/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240205.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 5, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 26
Headlines
ALCO LOGISTICS: Hughes Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Mangar Sues Over Unlawful Termination
AMERICAN HONDA: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due March 1
ASSESSOR OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE: Ziegler Files Appeal in Civil Suit
B AND G FOODS: Court Enters Class Certification Order in Espinoza
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Court Allows Bid for Summary Judgment in Omori
CAPITAL REALTY: Court Dismisses Moore Class Suit
CAPITAL REALTY: Court Grants HUD's Bid to Dismiss in Moore Suit
CATHAY PACIFIC: Goldthorpe Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
CMB EXPORT: Cai Seeks to File Portions of Class Cert Bid Under Seal
CMB EXPORT: Cai Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
COASTAL MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hicks Claims
DECATUR, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Grason
DECOSTAR INDUSTRIES: Headen Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must Produce MPD Property Books
EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Hardy Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
FOSTER AND MONROE: Lightell Discovery Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for March 19 in Riley
HALLRICH INC: Faces Hess Suit Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
HEARST TELEVISION: Class Certification Bids in Saunders Due June 26
HEARST TELEVISION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Saunders Complaint
HONDA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Extended to March 22
IDAHO: Cruse Loses Bid for Class Certification
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Must File Class Cert. Opposition by March 7
LINCOLN TRANSPORTATION: Faces Manning Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
MEADOW LARK: Quinn Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Woodard Suit
NEW YORK: Court Refuses to Issue Protective Order in C.K. v. DOH
NFL: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Antitrust Class Action
NYC HEALTH: Faces Colantuone Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
PATHWAY VET: Dixon Files Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
PRO SERVICES: Garrido Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Seeks Leave to File Surreply in Henson Suit
PUBLIX SUPER: Roberts Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
PURPOSE POINT: Gomez‐Echeverria Labor Suit Seeks Certify Class
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by March 19
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Stuart's Bid to Quash Subpoena Moved to D.S.C.
SEAMORE'S ON ICE: Chavez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
SUBARU OF AMERICA: New Jersey Court Narrows Claims in Aquino Suit
SUEZ WATER: Court Junks Nicholls Bid for Production of Records
TRAVELERS PERSONAL: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Yount Suit
TRAVELERS PERSONAL: Wins Summary Judgment v. Yount
TRUMBULL COUNTY, OH: J.B. Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
TRUMP CORP: McKoy Claims Dismissed w/o Prejudice
UNITED STATES: Court Sustains Bid to Dismiss Mitchell v. DeJoy/USPS
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Narrows Claims in Gorlamari Suit
WASHINGTON: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
WORKFORCE 7: Non-expert Discovery in Ballast Suit Due April 9
YERTLE OPERATIONS: Allen Files Appeal in Negligence Case
*********
ALCO LOGISTICS: Hughes Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rakita Hughes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALCO Logistics, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00300 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 11, 2024) is a civil action brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act
seeking damages for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and
one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each seven-day workweek.
According to the complaint, the Defendant required Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees to work over 40 hours per workweek.
During those workweeks, Defendant failed to pay them all due and
owing overtime wages by requiring them to work "off-the-clock" by
arriving approximately 30 minutes early to work without being
permitted to clock in. These "off-the-clock" hours of work must be
repaid to Plaintiff and similarly situated workers at the rate of
one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay for
all such hours worked, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was hired as a delivery driver employee of Defendant
from August 15, 2022 until June 20, 2023.
ALCO Logistics, LLC operates a package delivery service as a
Delivery Service Provider of Amazon.com LLC and Amazon Logistics,
Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Ste. 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Mangar Sues Over Unlawful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------
MALYSHA MANGAR and CHASELYNN BENAVIDES on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00188 (D.N.J., Jan. 11, 2024)
alleges Defendant's violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act
and seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs of suit.
This is a class action lawsuit brought against the Defendant by
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
individuals, who required an accommodation of medical leave,
including intermittent medical leave, while employed by Defendant
and were subsequently involuntarily terminated during the time that
the employees were using the approved medical leave.
The Defendant has repeatedly terminated employees for taking time
off while on approved medical leave despite the employees receiving
notification from Defendant Amazon that they had time remaining for
their approved medical leave. Such conduct is a blatant pretext for
retaliation against these employees for requesting medical leave,
the suit alleges.
Plaintiff Mangar worked as a Warehouse Associate for Defendant
Amazon in its Edison warehouse in Edison, New Jersey since
September 2020.
Plaintiff Benavides worked as a Fulfillment Associate for Defendant
Amazon in the Carteret location since October 2016.
Amazon.com, Services, LLC is a for-profit business doing business
in the State of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas A. McKinney, Esq.
Edward W. Schroll, Esq.
CASTRONOVO & McKINNEY, LLC
71 Maple Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 920-7888
AMERICAN HONDA: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due March 1
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathleen Cadena et al., v.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-04007-MWF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W.
Fitzgerald entered an order extending briefing schedule and hearing
date as follows:
Event Deadline
Deadline for Plaintiffs' class certification Mar. 1, 2024
reply and rebuttal expert reports (if any),
and opposition to AHM's motions to exclude
Deadline for AHM's reply briefs in support Apr. 11, 2024
of motions to exclude
Hearing on Class Certification and AHM's May 6, 2024
Motions to exclude
American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SfoQMG at no extra charge.[CC]
ASSESSOR OF ROCKVILLE CENTRE: Ziegler Files Appeal in Civil Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Cynthia Ziegler, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Cynthia Ziegler, all other
similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A,
Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of Rockville Centre, The
Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Rockville Centre,
Respondents, Case No. 616672/2022, in the New York Supreme Court,
Nassau County.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case type
is stated as "Special Proceeding-New York's Civil Practice Law and
Rules (SP-CPLR) Article 78 (Body or Officer)."
The appellate case is captioned as Cynthia Ziegler et al. vs. The
Assessor of the Village of Rockville Centre et al., Case No.
2024-00267, in the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,
Second Judicial Department, filed on January 10, 2024.[BN]
B AND G FOODS: Court Enters Class Certification Order in Espinoza
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTHER ESPINOZA, v. B AND
G FOODS INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-09096-FMO-PD (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered a class certification
order:
1. Joint Brief: The parties shall work cooperatively to create
a
single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's
position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a
party
is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties'
response.
2. Citation to Evidence: All citation to evidence in the joint
brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of
the
evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a
deposition.
3. Unnecessary Sections: The parties need not include a
"procedural
history" section, since the court will be familiar with the
procedural history. The court is also familiar with the
general
standard for class certification, so that need not be
argued.
4. Evidentiary Appendix: The joint brief shall be accompanied by
one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and written
evidence (including documents, photographs, deposition
excerpts,
etc.).
5. Evidentiary Objections: All necessary evidentiary objections
shall be made in the relevant section(s) of the joint brief.
B&G Foods is an American branded foods holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49l5EEb at no extra charge.[CC]
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Court Allows Bid for Summary Judgment in Omori
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN THOMAS OMORI and
LINFEI YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-11021-NMG (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order
allowing the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The Defendant contends that Section 80(b)is not special legislation
because it confers a benefit on a large class of educational
institutions and not individual persons and that even if Section
80(b) is special legislation, there are rational policies that
justify its enactment.
The case arises out of the retention by Brandeis University of the
full amount of tuition and fees collected from students for the
Spring, 2020 semester despite the closing of its on-campus
facilities and conversion to online learning in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiffs assert that the failure of Brandeis to reimburse
students for the alleged inferior value of online education, as
well as for certain fees, constitutes breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.
At the beginning of the Spring, 2020 academic term, plaintiffs were
enrolled as full-time undergraduate students at Brandeis, a private
university in Waltham, Massachusetts. The students had registered
and paid for in-person courses, purportedly expecting to receive
access to on-campus instruction, facilities and experience.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Brandeis provided its students with
an on-campus, in-person educational experience with only a few
online graduate courses. On March 11, 2020, however, Brandeis
announced that all its classes would be conducted in an online
format due to the spread of the novel coronavirus.
Brandeis University is a private research university with a liberal
arts focus in Waltham/Boston, Massachusetts.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/491tCUz at no
extra charge.[CC]
CAPITAL REALTY: Court Dismisses Moore Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY W. MOORE, v. CAPITAL
REALTY GROUP, INC., NAME-UNKNOWN OWNER(S) OF ST. JOHN TOWERS APTS,
FELICIA PRYOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
and MARCIA FUDGE, Secretary of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Case No. 1:21-cv-01099-LGF (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Leslie G. Foschio entered an order granting the Defendant Fudge's
motion to dismiss filed May 23, 2023.
With regard to the SAC, not only has Plaintiff failed to allege any
facts attributing any injury to HUD, who is not a party to the
Contract, but as Judge Vilardo already determined, HUD is not
subject to suit under Title II or III of the ADA, nor does any
claim lie against HUD for failing to investigate any discrimination
claim under the FHA.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to establish he has standing
to pursue such claims against Defendant and Defendant’s Motion
should be GRANTED on this basis.
The Plaintiff Jerry W. Moore, proceeding pro se, commenced this
civil rights action on October 7, 2021, asserting claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968,
against Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges he is a "'qualified individual with a 100%
Total and Permanent Disability' and confined to a wheel chair." The
essence of Plaintiff's claims is that the Defendants failed to
reasonably modify and maintain the St. John Apartments in a manner
that accommodates tenants with vision impairments and provides for
wheelchair accessibility in both the individual apartments as well
as in the common areas.
Capital Realty is a commercial real estate company.
A copy of the Court's decision and order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Odse9z at no
extra charge.[CC]
CAPITAL REALTY: Court Grants HUD's Bid to Dismiss in Moore Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JERRY W. MOORE, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL REALTY
GROUP, INC., NAME-UNKNOWN OWNER(S) OF ST. JOHN TOWERS APTS, FELICIA
PRYOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and MARCIA
FUDGE, Secretary of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01099-LGF (W.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York grants Defendant Fudge's motion to
dismiss.
On June 7, 2023, the parties to this action consented pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 636(c)(1) to proceed before Judge Foschio.
Plaintiff Jerry W. Moore, proceeding pro se, commenced this civil
rights action on Oct. 7, 2021, asserting claims under the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968
("FHA"), against Defendants Capital Realty Group, Inc., the entity
that manages St. John Tower Apartments, the unknown owner of St.
John Apartments, St. John Apartments' property manager Felicia
Pryor (together, "St. John Apartments"), the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").
The Plaintiff alleges he is a "'qualified individual with a 100%
Total and Permanent Disability' and confined to a wheel chair,"
lives in a HUD-subsidized housing unit ("the apartment") at St.
John Apartments pursuant to a written rental agreement made Feb. 5,
2018 ("the lease agreement"), between the Plaintiff and non-party
Virginia-Michigan Housing Development Fund Company, Inc.
("Virginia-Michigan Housing").
The essence of the Plaintiff's claims is that the Defendants failed
to reasonably modify and maintain the St. John Apartments in a
manner that accommodates tenants with vision impairments and
provides for wheelchair accessibility in both the individual
apartments, as well as in the common areas. The Plaintiff does not
allege he is blind or vision-impaired.
After screening the Plaintiff's pro se Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2), Judge Foschio says all of his claims
were found viable except as alleged against HUD, and he was granted
leave to file an amended complaint.
On April 19, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint
("FAC"), asserting essentially the same claims as alleged in the
original Complaint, but adding in the Prayer for Relief a request
that the Court enjoin any eviction proceedings "as retaliatory and
discriminatory."
On June 27, 2022, the Plaintiff moved for leave to file a second
amended complaint. After twice moving, unsuccessfully, for
preliminary injunctions, in an Order filed Jan. 11, 2023 ("January
11, 2023 Order"), District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, inter alia,
granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint, which he filed, backdated to June 27, 2022 ("SAC"). The
SAC, like the original Complaint and the FAC, is styled as a class
action. In the January 11, 2023 Order, Judge Vilardo denied the
Plaintiff's class certification request asserted in the FAC because
a pro se plaintiff may not act as a class representative.
The Plaintiff asserts in the SAC the same claims as asserted in the
original Complaint and the FAC, but adds as a Defendant HUD
Secretary Marcia Fudge ("Fudge"), and clarifies that Capital Realty
and the unknown owners of St. John Apartments refer to the same
entity.
On May 23, 2023, Defendant HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge ("Defendant"
or "Fudge"), filed a motion to dismiss the action pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
asserting the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his claims against
Fudge and the Plaintiff's claims are barred by sovereign immunity.
On June 1, 2023, the Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Rebuttal and
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Dismiss ("Plaintiff's
Response"). On June 28, 2023, the Defendant filed the Reply
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss ("Defendant's
Reply"). On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the Plaintiff's
Objections to a Motion to Dismiss ("Plaintiff's Sur-Reply"). On
July 26, 2023, he filed the Plaintiff's Rebuttal and Opposition to
a Motion to Dismiss a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
("Plaintiff's Second Sur-Reply"). Oral argument was deemed
unnecessary.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the SAC as against her pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
arguing with regard to the claims asserted against HUD, that the
Plaintiff cannot establish either standing or waiver of sovereign
immunity as to such claims requiring the action be dismissed as
against Fudge.
With regard to the SAC, Judge Foschio opines, not only has the
Plaintiff failed to allege any facts attributing any injury to HUD,
who is not a party to the Contract, but as Judge Vilardo already
determined, HUD is not subject to suit under Title II or III of the
ADA, nor does any claim lie against HUD for failing to investigate
any discrimination claim under the FHA.
Accordingly, Judge Foschio finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
establish he has standing to pursue such claims against the
Defendant and the Defendant's Motion should be granted on this
basis.
The Defendant further argues that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action because the Plaintiff cannot show HUD
waived its sovereign immunity under 42 U.S.C. Section 1404a. The
Plaintiff has not responded in opposition to the Defendant's
argument regarding sovereign immunity.
Judge Foschio opines that not only is HUD not a party to any
relevant contract asserted by the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff sues
HUD for failing to comply with the terms of a contract pursuant to
which HUD has no substantial control over St. John Apartments, and
the Plaintiff fails to allege that HUD breached any provision of
the Contract between St. John Apartments and NYSHTFC.
Accordingly, Judge Foschio finds the Plaintiff has failed to
establish a waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to Section 1404a
such that HUD is not liable to suit in this action, requiring the
Defendant's Motion be granted on this ground.
A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated Jan. 11,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/mucr6jedfrom
PacerMonitor.com.
JERRY W. MOORE, in Buffalo, New York 14203-1248, appears pro se.
THE LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN KILLIAN, COLLEEN MARY KILLIAN --
colleen@killianlawoffice.com -- in Buffalo, New York 14202,
Attorney for Defendants Capital Realty Group, Inc., Name-Unknown
Owner(s) of St. John Towers Apts, and Pryor.
TRINI E. ROSS, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, DANIEL BARRIE MOAR,
Assistant United States Attorney, of Counsel, in Buffalo, New York
14202, Attorney for Defendants U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and Fudge.
CATHAY PACIFIC: Goldthorpe Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN GOLDTHORPE, JAMES
DONOVAN, CHRIS BENNETT, JAMES ISHERWOOD, AND DAVID VINCENT, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v.
CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED and USA BASING LIMITED, Case No.
3:17-cv-03233-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on
Feb. 22, 2024, for class certification under Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Causes of
Action 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of their Complaint.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of a Class and Subclasses defined
as follows:
-- Class
"All individuals who have worked as California-based pilots
for
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. or USA Basing Ltd. at any time
during the period from June 5, 2013 through October 31,
2022;"
-- USAB Waiting Time Subclass
"All individuals who were working as California-based
pilots for USA Basing Ltd. in December of 2015 and were
required to formally resign and become employees of Cathay
Pacific Airways Ltd. as part of the company's "onshoring"
process;" and
-- Termination Waiting Time Subclass
"All individuals who were working as Californiabased pilots
for
USA Basing Ltd. or Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. and had their
employment terminated between June 5, 2014 and October 31,
2022, apart from the 2015/2016 "onshoring" process."
The Plaintiffs further request an order appointing the Plaintiffs
Dan Goldthorpe, James Donovan, Chris Bennett, James Isherwood, and
David Vincent as class representatives for the Class and Subclasses
and appointing Mastagni Holstedt, A.P.C. and Christenson Jensen as
Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1).
The Plaintiffs also request the Court order Defendants to provide
Plaintiffs an updated list of the names, addresses and any other
relevant contact information of the members of the certified
Class and Subclasses.
Cathay Pacific is the flag carrier of Hong Kong.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vM3Qpa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David E. Mastagni, Esq.
Kenneth E. Bacon, Esq.
Taylor Davies-Mahaffey, Esq.
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
1912 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-3151
Telephone: (916) 446-4692
Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com
kbacon@mastagni.com
tdavies-mahaffey@mastagni.com
- and -
Nathan Alder, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN
257 East 200 South, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 323-5000
Facsimile: (801) 355-3472
CMB EXPORT: Cai Seeks to File Portions of Class Cert Bid Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUI CAI, et al., v. CMB
EXPORT LLC Case No. 2:22-cv-02025-MWF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting leave for them
to file under seal:
(1) portions of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and
(2) Exhibit 9 attached to the Declaration of Victor Meng.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vQoZhI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randolph Gaw, Esq.
Mark Poe, Esq.
Victor Meng, Esq.
GAW | POE LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 766-7451
Facsimile: (415) 737-0642
E-mail: rgaw@gawpoe.com
mpoe@gawpoe.com
vmeng@gawpoe.com
CMB EXPORT: Cai Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUI CAI, et al., v. CMB
EXPORT LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02025-MWF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4), for an order
certifying the following classes, for the specified claims:
-- Group VII Relief Class
The Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of (i)
their
sixth cause of action for injunctive relief seeking removal of
defendant CMB Export LLC as the general partner of the
California
Limited Partnership known as CMB Infrastructure Investment
Group
VII, L.P. ("Group VII"), (ii) their seventh cause of action for
declaratory relief seeking judicial declaration that Group
VII's
limited partners are not obligated to repay any principal or
interest associated with loan advances made by CMB and/or the
Hogan Family Trust and (iii) their third cause of action for a
permanent injunction allowing them inspection rights under the
Group VII Limited Partnership Agreement.
-- Group VII Liability Class
The Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(c)(4) on the
issue
of CMB's liability for Plaintiffs' first through fifth causes
of
action for breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty (1st), breach of
fiduciary duty of good faith and fair dealing (2nd), breach of
contract (3rd), breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing (4th), and unjust enrichment (5th).
The members of each of the proposed classes are defined as
follows:
"All current limited partners to the California Limited
Partnership
known as CMB Infrastructure Investment Group VII, L.P."
Excluded from the proposed classes are CMB's officers,
directors,
managerial employees, and their immediate families, as well as
this
Court and the Court's immediate family members.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint Bo "Steven" Huang,
Haipeng "Alex" Liu, Julie Turnbull, and Yun Xue as representatives
for each class. The Plaintiffs further request that the Court
appoint Gaw | Poe LLP as class counsel for each class.
The Plaintiffs are investors in the federal government's EB-5 visa
program, whereby a foreign national may obtain a green card by
investing $500,000 to finance projects that create employment in
the United States.
CMB is a single-member LLC that created Group VII and is its
general
partner.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SoVe0v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randolph Gaw, Esq.
Mark Poe, Esq.
Victor Meng, Esq.
GAW | POE LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 766-7451
Facsimile: (415) 737-0642
E-mail: rgaw@gawpoe.com
mpoe@gawpoe.com
vmeng@gawpoe.com
COASTAL MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hicks Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND HICKS, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COASTAL MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS LLC d/b/a TRANSFORMATIVE HEALTHCARE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10097-JEK (D. Mass., Jan. 11, 2024) is
a class action arising out of the recent cyberattack and data
breach that was perpetuated against Defendant that compromised
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifying information
including names, addresses, and information provided in connection
with their employment at Defendant.
According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
employees' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. As
a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been
exposed to a present and continuing risk of fraud and identity
theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future
closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity
theft, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including improvements
to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and
adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking
redress for its unlawful conduct.
Coastal Medical Transportation Systems LLC is a company that
provides ambulance and other emergency services with its principal
place of business located in Hyannis, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
DECATUR, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Grason
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grason v. City of Decatur
et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02130-CSB-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SsEjdB at no extra charge.[CC]
DECOSTAR INDUSTRIES: Headen Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
YUNONA HEADEN and TRINADY BODDIE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DECOSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
a subsidiary of Magna Exteriors and Interiors Corp., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00153-TWT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 11, 2024) is a wage and
hour case brought to remedy Decostar's practice and policy of
failing to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees an
overtime premium unless and until they work forty- and one-half
hours a week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Headen was employed by the Defendant as a
finesser/manufacturer assigned to work on Nissan auto parts and as
a picker and packer on BMW or Mercedes auto parts from February
2022 through the date of filing this complaint.
Plaintiff Boddie also worked for the Defendant as a machine
operator from January 3, 2023 through the date of filing this
Complaint.
Decostar Industries, Inc. produces interior and exterior auto parts
on behalf of Magna Exteriors and Interiors Corp.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq.
Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS
FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
101 Marietta Street Suite 2650
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 979-3171
Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
E-mail: Kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must Produce MPD Property Books
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLIVIA PARROTT, et al., v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-02930-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon.
Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered a memorandum that it will
grant-in-part and deny-in-part Plaintiffs' motion to compel
production of MPD property books, deny plaintiffs' motion to compel
electronic databases, deny Plaintiffs' motion for a protective
order, and grant defendant's cross-motion for a protective order.
A separate order consistent with this memorandum opinion shall
issue.
The Court is also sensitive to the fact "that the more widely
confidential documents are disseminated, it becomes both more
likely that those documents will be released, and more difficult
for the Court to enforce the terms of its protective order."
The Court is concerned that allowing the plaintiffs' counsel to
retain these confidential records indefinitely and use them in
other
cases without oversight by this Court or approval by the
designating party would needlessly raise the risk of inadvertent
disclosure.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Jan. 11, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42amjri at no
extra charge.[CC]
EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Hardy Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER HARDY and DANNY
ROCHEFORT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. EMBARK TECHNOLOGY, INC. f/k/a NORTHERN GENESIS
ACQUISITION CORP. II, IAN ROBERTSON, KEN MANGET, CHRISTOPHER
JARRATT, PAUL DALGLISH, ROBERT SCHAEFER, BRAD SPARKES, ALEX
RODRIGUES, and RICHARD HAWWA, Case No. 3:22-cv-02090-JSC (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) granting final approval to the settlement set forth in the
Amended Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated August
30, 2023;
(2) approving the Plan of Allocation as fair, reasonable and
adequate;
(3) determining that the notice program satisfied due process
and
complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e);
(4) certifying the Settlement Class; and
(5) entering the proposed order filed herewith and dismissing
the
Action with prejudice.
Lead Plaintiff Tyler Hardy and Plaintiff Danny Rochefort submit for
the Court's approval, a $2.5 million cash Settlement resolving all
claims in this Action. The Plaintiffs contend that the settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The case is a federal securities class action against Embark and
certain of its officers and directors, including Ian Robertson, Ken
Manget, Christopher Jarratt, Paul Dalglish, Robert Schaefer, Brad
Sparkes, Alex Rodrigues, and Richard Hawwa. Specifically, the
Amended Complaint asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Embark is an autonomous vehicle company building the software
powering autonomous trucks.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/492kFdD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brenda Szydlo, Esq.
Dean Ferrogari, Esq.
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: bszydlo@pomlaw.com
dferrogari@pomlaw.com
jpafiti@pomlaw.com
FOSTER AND MONROE: Lightell Discovery Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lightell v. Foster and
Monroe, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00348 (W.D.N.Y., Filed May 10, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for discovery limited to class
certification.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act involving consumer credit.
Foster is a debt collection agency that specializes in purchasing
and collecting overdue accounts.
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for March 19 in Riley
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RILEY, v. GENERAL
MOTORS LLC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order setting date for oral
argument on outstanding motions on March 19, 2024.
Oral argument in this case may not be continued by stipulation of
the parties or counsel, but only by an order of the Court on good
cause shown. Any request for a continuance should be made promptly
after the reason for seeking the continuance becomes known.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UcSg0j at no extra charge.[CC]
HALLRICH INC: Faces Hess Suit Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Madelyn Hess, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Hallrich Incorporated; SFR X Holdings, LLC d/b/a/
Bluegrass Pizza; Greg Chaffin; John Doe 1-10; and Doe Corporation
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00077 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 11, 2024)
seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based
on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals with minimum wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio's Prompt Pay Act as well
as unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants repeatedly and willfully
violated the FLSA and Ohio wage law by failing to adequately
reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses,
thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated
minimum wage for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a pizza delivery driver
at the Defendants' Pizza Hut store in Niles and Youngstown, Ohio
from approximately the end of 2020 until September 2023.
Hallrich Incorporated operates several Pizza Hut Pizza franchise
locations across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Laura E. Farmwald, 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
lfarmwald@billerkimble.com
HEARST TELEVISION: Class Certification Bids in Saunders Due June 26
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saunders, et al., v.
Hearst Television, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998 (D. Mass., Filed
May 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns denying the
Defendant Hearst's motion to dismiss and setting the following
pretrial schedule:
-- The Answer to the Amended Complaint Feb. 1, 2024
is due by:
-- Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Feb. 26, 2024
Civ. P. 26(a)(1) will be completed by:
-- If there is disagreement as to the June 5, 2024
delineation of the plaintiff class,
class discovery will be completed by:
-- Class certification motions will be June 26, 2024
filed by:
with any opposition by: July 10, 2024
-- If there is no disagreement as to July 17, 2024
delineation of the class, all fact
discovery will be completed by:
-- If class discovery and certification Dec. 6, 2024
is necessary, all fact discovery will
be completed by:
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory
Actions.
Hearst Television is a national multimedia company.[CC]
HEARST TELEVISION: Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Saunders Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in the lawsuit titled MICHELE SAUNDERS and
RICHARD HAYDEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. HEARST TELEVISION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998-RGS (D.
Mass.).
Hearst Television, Inc., is the owner of several mobile
applications on which consumers can access various news stories.
Michele Saunders and Richard Hayden filed this putative class
action against Hearst, claiming that it disclosed to third parties
their personally identifiable information -- including a record of
every video they viewed on Hearst's apps -- in violation of the
Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2710 (VPPA). The
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
A software application, or "app," is a software designed to carry
out a specific task other than one relating to the operation of the
computer itself.
Hearst moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
(FAC) for failure to state a claim. Hearst previously moved to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' initial complaint. Because the FAC
supersedes the original complaint, Judge Stearns holds that motion
is moot.
Hearst owns various apps on which users can read and watch local
and national news, sports, weather, traffic, politics, and
entertainment stories. The Plaintiffs, who are residents of
Massachusetts and New Hampshire, watched videos of weather updates
on two local news apps owned by Hearst—the WCVB 5 and WMUR 9
apps—for several years.
Although the Plaintiffs concede that they chose to share with
Hearst geolocation information and, in Saunders's case, her email
address, they allege that they never gave Hearst permission to
disclose this information to third parties.
Hearst moves to dismiss on seven grounds. Five grounds are based on
the pleadings, claiming that the FAC fails to adequately allege
that: (1) Hearst is a "video tape service provider," (2) the
Plaintiffs are "consumers," (3) the disclosed information is PII,
(4) the transmission was knowing, and (5) the Plaintiffs suffered
actual damages. Hearst also claims that (6) the information was
disclosed in the "ordinary course of business" so satisfies an
exception to liability under the VPPA, and (7) the Plaintiffs'
reading of the VPPA violates the First Amendment.
Judge Stearns finds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that
Hearst is a video tape service provider and that the Plaintiffs are
consumers. Judge Stearns also finds that the FAC sufficiently
alleges that the disclosed information is PII and the FAC
adequately pleads knowledge.
According to the Court's Memorandum and Order, the Plaintiffs need
not plead actual damages, and that the ordinary course of business
exception does not apply. Judge Stearns adds that the application
of the VPPA alleged in the FAC is consonant with the First
Amendment.
For these reasons, the Court denies Hearst's motion to dismiss the
FAC.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 11,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2ymbxrunfrom
PacerMonitor.com.
HONDA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Extended to March 22
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spencer v. Honda Motor
Corp., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00988 (E.D. Cal., Filed June
2, 2021), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order extending
the deadline for Plaintiff to file his Motion for Class
Certification to March 22, 2024.
The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.
Honda Motor is a Japanese manufacturer of motorcycles and a major
producer of automobiles.[CC]
IDAHO: Cruse Loses Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID CRUSE, v. BRAD
LITTLE; IDAHO BOARD OF CORRECTION; GOVERNING MEMBER; JOSH TEWALT;
RANDY VALLEY; TIMOTHY McKAY; JIM LAU; VERNON GREENLAND; and STATE
OF IDAHO, Case No. 1:23-cv-00455-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge B.
Lynn Winmill entered an initial review order as follows:
1. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be
granted.
2. If Plaintiff does not file a timely second amended complaint,
this case may be dismissed with prejudice and without further
notice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, failure to prosecute, or failure to comply with a
Court
order.
3. The Plaintiff's request for class certification is denied.
The Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department
of Correction, currently incarcerated at the Idaho State
Correctional Center. Plaintiff alleges that, in an effort to
contain the COVID-19 pandemic and in response to understaffing,
prison officials undertook various actions that allegedly violated
prisoners’ rights to religious exercise.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 --
specifically, First Amendment claims—as well as claims under the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and claims
under Idaho state law.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vFWsLL at no extra charge.[CC]
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Must File Class Cert. Opposition by March 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Srinivasan Venkataraman v.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08082-DEH
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale E. Ho entered an order that:
-- The Defendants shall file opposition to motion for class
certification, complete expert discovery, and file expert
report
by March 7, 2024.
-- The Plaintiff shall file reply in support of Motion for Class
Certification, complete expert discovery, and file expert
rebuttal
report by May 16, 2024.
Kandi is a Chinese battery and electric vehicle manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U8JfFJ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Juan Olivo, Esq.
TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP
1350 Broadway
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 216-8000
Facsimile: (212) 216-8001
E-mail: jolivo@tarterkrinsky.com
LINCOLN TRANSPORTATION: Faces Manning Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY MANNING, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. LINCOLN
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV00346 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 11, 2024) arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants intentionally
misclassified employees as independent contractors; failed to pay
minimum wages, including but not limited to all nonproductive time
for rest breaks and pre- and post-trip inspections; failed to pay
all wages owed upon separation, specifically wages including, but
not limited to, minimum wages; failed to pay all wages owed every
pay period; failed to maintain required records; failed to issue
timely and accurate wage statements to their drivers; failed to
reimburse all necessary business-related expenses; unlawfully
deducted amounts from drivers' wages; and violated California's
Unfair Competition Law.
Plaintiff Manning worked for the Defendants as a driver, but
Defendants misclassified him as an independent contractor instead
of an employee from 2016 through approximately July 6, 2023, which
is during the Class Period as alleged herein, says the suit.
Lincoln Transportation Services, Inc. is a drayage trucking company
delivering cargo from ports to customers interstate and throughout
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
11520 San Vicente Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Telephone: (310) 860-0770
Facsimile: (310) 860-0771
E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com
MEADOW LARK: Quinn Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW QUINN, an
individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MEADOW LARK TRANSPORT, INC., MEADOW LARK COMPANIES,
INC., MEADOW LARK AGENCY, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00055-SPW-TJC (D.
Mont.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
class certification and default judgment against the Defendants in
the amount of $15M.
Counsel for Plaintiffs' have been in contact with bankruptcy
counsel for Meadow Lark Agency, James A. "Andy" Patten about a
variety of matters. Mr. Patten is not counsel of record for any
party in this case, but reports that Amanda Roth, CEO of all Meadow
Lark Companies, does not oppose the motion for class certification
and does not oppose default judgment being entered against Meadow
Lark Companies but does oppose default judgment being entered
against Meadow Lark Transport. Based on this limited opposition,
albeit not by counsel representing Transport or Companies,
Plaintiffs respectfully submit herewith the accompanying memorandum
brief.
Meadow Lark offers as a third-party logistics (3PL) firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U7luxy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Morrison, Esq.
Scott Peterson, Esq.
MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON, & DEOLA, PLLP
401 N. Last Chance Gulch St.
Helena, MT 59601
Telephone: (406) 442-3261
Facsimile: (406) 443-7294
E-mail: john@mswdlaw.com
speterson@mswdlaw.com
- and -
Robert S. Boulter, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. BOULTER
1101 5th Ave #310
San Rafael, CA 94901
Telephone: (415) 233-7100
E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Woodard Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH JOSEPH WOODARD, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No.
8:23-cv-00301-RFR (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
entered an order certifying Settlement Class Pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All Discharged Non-Title IV Borrowers on all Non-Title IV
Covered
Loans."
The Court confirms the prior appointments of the Plaintiff Kenneth
Joseph Woodard as Class Representative, and the law firms of
Fishman Haygood LLP; Jones Swanson Huddell LLC; Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP; Francis Mailman Soumilas, PC; and the Law Offices of
James Michel as Class Counsel.
Navient provides financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4b6g9fX at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK: Court Refuses to Issue Protective Order in C.K. v. DOH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York denies the Defendants' Motion for a
Protective Order in the lawsuit captioned C.K. through his next
friend P.K., C.W. through her next friend P.W., for themselves and
those similarly situated, C.X., through her next friend P.X., C.Y.,
through his next friend P.Y., for themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. James V. McDonald, in his official capacity
as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, and
Ann Marie T. Sullivan, in her official capacity as Commissioner of
the New York State Office of Mental Health, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01791-NJC-JMW (E.D.N.Y.).
The putative class action lawsuit, brought by four named
Plaintiffs--each a minor proceeding through their "next friend" on
behalf of themselves and two putative classes of similarly-situated
children--concerns claims that New York State allegedly fails to
provide certain mental health services to Medicaid-eligible
children in violation of federal laws.
The Plaintiffs bring claims for injunctive and declaratory relief
against James V. McDonald, in his official capacity as Commissioner
of the New York State Department of Health ("DOH"), and Ann Marie
T. Sullivan, M.D., in her official capacity as Commissioner of the
New York State Office of Mental Health ("OMH") (collectively
"Defendants" or "Commissioners"). Commissioner McDonald replaced
former-named Defendant in this lawsuit and former DOH Commissioner,
Mary T. Bassett.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants are failing to ensure
that the Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated children with
mental health conditions, who require intensive home and
community-based mental health services ("IHCBS"), receive federally
required mental health services, leading to a mental health crisis
amongst New York's most marginalized children. The Plaintiffs bring
claims under: (1) the Medicaid Act; (2) 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (3)
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (4) The
Rehabilitation Act.
The Defendants object to Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks' Dec. 13,
2023 Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the
depositions of DOH Commissioner McDonald and OMH Commissioner
Sullivan, and denying the Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order
to preclude the depositions.
For the reasons set in this Memorandum and Order, Judge Choudhury
rules that the Defendants' objections are denied and Magistrate
Judge Wicks' Order is affirmed.
The Plaintiffs seek to depose McDonald and Sullivan on the basis
that they are policymakers ultimately responsible for, and with
firsthand knowledge of, the alleged policies and practices
depriving New York's Medicaid-eligible children of needed mental
health services.
On Dec. 1, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel the
depositions of the Commissioners. That same day, the Defendants
filed a Motion for a Protective Order to preclude the depositions.
On Dec. 13, 2023, Judge Wicks issued an Order granting the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the depositions and denying the
Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order to preclude the
depositions.
First, the Order found that the Plaintiffs' request to depose
McDonald and Sullivan was reasonable and proportional to the needs
of the case in light of the fact that depositions had been
substantially completed by Nov. 16, 2023, and that additional
depositions were permitted until the close of fact discovery on
June 17, 2024.
Second, the Order also found that the Plaintiffs satisfied the
"exceptional circumstances" test for justifying depositions of
"high ranking government officials" as set forth in the Second
Circuit's decision in Lederman v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Parks &
Recreation, 731 F.3d 199, 203 (2d Cir. 2013). Judge Wicks found
that the Plaintiffs demonstrated that the Commissioners "have or
should have first-hand knowledge" of issues directly relevant to
the Plaintiffs' claims, which could not be obtained from other
individuals.
The Defendants objected to the Order by letter, requesting
reconsideration by the Court. The Plaintiffs provided a letter
response. The Defendants make six arguments, many of them the same
as arguments they made to Judge Wicks, in their objections to the
Order. Among other things, the Defendants argue that Judge Wicks
misapplied Lederman, 731 F.3d 199, because depositions of the
Commissioners would severely hinder their ability to effectively
run their agencies.
Judge Choudhury finds that Magistrate Judge Wicks' Dec. 13, 2023
Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Wicks made
no error in his reading or application of Lederman, 731 F.3d 199,
to conclude that the Plaintiffs met the standard for compelling
depositions of McDonald and Sullivan to obtain evidence relevant to
the Plaintiffs' claims.
The Defendants' objections to the Order are unpersuasive for six
overarching reasons, Judge Choudhury opines. The Order accurately
described the holding of Lederman: an exceptional circumstance
justifying the deposition of a high-ranking government official
exists where a party establishes either: (i) "that the official has
unique first-hand knowledge related to the litigated claims[;]" or
(ii) "that the necessary information cannot be obtained through
other, less burdensome or intrusive means." Judge Choudhury adds,
among other things, that the record clearly demonstrates that
McDonald and Sullivan have "unique firsthand knowledge" needed to
prove--or disprove--the claims in this case.
The Court, therefore, finds that the Order is neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law and that Judge Wicks appropriately
acted within the bounds of his discretion to grant the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Compel and to deny the Defendants' Motion for a
Protective Order.
For the reasons set forth, the Court denies the Defendants' request
to set aside Magistrate Judge Wicks' Order granting the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Compel the depositions of the OMH and DOH Commissioners,
and denying the Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 11,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/5528ce6nfrom
PacerMonitor.com.
NFL: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re National Football League Sunday
Ticket Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:15-ml-02668-PSG-SK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, the following causes of action remain for trial:
Violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, and violation of section
2 of the Sherman Act.
The Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment as to the
Plaintiffs' challenges to the NFL-Network Agreements or to the
Teams-NFL Agreement. The Court is indeed "required to take a
holistic look at how the interlocking agreements actually impact
competition" and cannot evaluate the NFL's vertical conduct in
isolation.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have conspired and
entered a set of agreements with each other and their broadcast
partners that suppress the output of telecasts of out-of-market
professional football games.
The National Football League (NFL) is a professional American
football league that consists of 32 teams, divided equally between
the American Football Conference (AFC) and the National Football
Conference (NFC).
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HsP3Co at no extra charge.[CC]
NYC HEALTH: Faces Colantuone Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Colantuone, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. NYC
Health and Hospital Corp. (d/b/a Harlem Hospital Center),
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00242 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2024) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking recovery, for herself
and all other similarly situated individuals, against Defendant's
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Articles 6 and 19 of
the New York State Labor Law and their supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations.
The Plaintiff was employed as a nurse at Defendant's hospital and
medical services and care facility from July 2023 through and
including November 2, 2023. He alleges Defendant's failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to
furnish wage statements.
NYC Health and Hospital Corp. owns, operates and/or controls a
hospital and medical services and care facility known as "Harlem
Hospital Center" located in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
PATHWAY VET: Dixon Files Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCHE DIXON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PATHWAY VET ALLIANCE, LLC. a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 24STCV00887 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 11, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of
the California Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay all overtime
compensation and sick pay wages at the proper legal rates by
failing to calculate the "regular rate of pay" correctly. Moreover,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's meal and rest period policies
and practices failed to allow and permit non-exempt employees to
take all compliant and timely meal and rest periods or pay premium
wages at the "regular rate of pay" in lieu thereof. The Plaintiff
further alleges that Defendant failed to provide non-exempt
employees with accurate written itemized wage statements, failed to
reimburse all necessary business expenses incurred, and failed to
timely pay all final wages upon separation of employment.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt employee
with the title of "Doctor's Assistant and Receptionist" out of the
Woodland Hills, California, location beginning on March 16, 2023,
until her separation from employment on October 13, 2023.
Pathway Vet Alliance, LLC is a veterinary management group that
operates an integrated service model serving the needs of pet
families and veterinarians.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.,
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 975-1493
Facsimile: (310) 675-0861
E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
- and -
Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (818) 456-6168
Facsimile: (888) 505-0868
E-mail: josh@falakassalaw.com
PRO SERVICES: Garrido Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID D. GARRIDO, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. PRO SERVICES GROUP, LLC, aka POOL PRO,
TROPICAL POOL HEATING, INC. aka JUPITER POOL REPAIR, ADAM EDISON,
STEVEN D. MAIRANO, and MARY JO MAIRANO, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 9:24-cv-80027 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 11, 2024) is an action
against the Defendants to recover money damages for Plaintiff's
unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time pool technician from January 15, 2023 until June 9, 2023,
when he was forced to leave his employment because he was working
overtime hours without compensation.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime hours, liquidated
damages, retaliatory damages, and any other relief as allowable by
FLSA.
PRO SERVICES GROUP, LLC, a/k/a POOL PRO, and TROPICAL POOL HEATING,
INC., a/k/a JUPITER POOL REPAIR, are pool cleaning and maintenance
companies. The Companies provide pool cleaning and maintenance
services to commercial and residential accounts in the area of Palm
Beach County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Seeks Leave to File Surreply in Henson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Surreply.
On Dec. 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their
motion for class certification.
On Jan. 5, 2024, Progressive filed a motion for leave to file a
surreply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Progressive also submitted a proposed surreply.
Progressive Premier operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Huhbos 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
PUBLIX SUPER: Roberts Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS,
CAITLIN THROCKMORTON, BRANDY MOORE, CARTER HUBBS, and JESSICA
SCHAFER, individually on behalf of themselves, and all others
similarly situated, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Case No.
8:23-cv-02447-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla.), Plaintiffs request that the
Court grant all relief requested, including:
(a) conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Collective;
(b) requiring Publix to produce in electronic or
computer-readable
format the full name, address(es), telephone number(s), and
email address(es) for members of the FLSA Collective;
(c) authorizing distribution of Notice and a reminder postcard,
substantially in the forms attached as Exs. 47 and 48;
(d) approving the Plaintiffs' plan for dissemination and return
of
Consent Forms; and
(e) any additional relief that this Court deems just and
proper.
The Plaintiffs filed this FLSA collective action seeking back
wages, liquidated damages, and other relief on behalf of current
and former Department Managers ("DMs") and Assistant Department
Managers ("ADMs") of Defendant Publix who were not paid for all of
their overtime hours worked due to Publix’s common policies and
practices which required them to work while off-the-clock resulting
in unpaid overtime.
The Plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify the following
Collective:
"All Assistant Department Managers and Department Managers who
worked in Publix's Deli, Bakery, Customer Service, Meat,
Produce,
or Grocery Departments (i.e., "Hourly Managers"), worked over 40
hours in any workweek in Defendant's stores throughout the
United
States, on or after October 26, 2020, to the date of judgment."
Publix operates 1,360 supermarkets in Florida, Georgia, Alabama,
South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O8yv6g at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
981 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Andrew Frisch, Esq.
Jolie Pavlos, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2069
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
afrisch@forthepeople.com
PURPOSE POINT: Gomez‐Echeverria Labor Suit Seeks Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luis Gomez‐Echeverria,
et al., v. Purpose Point Harvesting LLC, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00314-JMB-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for class certification under
Federal rule of civil procedure 23(b)(3).
"All H-2A workers who worked for Defendant Purpose Point
Harvesting
LLC in 2018 and 2019."
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the case as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and to appoint
class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).
The Plaintiffs seek Rule 23 certification of the claims state in
Count V of their Second Amended Complaint for recovery of damages
under a breach of contract.
In addition, the Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint their
attorneys to serve as class counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(g).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O74T9d at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Teresa Hendricks, Esq.
Benjamin O'Hearn, Esq.
Molly Spaak, Esq.
MIGRANT LEGAL AID
1104 Fuller Ave. NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503‐1371
Telephone: (616) 454‐5055
The Defendant are represented by:
Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
AVANTI LAW GROUP
600 28th St. SW
Wyoming, MI 49509
Telephone: (616) 257‐6807
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by March 19
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A+ AUTO SERVICE, LLC, v.
REPUBLIC SERVICES OF SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-01492-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard M. Gergel
entered a fifth amended
scheduling order as follows:
1. Expert witnesses: The parties shall file and serve a
document
identifying the full name, address and telephone number of
each
person whom they expect to call as an expert at trial and
certifying that a written report prepared and signed by the
expert including all information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed by the following dates:
Plaintiffs: November 15, 2023
Defendants: March 4, 2024
2. Discovery: Discovery shall be completed no later than
December
15, 2023, other than the completion of the 30(b)(6)
deposition
of Garibian & Associates and individual deposition of Eva
Garibian, the depositions of the expert witnesses and the
remaining production of class member data and analysis
thereof,
as set out in Paragraph 6 below.
3. Class certification: Any motion relating to class
certification
shall be filed and served as follows:
a. Plaintiffs shall file and serve a motion for class
certification on or before March 19, 2024.
b. Defendants shall file their response on or before May 6,
2024.
c. Plaintiffs may file a reply on or before May 20, 2024.
Republic Services provides solid waste collection services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U8gmte at no extra charge.[CC]
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Stuart's Bid to Quash Subpoena Moved to D.S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Buffalo Seafood House LLC,
et al., v. Republic Services Incorporated, et al., Case No.
2:23-mc-00052-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes
entered an order granting the transfer of Mr. Stuart's motion to
quash subpoena or, in the alternative, for a protective order to
the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina.
The Court finds these factors strongly militate in favor of
transferring Mr. Stuart's motion to quash to the issuing court.
Plaintiffs' case is a consolidated class action that has been
pending since 2021. Of the consolidated cases, one has over 200
docket entries despite only being in the class certification
stage.
The Court is also persuaded that the issuing court would be better
suited to evaluate Mr. Stuart's objections to the subpoena, which
appear wholly based on the "apex doctrine."
Republic Services is a North American waste disposal company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aZFKHH at no extra charge.[CC]
SEAMORE'S ON ICE: Chavez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANI GALVEZ CHAVEZ, on behalf of herself and the Class,
Plaintiff v. SEAMORE'S ON ICE LLC, 1270 3RD RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a
Seamore's, 390 BROOME RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a Seamore's, 161 8TH AVE
RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a Seamore's, S OUT EAST LLC d/b/a Seamore's, S
UP TOP LLC d/b/a Seamore's, S DOWN BELOW LLC d/b/a The Hull Sports
Bar, S BIG SWING LLC d/b/a Seamore's, JAY WAINWRIGHT, and MICHAEL
CHERNOW, Defendants, Case No. 700810/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty.,
Jan. 11, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiff alleging, pursuant to
the New York Labor Law, that he and others similarly situated are
entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including
overtime compensation, due to time shaving, (2) unpaid
spread-of-hours premium, (3) liquidated damages, (4) statutory
penalties and (5) attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a dishwasher
at Defendants' "Seamore's" Restaurant in Chelsea, New York. The
Plaintiff was eventually promoted to a Salad Preparer and
eventually promoted further to a Line Cook, until she was laid-off
on January 1, 2023 because she requested time off. Throughout her
employment with Defendants, she was not properly compensated at the
overtime premium of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as required
under the NYLL, the Plaintiff says.
Seamore's On Ice LLC owns and operates a chain of restaurants under
the trade name "Seamore's" with locations across New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
SUBARU OF AMERICA: New Jersey Court Narrows Claims in Aquino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey grants in part and denies in part the motion
to dismiss filed in the lawsuit styled RICHARD AQUINO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00990-JHR-AMD (D.N.J.).
The matter is before the Court on the motion to dismiss, in part,
and for consolidation of remaining claims with Amato v. Subaru of
Am., Inc., No. CV 18-16118 filed by Defendant Subaru of America,
Inc.
The lawsuit is one among the three similar class-actions brought
against Subaru of America, Inc. ("SOA") and Subaru Corporation
("SBR") (together, "Subaru"). Richard Aquino and other members of
the purported class are individuals, who purchased or leased 2009
through 2018 model year Subaru Impreza WRX and WRX STi passenger
vehicles alleged to contain defective engine components. The
complaint alleges that as a result of these defective components,
class vehicles experience premature cataclysmic engine piston
ringlands failure (the "Piston Ringlands Defect") requiring between
$5,000 to $6,500 or more in repairs to remedy.
The Plaintiffs claim that Subaru had actual knowledge of the
alleged defect, which they concealed from consumers. The proposed
class representatives and members of the proposed classes request
monetary damages against Subaru based upon claims of breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, misrepresentation and
unfair and deceptive business practices.
In March 2018, Christopher Thompson filed a putative class action
complaint against SOA and SBR in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Case No. 1:18-cv- 03736. The Thompson class
action alleged that Subaru's 2009 through 2014 WRX and WRX STi
vehicles suffered from a "Piston Ringlands Defect." Based on those
allegations, Thompson asserted warranty and consumer fraud claims
against Subaru on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a
California subclass. Class Counsel represented Thompson in the
lawsuit.
On Sept. 4, 2018, Subaru moved to dismiss Thompson's complaint on
various grounds. While the motion was still pending, Thompson
stipulated to the dismissal of the Thompson class action, with
prejudice.
In November 2018, Class Counsel filed a class action complaint on
behalf of putative class members against SOA and SBR in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No.
1:18-cv-16118. Like in Thompson, the Amato class action asserted
warranty and consumer fraud claims against SOA and SBR based on an
alleged Piston Ringlands Defect and sought certification of a
putative nationwide class and state subclasses. The Amato Class
Action differed in that it identified four new class
representatives and subclasses -- Joseph Amato (New Jersey), Chris
Lall (New York), George Sandoval (Arizona), and James Moore
(Indiana) -- and it expanded the proposed class vehicle model years
to include 2009 through 2018 WRX and WRX STi vehicles.
Subaru filed a motion to dismiss the Amato class action, which the
Court granted in part and denied in part. Class Counsel then filed
a First Amended Complaint in April 2020. The Amato First Amended
Complaint withdrew the claims it asserted on behalf of the
nationwide class, replaced the New Jersey subclass with Georgia and
Pennsylvania subclasses, asserted a new claim against SOA and SBR
for negligent misrepresentation, and added a new named plaintiff,
Ian Connolly, for a California subclass.
The Court entered a scheduling order on July 2, 2020, providing
that the time within which to add new plaintiffs will expire on
Sept. 25, 2020. The time within which to seek all other amendments
to the pleadings will expire on Feb. 12, 2021.
On Sept. 25, 2020, the Class Counsel filed a Second Amended
Complaint. The Amato Second Amended Complaint dropped the New York
class representative, Lall, withdrew all remaining warranty claims
against Subaru, and added another class representative, Andrew
Hinshaw, and a Michigan subclass. On June 10, 2021, Class Counsel
field a Third Amended Complaint, which defined proposed subclasses
for Georgia, Indiana, Arizona, Pennsylvania, California, and
Michigan.
Absent from the list of proposed subclasses in paragraph 24 of the
Amato Third Amended Complaint is the New York subclass, and the
Amato Third Amended Complaint proposes no New York class
representative. While the Amato Third Amended Complaint excluded
these references to Lall and the New York subclass, paragraph 228
and the sub-caption under Count VI alleging negligent
misrepresentation includes a reference to New York subclass
members. Class Counsel submits that this was merely a scrivener's
error that left a vestigial reference and it was their clear intent
to withdraw the New York subclass claims.
Subaru argues, to the contrary, that by including the reference in
paragraph 228 and the sub-caption, the Amato Third Amended
Complaint retained the negligent misrepresentation claim asserted
on behalf of the New York subclass.
By the close of fact discovery, three of the six named plaintiffs
in the Amato class action remained: Hinshaw (Michigan), Moore
(Indiana), and Sandoval (Arizona). Class Counsel dismissed the
California class representative (Connolly). Class Counsel also
dismissed the Georgia and Pennsylvania class representative, Amato.
Subaru contends that it did not consent to Class Counsel amending
the pleadings to remove the California, Georgia, or Pennsylvania
subclasses and that those putative subclasses remain in the Amato
class action -- they just lack a class representative.
On Feb. 28, 2022, Class Counsel filed this (Aquino) putative class
action complaint against SOA and SBR. Like the Thompson and Amato
class actions, the Aquino class action asserts claims against SOA
and SBR based on an alleged Piston Ringlands Defect. It includes
the same 2009 through 2018 WRX and WRX STi vehicles at issue in the
Amato class action pending in this district and seeks certification
of multiple state subclasses.
The Plaintiffs named and claims asserted in the Aquino Complaint
are as follows: Ricardo Aquino (Illinois) asserts consumer fraud
claims on behalf of an Illinois subclass alleging violations of
Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count
I); George Crumpecker (Colorado) asserts claims on behalf of a
Colorado subclass alleging violations of Colorado's Consumer
Protection Act (Count II); Jonathan Piperato (California) asserts
claims on behalf of a California subclass alleging violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law (Count III) and the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Count IV); and, Stephen Tresco (New
York) asserts claims on behalf of a New York subclass alleging
violations of New York's Consumer Fraud Statute.
Because the Aquino Complaint includes two putative subclasses (New
York and California) that Subaru believes remain pending in Amato,
and given the overlap in the claims asserted, Subaru views Aquino
as an improper duplication of Amato brought with the strategic aim
of circumventing the Court's scheduling order in that action to
belatedly add new plaintiffs. On these grounds, Subaru has moved to
dismiss all claims asserted on behalf of the California and New
York subclasses in Aquino and to consolidate remaining claims with
Amato.
On July 6, 2022, the Court entered an Order consolidating Amato and
Aquino for discovery purposes and memorializing the parties'
agreement that any claims in Aquino that survive the instant motion
to dismiss will be consolidated for all purposes with the claims in
Amato. Thereafter, on Jan. 25, 2023, the parties stipulated to the
dismissal of George Crumpecker (Colorado) and Jonathan Piperato
(California). By these stipulations, the Aquino Complaint was
deemed amended to remove all claims and allegations asserted on
behalf of the putative California and Colorado subclasses.
Judge Rodriguez notes that this development served to moot
challenges raised by Subaru as to Crumpecker and Piperato and their
respective subclasses, which significantly narrows the issues on
its instant motion to dismiss.
The issues that remain in contest concern the arguments advanced by
Subaru that: (1) the Court should dismiss all claims asserted on
behalf of the New York subclass because those claims are based on
the same facts, brought against the same Defendants, and seek the
same relief as the New York subclass in the Amato Class Action;
and, (2) Tresco and Aquino have failed to plead facts sufficient to
support their negligent misrepresentation claims.
Subaru moves to dismiss the New York subclass claims on the
asserted basis that it duplicates claims pending in Amato and
strategically circumvents an existing scheduling order in Amato to
avert the risk that this Court would deny a motion by the
Plaintiffs seeking to add new class representatives in that action.
Subaru argues that because the claims and allegations asserted on
behalf of the New York subclasses in this action are virtually
identical to those asserted in this Amato Class Action, the Court
has the authority to, and should, dismiss the later filed claims as
duplicative.
Judge Rodriguez opines that Class Counsel's conduct raises at least
the possibility that this separate action could have been used to
avert the risk that the Court would deny a motion to amend to add
plaintiffs in Amato. Nevertheless, the Court does not find that
dismissal of the New York subclass is warranted. While the factual
allegations of the Amato and Aquino actions overlap, the Court does
not find itself faced with duplicative suits where it is apparent
that the New York subclass was evidently dropped by the Amato Third
Amended Complaint.
Because the New York subclass had ostensibly been abandoned and was
no longer a party to the case, no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
required Class Counsel to move for leave to amend rather than file
a new complaint, Judge Rodriguez says. That the Plaintiffs elected
this procedural route instead of seeking amendment does not justify
denying them the opportunity to litigate a potentially meritorious
claim, Judge Rodriguez points out.
The parties dispute whether the transaction between Tresco and
Subaru created a special relationship within the meaning of New
York common law. Tresco argues that the proposed class
representatives and proposed class members reasonably and
justifiably relied upon Subaru's representations and that these
representations created a special relationship between the
Defendants on one hand, and the Plaintiffs and members of the class
on the other, particularly in light of the Defendants' exclusive
and superior knowledge concerning class engine defects and the
existence of related safety concerns.
Judge Rodriguez notes that the statements at issue appear to have
been directed at a faceless or unresolved class or persons, which
is characteristic of a relationship between an ordinary buyer and
manufacturer/seller. Nevertheless, the Complaint can be fairly read
as sparsely pleading a relationship that extended beyond the
typical arm's-length business transaction where Subaru's
representations could have induced the Plaintiffs to forebear from
performing their own due diligence and Subaru vouched for the
veracity of the allegedly deceptive information.
Because Subaru's representations regarding technical facts
concerning class vehicles could have induced the Plaintiffs to
forebear from performing their own due diligence, and Subaru's
customer service representatives vouched for the veracity of the
allegedly deceptive information, the Court finds that the
Plaintiffs have at least sparsely pleaded a relationship that
extended beyond the typical arm's-length business transaction.
Subaru next argues that Aquino fails to state a claim for negligent
misrepresentation because the claim is barred by the economic loss
doctrine. In response, Aquino argues that their negligent
misrepresentation claim should survive a challenge predicated on
the economic loss doctrine because the Defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions are independent of any contract
and the Piston Ringland Defect poses a serious risk of injury.
Here, Aquino characterizes the damages sustained by the Illinois
subclass alleging that the misrepresentations diminish the vehicle
value and increase cost of vehicle ownership while also increasing
risk of injury that was not disclosed to or reasonably anticipated
by consumers at the time of purchase.
Because Aquino has only alleged an increased risk of personal
injury, without alleging an actual injury, Judge Rodriguez opines
that Aquino and the Illinois subclass specifically limited their
claims to economic injuries and seek economic damages for property
loss, in the form of diminished vehicle value and increased cost of
vehicle ownership. Such damages are subsumed under disappointed
commercial expectation.
Thus, Judge Rodriguez points out, these losses fall within the
definition of economic loss and are not recoverable in tort.
For the reasons set forth, the Court grants Subaru's motion in part
and denies Subaru's motion in part consistent with this Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 11, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/mrxc2ea5from PacerMonitor.com.
SUEZ WATER: Court Junks Nicholls Bid for Production of Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLLS et al v. Suez
Water Environmental Services, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-30034 (D.
Mass.¸ Filed March 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni
entered an order denying motion to compel.
-- The court finds Plaintiffs have not met their burden of
demonstrating that the information sought is relevant or
discoverable, particularly at this phase of discovery, which is
"limited to Plaintiffs' individual claims and class
certification
issues."
-- The Plaintiffs' claims relate to work they performed from
October
1, 2020, to present, and they seek to represent a class of
similarly situated individuals allegedly deprived of required
prevailing wages during this same time period.
-- The motion to compel, however, seeks the names of employees who
worked from 2011 to 2016 and were paid prevailing wages.
-- The Defendant has already provided Plaintiff with records
showing
prevailing wages paid to other employees during this time
period
but with the names redacted.
-- The Plaintiffs state that the information sought "goes right to
the substance of Plaintiffs' complaint as well as the scope of
the
class action", but they do not explain how the identities of
these
employees, rather than the fact that they were paid prevailing
wages (unlike Plaintiffs), is relevant in any way to
Plaintiffs'
claims or class certification.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.
Suez is a specialist in water treatment that develops wastewater
treatment solutions.[CC]
TRAVELERS PERSONAL: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Yount Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jason Pulliam of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, San Antonio Division, issued a Memorandum
Opinion and Order granting the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment in the lawsuit entitled HAROLD YOUNT, BRENDA YOUNT,
Plaintiffs v. TRAVELERS PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 5:23-cv-00150-JKP-RBF (W.D. Tex.).
The lawsuit arises from a claim for coverage for roof damage to the
home of Plaintiffs Harold Yount and Brenda Yount (the Younts)
caused by a hailstorm on May 28, 2021. The Younts submitted the
insurance claim on July 25, 2021. The parties do not dispute the
Younts' homeowner insurance policy (the Policy) covered the hail
damage incurred, nor Travelers's liability under the Policy.
The parties' dispute arose over the amount of money Travelers owed
under the Policy. The initial dispute pertained to the amount of
loss, including pricing of the necessary repairs, whether the
siding and decking required replacement, the number of hours of
supervision and cleaning that were necessary, whether dumpsters
were necessary, and whether replacement of the carport roof was
necessary. The parties also disagreed whether it was proper under
the Policy terms for Travelers to depreciate the labor cost
included in the estimated replacement cost to arrive at the actual
cash value of the loss.
The Younts hired a public adjuster, ProActive Claims, which, in its
report dated Oct. 7, 2021, assessed the total replacement cost of
$88,937.98 prior to any depreciation of labor cost, or deduction of
the Roof Systems Payment Schedule endorsement or the deductible.
Travelers paid $4,799.69 on March 16, 2022, its assessment of
liability on the claim after deduction for labor-cost depreciation,
a limitation on coverage for windstorm or hail damage under the
Roof Systems Payment Schedule endorsement, and the deductible.
In a pre-suit demand letter dated Jan. 30, 2023, the Younts,
demanded payment in the amount of $88,388.08, including attorney's
fees, penalties and interest.
The Younts filed this suit on Feb. 8, 2023, in their individual
capacity and as putative class representatives alleging six causes
of action: (1) breach of contract on behalf of a putative class
(Count I); (2) breach of contract on behalf of the Younts
individually (Count II); (3) unfair settlement practices under
Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code on behalf of the Younts
individually (Count III); (4) violation of the Texas Prompt Payment
of Claims Act on behalf of the Younts individually (Count IV); (5)
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing on behalf of
the Younts individually (Count V); and (6) declaratory judgment on
behalf of the Younts and a putative class (Count VI).
Travelers asserted numerous affirmative defenses contending the
Younts' causes of action are barred by: (1) the appraisal
provision; (2) payment of the claim; (3) the Policy's "Loss
Payment" provision; and (4) estoppel.
On March 8, 2023, during the pendency of the litigation, Travelers
invoked the appraisal process pursuant to the Policy terms. On Aug.
15, 2023, the appraisal panel of two appraisers and an umpire
issued an appraisal award of $30,082.64 as the actual cash value of
the loss with no depreciation applied to labor or removal of items
and assessed $24,093.44 as the actual cash value of the loss with
depreciation applied to labor costs.
The appraisal panel assessed the face-value replacement cost of the
loss to be $31,950.25, which, by definition, would not include
depreciation for labor costs. Following the appraisal award, on
Aug. 18, 2023, Travelers issued a check to the Younts in the amount
of $46,626.12. This payment calculation started with the face-value
replacement cost of the loss of $31,950.25, then deducted the
undisputed amounts of the prior payment and the deductible, and
then added payment for the maximum amount of penalties, interest
and attorney fees potentially recoverable. Thus, this payment did
not reduce the assessed face-value replacement cost of the loss by
any depreciation of the labor cost component.
When the Younts received payment, they did not cash the check or
otherwise deposit the funds. Instead, the Younts rejected the
payment of the binding appraisal award and continued this
litigation without amendment of the Complaint.
Travelers now moves for summary judgment on all causes of action.
In response, the Younts concede summary judgment is appropriate on
Count III, their individual cause of action of unfair settlement
practices under Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code and on
Count V, their individual cause of action of breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing. Therefore, the Court grants summary
judgment on these causes of action.
Judge Pulliam notes that the Younts do not respond to Travelers's
request for summary judgment on the cause of action for violation
of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act.
Travelers contends it is entitled to summary judgment on all
asserted causes of action and the requests for declaratory relief.
Travelers provides argument and evidence as to each cause of
action. The Younts do not respond specifically to each argument
pertaining to each cause of action, but instead, respond as if
Travelers challenges this Court's subject matter jurisdiction,
which it does not, and present their own legal arguments why the
Court should not grant summary judgment. Consequently, Judge
Pulliam says, the Younts present responsive arguments, which do not
directly align with Travelers's arguments in favor of summary
judgment.
Because the Younts do not respond specifically to each of
Travelers's arguments, the Court addressed in its Memorandum
Opinion and Order each basis for summary judgment Travelers
presents to determine if it meets its initial summary judgment
burden of proof. Then, the Court addressed the Younts' arguments to
the extent they can be applied to their shifting burden to dispel
Travelers's grounds for summary judgment, and the Younts'
independent arguments for denial of summary judgment.
The Younts assert an individual cause of action for violations of
the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA). Although the Younts
make these specific assertions of violations of the TPPCA, Judge
Pulliam notes that they do not assert any facts to support these
allegations, either in the Factual Background of the Complaint or
in the assertion of the cause of action.
For this reason, the Court interprets the Younts' allegation to be
Travelers violated the TPPCA by waiting to invoke the appraisal
process until after litigation ensued and by waiting to pay the
claim until issuance of the appraisal award in the Younts' favor.
The Court concludes the facts and procedural posture in this case
compel summary judgment in favor of Travelers on this cause of
action.
Judge Pulliam opines, among other things, that this case is
factually distinguishable from Barbara Technologies Corp. v. State
Farm Lloyds, 589 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. 2019), in which the insurer
initially rejected the insurance claim and paid it only when
liability was later determined through the appraisal process. The
Younts did not respond to this point. Therefore, the Court holds
that summary judgment is appropriate.
Travelers also argues it is entitled to summary judgment as a
matter of law on the TPPCA cause of action because it paid all
damages, penalties, and attorney fees that may be imposed and
recovered under the statute.
The Court construes Travelers's argument to be the fact that
attorney fees are not available under a statute is grounds for
summary judgment on the associated cause of action. Given the
Court's conclusion that summary judgment is appropriate on the
TPPCA cause of action, the Court need not examine this argument.
However, because Travelers presents the argument, to which the
Younts did not respond, and to the extent the parties dispute
whether more attorney fees should be paid, the Court will address
this issue for the sake of judicial economy.
Here, Judge Pulliam says, it is not disputed that Travelers's
liability arises under 542A of the TPPCA, which allows an insured
to recover the amount of the claim and simple interest on the
amount of the claim as damages. Simply, attorney fees incurred in
the prosecution or defense of a claim under the Texas Insurance
Code do not constitute damages owed.
Instead, Judge Pulliam explains, to recover attorney fees, a
plaintiff must prevail on the underlying cause of action and
recover actual damages before the plaintiff may seek or obtain
attorney fees. Here, the Younts did not prevail on the TPPCA, but
were granted an award through the appraisal process; therefore, the
Younts did not sustain damages and are not entitled to attorney
fees for. Thus, the Younts may not recover any attorney fees above
that paid as part of the appraisal award.
In this Motion for Summary Judgment, Travelers provides evidence it
initiated the appraisal process, the award issued in favor of the
Younts has not been set aside, and it timely paid to the Younts the
full appraisal award. The Younts do not dispute these facts.
Consequently, Judge Pulliam finds that this undisputed tender of
payment of the appraisal award is sufficient to bar the Younts'
individual breach of contract cause of action premised on failure
to pay the amount of the covered loss.
Consequently, Judge Pulliam holds that Travelers satisfies its
summary judgment burden, and the burden shifts to the Younts to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact or show summary judgment
should be denied as a matter of law. The Court concludes, as a
matter of law, Travelers's payment of the appraisal award bars the
Younts' individual breach of contract cause of action premised on
failure to pay the amount of the covered loss.
Absent an individual breach of contract cause of action,
consideration of the Younts' request for class certification is
moot, and they cannot serve as a class representative of this cause
of action, Judge Pulliam points out.
The Younts contend they have standing, and the Court has Article
III jurisdiction, because they are eligible for a "service award."
Judge Pulliam says this argument is without merit and does not
dispel any grounds for summary judgment on any cause of action
discussed. Travelers does not challenge the Younts' standing, nor
this Court's jurisdiction. Because the Court cannot address this
argument in response to the asserted grounds for summary judgment,
it does serve as basis to deny Travelers Motion for Summary
Judgment.
Even if the Court should determine summary judgment is appropriate
on the substantive merits of the individual breach of contract
cause of action, the Younts contend the Court should apply the
"well-established mootness exception" to dismissal of the
individual and putative class actions. Under this exception, the
Younts contend the Fifth Circuit "strongly disfavors efforts to
moot class proceedings by paying 'named plaintiffs the full amount
of their personal claims each time suit is brought as a class
action.'"
The Younts call this exception the "pick off" exception, under
which a "'would-be class representative with a live claim of her
own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification
is warranted.'" Because several other cases within the Fifth
Circuit proceeded to class certification and three different
federal district courts have recently held, as a matter of law,
that future repair labor is not depreciable, the Younts contend the
Court should apply the "pick-off" exception and allow them to
proceed as class representative in this case.
This argument is without merit, Judge Pulliam holds. To begin, the
pick-off exception applies in cases in which the class
representative's individual cause of action becomes moot during the
pendency of an established class action, thereby depriving the
Court of subject matter jurisdiction due to lack of a case or
controversy. The Court has not yet established this action as a
class action, and for the reasons provided here, will not reach
this issue.
The Court finds the Younts' argument insufficient to dispel summary
judgment of the individual and class action breach of contract
causes of action.
Travelers also seeks summary judgment as a matter of law on the
requested declaratory relief because the requested declarations are
duplicative of the breach of contract causes of action. The Younts
assert two requests for declaratory relief stating: (1) they and
members of the proposed class complied with all relevant conditions
precedent in their contracts; and (2) the applicable insurance
contracts prohibit the withholding of future labor costs when
adjusting the losses under the methodology employed.
The Court granted summary judgment as a matter of law on both the
individual and putative class breach of contract causes of action.
For this reason, the requests for declaratory relief are
duplicative and inconsequential, and need not be entertained and
may be dismissed by summary judgment for the same reasons the
underlying causes of action are dismissed.
For the reasons stated, Judge Pulliam rules that Travelers's Motion
for Summary Judgment is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to
close this case. Any pending motions are denied as moot. The
referral of all pretrial matters to the Magistrate Judge is
withdrawn.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Jan. 11, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3js7cn59from
PacerMonitor.com.
TRAVELERS PERSONAL: Wins Summary Judgment v. Yount
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD YOUNT, BRENDA
YOUNT, v. TRAVELERS PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
5:23-cv-00150-JKP-RBF (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Jason Pulliam
entered an order granting the Travelers's motion for summary
judgment.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Any pending
motions are denied as moot. The referral of all pretrial matters to
the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn.
This suit arises from a claim for coverage for roof damage to the
Younts’ home caused by a hailstorm on May 28, 2021. The Younts
submitted the insurance claim on July 25, 2021.
The parties do not dispute the Younts’ homeowner insurance policy
(the Policy) covered the hail damage incurred, nor Travelers's
liability under the Policy. The parties’ dispute arose over the
amount of money Travelers owed under the Policy. The initial
dispute pertained to the amount of loss, including pricing of the
necessary repairs, whether the siding and decking required
replacement, the number of hours of supervision and cleaning that
were necessary, whether dumpsters were necessary, and whether
replacement of the carport roof was necessary.
Travelers offers property and casualty insurance services to
individuals and businesses.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Jan. 11,
2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4b2WJZv
at no extra charge.[CC]
TRUMBULL COUNTY, OH: J.B. Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff J. B., a minor, by her father and next friend and all
others similarly situated, filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment dated December 8,
2023, in the lawsuit styled J.B., a minor by her father and next
friend and all others similarly situated v. HONORABLE SANDRA
STABILE HARWOOD, in her official capacity as the Administrative
Judge of the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio at Youngstown.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed May 19, 2023, alleging that Harwood violated the due
process rights of his minor client by not seeking diversion
outlined under Ohio Juvenile Rule 9(a) after the child was charged
with two felonies.
The lawsuit relates to another filed by the father of the juvenile
on Oct 1, 2022, alleging Title IX violations against Liberty Local
Schools and two then-employees of the school claiming his daughter
had been sexually assaulted and subsequently bullied by a male
student at W.S. Guy Junior High School, with the father claiming
his daughter received no support from the two then employees of the
school.
On June 15, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim which the Court granted on December 8
through a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment signed by Judge
John R. Adams.
The appellate case is captioned as J. B. v. Sandra Harwood, Case
No. 24-3024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, filed on January 10, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant brief is due on February 20, 2024; and
-- Appellee brief is due on March 20, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant J. B., a minor, by her father and next friend
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
David Lee Engler, Esq.
ENGLER LAW FIRM
1451 E. Market Street
Warren, OH 44483
Telephone: (330) 729-9777
Defendant-Appellee HONORABLE SANDRA STABILE HARWOOD, in her
official capacity as the Administrative Judge of the Trumbull
County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, is represented by:
Cooper David Bowen, Esq.
MONTGOMERY JONSON
600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 768-5242
TRUMP CORP: McKoy Claims Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE MCKOY, et al.,
v. THE TRUMP CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-09936-LGS-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order that
the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without prejudice to refiling
in state court.
-- All pending motions, except the motions to seal at Dkt. Nos.
572, 601, 613, 660 and 676, are denied without prejudice. The
motions to seal will be addressed by separate order.
-- Because this case now involves only three individual
plaintiffs
asserting claims under their respective states' laws, it is
not better suited for adjudication in this court than in
state
court, particularly those of California, Maryland and
Pennsylvania.
-- The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action asserting
subject matter jurisdiction based on the Class Action
Fairness
Act.
Trump Organization serves as the holding company for all of Trump's
business ventures and investments.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SsVBr0 at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Court Sustains Bid to Dismiss Mitchell v. DeJoy/USPS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas sustains the Defendant's motion to dismiss amended
complaint filed in the lawsuit styled ANDREA MITCHELL, Plaintiff v.
LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General of the United States Postal
Service, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-04053-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.).
Plaintiff Andrea Mitchell filed the lawsuit against Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service ("USPS"),
alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Amended Complaint was filed on
Nov. 14, 2023.
On Dec. 26, 2016, the USPS hired the Plaintiff as a Forklift
Operator. The Plaintiff suffers from anxiety and post-traumatic
stress disorder, which substantially limit her major life
activities. On Sept. 27, 2021, she requested that the USPS place
her in a clerical or administrative position, such as customer
service, as an accommodation.
The USPS refused her request for an accommodation and failed to
engage in an interactive process to address her requests. She
requested an accommodation more than once. Following her requests,
the USPS placed the Plaintiff on extended unpaid leave. To date,
the USPS continues to refuse her requests for an accommodation.
In June of 2022, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging disability
discrimination, harassment and retaliation. On May 22, 2023, the
USPS National EEO Investigative Services Office issued its Final
Agency Decision letter. On June 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the
lawsuit.
On Nov. 21, 2022, the Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas (In re
Mitchell, No. 22-bk-40692 (Bankr. D. Kan.)). In her petition, she
stated that she had no claims against third parties, regardless
whether she had yet filed suit or demanded payment. The Plaintiff
signed the petition under penalty of perjury that she provided true
information.
On Dec. 21, 2022, the Plaintiff amended her bankruptcy pleadings
and stated that she had a "wage class action lawsuit" against an
unnamed third party. On June 6, 2023, United States Chief
Bankruptcy Judge Dale L. Somers confirmed the Plaintiff's Chapter
13 plan, ordering her to timely report to the Trustee any events
affecting disposable income, including tax refunds, inheritances,
prizes, lawsuits, gifts, etc., that are received or receivable
during the pendency of the case.
On June 20, 2023, the Plaintiff asked the bankruptcy court to
appoint the Brumley Law Office as counsel for a civil proceeding.
The bankruptcy court granted her motion. To date, she has not filed
any amended schedules disclosing further claims.
The Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiff's
amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because (1) the doctrine of
sovereign immunity bars the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages;
(2) the doctrine of judicial estoppel bars her claims against the
Defendant; and (3) she has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
Because the Court resolves the Defendant's motion on the first two
grounds, it does not address whether the Plaintiff's amended
complaint states a claim for disability discrimination and
retaliation.
As an arm of the executive branch of the United States government,
Judge Vratil holds that the USPS is entitled to sovereign immunity,
citing Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481,
483–84 (2006).
Because the Plaintiff brings her claim for punitive damages against
the Postmaster General in his official capacity, Judge Vratil says
the Plaintiff brings her claim against the United States
government. The Court, therefore, sustains the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's punitive damages claim.
The Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims under the doctrine of judicial estoppel because the claims
asserted are inconsistent with her proceedings in the bankruptcy
court.
In applying judicial estoppel, courts typically consider whether
(1) a party's later position is clearly inconsistent with her
earlier position, (2) a party has persuaded a court to accept her
earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent
position in a later proceeding would create a perception that the
party misled either the first or second court and (3) the party
seeking to assert the inconsistent position would derive an unfair
advantage if not estopped.
Here, the Plaintiff's Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy represented
that she had no outstanding claims against third parties, Judge
Vratil notes. She later amended her bankruptcy pleadings to include
a "wage class action lawsuit," but did not disclose any disability
discrimination or retaliation claims against the USPS.
Because she disclosed a "wage class action lawsuit," the Plaintiff
argues that she put the bankruptcy court and the trustee on notice
of her employment claims against the USPS. Under Tenth Circuit
precedent, Judge Vratil holds that all three factors favor
application of judicial estoppel to bar the Plaintiff's claims.
The Court has discretion to not apply the doctrine of judicial
estoppel if the party took her earlier position inadvertently or by
mistake.
Judge Vratil notes that the Plaintiff does not argue that she
lacked knowledge of her undisclosed claims or lacked a motive to
conceal the claims. Moreover, she had a motive to conceal the
claims so any judgment in this case would be outside the reach of
her creditors. Thus, Judge Vratil finds the Plaintiff has not shown
that inadvertence or mistake apply to this case. The Court,
therefore, finds no reason to not apply the doctrine of judicial
estoppel.
Accordingly, Judge Vratil holds that the Plaintiff is judicially
estopped from proceeding with this lawsuit because she failed to
disclose her disability discrimination and retaliation claims
against the USPS in her bankruptcy proceedings. The Court,
therefore, sustains the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 11,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycf92efyfrom
PacerMonitor.com.
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Narrows Claims in Gorlamari Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KRANTHI GORLAMARI, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. VERRICA
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TED WHITE, P. TERENCE KOHLER JR. and A.
BRIAN DAVIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02226-MSG (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion and an
Order ruling that:
1. the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:
a. the motion is denied as to the Plaintiff's claims
against Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Ted White
regarding the Defendants' May-June 2021 statements; and
b. the motion is granted in all other respects, and these
claims are dismissed without prejudice; and
2. within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order,
the Plaintiff may, if he can do so in good faith, file a
second amended complaint in an attempt to cure the
deficiencies outlined in the accompanying Memorandum
Opinion.
Plaintiff Kranthi Gorlamari has filed this putative class action
for securities fraud against Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Verrica"), and three of its executives: CEO Ted White, CFO P.
Terence Kohler, Jr., and former CFO A. Brian Davis. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants concealed certain obstacles that
prevented Verrica from obtaining approval from the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) of its largest product, causing Verrica's
stock to remain artificially high and harming investors, such as
the Plaintiff.
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because this
is a securities fraud putative class action, Judge Goldberg says
examination of the Plaintiff's complaint is subject to the
heightened pleading standard of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act (PSLRA). The Defendants argue that the complaint should
be dismissed for failure to meet this standard and because the
complaint fails to plausibly allege the elements of securities
fraud.
According to the Plaintiff's amended complaint, in the spring of
2021, Verrica was seeking to market a product called "VP-102,"
which was a drug-device combination for the treatment of molluscum,
a skin disease. Verrica devoted "substantially all its financial
resources and efforts to the development of" VP-102. To be a viable
product, VP-102 would require FDA approval. Verrica planned to have
VP-102 manufactured by a contract manufacturer called Sterling
Pharmaceutical Services, LLC ("Sterling"). In reviewing a new drug
application (NDA), it was the FDA's practice to inspect
manufacturing facilities to determine whether those facilities
complied with FDA regulations known as "current good manufacturing
practices" (cGMP). The product could not be approved unless the
manufacturing facility was in compliance with cGMP.
On April 13, 2021, Verrica's CEO, Defendant Ted White, announced at
a conference that the FDA would inspect two contract manufacturing
facilities, Sterling and one other, as part of the approval process
for VP-102. From May 3 to 14, 2021, the FDA inspected Sterling. At
the end of that inspection, the FDA provided Sterling four
observations of noncompliance with cGMP.
None of the FDA's four observations are alleged to have concerned
production of VP-102 specifically, as VP-102 is not a sterile
product. However, the FDA's observations did concern the facility
in which VP-102 was manufactured (i.e. Sterling), and, as the
Plaintiff alleges, the "facility" itself was required to be in
compliance with cGMP before the product would be approved.
The FDA communicated its four observations of noncompliance to
Sterling in a document titled "Form 483." A Form 483 documents
conditions and practices discovered during an FDA inspection of
drug manufacturing facilities that render the facilities out of
compliance with cGMP. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
immediately knew that the May 2021 Sterling Inspection had taken
place and had concluded with the issuance of a Form 483.
On September 20, 2021, Verrica announced that the FDA had issued a
letter, called a "complete response letter" (CRL), that the
application for VP-102 would not be granted in its present
form--essentially a denial. Following this announcement, Verrica's
stock fell 8.3%.
The complaint alleges that the FDA inspected Sterling a second time
from Feb. 7 to 18, 2022. This inspection again resulted in
observations of noncompliance with cGMP, contained in another Form
483. Again, the complaint does not allege that these violations
concerned the production of VP-102 specifically, but does allege
that the facility had to be in compliance for a drug to be
approved.
Judge Goldberg notes that the Plaintiff does not allege facts
directly showing that the Defendants were aware of the February
2022 inspection or its outcome. Instead, the Plaintiff argues that
knowledge can be inferred because the Defendants were on notice
that any reinspection of Sterling and the FDA's observation were of
critical importance to the approval of Verrica's resubmitted NDA
for VP-102.
On May 20, 2022, Verrica learned that Sterling's February 2022 FDA
inspection had been classified "official action indicated" (OAI),
the most severe classification. On May 24, 2022, Verrica announced
a second CRL (i.e. denial) of its application for VP-102, and
disclosed that the reason was Sterling's OAI classification.
Verrica's stock price then fell significantly.
Based on these facts, the Plaintiff alleges that he and others were
defrauded into believing that barriers to approval of VP-102
involving quality issues at Sterling did not exist, causing
Verrica's stock price to remain artificially high until these
misstatements were corrected.
In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants assert that the
Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed for failure to
sufficiently plead falsity, scienter, and loss causation under the
pleading standards.
In summary, Judge Goldberg finds that Verrica's alleged
relationship with Sterling and White's role within Verrica provide
a compelling reason to believe that White was aware of cGMP
problems when he spoke, and White's alleged evasive phrasing, both
in May 2021 and when problems occurred in September 2021, suggests
an awareness that his statements were misleading.
Based on these facts, Judge Goldberg concludes that the Plaintiff
has raised the necessary "strong" inference of scienter.
While the Plaintiff's allegations might satisfy the plausibility
standard, Judge Goldberg finds they are insufficiently detailed to
qualify as "strong." The Plaintiff provides little information
about the nature of communications between Verrica and Sterling in
February 2022.
For these reasons, Judge Goldberg grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss as to Verrica's spring 2022 statements for failure to raise
a strong inference of scienter. Judge Goldberg also denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to loss causation.
The individual Defendants (White, Kohler, and Davis) assert that
even if the Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim against
Verrica the corporation, the complaint should nonetheless be
dismissed as to them because they are not personally responsible
for the alleged misstatements. An individual may be liable for
securities fraud in either of two ways: direct liability and
"control person" liability.
Judge Goldberg denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
White's direct liability for his May-June 2021 statements. The
Plaintiff alleges that White controlled Verrica as its CEO, giving
him direct authority over the company, and that he personally made
many of the challenged statements, giving him control over those
statements.
Judge Goldberg finds that White's participation was plausibly
"culpable" -- there is a strong inference that White was aware of
cGMP violations at Sterling when he made statements implying that
the inspection at Sterling would proceed according to plan. The
Plaintiff has, therefore, stated a claim for control-person
liability against White as to White's May-June 2021 statements.
For the reasons set forth, Judge Goldberg grants in part and denies
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Because it is not clear
that the Plaintiff could not cure the deficiencies outlined in the
Memorandum Opinion, the Plaintiff will be given leave to amend, if
he can do so in good faith.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Jan. 11,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2nprwu3sfrom
PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 11, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/drwhb52ffrom PacerMonitor.com.
WASHINGTON: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Larisa Popkova DSHS
Employee #1, Paula Brantner-Thomas DSHS Employee #2, Katherine
Rowlette DSHS Employee #3, Karen Robbins DSHS Employee #4, Gary C.
Bright DSHS Employee #5, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons, v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH
SERVICES, Don Clintsman and Jilma Meneses DOES 1-50, Case No.
3:23-cv-05130-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order continuing the class certification briefing schedule
by 35 days (five weeks) to facilitate resolution of potential class
issues.
-- The Plaintiffs' new deadline to file any motion for class
certification is Feb. 16, 2024.
-- The Defendant DSHS's response to any motion for class
certification is due March 22, 2024.
-- Any reply in support of a motion for class certification is
due
March 29, 2024.
On August 8, 2023, the Court entered a briefing schedule for class
certification. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
due Friday, January 12, 2024.
DSHS's response is due Feb. 16, 2024, and Plaintiffs' reply is due
February 23, 2024. The parties have begun productive discussions
that may eliminate the need for class certification briefing or the
Court’s involvement in class certification issues.
Department of Social and Health Services is Washington's social
services department.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S95d8N at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tracy Tribbett, Esq.
Harold Franklin, Esq.
PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
6404 Three Rivers Drive
Pasco, WA 99301
Telephone: (509)-713-9868
E-mail: ttribbett@pji.org
hfranklin@pji.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Erika M. Donis, Esq.
Mary Crego Peterson, Esq.
Michael J. Ewart, Esq.
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 623-1745
E-mail: erika.donis@hcmp.com
mary.peterson@hcmp.com
jake.ewart@hcmp.com
WORKFORCE 7: Non-expert Discovery in Ballast Suit Due April 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS
SIMONE, RICHARD WALKER and ORLANDO OBRET, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKFORCE 7 INC.,
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY of NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES,
INC. and RONALD HILTON, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered a
revised civil case discovery plan and
scheduling order as follows:
a. Non-expert discovery shall be completed by: April 9,
2024
b. Plaintiffs shall take the first step in May 21, 2024
class certification motion practice by:
c. Expert reports shall be served no later June 25,
2024
than:
d. Rebuttal expert reports shall be served July 23,
2024
no later than:
e. Expert witness depositions shall be Aug. 20,
2024
completed by:
Workforce 7 specializes in companies that need flaggers and
provides manpower solutions for the right project.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 11, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4b85sJO at no extra charge.[CC]
YERTLE OPERATIONS: Allen Files Appeal in Negligence Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Barbara Allen, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Barbara Allen et al. v. Yertle
Operations, LLC et al., Case No. 59662/2019, in the Supreme Court,
Westchester County, New York, Second Department.
This action sounding in negligence and violations of New York State
Public Health Law 2801-d was commenced by the filing a summons and
complaint on June 26, 2019. Defendant Yertle Operations LLC d/b/a
Fishkill Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing operates a nursing
home facility which was acquired by Defendants on or about April
27, 2017. The individually named Defendants are the Facility's
owners. Among the allegations in the complaint is that upon the
acquisition of the Facility, staffing was reduced which has
resulted in inadequate care to its residents.
On December 17, 2020, the Court denied Defendants' motion (a)
directing plaintiffs to bear the incurred and ongoing costs of
collecting, processing, hosting, and producing electronically
stored information by Defendants in complying with Plaintiffs'
discovery demands; and, (b) directing Plaintiffs to bear the cost
of photocopying, scanning, and producing records for potential
class members in the event the proposed class is certified by the
Court; and (c) for other and further relief as to this Court seems
just and proper and for such other and further relief as this Court
deems just and proper.
On July 5, 2023, the Court granted a motion that Plaintiffs Barbara
J. Allen and Melissa Stapleford, as co-executors of the estate of
Judith M. Allen, are substituted for the deceased appellant, Judith
M. Allen, wherein the caption is amended accordingly, and the stay
which arose upon the death of the deceased appellant, Judith M.
Allen, is vacated; and it was further ordered that on the Court's
own motion, on or before August 4, 2023, the appellants shall serve
and file the record or appendix and the appellants' brief, if
applicable, or, serve the record or appendix and the appellants'
brief and upload digital copies of the record or appendix and the
appellants' brief, with proof of service.
The appellate case is captioned as Barbara Allen et al. vs. Yertle
Operations, LLC et al., Case No. 2024-00346, in the Supreme Court
of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, filed
on January 10, 2024.[BN]
*********
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 ***