/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240130.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 30, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 22 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Bacus Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois 23ANDME INC: Gill Suit Removed to C.D. California ABBVIE INC: Henry Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ABM INDUSTRIES: Stegmeyer Balks at Drivers Personal Info Collection ADOBE INC: Boudreau Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sims Due April 1 AMAZON SERVICES.COM: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by June 21 AMAZON.COM INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Unredacted Exhibits AMERICAN EXPRESS: Olner Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd AMERICAN HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Febles Alleges AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Lee Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ANCESTRY.COM: Plaintiffs Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Authority AUTO ZONE: S.D. California Dismisses Hernandez Suit W/o Prejudice AUTOMATIC DATA: Unlicensed Personnel Sells Securities, Ylitalo Says BACUS FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cota Suit Alleges BIG STAR: Seeks Deadline Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing BP ENERGY: Parties Seek to Hold in Abeyance Class Cert Deadline BP ENERGY: Response to Stoneberger Class Cert Bid Held in Abeyance BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Class Cert Discovery in Martin Due May 6 CANADA DRY: Court OK's Stipulation Related to Class Certification CAPITAL INSPECTORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ballard Alleges CARRIAGE HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Bids Extended to March 15 CARTER EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bond Suit Alleges CASPER SLEEP: Court Extends Time to Complete Discovery CASPER SLEEP: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Case Schedule CELEB LUXURY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Garcia Suit Claims CELESTRON ACQUISITION: DPPs Seek to Strike Class Cert Denial Bid CHURCH MUTUAL: Parties Seek Approval of Class Notice in GCC CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Court Names Class Counsel in Chappell Suit CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Weiss, et al., Appointed as Class Counsel CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Davis Files Suit in C.D. California COCA-COLA CO: Reynolds' Bid to Compel Document Production Denied COLOR FACTORY: Faces Charles Suit Over Ticketing Scheme CONCHO RESOURCES: Court Dismisses Marx Class Suit With Prejudice CREOLE HOUSE: Johnson Must File Class Cert Bid by March 30 DEFENSE INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cook Alleges ECUASUR WIRELESS: Class Certification Bids in Calix Due July 22 ELEVANCE HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 26 FCTI INC: Court Reopens Class Cert Discovery in Polvay FIRST NATIONAL: Court Tosses Bid to Decertify Class in Brasko FLANIGAN'S MANAGEMENT: Valle Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Servers FORD MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid Hearing in Weidman Set for April 11 GENESCO INC: Thompson TCPA Suit Remanded to St. Louis Cir. Court GEO SECURE: Mazzei Parties Required to File Joint Status Report HARTWIG TRANSIT: Chenault Seeks to Certify FLSA Subclasses HEALTHY OCEANS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Wurm Sues Over Unlawful Text Message Calls IDEXX LABORATORIES: Court Narrows Claims in Yuen Antitrust Suit ILLINOIS TOOL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hess Due Oct. 14 JOHN DEERE: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Perez KELLY-MOORE PAINT: Faces Morris Suit Over WARN Act Violations KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS: Wins Bid to Strike Class Allegations L2 TAVERN: Silva Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices LINCOLN BENEFIT: Farley Action Stayed Pending Resolution of Appeal LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 30 LOWE'S HOME: Fact Discovery in Garrido Must be Completed by Oct. 18 MAC COSMETICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 8 MICHAELS STORES: Court Narrows Claims in Vizcarra Suit MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Files 2nd Cir. Appeal in Barron Suit MIDNIGHT MISSION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooper Alleges MP2 ENTERPRISES: Brandi-Vanmeter Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification NFL: Seeks to Exclude Zona's Testimony NORTHEAST GROCERY: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Collins Alleges PARKVIEW OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harry Alleges PEP BOYS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Alleges PLUFL BED: Bunting Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind Users PROCTER & GAMBLE: Nasal Decongestants "Ineffective," Valinsky Says PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply PRYSM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bali Suit Alleges QDOBA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Sbar Alleges REALPAGE UTILITY: Parties Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement ROBINHOOD: Seeks Leave for Additional Depositions SEAWORLD PARKS: Joint Bid to Amend Scheduling Order OK'd in Lopez STEPHEN CRAANE: Bid to Appoint Counsel Denied with Prejudice TESLA INC: Richardson Suit Transferred From S.D. to N.D. California TURQUOISE HILL: Pentwater May File Third Amended Securities Suit UNIFIED INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Izaquirre Alleges VARIEL SERVICES: Rodriguez Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations YDW PRODUCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Alleges YOSEMITE VALLEY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valdivia Suit Claims ZERO PROOF: Bunting Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website ********* 23ANDME INC: Bacus Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Michelle Bacus, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Northwell Health, Inc., Case No. 2023L011549 was removed from the Cook County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00267-DLI-SJB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. 23andMe -- https://www.23andme.com/ -- offers DNA testing with the most comprehensive ancestry breakdown, personalized health insights and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Gold, Esq. TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Email: agold@tzlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Francis A. Citera, Esq. Kevin James Quilty, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 456-8400 Email: citeraf@gtlaw.com quiltyk@gtlaw.com 23ANDME INC: Gill Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dhaman Gill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 23andMe, Inc., Case No. 30-02023-01357041-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 15, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-02387-FWS-DFM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. 23andMe -- https://www.23andme.com/ -- offers DNA testing with the most comprehensive ancestry breakdown, personalized health insights and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Fax: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com - and - George Volney Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 393-0070 Fax: (212) 253-4272 Email: ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, No. 10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com The Defendants are represented by: Rebekah S. Guyon, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 586-7716 Fax: (310) 586-0225 - and - Ian C. Ballon, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1900 University Avenue 5th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: (650) 328-8500 Fax: (310) 586-7800 Email: ballon@gtlaw.com ABBVIE INC: Henry Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Henry, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ABBVIE INC., Case No. 2023-CH-09168 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-16830. In his Complaint, Henry alleges that "by indirectly or directly soliciting or requesting Plaintiff and the proposed Class members to provide their genetic information. The Defendant violated Plaintiff's and the proposed Class members' rights to privacy in their genetic information as set forth in GIPA."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ada W. Dolph, Esq. Danielle Kays, Esq. Ala Salameh, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606-6448 Phone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 Email: adolph@seyfarth.com dkays@seyfarth.com asalameh@seyfarth.com ABM INDUSTRIES: Stegmeyer Balks at Drivers Personal Info Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW STEGMEYER & AMANDA BRINTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, FLASHPARKING, INC. & PARKPLIANT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00394 (N.D. Ill., January 16, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants illegally harvests driver’s personal information from motor vehicle records to send harassing text messages and mailers in an attempt to charge outrageous parking fees and extortionate "penalty" charges. In order to attempt to collect these unlawful and unwarranted amounts, ABM employs license plate recognition technology provided by FlashParking to capture the license plates of each of the drivers who drive on and off ABM's parking lots. ABM and FlashParking then disclose the captured license plate numbers to Defendant ParkPliant to knowingly and unlawfully obtain individuals' vehicle registration information, say the Plaintiffs. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, ABM Industries Incorporated is a Delaware Corporation that provides parking lot management and parking services since 1966 and is considered a leader in the parking and transportation industries. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Alex Phillips, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703-3515 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com alexp@turkestrauss.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. David S. Almeida, Esq. Britany Kabakov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com david@almeidalawgroup.com ADOBE INC: Boudreau Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adobe, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jeanne Boudreau, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Adobe, Inc., Adobe Systems Incorporated, Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23611128 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 15, 2023). The case type is stated "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Adobe Inc. -- http://www.adobe.com/-- formerly Adobe Systems Incorporated, is an American multinational computer software company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in San Jose, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 855-786-6355 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sims Due April 1 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES SIMS, TERRIE SIMS, NEAL COMEAU, LILIANA COMEAU, and JENIFER SIDDAL, v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 5:22-cv-00580-JKP-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Henry J. Bemporad entered an order that Defendants' Opposed Motion for Protective Order on Deposition Notices of Defendants’ Corporate Representative Don Odom (Docket Entry 61) and Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Compel Depositions and for a Sixty-Day Extension of the Phase I Discovery and Class Certification Motion Deadlines are granted in part and denied in part, as follows: (a) The deadline for Phase I discovery is: March 1, 2024 (b) The deadline for Plaintiffs' motion April 1, 2024 for class certification is: (c) The deadline for briefing in May 1, 2024 opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is: (d) The deadline for Plaintiff's reply, May 15, 2024 if any, is: (e) The deadline for mediation or other May 15, 2024 ADR proceeding is: Allstate operates as an insurance firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47HF1Yt at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON SERVICES.COM: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by June 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN LEITCH, et al., v. AMAZON SERVICES.COM LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06121-LGS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order denying hearing request and modifying discovery schedule: -- The Plaintiffs have not persuaded the Court that they have a "good-faith basis to believe that defendant has additional documents in its possession, custody, or control that should have been produced" pursuant to the Court's Order dated November 21, 2023. -- The Court notes, in this regard, that plaintiffs' counsel argues only that because the FCLM system "interact[s]" with other Amazon systems in unspecified ways, relevant FCLM data that no longer exists in the FCLM system itself might "still reside in other systems." -- Requests to admit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Feb. 22, 2024 P. 36 shall be served by: -- Depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. March 15, 2024 30, 31 shall be completed by: -- All fact discovery shall be completed March 29, 2024 no later than: -- All expert discovery shall be completed May 31, 2024 no later than: -- Plaintiffs shall file any motion for June 21, 2024 conditional collective or class certification by: -- The Defendant shall file its July 22, 2024 opposition by: -- The Plaintiffs shall file a reply, Aug. 5, 2024 if any, by: Amazon provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48y25dL at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Unredacted Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE, an individual, and BRANDON TOLE, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC; a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and AMAZON.COM.KYDC, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order sealing Unredacted Exhibits 2-9. The Plaintiffs do not believe that any documents should need to be filed Under Seal, and believe the Only material properly designated a "Confidential" is any personal and financial information regarding any of Amazon's current or former employees. In Plaintiffs' view, Amazon has stated no basis to support the "Confidential" designation regarding any of the documents produced or of the deposition testimony so designated. The Plaintiffs have met and conferred with all Amazon in an attempt to reach agreement on the need to file document under seal which Amazon has designated as "Confidential", to minimize the amount of material filed under seal, and to explore redaction and other alternatives to filing under seal. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48Ru7Ay at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW, APC 101 Parkshore Dr., Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 235-7140 E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com - and - Daniel Kalish, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 838-2504 E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com - and - Brian J. Lawler, Esq. PILOT LAW, P.C. 4632 Mt. Gaywas Dr. San Diego, CA 92117 Telephone: (619) 255-2398 E-mail: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com - and - Kevin L. Wilson, Esq. KEVIN WILSON LAW PLLC 3110 Horton Avenue Louisville, KY 40220 Telephone: (502) 276-5050 E-mail: kevin@kwilsonlaw.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Olner Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY OLNER, TERRY GAYLE QUINTON, SHAWN O'KEEFE, ANDREW AMEND, SUSAN BURDETTE, GIANNA VALDES, DAVID MOSKOWITZ, ZACHARY DRAPER, NATE THAYER, MICHAEL THOMAS REID, ALLIE STEWART, ANGELA CLARK, JOSEPH REALDINE, RICKY AMARO, ABIGAIL BAKER, JAMES ROBBINS IV, EMILY COUNTS, DEBBIE TINGLE, NANCI-TAYLOR MADDUX, SHERIE MCCAFFREY, MARILYN BAKER, WYATT COOPER, ELLEN MAHER, SARAH GRANT and GARY ACCORD on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00566-NGG-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order that: -- American Express's Daubert motion is denied. -- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motion is granted in part, with respect to Dr. Gaier's testimony about non-Qualifying Merchants and is otherwise denied. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the debit card classes for Alabama, D.C., Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah is granted. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the debit card classes for Hawaii, Montana, Vermont, and West Virginia is denied. In sum, the credit card classes fail to satisfy the predominance requirement. The potential non-rewards subclass does not satisfy the Rule 23(a) adequacy requirement. Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion to certify the credit card classes is denied. The debit card classes satisfy the predominance requirement. The Plaintiffs seek to certify classes under Rule 23(b)(3) for two statewide classes in each of eleven states and the District of Columbia for: "All card account holders, who are natural persons, and whose account billing address was in [State] during the applicable Class Period, and whose [payment card] account was used by an account holder or an authorized user for a purchase of a good or service from a Qualifying Merchant during the Class Period that occurred in same United States District Judge." American Express is an American bank holding company and multinational financial services corporation that specializes in payment cards. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O5CYH1 at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Febles Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- IZAIAH FEBLES; and NICHOLAS PERILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HEALTH REFORM SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a AMERICAN HEALTH MARKETPLACE, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00047 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as health insurance sales agents. AMERICAN HEALTH REFORM SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a AMERICAN HEALTH MARKETPLACE is engaged in the business of selling health insurance to consumers across Florida and the United States of America. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason L. Gunter, Esq. Conor P. Foley, Esq. GUNTERFIRM 2165 W. First St., #104 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: (239) 334-7017 Email: Jason@GunterFirm.com Conor@GunterFirm.com AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Lee Files Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americold Logistics LLC. The case is styled as Hakeem Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Americold Logistics LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05797-MLB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Americold Realty Trust, Inc. -- https://www.americold.com/ -- is an American temperature controlled warehousing and transportation company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 26 Grand Georgian Ct. Cartersville, GA 30121 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 610-5223 ANCESTRY.COM: Plaintiffs Seeks Leave 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 their supplemental motion for leave to file supplemental authority. The Plaintiffs noted that the supplemental authority cited, the December 14, 2023, order conditionally certifying a class in a similar case, Nolen v. PeopleConnect, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:20-cv09203-EMC (N.D. Cal.). was filed under seal. A public redacted version of that Order has now been filed. For the reasons stated in their prior motion for leave to file supplemental authority. Ancestry.com provides online family genealogy information and resources. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vCnlR3 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 AUTO ZONE: S.D. California Dismisses Hernandez Suit W/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John A. Houston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismisses, without prejudice, the lawsuit styled MARVIN HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTO ZONE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01324-JAH-MSB (S.D. Cal.). On Sept. 6, 2018, Plaintiff Marvin Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a first amended class action complaint under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") against Defendants Auto Zone, Inc., Autozoners, LLC, Autozone Parts, Inc., and Does 1-50 for wage and hour violations of the California Labor Code and unlawful business practices under the California Business and Professions Code. Specifically, the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges claims for (1) wage payment violations, (2) meal and rest period violations, (3) overtime violations, (4) wage statement violations, (5) waiting time penalties for failure to pay wages in a timely manner, and (6) unlawful business practices. On Sept. 20, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Matter Pending Arbitration or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, as well as a Request for Judicial Notice. On Jan. 4, 2019, the Court issued an Order Granting that Motion and Request. Specifically, after the Plaintiff failed to oppose the existence or merits of the two purported arbitration agreements, the Court found the agreements were "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable," and, therefore, binding on the parties. Additionally, the Court took Judicial Notice of a complaint filed in Alvarez v. Autozone, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-02471-VAP-SP. Upon review, the Court found that the Plaintiff's PAGA claim against the Defendants was substantially similar to claims raised in Alvarez, such that the Plaintiff's PAGA claim was severed and stayed pursuant to the first-to-file rule. Therefore, the Court ordered all proceedings in this case stayed pending the outcome of the parties' arbitration and the resolution of Alvarez. On May 14, 2021, the Court issued an Order requiring the parties to provide a status update of the case. The parties subsequently submitted a Joint Status Report on June 11, 2021, wherein they stated that the Plaintiff and the Defendants have agreed to stipulate to join all individual claims by the Plaintiff against the Defendants from this action and the subsequently filed state action into one proceeding and to then submit as a whole to arbitration. The parties will be filling a stipulation to this effect within the next 30 days. On Jan. 26, 2022, the parties filed a Stipulation to Submit Overlapping Matter to Arbitration and Continue Stay of Proceedings. On Jan. 27, 2022, the Court granted the Stipulation and ordered Plaintiff Marvin Hernandez to submit his individual claims in the Federal Action and the State Action to final and binding arbitration on an individual basis only, pursuant to the terms of the Agreements, in a single proceeding. The Court further ordered that the action will remain stayed pending the outcome of the individual arbitration proceedings. On Dec. 27, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to submit a joint status report regarding the status of arbitration proceedings within 45 days of its order. The Court further ordered that the parties will thereafter file a joint status report every 90 days. On Feb. 10, 2023, the parties filed a joint status report stating that the arbitration is scheduled for Aug. 22, 2023. On May 5, 2023, the parties filed another joint status report stating that the parties have agreed to mediate this matter on Sept. 13, 2023, and that the parties have stayed the arbitration pending mediation. No joint status report has been filed since May 5, 2023. On Dec. 20, 2023, the Court ordered the parties to show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed from failing to comply with the Court's Dec. 27, 2022 order requiring the parties to file a joint status report every 90 days. The parties were directed to respond to the order to show cause on or before Jan. 3, 2024. To date, Judge Houston says, no party has responded. Because the parties have failed to respond to the Court's Dec. 20, 2023 order, the Court finds dismissal of this action appropriate. In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order, the district court must weigh five factors including: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives, Judge Houston explains, citing Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). Judge Houston finds that the first factor, the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, always weighs in favor of dismissal. The second factor, the Court's need to manage its docket, similarly favors dismissal. This action has been stayed since January 2022. The parties' failure to provide the Court a written response to show cause hinders the Court's ability to control its own docket and, therefore, favors dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to the Defendants, neither weighs in favor nor against dismissal given that they are equally responsible for their failure to file a joint status report with the Plaintiff. While the fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition on the merits of an action, weighs against dismissal, Judge Houston holds. Here, the parties' failure to abide by the Court's order has impeded disposition on the merits. With respect to the fifth factor, the Court finds there are no less drastic alternatives to dismissal. Consideration of the five factors supports dismissal. Accordingly, Judge Houston dismisses the action without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 8, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3s7jmkpkfrom PacerMonitor.com. AUTOMATIC DATA: Unlicensed Personnel Sells Securities, Ylitalo Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DALE YLITALO and R4 CONSTRUCTION, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC., and AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENTS SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00055 (M.D. Fla., January 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 11 and Section 12(a)(2), 15(a)(1), 15(c)(1)(A), 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 29 U.S Code Section 1106, New Jersey Statutes Annotated (NJSA) 49:3-56(a) and 49:3-52(b), the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and Florida Statutes 517.311 and 517.12, and for gross negligence/negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The case arises from Defendant Automatic Data Processing's (ADP) sale of Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees Individual Retirement Accounts (SIMPLE IRAs) through ADP employees who are unlicensed and unregistered. The Defendants failed to properly train and supervise their unlicensed and unregistered personnel in selling securities. Moreover, the Defendants failed to disclose to consumers that their unlicensed and unregistered personnel are required to sell a certain number of SIMPLE IRAs or were otherwise provided incentives to sell SIMPLE IRAs, the funds for which are invested in American Century Investments' mutual funds as selected and sold at the time of sale of the SIMPLE IRAs. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, the Plaintiffs and the Class members were induced into purchasing SIMPLE IRAs and suffered damages, says the suit. R4 Construction, LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business located in Naples, Florida. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. is a software provider, with its principal place of business located in Roseland, New Jersey. American Century Investment Services, Inc. is an asset management company, with its principal place of business located in Kansas City, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert H. Goodman, Esq. Joseph Parrish, Esq. PARRISH & GOODMAN, PLLC 13031 McGregor Blvd., Ste. 8 Telephone: (813) 643-4529 E-mail: rgoodman@parrishgoodman.com jparrish@parrishgoodman.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com BACUS FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cota Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- MADELINE COTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BACUS FOODS CORP.; BRANDT BACUS; and JARED BACUS, Case No. 4:24-cv-00032-MSA (D. Ariz., Jan. 17, 2024) 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 Cota was employed by the Defendants as a driver. BACUS FOODS CORP. is a pharmaceutical manufacturing, grocery retail, and retail company_reader located in Mesa, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Kimble, Esq BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (614) 340-4620 Email: akimble@billerkimble.com BIG STAR: Seeks Deadline Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURICE ROGERS, GREGORY STAPLETON & GARVEY HUNT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BIG STAR TRANSIT, LLC, LATANYA BIGGERS, LARRY C. BIGGERS, LARRY BIGGERS, JR., Case No. 3:20-cv-03566-M (N.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order: (a) Granting the Plaintiffs' assented-to motion to extend deadline for filing motion for class certification; (b) Extending the January 12, 2024, deadline for moving for class certification for an additional 45 days, or until Monday, Feb. 26, 2024; and (c) Granting any such further relief as deemed just and proper. The case is an action for independent contractor misclassification and related minimum wage and overtime claims brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The First Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages suffered as a result of Defendants' misclassification of them as independent contractors, including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime. On Sept. 11, 2023, the Court entered an Order requiring a scheduling conference and for the Parties to submit the proposed contents of a scheduling order. On Oct. 2, 2023, the Parties submitted a Joint Status Report and Proposed Scheduling Contents, which proposed that Plaintiffs move for class certification on or before Jan. 12, 2024. On Oct. 18, 2023, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, requiring Plaintiffs to move for class certification on or before Jan. 12, 2024. Big Star is a family owned non emergency medical transportation company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U5kjPq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katherine Serrano, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com jay@foresterhaynie.com - and - Adam J. Shafran, Esq. Eric J. Walz, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com ewalz@rflawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: John B. Brown, Esq. Matthew P. Gizzo, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART P.C. 8117 Preston Road, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75225 Telephone: 987-3800 ext. 226 Facsimile: (214) 987-3927 E-mail: john.brown@ogletreedeakins.com matthew.gizo@ogletree.com BP ENERGY: Parties Seek to Hold in Abeyance Class Cert Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ Mehl, Edmund Gross, Trudy Boyer, Steve Anderson, and Gregory Steadman, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. BP Energy Company, Southwest Energy L.P., Macquarie Energy LLC, ETC Marketing, Ltd., Tenaska Marketing Ventures, and Rockpoint Gas Storage, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-01192-DDC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Parties jointly stipulate and agree, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows: 1. The Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be held in abeyance pending further order of the Court. 2. This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and together will constitute one document. An electronic signature on this Stipulation will be considered an original signature. BP Energy explores and produces petroleum products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48VH5x9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay F. Fowler, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Pkwy., Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Telephone: (316) 291-9541 Facsimile: (316) 267-6345 E-mail: jfowler@foulston.com The Defendants are represented by: Alan R. Pfaff, Esq. WALLACE SAUNDERS 200 West Douglas, Suite 400 Wichita, KS 67202 Telephone: (316) 219-8308 Facsimile: (316) 316-269-2479 E-mail: apfaff@wallacesaunders.com - and - Richard C. Pepperman II, Esq. Amanda F. Davidoff, Esq. Michael P. Devlin, Esq. Jordan L. Gary, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com davidoffa@sullcrom.com devlinm@sullcrom.com garyj@sullcrom.com - and - Brian L. White, Esq. Casey L. Jones, Esq. HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC 1617 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 400 Wichita, KS 67206 Telephone: (316) 660-6200 Facsimile: (316) 660-6024 E-mail: bwhite@hinklaw.com cjones@hinklaw.com - and - Andrew Zeve, Esq. Kyle Alden Mason, Esq. Sean Gorman, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 609 Main Street, Suite 2900 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 496-9700 Facsimile: (713) 496-9701 E-mail: andrew.zeve@whitecase.com kyle.mason@whitecase.com sean.gorman@whitecase.com - and - William R. H. Merrill, Esq. Beatrice C. Franklin, Esq. Alexandra Foulkes Grafton, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 615-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 E-mail: bmerrill@susmangodfrey.com bfranklin@susmangodfrey.com afoulkesgrafton@susmangodfrey.com - and - Stephen R. McAllister, Esq. Megan M. Carroll, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 4520 Main Street Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64111-7700 Telephone: (816) 460-2400 Facsimile: (816) 531-7545 E-mail: stephen.mcallister@dentons.com megan.carroll@dentons.com Chantale Fiebig, Esq. Claire L. Chapla, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 2001 M Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C., 20036 Telephone: (202) 682-7000 E-mail: Chantale.Fiebig@weil.com Claire.Chapla@weil.com - and - David E. Bengtson, Esq. Logan T. Fancher, Esq. STINSON LLP 1625 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 300 Wichita, KS 67206 Telephone: (316) 268-7943 Facsimile: (316) 268-9798 E-mail: david.bengtson@stinson.com logan.fancher@stinson.com - and - Jeffrey D. Morris, Esq. BERKOWITZ OLIVER, LLP - KCMO 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (913) 649-7007 Facsimile: (816)561-1888 E-mail: jmorris@berkowitzoliver.com - and - Stephen Crain, Esq. Bradley J. Benoit, Esq. BRACEWELL LLP 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 223-2300 Facsimile: (800) 404-3970 E-mail: stephen.crain@bracewell.com brad.benoit@bracewell.com - and - Amy D. Fitts, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 218-1255 Facsimile: (816) 753-1536 E-mail: afitts@polsinelli.com - and - Robert J. Malionek, Esq. Johanna Spellman, Esq. Nathan M. Saper, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1816 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 E-mail: robert.malionek@lw.com johanna.spellman@lw.com nathan.saper@lw.com BP ENERGY: Response to Stoneberger Class Cert Bid Held in Abeyance ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PJ Stoneberger, Ralph Stoneberger, Robin Gudde, Wendy Dunkin, and Regeana Shelton, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. BP Energy Company, CIMA Energy, Ltd., Macquarie Energy LLC, and Southwest Energy L.P., Case No. 6:23-cv-01195-DDC-ADM (D. Kan), the Parties jointly stipulate and agree, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows: 1. The Defendants' deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be held in abeyance pending further order of the Court. 2. This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and together will constitute one document. An electronic signature on this Stipulation will be considered an original signature. BP Energy explores and produces petroleum products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41XLsFC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay F. Fowler, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Pkwy., Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Telephone: (316) 291-9541 Facsimile: (316) 267-6345 E-mail: jfowler@foulston.com The Defendants are represented by: Alan R. Pfaff, Esq. WALLACE SAUNDERS 200 West Douglas, Suite 400 Wichita, KS 67202 Telephone: (316) 219-8308 Facsimile: (316) 316-269-2479 E-mail: apfaff@wallacesaunders.com - and - Richard C. Pepperman II, Esq. Amanda F. Davidoff, Esq. Michael P. Devlin, Esq. Jordan L. Gary, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Facsimile: (212) 558-3588 E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com davidoffa@sullcrom.com devlinm@sullcrom.com garyj@sullcrom.com - and - Matthew D. Moderson, Esq. STINSON LLP 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 691-2736 Facsimile: (816) 412-8123 E-mail: matt.moderson@stinson.com - and - Louis Layrisson, Esq. Liam O'Rourke, Esq. Michael Yuffee, Esq. BAKER BOTTS 910 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 229-1421 Facsimile: (713) 229-7721 E-mail: louie.layrisson@bakerbotts.com liam.orourke@bakerbotts.com michael.yuffee@bakerbotts.com - and - William R. H. Merrill, Esq. Beatrice C. Franklin, Esq. Alexandra Foulkes Grafton, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 615-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 E-mail: bmerrill@susmangodfrey.com bfranklin@susmangodfrey.com afoulkesgrafton@susmangodfrey.com - and - Stephen R. McAllister, Esq. Megan M. Carroll, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 4520 Main Street Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64111-7700 Telephone: (816) 460-2400 Facsimile: (816) 531-7545 E-mail: stephen.mcallister@dentons.com megan.carroll@dentons.com - and - Brian L. White, Esq. Casey L. Jones, Esq. HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC 1617 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 400 Wichita, KS 67206 Telephone: (316) 660-6200 Facsimile: (316) 660-6024 E-mail: bwhite@hinklaw.com cjones@hinklaw.com - and - Andrew Zeve, Esq. Kyle Alden Mason, Esq. Sean Gorman, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 609 Main Street, Suite 2900 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 496-9700 Facsimile: (713) 496-9701 E-mail: andrew.zeve@whitecase.com kyle.mason@whitecase.com sean.gorman@whitecase.com BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Class Cert Discovery in Martin Due May 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE E. MARTIN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, v. BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02923-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams entered a sixth amended case management plan and scheduling order: -- Requests to Admit shall be served April 8, 2024 no later than: -- All expert discovery, including May 6, 2024. disclosures, reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions shall be completed by: -- The parties will serve affirmative Feb. 29, 2024 expert reports on: -- The parties will serve rebuttal April 15, 2024 reports on: -- All discovery shall be completed May 6, 2024 no later than: Brighthouse offers income and fixed annuities, retirement, and health care products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ho9dxg at no extra charge.[CC] CANADA DRY: Court OK's Stipulation Related to Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HECTOR ESCALET, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CANADA DRY POTOMAC CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-00329-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered an order granting the Parties' following stipulation governing Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification, Rule 23 class certification, and related notices to putative FLSA collective and Rule 23 class members. -- FLSA Off-the-Clock Collective "All current and former day-rate Merchandisers, regardless of job title, employed by Canada Dry Potomac Corporation at its Richmond, VA, Springfield, VA, and/or Landover, MD facilities at any time during the period July 24, 2020 through the date of final judgment in this matter." -- Virginia Off-the-Clock Collective "All current and former day-rate Merchandisers, regardless of job title, employed by Canada Dry Potomac Corporation at its Richmond, VA and/or Springfield, VA facilities at any time during the period July 24, 2020 through the date of final judgment in this matter." -- VOWA Miscalculated Overtime Class "All current and former non-exempt, day-rate employees, regardless of actual title, who worked for Defendant within the Commonwealth of Virginia between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022 and, during that time, were paid overtime premiums at a rate less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, calculated as one-fortieth (1/40th) of all wages paid for the workweek." On Oct. 6, 2023, the Plaintiff shall file his Consent Motion To Certify Rule 23 Class to allow the Court to analyze the Rule 23 requirements and conclude Plaintiff meets the standard for class certification of his VOWA Miscalculated Overtime Claim Canada Dry manufactures soft drinks and carbonated waters. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tSTN0O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tracey F. George, Esq. DAVIS GEORGE LLC 1600 Genessee St., Suite 328 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 569-2629 ext. 2 Facsimile: (816) 447-3939 E-mail: tracey@dgmlawyers.com - and - Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 E-mail: rowdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3679 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Anthony B. Haller, Esq. Frederick G. Sandstrom, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-5500 E-mail: anthony.haller@blankrome.com gus.sandstrom@blankrome.com CAPITAL INSPECTORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ballard Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MITCHELL BALLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL INSPECTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 245TCVQ1135 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Ballard was employed by the Defendant as an inspector. CAPITAL INSPECTORS LLC is an inspection company that provides failure analysis, welding, coating inspection, and assessment services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: cfitz@mybackwages.com whogg@mybackwages.com CARRIAGE HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Bids Extended to March 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Niemczynski v. Carriage Healthcare Companies Inc., et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-00127 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Stephen C. Dries entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time until March 15, 2024 to file their respective motions for class certification and decertification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Carriage Healthcare is a management provider for post-acute and senior care facilities.[CC] CARTER EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bond Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ RAYMOND BOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARTER EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00013-WHR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 15, 2024) 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 Bond was employed by the Defendant as a driver. CARTER EXPRESS INC. operates as a provider of trucking services. The Company provides truckload and logistics solutions to various markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com CASPER SLEEP: Court Extends Time to Complete Discovery ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lematta v. Casper Sleep, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02744 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 19, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order granting motion for extension of time to complete discovery and class certification briefing. The nature of suit states securities violation. Casper Sleep is an e-commerce company that sells sleep products online and in retail locations.[CC] CASPER SLEEP: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Case Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lematta v. Casper Sleep, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02744-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending time to the case schedule. The Parties request that the upcoming deadlines for fact discovery, class certification, and expert discovery be adjusted as described in the parties' Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order on Scheduling, attached hereto, to accommodate scheduling challenges. Casper Sleep is an e-commerce company that sells sleep products online and in retail locations. A copy of the Parties motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HlCqsH at no extra charge.[CC] The Parties are represented by: Jenny Lee, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 390-4623 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 E-mail: jenny.lee@kirkland.com CELEB LUXURY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Garcia Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ PAUL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELEB LUXURY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-000584 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Jan. 15, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls. CELEB LUXURY, LLC offers salon professional semi-permanent color depositing shampoos and conditioners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com CELESTRON ACQUISITION: DPPs Seek to Strike Class Cert Denial Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spectrum Scientifics, LLC et al v. CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-03642-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) file an administrative motion to strike and/or deny without prejudice Defendants' motion to deny class certification. The only authority Defendants have cited undermines their argument. First, in Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., the Ninth Circuit specifically noted the absence of a scheduling order setting a class certification motion deadline: the district court's "scheduling order neither provide[d] Plaintiffs an exclusive right nor a specifically designated period of time to address the issue of class certification[.]" This is the opposite of the facts here, where Defendants requested and the Court ordered a deadline to address "the issue of class certification." Instead of following the Court's directive, Defendants refused to provide dates for any of their witnesses and then filed a "motion to deny class certification" on January 2, 2024, in the middle of the parties' efforts to meet and confer regarding a briefing schedule. Celestron manufactures life science equipment. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S2YMEa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Noah Hagey, Esq. Matthew Borden, Esq. Ellen V. Leonida, Esq. Ronald J. Fisher, Esq. Andrew Levine, Esq. Ellis E. Herington, Esq. Yekaterina Kushnir, Esq. Garrett Biedermann, Esq. Eric Schlabs, Esq. BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP 351 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 599-0210 Facsimile: (415) 276-1808 E-mail: hagey@braunhagey.com borden@braunhagey.com leonida@braunhagey.com fisher@braunhagey.com levine@braunhagey.com herington@braunhagey.com kushnir@braunhagey.com biedermann@braunhagey.com schlabs@braunhagey.com CHURCH MUTUAL: Parties Seek Approval of Class Notice in GCC ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENERATION CHANGERS CHURCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00764 (M.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion for approval of agreed proposed class notice and for approval of Rust Consulting as the Notice Administrator: 1. The Parties have conferred regarding the appropriate form and method of class notice to be delivered to the class certified by the Court. 2. The Parties have also conferred and agree that Rust should serve as the notice and opt-out administrator. 3. The Parties agree and jointly propose that the Notice will be provided to the Class via U.S. Mail. 4. In addition, the Parties have agreed that there should be a neutral website monitored by the Administrator that contains language from the Notice as approved by the Court. 5. If members of the Class have questions, the contact information for Class Counsel will be included in the Notice. 6. The Notice will also include an "Exclusion Request Form," which will provide members of the Class an opportunity to exclude themselves from the case by completing the form and returning it to the Administrator via mail or e-mail within ninety days of the Administrator's mailing of the Notice. 7. Since the Court's Order granting certification of the Class, Defendant has reviewed its internal records and worked with its vendor, Xactware, to update its claims data for Arizona, California, Illinois, and Tennessee to identify potential members of the Class. Through this effort, the Defendant has represented to Plaintiff, and now represents to the Court, that it has identified 1,122 potential claims that may fall within the definition of the Class. The list was provided to Class Counsel on December 22, 2023, identifying potential members of the Class by name, address, and claim number. The Parties propose that the Notice be delivered to the policyholders associated with each of the 1,122 claims identified by Defendant. Church Mutual offers property, liability, workers compensation, and auto insurance services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U4fSEm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Brandon McWherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: brandon@msb.law - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC 110 W. Vine Street, Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law - and - T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW LLC 100 S. Fifth Street, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 448-2600 E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel J. Ripper, Esq. LUTHER-ANDERSON, PLLP Chattanooga, TN 37401-0151 Telephone: (423) 756-5034 E-mail: dan@lutheranderson.com - and - George T. Lewis, Esq. Ryan A. Strain, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. 165 Madison Ave., Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 E-mail: blewis@bakerdonelson.com rstrain@bakerdonelson.com CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Court Names Class Counsel in Chappell Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Ted Stewart of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for appointment of interim class counsel and interim liaison counsel in the lawsuit captioned DANIEL CHAPPELL, MASEN CHRISTENSEN, and JOHN OAKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS and ENSIGN PEAK ADVISORS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00794-TS-DBP (D. Utah). The matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel and Interim Liaison Counsel filed on Dec. 19, 2023. The Plaintiffs seek the appointment of Seeger Weiss LLP and Kitner Woodward PLLC as interim class counsel and James Magleby and Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood, PC, as interim liaison counsel. Based on review of the Motion and the attached exhibits and affidavit, the Court finds that the proposed class counsel satisfies the four factors under Rule 23(g)(1)(A) and will fairly and adequately represent the putative class. The Court also finds the appointment of James Magleby and Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood as interim liaison counsel is appropriate. Therefore, the Court grants the Motion and appoints Seeger Weiss LLP and Kitner Woodward PLLC as interim class counsel and Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood PC as interim liaison counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated Jan. 8, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yncb6a6pfrom PacerMonitor.com. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Weiss, et al., Appointed as Class Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL CHAPPELL, MASEN CHRISTENSEN, and JOHN OAKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS and ENSIGN PEAK ADVISORS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00794-TS-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Ted Stewart entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for Appointment of interim class Counsel and interim liaison Counsel. -- The Plaintiffs seek the appointment of Seeger Weiss LLP and Kitner Woodward PLLC as interim class counsel and James Magleby and Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood, PC as interim liaison counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41Z1zD5 at no extra charge.[CC] CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Davis Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clients on Demand, LLC. The case is styled as Kendrick Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Clients on Demand, LLC, Russell Ruffino, individually and as an officer of Clients on Demand, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-10541-JLS-SSC (C.D. Cal., Dec. 15, 2023). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of Contract. Clients on Demand -- https://www.clientsondemand.com/ -- is a sales and marketing education and training company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber Weekes, Esq. Alexander Cyclone Covey, Esq. Kevin Michael Kneupper, Esq. KNEUPPER AND COVEY PC 17011 Beach Boulevard Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Phone: (215) 999-9767 Email: lorraine@kneuppercovey.com cyclone@kneuppercovey.com kevin@kneuppercovey.com COCA-COLA CO: Reynolds' Bid to Compel Document Production Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled GARY REYNOLDS, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01446-VC (RMI) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Eureka Division, denies the Plaintiff's request to compel production of documents at issue. Pending before the Court is a discovery dispute in a putative class action case where the Plaintiff contends that the labeling for Minute Maid juice boxes and drinks misleadingly claims that those products are "part of a healthy diet" when scientific evidence indicates that consuming such beverages increases the risk of various diseases due to their sugar content. At issue is the Plaintiff's request to compel the production of all documents (spanning the ten-year period prior to the filing of this action) concerning the effects on the human body of consuming juices (containing free sugars) and whole fruits. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. The hearing on this matter, which was scheduled for Jan. 9, 2024, is vacated. On Oct. 25, 2023, Judge Vince Chhabria granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss in part. The Court held that the statement, "Good for You" (appearing on the label as part of the statement, "Minute Maid Juice Boxes are Good for You!"), is an allowed implied nutrient content claim, and thus, state law challenges to it are preempted by federal regulation. The Court added that the same analysis may well apply to the "Part of a Healthy Balanced Diet" statement, but noted that a different regulatory provision governs implied nutrient content claims that make explicit reference to health. Under that provision, the Court explained, companies may use claims of healthiness (or related claims) as an implied nutrient claim in labeling their products only if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions, is that, if the item has been fortified with vitamin C to reach a quantity of ten percent of the daily recommended amount, then the addition must comply with the fortification policy in the regulations. Because the complaint alleges that the juice boxes labeling violates the referenced fortification policy, and because the Defendant did not affirmatively prove its exemption from, or compliance with, said policy at the pleadings stage, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff's challenge to the statement, "Part of a Healthy Balanced Diet," has stated a claim. However, because the Court noted that the same preemption analysis may well apply to the "Part of a Healthy Balanced Diet Statement," the Parties were instructed to be prepared to discuss (at an upcoming case management conference) whether discovery should be initially limited to the fortification issue. In the end, the Parties agreed, and the Court so ordered, that discovery in the first instance should focus on Coca-Cola's exemption from, or compliance with, the fortification policy. As mentioned, the Plaintiff seeks to compel all documents for a ten-year period, preceding the filing of the complaint in this case, concerning the effects on the human body of consuming juices containing free sugars, and concerning the effects on the human body of consuming whole fruits. In response to the Defendant's assertions that the request is outside the scope of initial discovery -- as circumscribed by the Court -- the Plaintiff suggests that the purpose of the FDA's fortification policy is to promote a desirable level of nutritional quality in the nation's food supply while preventing the indiscriminate addition of nutrients to foods that could create nutrient imbalances. Rather than attempting to tether its discovery request (i.e., the effects of sugar on health, and the effects of eating whole fruits) to Defendant's reported reliance on Section 104.20(b)-(b)(1), the Plaintiff ventures to shift the premise of the debate in an effort to focus, instead, on the policy underlying fortification in general. Thus, the Plaintiff concludes, documents concerning the health effects of consuming juice bear directly on whether the Products are an appropriate vehicle for vitamin C fortification. Judge Illman finds the Plaintiff's arguments unpersuasive. First, the Plaintiff's conclusory assumption that Minute Maid Products fall with the category of snack foods is unsubstantiated. The Plaintiff has not presented any basis on which one could conclude as such -- neither has any indication to that effect been identified, nor has any citation to any FDA regulation been made. Second, Judge Illman opines, as to the Plaintiff's conclusory assertion that sugar content alone renders the products at issue unsuitable vehicles for vitamin C fortification under FDA policy -- as the Defendant notes, the Plaintiff cites no rule, guidance, or caselaw to support the claim that a product's natural sugar content, without more, would render it "unsuitable" under these rules, citing Gumner v. Pepsico, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231587, *7 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2023). Unlike Gummer (where an argument could be made that Gatorade Fit was not a suitable vehicle for vitamin fortification under 21 C.F.R. Section 104.20(b)(1) because the target population group, athletes, had not been identified with any vitamin A or C deficiency), Judge Illman finds that the Plaintiff here has not made any such logical connection to indicate that fruit juice cannot act as an appropriate "vehicle," merely because of its natural sugar content. For these reasons, the Court agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff's discovery request falls outside of the currently-circumscribed scope of phase-1 discovery because it is based on the unfounded assumption that a beverage cannot be fortified with vitamin C under the relevant regulatory scheme simply because it contains sugar. Indeed, Judge Illman says, this is why the Plaintiff's effort to compel the discovery he prematurely seeks had to rely on the untenable argument that if the goal of the fortification policy is to promote a desirable level of nutritional quality in the nation's food supply, and because sugar consumption is inconsistent with that goal, therefore, the products at issue must be unsuitable vehicles for fortification and discovery into the effects of sugar consumption and whole fruit consumption would prove that. The Plaintiff's logic is based on faulty assumptions, Judge Illman points out. For these reasons, as well as for the other reasons articulated by the Defendant, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion to compel because it seeks materials that are outside the scope of phase-1 discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 8, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/4dj44kwffrom PacerMonitor.com. COLOR FACTORY: Faces Charles Suit Over Ticketing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------- ZHARIA CHARLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLOR FACTORY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00322 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024) seeks relief an action individually, and on behalf of all other ticket purchasers for Defendant's place of entertainment, Color Factory NYC, for actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' costs and fees, and injunctive relief under the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. According to the complaint, for over a year, the Defendant has been nickel and diming visitors of its Color Factory NYC museum on its website in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. Whenever a consumer selects an admission ticket on the website https://www.colorfactory.co/, she is quoted a fee-less price, only to be ambushed by a non-delineated "fee" -- masked under the ambiguous category "taxes & fees" -- at checkout after clicking through the various screens required to make a purchase. To make matters worse, an 8 minute clock for the consumer to complete the transaction begins ticking down on the final checkout page. Because New York is a busy place, and because these "taxes & fees" are only flashed after a museum-goer selects her ticket, the Defendant can plausibly put its consumers on a shot clock and tell them they need to act quick, because the Defendant cannot hold their admission time slot open forever. This cheap trick has enabled Defendant to swindle substantial sums of money from its customers, says the suit. COLOR FACTORY, LLC owns and controls Color Factory which is a collaborative interactive exhibit that debuted in San Francisco in 2017, New York in 2018, and Houston in 2019. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com CONCHO RESOURCES: Court Dismisses Marx Class Suit With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico dismisses with prejudice the lawsuit captioned STEPHEN MARX, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CONCHO RESOURCES, INC., and CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Defendants, and RUSCO OPERATING, LLC, and ALLY CONSULTING, LLC, Intervening Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00390-KG-DLM (D.N.M.). The parties in this Collective Action (29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)) and Class Action (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) filed with the Court a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. Pursuant to the Parties' Joint Stipulation and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), the Court rules that the Action is dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 8, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/4dvw77w5from PacerMonitor.com. Michael A. Josephson -- mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Andrew Dunlap -- adunlap@mybackwages.com -- Carl A. Fitz -- cfitz@mybackwages.com -- JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP, in Houston, Texas 77046; and Richard J. (Rex) Burch -- rburch@brucknerburch.com -- BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC, in Houston, Texas 77046, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Kimberly Cheeseman -- Kimberly.cheeseman@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Andrew Yeh -- Andrew.yeh@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, in Houston, Texas 77010-3095; and Richard E. Olson -- rolson@hinklelawfirm.com -- HINKLE SHANOR LLP, in Roswell, New Mexico 88202-0010, Attorneys for Defendants Concho Resources, Inc. and ConocoPhillips Company. Charles M. Rosson -- crosson@gibbsbruns.com -- Michael Davis -- mdavis@gibbsbruns.com -- in Houston, Texas 77002; and Louis W. Horowitz -- lhorowitz@lorberlaw.com -- LORBER GREENFIELD & POLITO, LLP, in Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, Attorneys for Intervenors RUSCO Operating, LLC and Ally Consulting, LLC. CREOLE HOUSE: Johnson Must File Class Cert Bid by March 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Miss Toyas Creole House LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02821 (D. Md., Filed Oct. 18, 2023), the Hon. Judge George Levi Russell, III entered an order directing the Plaintiffs to file a motion regarding class certification on or before March 30, 2024. -- The case shall also be referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for a mediation to take place on a date agreed upon by the parties. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Miss Toya's offers authentic Creole food in Maryland.[CC] DEFENSE INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cook Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY COOK, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEFENSE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; CHAZ MCKINNEY; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCVQ1060 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Cook was employed by the Defendants as a security guard. Defense International Corp is a multi-faceted organization that accommodates protective services to suit commercial, residential, celebrity & executive needs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arin Norijanian, Esq. James H. Demerjian, Esq. ARIN|JAMES LLP 100 North Brand Blvd., Suite 620 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 476-0133 Facsimile: (818) 230-5243 Email: arin@arinjames.com james@arinjames.com ECUASUR WIRELESS: Class Certification Bids in Calix Due July 22 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Calix, et al., v. Ecuasur Wireless Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-12140 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered a pretrial schedule order as follows: -- Initial disclosures required by March 26, 2024 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) will be completed by: -- If there is disagreement as to the July 5, 2024 delineation of the plaintiff class, class discovery will be completed by: -- Class certification motions will be July 22, 2024 filed by: with any opposition by: Aug. 5, 2024 If there is no disagreement as to delineation of the class (which typically the class parameters are clear in wage cases), all fact discovery will be completed by Aug. 5, 24. If class discovery and certification is necessary, all fact discovery will be completed by Dec. 26, 2024. Either way, any dispositive motion, if appropriate, will be filed thirty days after the close of fact discovery, opposition due 21 days thereafter, reply only with leave of court. If plaintiffs intend to employ an expert, they will notify the court thirty days before the end of fact discovery in order for the court to determine whether the expert is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 703 and to reset the pretrial schedule. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC] ELEVANCE HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 26 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVAN ALVARADO and GLADYS E. BOCCONGELLA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES, INC., an Indiana corporation; ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., an Indiana corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-09433-JLS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an amended scheduling order as follows: order -- Last Day to File Motion for Class Aug. 16, 2024 Certification: -- Last Day to File Opposition to Sept. 27, 2024 Motion for Class Certification: -- Last Day to File Reply in Support Oct. 25, 2024 of Motion for Class Certification: -- Fact Discovery Cutoff: April 18, 2025 -- Last Day to File Motions May 2, 2025 (Excluding Daubert Motions and all other Motions in Limine): -- Last Day to Serve Initial Expert May 2, 2025 Reports: -- Last Day to Serve Rebuttal Expert May 30, 2025 Reports: -- Last Day to Conduct Settlement June 20, 2025 Proceedings: -- Expert Discovery Cutoff: June 27, 2025 -- Last Day to File Daubert Motions: July 11, 2025 -- Last Day to File Motions in Limine: Aug. 22, 2025 -- Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 19, 2025 Elevance is an American health insurance provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tThNRp at no extra charge.[CC] FCTI INC: Court Reopens Class Cert Discovery in Polvay ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jerome Polvay, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FCTI, Inc., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-04315-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered an order reopening discovery regarding damages and class notice. In light of the Court's order on April 28, 2023, granting class certification in this matter, the court hereby orders that the discovery is reopened for purposes of acquiring the names and contact information for the class members at each of the ten banks identified in the Court's class certification order that were charged two balance inquiry fees during a single ATM visit to an FCTI ATM during the relevant time-period. Discovery is permitted from the ten banks on the instances each customer was charged two balance inquiry fees during a single ATM visit to an FCTI ATM and the amount of fees assessed to the customer by the banks for each such visit. FCTI provides ATM network and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47BYWIg at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST NATIONAL: Court Tosses Bid to Decertify Class in Brasko ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD BRASKO, et al., v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 1:20-cv-03489-SAG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to decertify the class except that the class will be redefined. -- The remaining portion of the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. A separate order follows, which directs the parties to meet and confer regarding an opt-out notice to be issued to the remaining class members. The Defendant seeks summary judgment on 93 class members whose title services fees do not exceed the 80th percentile threshold on the 2013 Chart, and two class members whose loans closed in states for which the 2013 Chart does not specify an 80th percentile threshold. The Plaintiffs represent a class of borrowers who had residential mortgage loans serviced by First Mariner Bank. They sued First Mariner's successor entity, First National Bank of Pennsylvania, seeking damages relating to kickbacks that First Mariner employees allegedly received from a title company in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The Plaintiffs received certification of the following class of individuals, with two subclasses: "All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a mortgage loan obtained from First Mariner Bank for which All Star Title, Inc. provided a settlement service, as identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1 or Closing Disclosure, between January 1, 2012 and January 31, 2016." Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period of January 1, 2012 through January 31, 2016, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of First Mariner Bank, Howard Bank, or All Star Title, Inc. The first subclass, the RICO subclass, "is comprised of all members of the class." The second subclass, the RESPA subclass, "is comprised of all members of the First Mariner Class who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan between January 1, 2012 and January 31, 2016." First National provides a full range of commercial banking, consumer banking and wealth management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vIx7kk at no extra charge.[CC] FLANIGAN'S MANAGEMENT: Valle Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Servers ---------------------------------------------------------------- APRIL VALLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLANIGAN'S MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. and FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, Case No. CACE-24-000628 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., January 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 24. Ms. Valle has been employed by the Defendants since approximately October 2012 as a server at their restaurant at Flanigan's Seafood Bar and Grill, located at 2500 E. Atlantic Blvd, Pompano Beach, Florida. Flanigan's Management Services, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sam J. Smith, Esq. Loren B. Donnell, Esq. BURR & SMITH, LLP 9800 4th Street North, Suite 200 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Telephone: (813) 253-2010 E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com ldonnell@burrandsmith.com - and - Samara Robbins Bober, Esq. BOBER & BOBER, P.A. 2699 Stirling Road, Suite A-304 Hollywood, FL 33312 Telephone: (954) 922-2298 E-mail: samara@boberlaw.com FORD MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid Hearing in Weidman Set for April 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL WEIDMAN, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-12719-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered a fifth amended scheduling order as follows: Proposed Order of Facilitation due: Jan. 16, 2024 (The proposed order must identify the facilitator and the date set for facilitation). Plaintiffs' Class Certification Brief due: Feb. 1, 2024 Defendant's Response to Class Mar. 1, 2024 Certification Brief due: Plaintiff's Reply in support of Class Mar. 15, 2024 Certification due: Hearing on Class Certification: Apr. 11, 2024 Status Conference: May 7, 2024 Motions in Limine due: Aug. 1, 2024 Final Pretrial Order due: Aug. 13, 2024 Final Pretrial Conference: Aug. 20, 2024 Jury Trial: Sept. 3, 2024 Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47AMPvb at no extra charge.[CC] GENESCO INC: Thompson TCPA Suit Remanded to St. Louis Cir. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled DENNIS THOMPSON, Plaintiff v. GENESCO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00292-SRC (E.D. Mo.), Chief District Judge Stephen R. Clark of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, remands the case to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, for further proceedings. Plaintiff Dennis Thompson sued Genesco, Inc., in Missouri state court, alleging that Genesco unlawfully and repeatedly sent him unwanted marketing text messages in violation of the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and its accompanying regulations. After Genesco removed the case to this Court, the Court questioned whether Thompson properly has standing to maintain his lawsuit in federal court under Article III of the Federal Constitution. Accordingly, the Court, sua sponte, ordered supplemental briefing to address the matter. Having reviewed the parties' arguments, the Court holds that Thompson lacks Article III standing to bring his claim and remands the case to state court. Mr. Thompson alleges that for years, Genesco has sent "numerous" and "annoying" text messages to his cell phone advertising the sale of its products. He insists, however, that he never gave Genesco consent to send him text messages, and that at all relevant times, his cell phone number was registered with the Federal "Do Not Call Registry" and the Missouri state "No-Call List." Seeking to put an end to his repeated receipt of those messages, Thompson sued under the TCPA, alleging violations of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d), one of the TCPA's implementing regulations. In particular, he alleges that Genesco failed to have a written policy, available upon demand, for maintaining an internal company "do not call" list; to train and inform its relevant personnel regarding such a list; to maintain a list of persons who request not to be called; and to keep notice of the federal "do not call" database. Those failures, Thompson claims, legally bar Genesco from sending advertising text messages under Section 64.1200(d). For his troubles, Thompson seeks relief, including damages of at least $500 per offending text message. After the parties filed amended pleadings, Genesco moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But before addressing that motion or adjudicating any part of the dispute, the Court sua sponte ordered the parties to brief a narrow question: whether Thompson had Article III standing to bring his claim under Section 64.1200(d). Both parties filed briefs arguing that Thompson satisfied Article III standing requirements. Judge Clark notes that the TCPA performs two functions relevant to this case: it authorizes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promulgate certain regulations enforcing the statute's provisions, and it provides a private right of action for individuals, who receive unwanted messages in violation of those regulations. Mr. Thompson alleges no more than one count of Genesco's wrongdoing: that it failed to meet those "minimum standards" required by Section 64.1200(d), and that it was, therefore, barred from sending telemarketing messages of any kind. According to Judge Clark, the jurisdictional question raised by the Court is whether Thompson has Article III standing to bring that claim. Of the three required elements--injury, traceability, and redressability--the Court can readily dispense with the last: Thompson seeks, in part, statutory damages; the TCPA allows for $500 in damages for each violation, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5)(B), thus, providing redressability. But the smooth sailing ends there. Whether the receipt of unwanted text messages constitutes a cognizable injury under the TCPA is a question the Eighth Circuit has not yet addressed, Judge Clark says. And to the extent that Thompson seeks injunctive relief, the redressability analysis becomes "identical" to the traceability analysis. Critically, that second prong of constitutional standing--traceability--simply poses an insurmountable obstacle to Thompson's Section 64.1200(d) claim, Judge Clark points out. At issue here is whether Thompson's alleged injury--the intangible harm caused by the receipt of unwanted marketing text messages--satisfies the requirements of constitutional standing. The court in Drazen v. Pinto, 74 F.4th 1336, 1343–45 (11th Cir. 2023) noted that the undesired buzzing of a cell phone from a text message constitutes an intrusion into peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal. Accordingly, the court concluded that because of this close relationship between a common-law tort and the statutory harm enshrined in the TCPA, the unwanted receipt of marketing text messages satisfied the injury requirement of Article III standing. The Court agrees. Both the TCPA and the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion address the same kind of harm: the disruption of one's peace and privacy. Accordingly, so long as sufficiently pleaded, the receipt of unwanted marketing text messages can constitute a concrete and particularized injury. Here, Thompson alleges that he received "numerous, annoying" text messages that caused his cell phone to make noise and vibrate and thereby, intruded on his peace, privacy, and seclusion. For injury-in-fact within Article III standing, that much is enough, Judge Clark holds. Thompson's alleged harm is sufficient to constitute a concrete and particularized injury. The question in a traceability analysis is simple: whether there is a "causal connection" between the challenged, unlawful conduct and the injury suffered. The problem in this case is that on the facts alleged, Judge Clark finds that Thompson cannot claim that his injury stemmed from Genesco's challenged conduct. That conclusion becomes clear when one carefully considers each of the elements at either end of the causal connection required by standing doctrine: injury and unlawful challenged conduct. To satisfy the second prong of standing for that claim, Thompson must show a "sufficiently direct causal connection" between his receipt of unwanted messages and Genesco's alleged failure to comply with the strictures of Section 64.1200(d). To that end, Thompson directly alleges violations of at least three required "minimum standards" imposed upon Genesco by Section 64.1200(d). But an obvious, critical link between his injury and those violations is glaringly absent: the factual allegation that Thompson actually asked to be put on that internal do-not-call list in the first place, Judge Clark says. Nowhere in his Amended Complaint does Thompson allege that he ever asked Genesco to place him on such a list, or simply not to contact him. In fact, Thompson does not allege any way in which he would have remotely benefited from Genesco's compliance with Section 64.1200(d). That internal list, whether extant or not, is useless to Thompson if it never would have featured his name or phone number, Judge Clark opines. Therein lies the traceability problem: if Thompson cannot allege a way--any way--in which he would appear on a Genesco internal do-not-call list, then his injury cannot be traced to Genesco's failure to maintain one, Judge Clark points out. Because Thompson does not satisfy the requirements of Article III standing, the Court denies Genesco's motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot and remands this case to state court for further proceedings. The Court holds that Thompson lacks Article III standing to maintain his lawsuit in federal court. Consequently, this Court is powerless to adjudicate the instant dispute, and remands this case to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, for further proceedings. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a certified copy of this order of remand to the clerk of the state court. The Court also denies Genesco's [22] Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, as well as the other various pending motions as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 8, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/tm3eaenwfrom PacerMonitor.com. GEO SECURE: Mazzei Parties Required to File Joint Status Report --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order requiring parties to file a joint status report in the lawsuit titled CHRIS MAZZEI, Plaintiff v. GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Chris Mazzei originally filed this putative class action in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, on Sept. 8, 2022. He asserts various causes of action and seeks to represent all current and former California employees of Defendant GEO Secure Services, LLC, employed within four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The complaint alleges that GEO committed violations of the California Labor Code by failing to provide meal and rest periods; pay wages; comply with employee wage statement requirements; timely pay wages at termination; timely pay employees; reimburse business expenses; pay for all hours worked; provide a place of employment that is safe and healthful; and unfair competition. The action was removed to this Court on Oct. 20, 2022. Thereafter, on May 5, 2023, GEO filed the pending motion to stay. Mazzei filed an opposition on May 19, 2023, and GEO filed a reply on May 30, 2023. The motion to stay was referred to Judge Baker on Oct. 31, 2023. GEO moves to stay the present lawsuit until the resolution of several earlier-filed actions as it argues that those actions involve substantially the same parties and issues as the case at bar. The alleged earlier-filed actions are as follows: Tezsanique Hendrickson v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, California Superior Court for San Bernadino County, Case No. CIVSB2118376 (filed on June 28, 2021) ("Hendrickson"); Samdeeshia Bell v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-1927 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2021) ("Bell"); Priscilla Lopez v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, California Superior Court for Imperial County, Case No. ECU002060 (filed on Sept. 9, 2021) ("Lopez"); Nickolas Ortiz v. The GEO Group Inc., d/b/a GEO California, Inc. et al., California Superior Court for Kern County, Case No. BCV 21-102469, 22-100659 (filed Oct. 20, 2021, March 22, 2022) ("Ortiz"); Daniel Perez v. The GEO Group, Inc., d/b/a GEO Group California, Inc., et al., California Superior Court for San Diego County, Case No. 37-2022-00000670-CU-OE-CTL (filed on Jan. 6, 2022) ("Perez"); Julie Castillo v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00445-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2023) ("Castillo"). Consistent with Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes judicial notice of the case files and their respective dockets. The Court notes that in the Lopez action, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of settlement. The motion for preliminary approval of settlement identifies Priscilla Lopez, Julie Castillo, Samdeeshia Bell, Tezsanique Hendrickson and Nickolas Ortiz as named plaintiffs in support of a settlement. In the Castillo action, the parties filed a notice of settlement, which references a "global mediation" to attempt to resolve several similar cases. The Court also takes judicial notice of an order granting final approval of a class and collective action settlement of the Perez action, which was granted on Oct. 6, 2023. Thus, Judge Baker notes, it appears that the trajectory of the earlier-filed actions will not necessarily overlap with this one. In light of the foregoing, Judge Baker orders that within 10 days of entry of this Order, the parties will file a joint report setting forth whether (1) the parties in the earlier-filed actions have reached/anticipate reaching a resolution of their cases without addressing the allegedly parallel issues in this case, and (2) whether Mazzei is party to any settlement agreement in any of the actions or is in the process of reaching a settlement agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 8, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/y838dza6from PacerMonitor.com. HARTWIG TRANSIT: Chenault Seeks to Certify FLSA Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTHER CHENAULT, on behalf Of herself and those similarly Situated, v. HARTWIG TRANSIT, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00637 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Designating the following plaintiff subclasses 1: -- Collective Action Subclass 1: "All dispatchers employed by the Defendant Hartwig Transit, Inc. who were paid their regular hourly rates of pay instead of the statutory overtime rate of pay for any hours they may have worked over 40 in any workweek during the three years preceding the date of the filing of the Complaint (referenced in Plaintiffs Complaint and Jury Demand as the "Straight Time Collective")." Collective Action Subclass 2: "All hourly employees (other than drivers, driver's helpers, loaders, or mechanics whose duties affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in transportation on public highways in interstate or foreign commerce) of Hartwig Transit, Inc. and McCormick Trucking, Inc., including but not limited to Dispatchers and Lead Dispatchers, who: (1) have worked more than 40 hours in a week, and (2) have had a lunch period automatically deducted from their hours worked when they did not take a lunch period; and (3) who were paid their regular hourly rates of pay instead of the statutory overtime rate of pay for any hours worked over forty, including those lunch hours that were improperly deducted, in any workweek during the three years preceding the date of the filing of the Complaint. 2. Authorizing the Plaintiff to send notice of this Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action to all potential opt-in plaintiffs, apprising them of this lawsuit so that they may join and assert claims under the FLSA. 3. Compelling the Defendants to produce the names, email address, last known mailing address, last known telephone number, last four digits of the social security number, work locations, and dates of employment for all potential opt-in plaintiffs. 4. Holding that the statute of limitations for putative opt-in plaintiffs is tolled as of the date of the filing of the Complaint. Hartwig is engaged in the trucking business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47DmtsC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isl Brian J. Butler, Esq. Brian J. Butler, Esq. MEZIBOV BUTLER 615 Elsinore Place Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621-8800 Facsimile: (513) 621-8833 E-mail: bbutler@mezibov.com - and - Jesse D. Nelson, Esq. NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC 10263 Kingston Pike Knoxville, TN 37922 Telephone (865) 383-1053 E-mail: jesse@NLGattorneys.com HEALTHY OCEANS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ PEDRO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. HEALTHY OCEANS SEAFOOD COMPANY, INC. d/b/a Pescavore, Defendant, Case No. 501586/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January 16, 2024) alleges violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law in connection with the Defendant's 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. Plaintiff Martinez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, asserts that the Defendant violated the basic equal access requirements under both state and city laws. He seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Healthy Oceans Seafood's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. He also seeks compensatory damages for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Healthy Oceans Seafood Company, Inc. owns Pescavore, a brand of seafood products that are distributed and sold in the U.S. market. [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 HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Wurm Sues Over Unlawful Text Message Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HURLEY INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-000609 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., January 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the practice of transmitting a phone number that was not configured for two-way communication when it made telephonic sales calls by text message in violation of the FTSA's Caller ID rules. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit. Hurley International, LLC is a company that sells various goods in the U.S., including Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com IDEXX LABORATORIES: Court Narrows Claims in Yuen Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon D. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned CAM YUEN et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IDEXX LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00392-JDL (D. Me.). The Plaintiffs in this putative class action allege that Defendants IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., and IDEXX Distribution, Inc., (collectively, "IDEXX") have engaged in anti-competitive behavior that has caused the Plaintiffs to pay artificially inflated prices for veterinary diagnostic products. IDEXX is a provider of veterinary diagnostic products, including analyzers, consumable reagents, and single-use rapid test kits. The Class Action Complaint, dated July 25, 2022, alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and a variety of state antitrust and consumer protection statutes. IDEXX moves to dismiss all federal and state claims. Because the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing regarding the federal antitrust claims, Judge Levy grants the motion in part and, for reasons explained in this Order, denies the motion in part with respect to the state law antitrust and consumer protection claims. The 22 named Plaintiffs are pet owners from a variety of states, who assert that they have borne the costs of IDEXX's supra-competitive prices, which were passed on to them by their veterinarians. They bring the Complaint on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated plaintiffs in 31 jurisdictions. IDEXX sells its diagnostic test equipment by forgoing a middleman and distributors and selling directly to veterinary practices. To accomplish this sales model, IDEXX enters into contracts with veterinary practices that have minimum purchasing quotas and require exclusivity with IDEXX. The Complaint asserts that this model has enabled IDEXX to shut out competition and impose above-market prices for its diagnostic test equipment--costs that are ultimately passed on to the pet owners. IDEXX's contracts run for six years and contain "steep 'disloyalty' penalty provisions" that are "scaled to the practice's individual purchase history" to "lock-in" the veterinary practice. Veterinary practices face what the Complaint describes as devastating and unsustainable penalties if they try to extricate themselves from IDEXX's contracts. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs allege that IDEXX strictly enforces its contracts through aggressive collection actions and designs its products to ensure that veterinary practices will not use more than one brand of analyzer or consumable at a time. The Complaint asserts that, through these practices, IDEXX has foreclosed competition and wields monopoly power because the cost for a veterinary practice to switch to a competitor supplier is prohibitively high. Each of IDEXX's two main competitors, Heska Corporation and Zoetis, Inc., is alleged to have a lower market share than IDEXX. The Plaintiffs assert that IDEXX's outsized market share allows it to continually raise its prices with minimal loss of customers. The Complaint also asserts that "IDEXX's anticompetitive behavior has caused pet owners like Plaintiffs and other similarly situated indirect purchasers to pay artificially inflated prices for in-house point-of-care ("POC") analyzers, consumables, and single-use rapid test kits, which are components of in-house POC diagnostic tests that veterinary practices use to treat family pets and other companion animal patients." As context for their claims, the Plaintiffs argue that the antitrust market relevant to this action is the sale of in-clinic diagnostic products, which is composed of two submarkets: the sale of analyzers and consumables and the sale of single-use rapid test kits. According to the Plaintiffs, IDEXX has a monopoly in both the relevant antitrust market and the two submarkets, and there are high barriers to entry for potential competitors. In terms of federal claims, the Plaintiffs allege in Counts 1 and 2 that, by entering into anticompetitive agreements with veterinary practices, IDEXX has injured them in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which proscribe unreasonable restraints of trade and monopolizing trade, respectively. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent further violations, but they do not seek any damages under federal antitrust law. With respect to state law claims, the Plaintiffs allege in Counts 3 through 28 that IDEXX's conduct violates the antitrust laws of several states and the District of Columbia. According to the Plaintiffs, although each individual count relies upon state law, the essential elements of each state antitrust claim are the same, so showing that IDEXX's conduct violated the federal Sherman Antitrust Act, will, if proven, establish a claim under each of the state laws pleaded. The Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to various forms of relief available under the state laws, including damages. Finally, the Plaintiffs assert in Counts 29 through 43 that IDEXX's conduct violates the consumer protection laws of several states and the District of Columbia. Again, the Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief available under the state laws, including damages. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. IDEXX moved to transfer venue to the District of Maine asserting that, among other things, many relevant witnesses are in Maine where IDEXX is headquartered. Concurrently, IDEXX filed a Motion to Dismiss similar to the motion currently under advisement. The Plaintiffs opposed the transfer of venue, but the Northern California District Court granted IDEXX's Motion to Transfer Venue. After the case was transferred to the District of Maine, IDEXX filed its Renewed Motion to Dismiss, asserting that (1) the pet owners are disfavored plaintiffs, who lack antitrust standing under the Sherman Act; (2) the Plaintiffs likewise lack standing to bring state law antitrust claims; and (3) the Plaintiffs' state law consumer protection claims also fail for lack of standing and other reasons. Judge Levy notes that IDEXX's overarching argument for dismissing the federal antitrust claims is that the Plaintiffs are consumers of veterinary services, not of IDEXX's veterinary products, and therefore, lack antitrust standing to challenge the prices charged for those products. The Supreme Court has established a six-factor test for antitrust standing that courts must consider: (1) the causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and harm to the plaintiff; (2) an improper motive; (3) the nature of the plaintiff's alleged injury and whether the injury was of a type that Congress sought to redress with the antitrust laws ("antitrust injury"); (4) the directness with which the alleged market restraint caused the asserted injury; (5) the speculative nature of the damages; and (6) the risk of duplicative recovery or complex apportionment of damages. The factors are often referred to as the Associated General factors, or AGC factors, in recognition of the Supreme Court decision that announced them: Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983). IDEXX's arguments that the Plaintiffs lack antitrust standing focus primarily on whether they are proper parties to bring this antitrust case and whether the allegations in the Complaint satisfy the collective causation requirements of the first, third, and fourth Associated General factors. IDEXX contends that the Plaintiff pet owners do not participate in the "market where trade is allegedly restrained"--the market for POC diagnostic products--but instead participate in the market for veterinary healthcare services that IDEXX's direct customers provide. The Plaintiffs acknowledge that they are "indirect purchasers," in the market for POC diagnostic products but argue that they have standing because they pay the veterinarians not for their services but for the diagnostic products themselves. Applying judicial experience and common sense, and viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, Judge Levy finds that the Complaint does not plausibly allege facts showing that the Plaintiffs are purchasers in the allegedly threatened market that is the subject of their Complaint. Judge Levy also finds that the First Circuit cases that the Plaintiffs cite do not support a different result. The Plaintiffs contend that it is presumed in the First Circuit that "consumers, like Plaintiffs, have antitrust standing when they pay overcharges." In support of this proposition, the Plaintiffs cite SAS of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co., 48 F.3d 39, 45 (1st Cir. 1995); Serpa Corp. v. McWane, Inc., 199 F.3d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 1999); and Arroyo-Melecio v. Puerto Rican American Insurance Co., 398 F.3d 56, 72-73 (1st Cir. 2005). The three decisions--SAS of Puerto Rico, Serpa Corp., and Arroyo-Melecio--do not support a finding of antitrust standing in this instance, Judge Levy holds. Here, the Complaint does not plausibly allege that the Plaintiffs are consumers of POC diagnostic products in a manner comparable to the Arroyo-Melecio plaintiffs, who purchased automobile insurance. Like the plaintiffs in SAS of Puerto Rico and Serpa Corp., Judge Levy opines, the Plaintiffs here have allegedly experienced financial injury, but they are neither consumers or competitors in the allegedly restrained market, who are presumptively favored plaintiffs for purposes of antitrust standing. The Plaintiffs also fail to cite to any case authority in connection with the alleged additional barriers to suit contained in IDEXX's contracts--including the "loser-pays" requirement with respect to attorney's fees, and the restrictions on treble damages and jury trials, Judge Levy points out. These impediments, whether considered individually or collectively, do not demonstrate that the veterinarians, who contract with IDEXX lack the "incentive or ability to sue" as first-best plaintiffs. Accordingly, Judge Levy finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown that the impediments to suit contained in IDEXX's contracts with veterinary practices are so onerous as to rob those practices of their ability to bring suit. The Plaintiffs have also not put forth persuasive arguments showing that IDEXX's two main competitors, Zoetis, Inc., and Heska Corporation, are impaired or prevented from asserting antitrust claims against IDEXX. Judge Levy also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly pleaded that they qualify as purchasers in the market where they allege the market restraint has occurred. Considered holistically, Judge Levy holds that the Associated General factors do not support federal antitrust standing for the Plaintiffs here. Accordingly, IDEXX is entitled to the dismissal of the federal antitrust claims asserted in the Complaint. The Plaintiffs also seek damages and relief under the antitrust and consumer protection laws of several states. These states, called "repealer jurisdictions" have passed statutes that expressly reject the bar on indirect purchaser recovery announced by the Supreme Court in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). The parties' briefing on whether the Associated General factors control the standing issue for purposes of the state antitrust and consumer protection claims is sparse, Judge Levy says. Further, the parties have not had the opportunity to consider and address how the Court's conclusions regarding federal antitrust standing affect the state antitrust and consumer protection claims. Accordingly, Judge Levy denies IDEXX's motion to dismiss in part as to the state antitrust and consumer protection claims asserted in the Complaint. This denial is, however, without prejudice to IDEXX filing a renewed motion to dismiss as to the state law antitrust and consumer protection claims within thirty (30) days, supported by a memorandum of law. Judge Levy, accordingly, ordered that: * IDEXX's Renewed Motion to Dismiss is granted in part with respect to the federal antitrust claims set forth in the Complaint (Counts 1 and 2); * IDEXX's Renewed Motion to Dismiss is denied in part without prejudice with respect to the state law antitrust and consumer protection claims set forth in the Complaint (Counts 3-43). IDEXX may file a renewed motion to dismiss within thirty (30) days, supported by a memorandum of law. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 8, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc6nu8mnfrom PacerMonitor.com. ILLINOIS TOOL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hess Due Oct. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINA L. HESS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC. d/b/a "Opto Diode Corporation," a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-05171-DSF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order setting briefing scheduling for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- Deadline to File Motion for Class Oct. 14, 2024 Certification: -- Deadline to File Class Certification Nov. 25, 2024 Opposition: -- Deadline to File Class Certification Jan. 6, 2025 Reply: -- Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: Jan. 27, 2025 Illinois Tool produces engineered fasteners and components, equipment and consumable systems, and specialty products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U2m67I at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN DEERE: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Perez ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perez v. John Deere Seeding Group, Case No. 4:23-cv-04106 (C.D. Ill., Filed June 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sara Darrow entered an order setting scheduling conference (Rule 16). -- If the complaint makes allegations on behalf of a class, the proposed discovery plan should include a deadline for filing a motion to certify class at a stage early in the case. -- The Discovery Plan event may be found in the CM/ECF system within the other Documents category. -- All counsel must read and be familiar with the standing order attached to this text order prior to their Rule 26(f) planning meeting. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment Discrimination. John Deere manufactures farm equipment.[CC] KELLY-MOORE PAINT: Faces Morris Suit Over WARN Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- NATHANIEL MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC; and FLACKSGROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00050-O (N.D. Tex., Jan. 15, 2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to give the Plaintiff and the Class at least 60 days advance written notice prior to their terminations, in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. KELLY-MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC. produces paint products. The Company manufactures architectural paints, industrial and clear coatings, and recycled post-consumer products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Webster, Esq. THE WEBSTER LAW FIRM 6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 150 Houston, TX 77036 Telephone: (713) 581-3900 Facsimile: (713) 581-3907 Email: filing@thewebsterlawfirm.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. Johnathan Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, 8th FL New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 Facsimile: (212) 581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. 182 St. Francis Street Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Facsimile: (251) 433-8181 KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS: Wins Bid to Strike Class Allegations --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC OTTEMANN, On Behalf of Himself and the Proposed Class, v. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, Case No. 2:19-cv-11291-GGG-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Greg Gerard Guidry entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations. The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of himself and a class consisting of: "all General Agents outside the State of California who worked for Defendant in the six years preceding the filing of this case." The Defendant contends the Plaintiff fails to plead the minimum facts necessary to establish the existence of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3). R. Doc. 157-1. Among other deficiencies, the Defendant argues, it is clear on the face of the pleading that individualized and highly personal issues pertaining to each class member will overwhelm any arguably common issues, rendering the claims inappropriate for class treatment. Knights of Columbus is a global Catholic fraternal service order founded by Fr. Michael J. McGivney. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O3Q0ok at no extra charge.[CC] L2 TAVERN: Silva Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------- KASSANDRA SILVA, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L2 TAVERN INC., DBA LIMERICKS TAVERN, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 TO 50, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01059 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., January 16, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt hourly employee in the County of Los Angeles. Allegedly, Defendants violated their duty to accurately and completely compensate the Class Members for all overtime worked. The Class Members periodically worked hours that entitled them to overtime compensation under the law but were not fully compensated for those hours. In addition, Defendants had a policy and practice of denying the Class Members meal breaks, but nevertheless deducting meal break time from the Class Members' pay. As a result, the Class Members' on-the-clock hours were unlawfully reduced below what was actually worked and, by extension, overtime hours were also reduced below what was actually worked. The Class Members were thus periodically shorted the full amount of overtime pay lawfully owed. Based in Los Angeles County, California, operates as a gastropub and offers classic Irish and American comfort food and several kinds of beer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan E. Ross, Esq. Hannah Becker, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Facsimile: (310) 862-6851 E-mail: megan@melmedlaw.com hb@melmedlaw.com - and - Peter Horton, Esq. LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS 3500 West Olive Avenue, Third Floor Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 720-8335 E-mail: phorton@lfecr.com LINCOLN BENEFIT: Farley Action Stayed Pending Resolution of Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deana Farley, v. Lincoln Benefit Life Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying the Defendant's motion for reconsideration. -- The Defendant's motion for a stay is granted. -- The is action is stayed in its entirety pending resolution of Defendant's appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The Plaintiff argues if the court grants defendant's motion, it should only issue a partial stay and allow limited class notification to proceed. The court previously granted plaintiff's motion to facilitate limited class notice to inform class members of the court's order granting class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and denying class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). Lincoln Benefit renews its motion for a stay, and moves for reconsideration of this court's order granting limited class notice. The court submits both motions without a hearing, denies the motion for reconsideration and grants the motion for a stay. The case involves the termination of a life insurance policy. The court has discussed the background of this case in its prior orders and incorporates that discussion by reference. Lincoln Benefit provides life insurance and annuity solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vKz8wm at no extra charge.[CC] LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jonathan Smith, v. loanDepot.com, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01674-GMS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge G. Murray Snow entered an order a case management order as follows: -- The deadline for filing a Motion for Aug. 30, 2024 Class Certification is: -- The parties shall provide full and complete Class Expert Disclosures and Reports, as required by Rule ‘ 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no later than as follows: 1. Plaintiff: May 17, 2024 2. Defendant: June 21, 2024 -- Class Rebuttal Expert Disclosures July 6, 2024 and Reports, if any, shall be made no later than: -- The deadline for the completion of July 6, 2024 fact discovery, including discovery by subpoena, shall be: LoanDepot is an Irvine, California-based nonbank holding company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48xIF8Q at no extra charge.[CC] LOWE'S HOME: Fact Discovery in Garrido Must be Completed by Oct. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXIS GARRIDO, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01961-DAD-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Deborah Barnes entered an order vacating the initial scheduling conference set for January 12, 2024, granting the following scheduling order: -- The parties have agreed to serve their Jan. 31, 2024 initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than: -- All fact discovery shall be completed Oct. 18, 2024 no later than: -- The parties shall disclose initial Nov. 18, 2024 experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than: -- With regard to expert testimony intended Dec. 18, 2024 solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before: -- All expert discovery shall be completed Jan. 17, 2025 no later than: -- All motions, except motions for March 5, 2025 continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before: -- A jury trial is set for: Oct. 6, 2025 Lowe's retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SmpesP at no extra charge.[CC] MAC COSMETICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 8 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IGNACIO MACIEL, RUTH TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., a New York corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03718-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting stipulation to extend discovery and class certification deadlines: 1. Amended Complaint or Motion to Amend March 8, 2024 shall be due by: 2. Close of Fact Discovery shall be due April 8, 2024 by: 3. The Plaintiffs' Expert Reports shall May 5, 2024 be due by: 4. The Defendants' Expert Reports shall June 4, 2024 be due: 5. The Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert June 29, 2024 Reports shall be due by: 6. Close of Expert Discovery shall be July 19, 2024 due by: 7. Daubert Motions and Motion for Class Aug. 8, 2024. Certification shall be due by: 8. Oppositions to Daubert Motions and Sept. 10, 2024 Motion for Class Certification shall be due by: 9. Replies re: Daubert Motions and Motion Oct. 4, 2024 for Class Certification shall be due by: 10. Daubert Motions and Motion for Class Nov. 14, 2024 Certification Hearing is continued to: MAC Cosmetics offers a large selection of professional quality makeup. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tQTX93 at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAELS STORES: Court Narrows Claims in Vizcarra Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEA VIZCARRA, v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00468-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order denying in part motion to dismiss and denying motion to strike: -- Ms. Vizcarra's unjust enrichment claim is dismissed with leave to amend. Michaels' motion to dismiss is denied as to all other claims. The motion to strike is denied. -- The request for judicial notice is granted. An amended complaint, if any, is due February 2, 2024. If Ms. Vizcarra does not file an amended complaint by that date, Michaels' response to the existing complaint will be due Feb. 23, 2024. Rule 23 requires the Court to determine whether to certify a class at an "early" time, so the Court is certain to consider these questions at some point soon. The Plaintiff Vizcarra alleges that defendant Michaels Stores, Inc. deceptively advertises its products as discounted when in fact they are always available for at least 20% less than the purported "regular" price. She brings several claims on behalf of herself and a proposed class. Michaels moves to dismiss Ms. Vizcarra's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to strike her class allegations under Rule 12(f). Michaels is a privately held chain of American and Canadian arts and crafts stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aWBZT4 at no extra charge.[CC] MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Files 2nd Cir. Appeal in Barron Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- MICROMOBILITY.COM INC., et al. have filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled Ryan Barron, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Micromobility.com Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04703-LLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is brought to obtain justice for approximately 20,000 small investors who were swindled in a crypto currency scam called HelbizCoin perpetrated by Defendants Palella and Helbiz Inc. The scam preyed mainly on small, unsophisticated investors, with the average investment being approximately $2,000. But by leveraging the exponential messaging capacity of social media worldwide, and by creating purposeful misimpressions about the size of the company and the popularity of the investment, the Defendants were allegedly able to trick thousands of people and extract over $40 million dollars by an initial coin offering and by later dumping the coins on the secondary market. As part of the alleged illicit scheme, Palella falsely claimed to the prospective coin buyers that Helbiz had built and was growing a vast transportation rental platform that used smartphone apps to allow customers to rent everything from flying drone taxis to cars, bikes, and scooters. The pitch, which came as the value of another popular blockchain-based coin was marching its way to $20,000, was that Helbiz would now use similar blockchain technology to create a single method of payment for every rental: the HelbizCoin. According to the Defendants, HelbizCoin was set to become the bitcoin of all transportation and would allegedly rise in value as people everywhere turned to it to rent vehicles on the growing Helbiz-branded platform. The class action sought the Court's assistance to enjoin Defendants from destroying the coin's Etherium smart contract, as well as to award them damages and other relief. On Sept. 1, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York partially ruled in favor of investors who filed the class-action suit, with the court granting the motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part. The court, however, dismissed all claims against certain defendants entirely, including Paysafe, Skrill, Decentral and Alphabit, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction over Paysafe and Alphabit. The court also dismissed some claims against the remaining defendants for failure to state a claim, including breach of contract, tortious interference, and certain securities claims. However, Judge Louis Stanton also ruled that plaintiffs adequately stated claims for fraud, price manipulation, violations of securities laws, commodities laws, the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, and unjust enrichment against some defendants. "Among other matters, the case found that the ERC-20 token is a security under federal law," the investor's lawyer Michael Kanovitz told Cointelegraph, relates the report. The investors' lawsuit was initially dismissed by a lower court judge in January 2021, citing a 2010 Supreme Court precedent that limited the extraterritorial reach of federal securities laws, according to a report from Reuters. However, the case was revived in October 2021 when a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the lower court judge erred in its decision, and an amended complaint was filed in March 2022. In emailed comments to Cointelegraph, Kanovitz also pointed out that the complaint included a number of charts that use the Ethereum ledger to "prove spoof trading in the ICO." It also included evidence of multiple "genesis wallets" that were provided to the initial investors in Ethereum, such as Mr. Di Iorio, he said before adding: "It is a compelling story that shows how blockchain transparency can be used to flush out criminals." Kanovitz elaborated, stating that "encountering multiple genesis wallets is like a fingerprint that points to one of only a few people in the world. Moreover, these genesis wallets also engaged in similar behavior in ICOs that Di Iorio publicly backed, such as EOS." The complaint alleged that Di Iorio, an advisor to Helbiz, published false and misleading statements about the HelbizCoin ICO in Bitcoin Magazine but did not provide evidence that he made the statements. "This is a speculative conclusion at best and thus fails to adequately allege that Di Iorio made false or misleading statements," the ruling read. The appellate case is captioned Barron v. Micromobility.com Inc., Case No. 24-36, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 4, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RYAN BARRON, et al., on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Kanovitz, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen Street Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: mike@loevy.com Defendants-Appellants MICROMOBILITY.COM INC., formerly known as HELBIZ, INC., et al. are represented by: Robert G. Heim, Esq. TARTER, KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP 1350 Broadway New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 216-1131 E-mail: rheim@tarterkrinsky.com MIDNIGHT MISSION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooper Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MIDNIGHT MISSION; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01250 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 17, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Cooper was employed by the Defendants as a staff. THE MIDNIGHT MISSION is a human services organization in downtown Los Angeles' Skid Row. The Company is a secular non-profit, that provides food, drug and alcohol recovery services, "safe sleep" programs, educational training, a mobile kitchen, and family housing with an emphasis on developing self-sufficiency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Jonas Agle, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 Email: Emil@d.law d.yeremian@d.law n.haritoonian@d.law j.agle@d.law MP2 ENTERPRISES: Brandi-Vanmeter Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rebecca Brandi-Vanmeter, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. MP2 Enterprises, LLC; Bryant Peterson; Layne Peterson; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Case No. 4:23-cv-00081-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying four Rule 23 subclasses of delivery drivers who have common claims under their respective state wage and hour laws: "All current and former delivery drivers employed by Defendants at the Defendants' Pizza Hut stores in the State of Alaska (between the date two years prior to the filing of the original complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter), in the State of Arizona (between the date three years prior to the filing of the original complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter), in the State of Utah (between the date three years prior to the filing of the original complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter), and in the State of Nevada between the date two years prior to the filing of the original complaint and the date of final judgment in this matter." Vehicle reimbursement cases like this one are well-suited for class and collective certification. As Defendants' Answer acknowledges, the Defendant MP2 Enterprises, LLC applied substantially the same employment policies, practices, and procedures to all delivery drivers at all of its locations. This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery drivers who work at Defendants’ Pizza Hut franchise stores. The Plaintiff alleges, and Defendants admit, that the Defendant MP2 Enterprises, LLC operates Pizza Hut Locations in Alaska, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada, and that Defendants together suffer permit Plaintiff and other delivery drivers to work. MP2 Enterprises is a Pizza Hut Franchise. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vw2luW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall L. Jeffs, Esq. JEFFS & JEFFS, P.C. 90 North 100 East Provo, UT 84603 Telephone: (801) 373-8848 E-mail: rzjeffs@jeffslawoffice.com - and - Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Emily Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com NFL: Seeks to Exclude Zona's Testimony -------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: National Football Leagues Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:15-ml-02668-PSG-SK (C.D. Cal.), the NFL Defendants move the Court to exclude the testimony of J. Douglas Zona regarding his economic models pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 103, 104, and 702. Dr. Zona puts forth two models that purport to show that Sunday Ticket prices would have been lower if DirecTV had not been the sole distributor. Dr. Zona has substantially revised these two models with each successive report, such that this is Defendants' first chance to challenge the versions he may offer at trial. The Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that Dr. Zona's testimony rests on rational economic assumptions about Defendants' behavior. National Football League is a professional American football league that consists of 32 teams, divided equally between the American Football Conference and the National Football Conference. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48WRhFx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq. Rakesh N. Kilaru, Esq. Brian L. Stekloff, Esq. Jeremy S. Barber, Esq. Max J. Warren, Esq. WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP 2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 847-4000 Facsimile: (202) 847-4005 E-mail: rkilaru@wilkinsonstekloff.com bwilkinson@wilkinsonstekloff.com bstekloff@wilkinsonstekloff.com jbarber@wilkinsonstekloff.com mwarren@wilkinsonstekloff.com - and - Neema T. Sahni, Esq. Gregg H. Levy, Esq. Derek Ludwin, Esq. John S. Playforth, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6045 Telephone: (424) 332-4800 Facsimile: (424) 332-4749 E-mail: nsahni@cov.com glevy@cov.com dludwin@cov.com jplayforth@cov.com NORTHEAST GROCERY: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Collins Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- GAIL COLLINS; DEAN DEVITO; MICHAEL LAMOUREUX; and SCOTT LOBDELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHEAST GROCERY, INC.; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NORTHEAST GROCERY, INC. 401 (k) SAVINGS PLAN; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Case No. 5:24-cv-00080-DNH-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2024) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, as fiduciaries of the Northeast Grocery, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the Plan), the Defendants were obligated at all times to act prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries but the Defendants failed to do so. The Defendants further failed to monitor, explore, and consider the lowest cost share class options for investments in the Plan. Instead, the Defendants deliberately selected and retained the more expensive share classes of the same fund even though identically managed, higher yielding, higher returning types of the same fund were then available, says the suit. NORTHEAST GROCERY, INC.is the parent company of Tops Friendly Markets, Price Chopper and Market 32. The company was formed after a merger in 2021 which gives the company nearly 300 stores in the northeast U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter W. Till, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER W. TILL 105 Morris Avenue Springfield Township, NJ Telephone: (973) 258-0064 Email: pwt@till-law.com - and - Paul J. Sharman, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Telephone: (678) 242-5297 Facsimile: (678) 802-2129 Email: paul@sharman-law.com PARKVIEW OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harry Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ALICE HARRY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKVIEW OPERATING CO., LLC d/b/a WESTCHESTER CENTER FOR REHABILITATION AND NURSING, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00292 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2024) 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 Harry was employed by the Defendant as a nurse. PARKVIEW OPERATING CO LLC is a skilled nursing facility in Mount Vernon, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com PEP BOYS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Campos Alleges --------------------------------------------------- RANDY SCOTT CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PEP BOYS MANNY MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA, LLC; ICAHN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01244 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 17, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Campos was employed by the Defendants as a general service technician. THE PEP BOYS MANNY MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA, LLC retails automotive products. The Company offers tires, auto parts, tools, and accessories, as well as provides car care, maintenance, and repair services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com PLUFL BED: Bunting Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------------- RASHETA BUNTING v. PLUFL BED LLC, Defendant, Case No. 501587/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January 16, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other similarly situated blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. By failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and city laws, which require places of public accommodation to ensure access to goods, services, and facilities by making reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. Accordingly, Plaintiff Bunting seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Plufl's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. She also seeks compensatory damages for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plufl Bed LLC, is a Delaware Foreign limited liability company that manufactures and sells dog bed for humans. [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 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Nasal Decongestants "Ineffective," Valinsky Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAY VALINSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY and PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-80046 (S.D. Fla., January 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of contract, strict product liability for misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of phenylephrine branded medicine products. These products are designed and heavily marketed to combat sinus congestion, among other symptoms associated with the common cold and other viral infections. The principal active ingredient of the drug is phenylephrine. In truth, however, the products and their active ingredients are wholly ineffective, and no better than a placebo, at alleviating nasal and sinus congestion. Had they known the truth, the Plaintiff and the Class would not have bought the products or would have paid substantially less for them. As a direct and proximate result of these unfair and deceptive acts or practices, the Plaintiff and Class members have been damaged. The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods, with its principal place of business located at One Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio. Publix Supermarkets, Inc. is an employee-owned American supermarket chain headquartered in Lakeland, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Milian, Esq. THE MILIAN LEGAL GROUP, P.A. 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 808-9736 Email: david@lawmilian.com PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH HENSON and DIANA DASALLA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS and PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:22-cv-00182-M (E.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification On Dec. 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for class certification. The Court has discretion to allow a party to file a sur-reply "when fairness dictates based on new arguments raised in the previous reply." In the Reply, the Plaintiffs argue for the first time that Progressive breached its promise to use "the methodology prescribed in [its] form policy," namely that ACV must be "'determined'" by "'market value, age, and condition.'" Progressive Premier operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41WNiGV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew W. Sawchak, Esq. Stephen D. Feldman, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1600 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 239-2600 Facsimile: (919) 328-8790 E-mail: msawchak@robinsonbradshaw.com sfeldman@robinsonbradshaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq. Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq. J. Matthew Brigman, Esq. Allison Hill White, Esq. Seth I. Euster, Esq. Julia C. Barrett, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com zmcentyre@kslaw.com mbrigman@kslaw.com awhite@kslaw.com seuster@kslaw.com jbarrett@kslaw.com PRYSM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bali Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- TAPASYA BALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRYSM, INC.; ARI STIEGLER; NOAH FRIEDMAN; RYAN BRESLOW; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01156 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants improper deductions, unreimbursed expenses, unpaid overtime, minimum wages, and unpaid meal and rest break premiums and interest accrued. Plaintiff Bali was employed by the Defendants as a chief business officer. PRYSM, INC. develops digital display software. The Company offers a platform which allows to sync physical meeting rooms with digital workplace. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald D. Arena, Esq. Conor D. Mack, Esq. ARENA HOFFMAN LLP 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 905 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1414 Facsimile: (415) 520-0446 Email: rarena@arenahoffman.com cmack@arenahoffman.com QDOBA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Sbar Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL SBAR, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. QDOBA RESTAURANT CORPORATION, d/b/a QDOBA Mexican Eats, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00069-MWB (M.D. Pa., January 16, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at a store in State College, PA. Throughout the course of his employment, Plaintiff was paid on a non-exempt basis. He was regularly required to work in excess of 40 hours per week; however, he was not paid overtime premium pay for all overtime hours worked. Rather, Plaintiff and other similarly situated Plaintiffs had hours that were required to be worked off the clock and, even when documented, that were ultimately docked from Plaintiffs' paystubs in an intentional effort to deny Plaintiffs pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours, the suit says. Qdoba operates restaurants throughout Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218 Horsham, PA 19044 Telepphone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 754-4443 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com REALPAGE UTILITY: Parties Seek Initial Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL MOORE, v. REALPAGE UTILITY MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00927-PX (D. Md.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: (1) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, (2) preliminarily certifying the Class for settlement purposes only, (3) appointing the undersigned attorneys for Representative Plaintiff as Class Counsel, (4) approving the form of and direct notice to the Class, and (5) granting such further relief as justice demands. Realpage provides financial transaction processing solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u0HMGz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Carney, Esq. Richard S. Gordon, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD. 100 W. Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 100 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 825-2300 Facsimile: (410) 825-0066 E-mail: bcarney@GWCfirm.com rgordon@GWCfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Mary Catherine Zinsner, Esq. David M Gettings, Esq. Timothy J St. George, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 401 9th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 274-1932 Facsimile: (202) 274.2994 E-mail: mary.zinsner@troutman.com dave.gettings@troutman.com timothy.st.george@troutman.com ROBINHOOD: Seeks Leave for Additional Depositions -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-02989-CMA (S.D. Fla.), Robinhood requests that the Court grant them leave to take 14 additional depositions. The requested depositions are not cumulative or duplicative because none of the third-parties has been deposed previously, and those depositions would not be cumulative of other discovery. Robinhood seeks to depose 14 additional clearly relevant third-parties: the NSCC (which issued the unprecedented margin deposit requirement that led Robinhood to implement the challenged restrictions), certain other brokers that implemented trading restrictions similar to those at issue here and the issuers of some of the stocks Plaintiffs call the "Affected Stocks." Although Robinhood has agreed to let Plaintiffs take 202 depositions of Robinhood employees alone, the Plaintiffs refuse to permit Robinhood to take more than a single further deposition. Robinhood thus respectfully requests that the Court grant Robinhood's Motion to take up to 14 additional fact depositions. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OrHboH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Samuel A. Danon, Esq. Maria Castellanos Alvarado, Esq. Tom K. Schulte, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 333 S.E. 2 Avenue, Suite 2400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 810-2500 Facsimile: (305) 810-2460 E-mail: sdanon@huntonak.com mcastellanos@huntonak.com tschulte@huntonak.com - and - Antony L. Ryan, Esq. Kevin J. Orsini, Esq. Brittany L. Sukiennik, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 E-mail: aryan@cravath.com korsini@cravath.com bsukiennik@cravath.com SEAWORLD PARKS: Joint Bid to Amend Scheduling Order OK'd in Lopez ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN LOPEZ, v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00429-L-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered an order (1) Granting joint motion to Amend scheduling order, and (2) Issuing second amended Scheduling order. The Court notes that the parties have unduly delayed the scheduling of the depositions at issue. The Court issues the following Second Amended Scheduling Order: 1. The parties must review and familiarize themselves with the Civil Local Rules of this District, the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures, the Standing Order for Civil Cases issued by the Hon. M. James Lorenz, and the undersigned Magistrate Judge's Chambers Rules, all of which are posted on this District's website. 2. October 23, 2023 remains the deadline for completion of fact discovery, except for the following: a. December 22, 2023 remains the deadline for the parties to have finalized their responses to written discovery requests. b. All depositions must be taken on or before March 1, 2024. 3. No later than March 1, 2024, the parties shall designate their respective experts in writing. 4. No later than March 1, 2024, each party shall comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) disclosure provisions. 5. No later than March 22, 2024, the parties shall supplement their disclosures regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Rule 26(a)(2)(D). 6. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties no later than May 16, 2024. 7. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on May 22, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard via videoconference. SeaWorld is an American theme park and entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S3epLJ at no extra charge.[CC] STEPHEN CRAANE: Bid to Appoint Counsel Denied with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marc Amouri Bakambia, v. Stephen Craane, et al., Case No. 0:22-cv-02922-PJS-DTS (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge David T. Schultz entered an order that: 1. The Defendant's motion to appoint Counsel is denied with prejudice. 2. The Defendant's motion to appoint a Neutral Expert Witness is denied with prejudice. 3. Bakambia's motion to alter, amend, or supplement pleadings is denied with prejudice. 4. Bakambia's motion for sanctions and Attorney Discipline is denied with prejudice. 5. Bakambia's motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Order to Show Cause is denied as moot. The Court recommends that: 1. The Defendants' Motions to Dismiss be granted in their entirety and with prejudice. 2. Bakambia's Motion to Certify Class be denied with prejudice. The Plaintiff Bakambia brings claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Minnesota state law against 24 individuals in their official and individual capacities. These 24 Defendants are medical providers employed by Centurion (a private entity that provides contracted healthcare to inmates), Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) employees, and Dr. Michael Koeplin, a physician in private practice. Bakambia alleges they have violated his rights while he has been incarcerated at the Correctional Facility in Stillwater, Minnesota (MCF-Stillwater). Bakambia brings the following claims against some or all Defendants: (1) retaliation against him for exercising a First Amendment right, (2) use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, (3) cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, (4) discrimination in violation of the ADA, and (5) various violations of Minnesota state law. Throughout his time at MCF-Stillwater, Bakambia contends that he has suffered from headaches, neck pain, a recurrent hernia, abdominal pain, toothaches, and other ailments. Three times between November 2019 and February 2020, Bakambia lost consciousness, fell, and hit his head.These falls caused chronic neck pain and headaches. On December 14, 2021, Bakambia received an MRI to evaluate his headaches, neck pain, throat soreness, and tonsil discharge. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tZKgVG at no extra charge.[CC] TESLA INC: Richardson Suit Transferred From S.D. to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California transfers the lawsuit entitled JOEL RICHARDSON, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC. dba TESLA MOTORS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02151-L-JLB (S.D. Cal.), to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Pending before the Court in this putative consumer class action is the Defendants' motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1401(a) to the Northern District of California, where a parallel putative consumer class action has been pending since Sept. 14, 2022 (Matsuko v. Tesla, Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. N. Dist. Cal. case no. 3:22cv05240-RFL). The Plaintiff, represented by counsel, has not filed an opposition. The time to oppose has elapsed. Because it is unclear whether the Plaintiff's counsel is a registered user of the Court's CM/ECF system, the Defendant served its motion and subsequent notice of non-opposition by mailing the documents to the Plaintiff's counsel by first class U.S. mail on Dec. 21, 2023. To date, the Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Based on the foregoing, Judge Lorenz rules that the Defendant's motion is granted as unopposed. Accordingly, Judge Lorenz transfers the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Because it is unclear whether the Plaintiff's counsel is a registered user on the Court's CM/ECF system, the Clerk is ordered to serve this Order by first class U.S. Mail. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 8, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/54cymbnxfrom PacerMonitor.com. TURQUOISE HILL: Pentwater May File Third Amended Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Lead Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the lawsuit titled IN RE TURQUOISE HILL RESOURCES LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.). Lead Plaintiff the Pentwater Funds ("Lead Plaintiff") moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), for an order granting leave to file a Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Lead Plaintiff also moves: (1) for redaction and sealing of portions of its Motion to Compel and documents attached therein; and (2) for redaction and sealing of its Memorandum of Law in support of the Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and the proposed Third Amended Complaint (the "TAC"). Defendants Rio Tinto plc, Rio Tinto Limited, Jean-Sebastien Jacques and Arnaud Soirat move: (1) for redaction of an exhibit to their opposition to the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; (2) for redaction and sealing of the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; and (3) for redaction and sealing of information filed in connection with the Motion for Leave to File the TAC, namely the Lead Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in support of the motion, and the Lead Plaintiff's proposed TAC. The Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants each move to redact and seal portions of the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and documents attached therein. The Lead Plaintiff seeks to redact, within the body of the motion, the name of a former Rio Tinto employee, as well as references to Exhibits 3 through 6, and seeks to file under seal Exhibits 3 through 6. The Defendants, meanwhile, propose their own redactions to the body of the motion, propose redactions to Exhibit 6, and request that Exhibits 3 through 5 remain under seal. The request to redact the name of the former Rio Tinto employee contained in the body of the motion is granted. The Court also grants the request to keep Exhibits 3 through 6 under seal, and for Exhibit 6 to be posted with the redactions proposed by the Defendants, and to redact references to those exhibits in the motion. Exhibit 3 is an excerpt of briefing materials for Rio Tinto's CEO on several projects. Exhibit 4 is an excerpt of an email discussing commercial strategy, and proposals regarding the schedule for a project. Exhibit 5 is a report regarding the schedule, budget, and progress of a project. Exhibit 6 contains information regarding Rio Tinto's methods for tracking costs, budgets, and development progress, as well as press strategies. First, Judge Liman says, the documents are filed in connection with the discovery dispute, which falls on the lower end of the range of judicial documents that enjoy a presumption of public access. Further, the exhibits contain highly detailed information that is not distant in time, discussing elements of commercial strategy that the Defendants contend are sensitive. Accordingly, the Court grants the request for the Motion to Compel to remain redacted, for Exhibits 3 through 5 to be sealed, and for Exhibit 6 to be filed with the redactions proposed by the Defendants. Next, the Defendants move to redact portions of Exhibit A to their opposition to the Lead Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Exhibit A contains information relating to Rio Tinto's methods for tracking and reviewing mine development and progress, as well as press strategies. The Defendants assert that this information is commercially sensitive. The information contained in Exhibit A, however, is different in kind from the documents contained in the Motion to Compel itself and its attachments; the information included in the Defendants' opposition is high level and non-specific. Judge Liman finds that it hardly discusses the substance of the projects themselves, and in describing the roles and responsibilities of the individuals named, offers little in specifics. Judge Liman notes that the Defendants do not explain how this information specifically is commercially sensitive and how they may be harmed from its disclosure. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to redact portions of Exhibit A to the Defendants' opposition to the Lead Plaintiff's motion to compel. Finally, the Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants seek to redact and seal portions of the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File the TAC. Specifically, the Lead Plaintiffs seek to redact the names of third-party witnesses referenced in the TAC and the Memorandum of Law in support of the Motion for Leave to File the TAC. The Defendants, meanwhile, seek redaction of portions of the Lead Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in support of the Motion for Leave to File the TAC, and for redaction of certain portions the proposed TAC. Judge Liman denies the parties' request to redact portions of the Lead Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Leave to File the TAC, except with respect to the names of third-party witnesses. Each party submitted proposed redactions of the Lead Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Leave to File the TAC. The Lead Plaintiff's proposed redactions were broader, while the Defendants' proposed redactions were more narrowly tailored. Here, the documents are submitted not in the context of discovery, but with respect to the filing of an amended complaint. Further, as the Court explained in its Memorandum and Order on Oct. 27, 2023, with respect to the Lead Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Class Certification, courts have been skeptical of sealing information that is alleged to be commercially sensitive, particularly where it is highly relevant to the dispute and by extension, to the public's understanding of the court's decision. Judge Liman notes that the information here is dated and broad enough to overcome concerns about its commercial sensitivity. The request to maintain redactions of individuals' names, however, is granted. Similarly, Judge Liman denies the parties' request to redact portions of the proposed TAC, except with respect to the names of third-party witnesses. The Defendants assert that the proposed TAC contains several types of commercially sensitive information, including valuations of the Oyu Tolgoi underground project, internal communications about the Oyu Tolgoi project, sensitive descriptions of Rio Tinto's relationships with its partners. But, Judge Liman explains, the broad and temporally distant nature of the information included in the proposed TAC renders the need to protect its confidentiality less significant than the public's right of access to the full TAC. For these reasons, Judge Liman grants the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File the TAC. The Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants' Letter Motions to Seal are granted in part and denied in part. The Court will stay the effect of this Order for a period of seven days to allow the parties to bring to its attention any basis for continued sealing the Court may have overlooked. In the absence of such further submission, parties were directed to confer and file publicly by Jan. 19, 2024 (but no earlier than Jan. 16, 2024) the documents as described in this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close Dkt. Nos. 273, 276, 280, 305, 309, 312. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 8, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc58e5tcfrom PacerMonitor.com. UNIFIED INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Izaquirre Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH PALMA IZAQUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIFIED INC., Defendant, Case No. 600978/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Jan. 17, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Izaquirre was employed by the Defendant as a production employee. UNIFIED, INC. was founded in 2009. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of luggage, trunks, and leather goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 VARIEL SERVICES: Rodriguez Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZULMA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE VARIEL SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 24STCV01061 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 16, 2024) arises out of Defendant's failure to provide their non-exempt employees with all wages, overtime wages, compliant rest breaks, by failing to reimburse business expenses, and by failing to comply with the applicable wage order and/or the California Labor Code in regards to the payment of wages. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Woodland Hills, California from approximately December 2022, through approximately September 6, 2023. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt hourly employee and worked shifts of eight hours a day or more or 40 hours a week or more, some of these hours qualified for overtime premium pay. However, she was not paid paid overtime wages for all of the overtime hours they actually worked, says the suit. The Variel Services LLC is a senior living community located in Woodland Hills, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Bradley, Esq. Kiley Grombacher, Esq. Lirit King, Esq. Emilie MacLean, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com emaclean@bradleygrombacher.com YDW PRODUCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- ALONSO SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YDW PRODUCE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 501616/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Jan. 16, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Sanchez was employed by the Defendant as a supermarket worker. YDW PRODUCE CORP. owns, operates, or controls a supermarket located at Brooklyn, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., Esq. The Law Offices of Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., P.C. Broadway Chambers Building 277 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 766-9870 Fax: (212) 766-9869 YOSEMITE VALLEY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valdivia Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIAN VALDIVIA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOSEMITE VALLEY BEEF DISTRIBUTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCVQ1066 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 16, 2024) alleges violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code in connection with the Defendants' unlawful pay practices and failure to provide meal and rest periods. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly non-exempt employee from in or around September 2023 until on or about November 2023. Allegedly, Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees worked more minutes per shift than Defendants credited them with having worked. These employees were required to maintain work uniform and personal protective equipment while off-the-clock without being paid for that time. As a result, they were not paid minimum wage for all the hours they worked. Among other things, they were also not provided with all legally required and compliant meal periods and/or did not received premium wages to compensate them for such instances, says the suit. Based in Los Angeles, CA, Yosemite Valley Beef Distributors is engaged in meat processing business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Brett Szmanda, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com bszmanda@lelawfirm.com ZERO PROOF: Bunting Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website -------------------------------------------------------------- RASHETA BUNTING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZERO PROOF USA INC. d/b/a Lyres, Defendant, Case No. 501590/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., January 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.lyres.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Zero Proof USA Inc, is a company that sells goods and services, doing business in New York. [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 ********* 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 ***