
E-mail: ajv@nrtw.org
hes@nrtw.org
mlc@nrtw.org
R&L CARRIERS: Rubalcaba Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH RUBALCABA,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. R&L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC, an Ohio
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 23CV423930 (Filed Oct. 6, 2023), was removed from the from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Dec. 21, 2023.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-06581 to the
proceeding.
The suit alleges failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to
pay meal period premiums; failure to rest period premiums; failure
to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages upon ending employment;
failure to pay timely wages during employment; failure to provide
accurate wage statements; failure to keep requisite payroll
records; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; and
unfair competition pursuant to California Business and Professions
Code section 17200, et seq.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent "all current and former
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the
Defendants within the State of California at any time during the
period from four years preceding the filing of this Complaint to
final judgment and who reside in California."
The Plaintiff has identified two proposed subclasses: Subclass A
includes "All class members who received overtime compensation at a
rate lower than their respective regular rate of pay because the
Defendants failed to include all shift differential
pay/commissions/non-discretionary bonuses/non-discretionary
performance pay in the calculation of the regular rate of pay for
overtime pay purposes;" and Subclass B includes "All class members
who were required by Defendants to stay on Defendants' premises for
rest breaks."
R&L Carriers is a privately owned American freight shipping
company.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cheryl L. Schreck, Esq.
Joel Moon, 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
jmoon@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
REGIS UNIVERSITY: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGIS UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-10777 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2023) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired person in violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act,
the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human
Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that ADA's Title III was meant to redress by
failing to make its website, https://www.regis.edu, available in a
manner compatible with computer screen reader programs.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Regis University is a private Jesuit university in Denver,
Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
RUSSELL SPEEDER'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID EDER BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUSSELL SPEEDER'S MANAGEMENT
COMPANY L.L.C. d/b/a RUSSEL SPEEDER'S CAR WASH; and MICHAEL
SHULLMAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01666 (D.
Conn., Dec. 22, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Benitez was employed by the Defendants as a customer
service associate.
RUSSELL SPEEDER'S MANAGEMENT COMPANY L.L.C. is a Connecticut
limited liability company that operates car washes in Connecticut,
New York, Nebraska, and Missouri, under the name "Russel
Speeder’s Car Wash". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Berlingieri, Esq.
BERLINGIERI LAW, PLLC
244 Fifth Avenue, Suite F276
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (347) 766-5185
Facsimile: (914) 730-1044
SAGESURE INSURANCE: Stephens Sues Over Employment Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
LATANZIA STEPHENS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SAGESURE INSURANCE MANAGERS LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-23338 (D.N.J., Dec. 26, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
unlawfully discriminated, on the basis of gender, against the
Plaintiff, similarly situated individuals, and the putative
Collective, with regards to the terms, conditions, and privileges
of employment.
The Plaintiff contends that regardless of the specific job title,
all female Adjusters were intentionally paid less than male
employees who performed substantially similar work and had equal
responsibility; and were intentionally denied promotional
opportunities and/or conditions of employment in favor of male
employees who performed substantially similar work and had equal
responsibility.
In particular, the Defendant maintained an intentional and
deliberate discriminatory pay structure, and also intentionally and
deliberately promoted male employees in favor of female Adjusters,
despite male employees having objectively less responsibility,
education, and experience as compared to female Adjusters, the
lawsuit claims.
From February 2022 to March 2023, the Plaintiff was among the most
talented and dedicated Adjusters employed by Defendant. Despite the
Plaintiff's demonstrated acumen and dedication, the Plaintiff was
consistently paid less than her male colleagues who had the same
title and performed the same work.
The Plaintiff brings this action for violations of the Equal Pay
Act as a collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b),
on behalf of the following Collective:
All current and former female insurance adjusters who
worked for the Defendant at any time during the past
three years.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself individually and a Collective
of similarly-situated female Adjusters, for violations of the Equal
Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 206, seeks to recover damages for the
proposed Collective, including compensatory, punitive, and
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and litigation
costs.
Plaintiff Stephens worked for the Defendant as an Adjuster from
February 2022 to March 2023. The Defendant compensated the
Plaintiff for her services as an Adjuster in the form of a yearly
salary, most recently at the rate of $80,000 per year.
The Defendant is a program manager and servicing agent providing
property insurance through a network of insurance agents and
brokers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
jyoung@sommerspc.com
aasciutto@sommerspc.com
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Sued Over Disclosure of Info to 3rd Parties
------------------------------------------------------------------
A.S., D.G., M.F., and T.M., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE
SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02258-RBM-MSB (S.D. Cal.,
Dec. 11, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, in order to
seek redress from Defendant for intrusions into their privacy and
to seek an injunction preventing Defendant from perpetrating these
abuses on future unsuspecting consumers.
This is a class action suit brought on behalf of all persons who
have visited life.selectquote.com and received a quote for a life
insurance policy. When visitors to Defendant's website seek
insurance quotes, they are asked personal information regarding any
health conditions they might have. At the time this information is
solicited from customers, Defendant's website promises that its
site is "100% secure." The Defendant also represents to consumers
that it will "never sell your information." Unfortunately,
Defendant failed to keep this promise. Unbeknownst to consumers,
Defendant shares highly sensitive information with several third
parties, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs are individuals with significant health conditions,
including cancer, high blood pressure, and diabetes. They disclosed
these conditions to Defendant so they could get quotes for life
insurance. It never occurred to Plaintiffs that this information
would be shared with several other third parties for Defendant's
pecuniary gain. Now the health information of Plaintiffs and class
members has been commoditized and traded by Defendant, the suit
further asserts.
SelectQuote Insurance Services is an agency that provides customers
with quotes for life insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
SOUTH BAY: Faces Class Action Over Employees' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and
JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against South Bay
Hyundai, LLC ("South Bay Hyundai"). The class action complaint
alleges South Bay Hyundai allegedly failed to accurately pay
employees' wages for all their time worked. The South Bay Hyundai
class action lawsuit, Case No. 23STCV31602, is currently pending in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California.
According to the lawsuit, South Bay Hyundai allegedly violated
California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226,
226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing
to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide
required meal and rest periods; (4) provide accurate itemized wage
statements; (5) pay wages when due; and (6) reimburse for required
business expenses.
If you would like to know more about the South Bay Hyundai lawsuit,
please contact Attorney Jackland Hom today by calling (619)
255-9047.
California Labor Code Section 226 requires an employer to furnish
its employees an accurate itemized wage statement in writing
showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked, (3) the
number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate,
(4) all deductions, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates
of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the
employee and only the last four digits of the employee's social
security number or an employee identification number other than a
social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal
entity that is the employer and, (9) all applicable hourly rates in
effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours
worked at each hourly rate by the employee. South Bay Hyundai
allegedly failed to provide its employees with accurate itemized
wage statements that complied with all the requirements of
California Labor Code Section 226.
If you would like to know more about the South Bay Hyundai lawsuit,
please contact Attorney Jackland Hom today by calling (619)
255-9047.
Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with
workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination,
retaliation, discrimination, and harassment.
Media Contact
Jackland Hom, Zakay Law Group, APLC, (619) 255-9047,
jackland@zakaylaw.com, https://zakaylaw.com/ [GN]
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 26
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RORESTE REFUERZO, et al.,
v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order imposes the
following class certification briefing deadlines:
-- Deadline to Move for Class Certification: March 26,
2024
-- Class Certification Opposition: May 21, 2024
-- Reply in Support of Class Certification: July 9, 2024
-- In-person Hearing: August 8,
2024
Southwest Airlines is a major airline based in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aBnKD6 at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: Hearing on Bid for Class Cert Rescheduled
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDITH VELAZQUEZ, et al.
v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-cv-03128-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quiñones
Alejandro entered an order that a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification is rescheduled for May 15 and 16, 2024.
State Farm offers automobile, property, casualty, health,
disability, and life insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41FDnWf at no extra charge.[CC]
TACTICAL FORCE: Nida Sues Over Security Officers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL NIDA; CURTIS STULL; JAMIE GRACE; LOGAN SHEPPARD; TIMOTHY
STONE; ERIC GRACE; AND TEZ MARIO A. D. DAVIS, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated as members of the
collective as permitted, Plaintiffs v. TACTICAL FORCE LLC; AND
PRESTON RENARDO JOHNSON, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00365-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss., Dec. 18, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current,
former and future employees by failing to provide time and half for
all hours worked over 40 hours per week at the correct rate of pay
which includes all compensation.
The Plaintiffs worked as security officers for Defendants in the
last three years. They worked six- and seven-day work weeks,
working 10–16-hour days each day, for a total of 50-70 hours in
each week. Despite working 50-70 hours, they were paid only 40
hours or just over 40, and the overtime wages paid were paid at
straight time, not time-and-a-half, say the Plaintiffs.
Tactical Force LLC is a Mississippi based security company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis H. Watson, Jr., Esq.
Nick Norris, Esq.
WATSON & NORRIS, PLLC
4209 Lakeland Drive, #365
Flowood, MS 39232
Telephone: (601) 968-0000
Facsimile: (601) 968-0010
E-mail: louis@watsonnorris.com
nick@watsonnorris.com
TAXACT INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS C.
SMITH-WASHINGTON, JOYCE MAHONEY, JONATHAN AMES, and JENNY LEWIS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TAXACT,
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00830-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order granting their joint stipulation to
continue briefing schedule for class certification and continue the
hearing on the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings:
Event Current New Deadline
Deadline
Initial Disclosures Dec. 14, 2023 14 days after ruling
on
motion to compel
Hearing on Motion to Jan. 18, 2024 Feb. 15, 2024 at 10:00
Compel Arbitration a.m.
and Stay
Deadline for Plaintiffs Jan. 31, 2024 170 days after ruling
on
to File Class motion to compel
Certification Motion
Deadline for Defendant Feb. 16, 2024 42 days after filing
of
to file opposition to Class Certification
class certification Motion
motion
Deadline for Plaintiffs Feb. 29, 2024 21 days after filing
of
to file reply in Opposition to Class
support of Class Certification Motion
Certification Motion
Hearing on Plaintiffs' Mar. 14, 2024 14 days after filing
of
Class Certification Reply to Class
Motion Certification Motion
TaxAct provides software products and services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48jPniI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Christina Tusan, Esq.
Adrian Barnes, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Ave, 6th Floor
Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
ctusan@hammondlawpc.com
abarnes@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
- and -
Warren D. Postman, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (312) 741-5220
Facsimile: (312) 971-3502
E-mail: wdp@kellerpostman.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sheila A.G. Armbrust, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
TISHMAN SPEYER: Fails to Disclose Total Ticket Costs, Norcross Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE NORCROSS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TISHMAN SPEYER PROPERTIES, L.P., ROCK RINK
L.L.C., and RCPI LANDMARK PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-11153
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2023) alleges that the Defendants have been
nickel and diming visitors of the Top of the Rock, the Rink, and
the Rockefeller Center Tours on their website in violation of the
New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07(4).
Whenever a visitor selects an admission ticket on the website
https://www.rockefellercenter.com/, she is quoted a fee-less price,
only to be ambushed by a $5.00 "processing fee" at checkout after
clicking through the various screens required to make a purchase --
all while a clock is ticking down for a consumer to complete her
transaction, the lawsuit contends.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants violated New York Arts &
Cultural Affairs Law section 25.07(4) by failing to disclose the
"total cost of a ticket, inclusive of all ancillary fees that must
be paid in order to purchase the ticket" after a ticket is
selected; and by increasing the price of its tickets during the
purchase process. The Defendants' "processing fee" is an "ancillary
fee that must be paid in order to purchase the ticket."
On October 10, 2023, the Plaintiff purchased tickets on the
Defendants' website and was forced to pay the Defendants'
processing fee. The Plaintiff was harmed by paying this processing
fee, even though that total cost was not disclosed to Plaintiff at
the beginning of the purchase process, and therefore, is unlawful
pursuant to New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law.
On behalf of herself and members of the Nationwide Class, the
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the unlawful acts and practices, to
recover her actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater,
and reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiff purchased two one-day passes to the Defendants'
skating rink in New York, New York on November 12, 2023 through the
Defendants' website, https://www.rockefellercenter.com.
Tishman Speyer operates the Rockefeller Center and its website,
located in New York, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
sbogdanovich@bursor.com
TRC SOLUTIONS: Bandy Class Cert Hearing Set for Jan. 10
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Herman Bandy, v. TRC
Solutions, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-00144-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Dustin M. Howell entered an order setting in-person
evidentiary hearing in Bandy's Motion to Certify a Collective
Action and To Issue Notice on January 10, 2024.
TRC Solutions provides engineering services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rz1nFy at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Remuneration Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Twenter of Becker's Hospital Review reports that an Iowa
pharmacy filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against UnitedHealth
Group and its pharmacy benefit manager, accusing the company of
"unconscionable" DIR fees.
DIR fees, or direct and indirect remuneration fees, are collected
after pharmacies fill a prescription for Medicare recipients. These
fees led to the owners of Osterhaus Pharmacy, the plaintiff, to
shutter operations in January 2022, according to the lawsuit.
Osterhaus accused UnitedHealth Group; its insurance company,
UnitedHealthcare; and its PBM, Otpum Rx, of forcing independent
pharmacies to close by "unlawfully extract[ing] huge sums of money"
with DIR fees.
These costs "coerce pharmacies to produce outcomes over which they
have little or no control" with "a 'take it or leave it' package,"
the plaintiff said. "Independents cannot afford to push back
against OptumRx because they risk losing access to beneficiaries.
The opposite is not true -- OptumRx can steer and prefers to steer
patients to its own mail‐order pharmacy. To be sure, community
members suffer as a result -- from losing pharmacy services or
receiving inadequate services."
Becker's has reached out to UnitedHealth Group and will update this
story if more information becomes available. [GN]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Osterhaus Sues Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
OSTERHAUS PHARMACY, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED; OPTUM, INC.;
OPTUMRX, INC.; OPTUMRX HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01944 (W.D.
Wash., Dec. 18, 2023) seeks damages for violation of Sections 1 and
2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1, 2, breach of contract,
and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
In January 2022, Matt Osterhaus sold Osterhaus Pharmacy because of
Pharmacy Benefits Managers' (PBMs') actions, including OptumRx's
actions. OptumRx has tied access to its network of beneficiaries
for Filling and Dispensing Services to purchase of the opportunity
to provide DIR Services.
The Plaintiff asserts that OptumRx denies pharmacy services
providers access to its network of Medicare Part D beneficiaries to
fill and dispense their prescriptions unless the pharmacy services
providers also enter a second transaction, one involving a
requirement that compels the pharmacy services providers to pay
fees for the "opportunity" to provide other performance‐related
services.
As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing conduct, the
Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class have been injured by
paying artificially inflated prices for the opportunity to provide
DIR Services rather than receiving compensation for providing DIR
Services, says the suit.
Osterhaus brings this action on behalf of itself individually and
on behalf of a proposed class of pharmacy services providers,
including retail pharmacies, compounding pharmacies, and physician
dispensaries but excluding mail order pharmacies, that:
1. are not part of the same corporate family as any of the
three largest Pharmacy Benefits Managers ("PBMs"), and so
are independent of the three largest PBMs;
2. are located in the United States; and
3. paid any DIR fees directly to OptumRx from December 18,
2019 until the time of trial.
UnitedHealth is a healthcare company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Amanda M. Steiner, Esq.
Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
asteiner@terrellmarshall.com
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Joshua Davis, Esq.
Julie Pollock, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
505 Montgomery St, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 906‐0684
E-mail: jdavis@bm.net
jpollock@bm.net
- and -
John Roberti, Esq.
Melissa Maxman, Esq.
Derek Jackson, Esq.
Alisa Lu, Esq.
COHEN & GRESSER LLP
2001 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 851‐2070
E-mail: jroberti@cohengresser.com
mmaxman@cohengresser.com
djackson@cohengresser.com
alu@cohengresser.com
VNET GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Feb. 26
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Dec. 31 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against VNET Group, Inc. ("VNET" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: VNET) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired VNET securities between April 8,
2022 and February 15, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until February 26, 2024 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
As of February 28, 2022, the Company's co-founder, Defendant Josh
Sheng Chen, beneficially owned approximately 78.52 million VNET
shares individually and through his sole ownership of certain
companies, including GenTao Capital Limited ("GenTao") and Sunrise
Corporate Holding Ltd. ("Sunrise"). On August 19, 2021, he and his
companies entered into a $50.25 million margin loan facility with
Bold Ally (Cayman) Limited ("Bold Ally"), pledging all of his
shares of GenTao, Sunrise, and Beacon Capital Group Inc. as
collateral, thus effectively pledging a significant percentage of
his VNET shares as collateral (the "Facility Agreement").
On February 13, 2023, before the market opened, Bold Ally announced
it would exercise its rights under the Facility Agreement following
a default by GenTao and was entitled to 48,515,634 Class A ordinary
shares (in the form of 8,085,939 American depositary shares, or
"ADSs" or "shares") and 27,757,992 Class B ordinary shares of the
Company.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.20, or 3.2% on
February 13, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's
share price continued to decline by $1.09, or 17.8%, over the next
consecutive trading session to close at $5.02 per share on February
14, 2023, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on February 15, 2023, before the market opened, VNET
disclosed that the board of directors had approved and authorized
the issuance of up to 555,000 newly created Class D ordinary shares
to the Executive Chairman of the Board, and that these shares would
be granted a 500-to-1 vote per share power. The Company stated this
measure was required in order to "protect the Company's interests
and continued stability."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.10, or 2%, to close
at $4.92 per share on February 15, 2023, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
According to the filed complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that GenTao was
experiencing financial difficulties and was at risk of defaulting
on the Facility Agreement; (2) that, as a result, there was a
substantial likelihood that Bold Ally would acquire Defendant Sheng
Chen's significant ownership stake in VNET; (3) that, to restore
Defendant Sheng Chen's voting interest in VNET, the Company would
issue newly created shares to Defendant Sheng Chen, diluting
investors' interest; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis
If you purchased or otherwise acquired VNET shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email
at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Suit Over Gender Pay Gap
-------------------------------------------------
Working Solutions reports that On December 8, 2023, a California
state judge certified a lawsuit against Disney to be pursued as a
class action for claims of discriminatory pay practices. The suit
consists of current and former female Disney employees who all
claim systematic underpayment for similar jobs, and that Disney
"routinely underpays its female employees, passes them over for
promotion, piles on extra work without additional compensation, and
does not supply sufficient support staff to allow women to succeed
at their jobs." Walt Disney Co. has responded to this statement by
arguing that the women failed to identify what "substantially
similar" jobs are, but this assertion was rejected by the judge.
The suit consists of at least 8,900 women who have alleged that
Disney collectively paid them at least $150 million less than their
male counterparts over the last four years. The nine-dollar
estimated figure was provided by an economics professor from the
University of California, Irvine, David Neumark. As an expert in
labor economics and market discrimination, Neumark was hired to
conduct research on Disney's compensation practices, and he
concluded that Disney paid its women employees on average about
2.01% less than males. When put into perspective of the case,
Neumark stated that over the last 4.38 years women have been
underpaid $2,766 annually. Disney has disputed this research and
argued that Laronda Rasmussen and the woman's appeal for class
certification "rests on statistical nonsense and factual
inaccuracies." However, the lawsuit has now been certified as a
class action, and the case will move forward to "address wage gaps
and receive effective injunctive and monetary remedies" with
Disney.
Gender Discrimination and Unequal Pay
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) prohibits
the practice of treating someone unfavorably because of their
preferred sexual orientation or gender identity. In regards to
workplace situations, the EEOC goes even further by forbidding
discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including
hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, lay off,
training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of
employment. The Equal Pay Act upholds this protection as well by
mandating that men and women working in the same establishment must
receive equal pay based on job content, not based on specific job
titles. This protection covers various forms of compensation such
as salary, overtime pay, bonuses, stock options, insurance,
vacation, and others.
Contact the Working Solutions Law Firm
Have you been paid less than your counterparts on a seemingly
discriminatory basis? If so, seek legal assistance from the
employment lawyers at the Working Solutions law firm, located in
New York City and in Livingston, New Jersey. Contact us on December
21, 2023 at (646) 430-7930 to schedule a case evaluation and
receive experienced legal counsel.
Our employment lawyers specialize in many areas of the law,
including discrimination and unpaid wages and overtime. Whatever
your employment issue is, please reach out for a consultation on
December 21, 2023. [GN]
WARNER NORCROSS: Appeals Ruling in Kingen Suit to 6th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
WARNER NORCROSS + JUDD LLP filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated October 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled
MICHAEL KINGEN and KELLEY RAMSEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WARNER NORCROSS + JUDD
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01126-PLM-RSK, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
On August 24, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed this class action against
Defendant for failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs'
and Class members' personally identifiable information that was
stored within Defendant's information network. The Plaintiffs
originally filed their complaint in the Federal District of Nevada
but following Defendant's first motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, the parties stipulated to a transfer to the
Western District of Michigan. The Plaintiffs allege their injury
stems from a data breach in Defendant's information network on
October 22, 2021. In particular, the Plaintiffs allege the
following injuries: (1) lost time spent dealing with the data
breach, (2) diminution in the value of their PII, (3) "anxiety and
increased concerns for the loss of privacy," (4) and "imminent and
impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of
fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from" the breach.
The Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1);
Defendant also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
On October 5, 2023, the Court entered an Amended Order wherein
Defendants' 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was
DENIED. Defendant's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was GRANTED in part
pertaining to Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim and breach of
implied contract claim and was DENIED in part pertaining to
Plaintiffs' negligence claim. The Defendant's January 13, 2023
motion to dismiss was DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
WNJ then moved for reconsideration or, alternatively, certification
of an interlocutory appeal to the Court. On November 29, 2023, the
District Court certified its Amended Order for appeal. The District
Court denied WNJ's request for reconsideration, but granted the
request "to certify [the] Article III standing issue for
interlocutory appeal."
The appellate case is captioned as MICHAEL KINGEN and KELLEY
RAMSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. WARNER NORCROSS + JUDD LLP
Defendant-Petitioner, Case No. 23-0108, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on December 11, 2023.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner WARNER NORCROSS + JUDD LLP is represented by:
Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
Kyle M. Asher, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
201 Townsend St., Ste. 900
Lansing, MI 48933
Telephone: (517) 374-9149
YODLEE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 13
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIUS CLARK, et al., v.
YODLEE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Sallie Kim entered an order regarding schedule and administrative
motions:
(1) Close of fact discovery, except Jan. 12, 2024
for depositions:
(2) Close of fact discovery Feb. 27, 2024
depositions:
(3) Expert disclosure deadline: March 8, 2024
(4) Expert rebuttal report deadline: April 5, 2024
(5) Close of expert discovery: April 26, 2024
(6) Plaintiffs' motion for class May 13, 2024
certification:
(7) Yodlee's opposition to class June 3, 2024
certification:
(8) Plaintiffs' class certification June 17, 2024
reply:
Yodlee is a technology and applications platform for digital
financial services in the cloud.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48APtSr at no extra charge.[CC]
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Rivera Files Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, DOLLAR TREE,
INC., and FAMILY DOLLAR, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-03357-BAH (D. Md., Dec. 11, 2023) is a class action against
Defendants for failing to adequately secure and safeguard the
personally identifying information of Plaintiff and the Class,
breaching the terms of Defendants' implied contracts with its
patients, and failing to comply with industry standards regarding
the use and transmission of PII.
In August 2023, Zeroed-In lost control over Dollar Tree's
employees' highly sensitive personal information in a data breach
by cybercriminals. On November 27, 2023, Zeroed-In began sending
notice to Dollar Tree employees and issued a public statement
notifying current and former employees and their dependents that on
August 8, 2023, it had "discovered suspicious activity related to
certain network systems."
According to the complaint, the victims of the data breach did not
start receiving letters notifying them of the data breach or
detailing which specific types of their PII was compromised until
over three months after Zeroed-In discovered the said data breach.
As a consequence of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class members'
sensitive PII has been released into the public domain and they
have had to, and will continue to have to, spend time to protect
themselves from fraud and identity theft. The Defendants'
negligence and failure to abide by its promise to maintain the
privacy of its employees' PII caused real and substantial damage to
Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class, the suit says.
Zeroed-In Technologies, LLC is a software development company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
900 W Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (212) 946-9305
E-mail: tpacheco@milberg.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
ZUFFA LLC: Parties Seek More Time to Extend Class Cert Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVERETT BLOOM, JACK
GRAHAM, AND DAVE LINDHOLM on behalf of themselves, the general
public and those similarly situated, v. ZUFFA, LLC; ENDEAVOR
STREAMING, LLC and ENDEAVOR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-00412-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), the Parties stipulate and agree to
extend the briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of
Motion for Class Certification by 18 days to Jan. 29, 2024.
The Plaintiffs stipulate to extend the deadline on the Plaintiffs'
Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification (filed under
seal on June 9, 2023) by 18 days for the reasons set forth below.
Zuffa was an American sports promotion company specializing in
mixed martial arts.
A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion the Defendant's
motion
dated Dec. 14, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/4avz5Vn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Markman, Esq.
MARKMAN LAW
4484 S. Pecos Rd. Suite #130
Las Vegas NV 89121
Telephone: (702) 843-5899
Facsimile: (702) 843-6010
E-mail: David@Markmanlawfirm.com
- and -
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. Mccrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
Kali Backer, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
anthony@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
The Defendants are represented by:
J. Colby Williams, Esq.
CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS
710 South Seventh Street, Suite A
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 382-5222
Facsimile: (702) 382-0540
E-mail: jcw@cwlawlv.com
- and -
Susan Leader, Esq.
Ali Rabbani, Esq.
Stephanie Balitzer, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 620-5700
Facsimile: (310) 320-5899
E-mail: susanleader@paulhastings.com
alirabbani@paulhastings.com
stephaniebalitzer@paulhastings.com
[*] Bill to Amend Korea Securities Class Action Act Proposed
------------------------------------------------------------
Korea Herald reports that an increasing number of food
manufacturing companies have been reducing the volume of their
products while maintaining or raising their prices. However, these
changes in quantity are not as easy for consumers to notice as
price increases. Therefore, this amendment aims to protect the
consumer's right to information by requiring companies to clearly
indicate any changes made to product volume.
Proposed Bill: Partial Amendment to the Securities-related Class
Action Act
Proposed by Rep. Kang Sung-hee (Progressive Party)
To provide broader protection to financial consumers, this
amendment expands the scope of class actions beyond the cases
related to securities to encompass general financial transactions
and allows class action against corporate directors and the heads
of conglomerates.
Pending Bill: Act on Online Platform Monopoly Regulation
Proposed by Rep. Park Ju-min (Democratic Party of Korea)
Due to the practical limits in applying the existing Monopoly
Regulation and Fair Trade Act to the digital market, this bill
establishes a new monopoly act that addresses the needs of the
digital platform market to promote fair online transaction
practices and protect the rights and interests of online platform
users. The act defines an online platform business operator as
"market-dominant" if it has an average annual sale of 3 trillion
won ($2.35 billion) or more and a monthly average of 10 million
users or more.
Promulgated Bill: Enforcement Decree of the Act on External Audit
of Stock Companies
Competent Authority: Financial Services Commission
This bill proposes a two-year postponement of the introduction
period for the internal accounting control regulation system for
stock-listed corporations with total assets of more than 2 trillion
won and postpones the application period by five years for
corporations with less than 2 trillion won in total assets.
Administrative Announcement: Act on Mediation of Disputes Related
to Fair Trade
Competent Authority: Fair Trade Commission
This bill consolidates provisions related to dispute mediation that
were previously dispersed across various acts into one new act to
enhance the uniformity and efficiency of the legal system. It also
streamlines dispute mediation procedures by introducing a
simplified mediation system and extending the subcommittee system.
[GN]
*********
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 2024. 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 ***