/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240212.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 12, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 31
Headlines
23ANDME INC: Faces Possible Stock Delisting Over Multiple Suits
23ANDME INC: Sets Mediation on Unprotected Genetic Info Class Suit
ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Kucherry Files Suit in D. Utah
ACADIA PHARMA: Class Cert Hearing in Marechal Set for Feb. 28
ADVISORS IGNITE: Common Issues Don't Predominate in Van Elzen Suit
AEA INVESTORS: Faces Taylor Suit Over Investor's Veto Right
AETHON ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clifton Suit Alleges
ALIERA CO: Court Grants Duncan Bid for Attorneys' Fees
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Class Allegations
BARNARD COLLEGE: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Coccaro
BEST BUY: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Defective Pressure Cookers
BOEING CO: Rhode Island Files Class Suit Over Safety Lapses
BRITISH AMERICAN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 25
BT GROUP: GBP1.3B Overcharging Class Action Lawsuit Hearing Starts
CALIFORNIA HEALTH: Class Settlement in Harbour Suit Gets Final Nod
CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS: Gatchell Balks at Unprotected Info
CARE ACCESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Appleberry Says
CAROTHERS HOLDING: Simpson Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
CATALINA SNACKS: Court Narrows Claims in Collyer Consumer Suit
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Goodrow Claims
CONSUMERINFO.COM INC: Consumers' Info Sold to 3rd Parties, Cox Says
CORECIVIC INC: Court Junks Bliss Class Certification Bid
DAVITA INC: Teodosio Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
DEL MONTE FOODS: Settlement Deal in Stewart Suit Gets Initial Nod
DERMTECH INC: Bagheri Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
DIRECT BUILDING: Bid to Dismiss Jackson Class Action Nixed
ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: Heflin Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Separate Rule 54 Final Judgment in Bah OK'd
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Fisher Class Suit
FLORIDA PIZZA: Franklin Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
FORESCOUT TECH: Parties Directed to Meet and Confer on Deadlines
FORTRA LLC: Minnesota Court Stays Proceedings in Anderson Suit
FUTURE FINTECH: Labelle Sues Over Share Price Drop
G.SKILL INT'L: Filing for Class Certification in Hurd Due March 15
GAB.K LLC: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
GEICO CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Terminated Workers' Wages
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Seek to Extend Class Cert Briefing Sched
GOLDEN HEAVEN: Rahman Files Securities Suit Over False Statements
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Mar 25
HAIN CELESTIAL: Class Cert Hearing Order Entered in Howard Suit
HIRERIGHT LLC: Hoffman Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court OKs Arbitration in Tamburo, Class Suit Stayed
IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Genc Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
JOSEPH A. DIPIETRO: Moffi Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
JPD RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Compensation, Lopez Claims
KABANI ENTERPRISES: Junani Balks at Unpaid Straight Time, OT Wages
KANSAS CITY LIFE: McMillan Files Bid for Class Certification
L & J TIRES: Fails to Properly Pay Mechanics, Ramos Suit Alleges
LANDS' END INC: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
LOREAL USA INC: Cabiltes Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Gray Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
LZ LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amsden Suit Alleges
MADONNA: Fellows Seeks Damages for Delay in Concert
MAXIMUS INC: Forsyth Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
MAXSOLD INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Vanderburg Due March 28
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Barton v. Mattel Set for Feb. 23
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Black Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Cuddy Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Drover-Mundy Suit Set for Feb. 23
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Fieker Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
META PLATFORMS: Bid for Class Certification in Hunt Due April 1
MOBILEYE GLOBAL: McAuliffe Files Securities Suit Over False Info
MP2 ENTERPRISE: CMC in Brandi-Vanmeter Class Suit Set for Feb. 13
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Fierro Sues Over Housing Market Conspiracy
NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Court Stays Proceedings in Mattson Suit
NEW YORK CITY: Fact Discovery Completion in Miller Due Oct. 29
OAKLAND COUNTY: Wins Bid to Dismiss Taylor Amended Complaint
OYO HOTELS: Bid to Extend Class Certification Filing Tossed
PENNSYLVANIA GAME: Kaper Files ADA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Filing of Class Cert Bids Amended to Sept. 3
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Court Tosses Amended Complaint in Securities Suit
PRO SOURCE LENDING: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Ford Files Class Certification Bid
PRP LOGISTICS: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PUBLIX SUPER: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Response Deadline in Roberts
PURECYCLE TECH: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Feb. 14
QUICK BOX: Tan RICO Suit Seeks Class Certification
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Mantha Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
RANGE RESOURCES: Rupert Suit Seeks to Certify Class
RENTGROW INC: Court Allows Sealing of Docs on Bid to Certify Class
RENTGROW INC: Parties Seek to Seal Unredacted Class Cert Bid
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Suit to Proceed as Individual Actions
RICOLA USA: S.D. New York Dismisses Singo Consumer Class Suit
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
SEMINOLE ASPHALT: Bid to Certify Class in Willis Tossed as Moot
SIKA AG: County-Wide Sues Over CCA's Artificially Inflated Prices
SOLID WASTE: Expert Discovery in Jones Due March 1
SPORTSWEAR INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Says
SUPPORT SERVICES: Gates Wins Class Certification Bid
SUSHI KATSUEI: Initial Pretrial Conference Set for April 24
T-MOBILE USA: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; Clements Suit Nixed
TAKEDA PHARMARCEUTICAL: Plaintiffs File Motion for Class Status
TAKEDA PHARMARCEUTICAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify DP Class
U.S. POSTAL: Faces Clayton Suit Over Discriminatory Practices
VALVE CORP: Completion of Class Cert Expert Discovery Due July 26
VERIZON CONNECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ducos Alleges
VMWARE INC: Lamartina Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
WALT DISNEY: Wants to File Class Cert Opposition Docs
WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Class Cert Filing in Nguyen Modified to May 2
YOUNG LIVING: O'Shaughnessy Wants to File Confidential Exhibits
ZUFFA LLC: Court Denies Renewed Summary Judgment Bid in Le Suit
[*] Gibson Dunn Shares 4th Quarter 2023 Update on Class Actions
[*] Law Firms' Appointment as Lead Counsel in Class Suit Questioned
[*] Number of U.S. Securities Class-Action Filings Rises in 2023
[*] Registration Now Open for 8th Annual Class Action Conference
*********
23ANDME INC: Faces Possible Stock Delisting Over Multiple Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Morris, writing for FastCompany, reports that once considered
the hottest startup in Silicon Valley, 23andMe's fall from grace
has been swift and brutal. The genetic testing company, which was
valued at $6 billion just a few years ago, is now facing both a
possible delisting from Nasdaq and dozens class-action lawsuits.
It's all part of the continuing fallout of the hacking of the
company last year. The company has since admitted it failed to
detect the data breach for more than five months, giving the bad
actors the chance to steal the ancestry data of some 6.9 million of
its 14 million users. (Genetic data was not among the information
stolen, though the company said the hackers did gain access to
users' display names and information from its DNA relatives feature
that in some cases included ancestry, birth years, locations,
photos, and links between relatives.) The hack targeted users of
Ashkenazi Jewish and Chinese heritage, in particular.
That has given rise to the legal threat the company is currently
facing. 23andMe attorneys were scheduled to meet Wednesday with
roughly 20 lawyers who have filed class actions against the
company, in hopes of working out a global settlement.
There are currently three dozen class-action suits tied to last
year's hack -- and 23andMe has asked a judge to consolidate those
into a single trial. A ruling on that isn't expected until March,
but one of the plaintiff's attorneys from that collection is asking
to be appointed lead litigator now (before the cases are
consolidated, if they eventually are at all), in hopes of heading
off a preemptive settlement.
"This is not a case that should ever be settled in a race to the
bottom," attorney Jay Edelson told Reuters. "Class-action lawsuits
are meant to be vehicles of accountability, not to act as lifeboats
for companies to escape the consequences of their misconduct."
The 2023 hacking incident raised several concerns about the
company. For example, one online post that offered data for sale
bragged of having a huge database of Ashkenazi Jews, including
people whose ties with that ancestry are less than 1%. Given the
growing antisemitic rhetoric online and the very real physical
threats both at home and abroad, that posting has raised concerns
among 23andMe members about their own safety.
23andMe isn't out of money yet, but the funds are running low. The
stock, which at one point was as high as $16 per share, now trades
around 76 cents per share. As a result, Nasdaq, in November, issued
a notice of delisting to the company, giving it 180 days to get
shares back above $1.
And while 23andMe raised roughly $1.4 billion in venture funding
before the hacking incident, The Wall Street Journal reports that
the company has spent roughly 80% of that -- and a high-dollar
settlement to those class-action suits could substantially drain
the remaining amounts. The Journal says the company is burning cash
at a rate so quickly, it could be out by next year.
23andMe CEO Anne Wojcicki, despite overseeing three rounds of
layoffs last year, is still looking forward -- attempting to
transform the company from just a supplier of ancestral data into a
healthcare company that develops drugs and sells subscription
health reports. "It's definitely been harder than we expected," she
told The Journal, "but I don't think that we've executed yet on
what the vision actually is."
There is some potentially promising news on that front. Two of its
drug candidates for potential cancer treatments have made it to
early-stage human trials. However, it will be months before results
of those trials are available.
The pharmaceutical business is an expensive one, though, and -- for
now, as its cash runs low -- 23andMe hasn't found investors willing
to further fund the company. [GN]
23ANDME INC: Sets Mediation on Unprotected Genetic Info Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that attorneys for
genetic testing company 23andMe are scheduled to gather on January
31, 2024 in a Napa Valley hotel conference room with about 20
lawyers who have filed class actions accusing the company of
allowing ultrasensitive genetic information to be hacked and put up
for sale on the dark web.
23andMe (ME.O) says that mediation could lead to a pre-emptive
global settlement of the litigation.
The maverick plaintiffs' firm Edelson says that would be a disaster
for the millions of 23andMe customers whose genetic information was
stolen.
In a filing, Edelson asked U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San
Francisco to immediately appoint the firm to lead the litigation
against 23andMe, even though it is not clear that all of the cases
against the company will be consolidated before Chen -- or
consolidated at all.
23andMe has asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to transfer all of the cases against the company to a
single federal judge. (Most, but not all, of the three dozen class
action complaints stemming from last year's data breach have been
filed in federal court in San Francisco.) The company's lawyers at
Greenberg Traurig moved for a stay in the 30 cases already before
Chen, arguing that the judge should wait until the judicial panel
rules on its consolidation motion, which won't be until March at
the earliest.
Lead plaintiffs' lawyers are usually chosen after both sides know
which judge will oversee the litigation.
But Edelson said it was leapfrogging the standard process because
it fears that scheduled mediation between 23andMe and a scrum of
plaintiffs' firms will result in "a sellout settlement that doesn't
account for the unprecedented harms inflicted on this class."
(Those harms, according to Edelson, include dark web solicitations
to malign actors allegedly targeting Jewish and Chinese 23andMe
customers.)
At best, Edelson said in its lead counsel motion, the mediation
will be a waste of time unless plaintiffs' lawyers are unified
behind lead counsel who understand the value of the case against
23andMe. At the moment, Edelson argued, no one is in charge on the
plaintiffs' side -- and the firms planning to attend the mediation
can't even agree on critical strategy and facts.
So far, neither 23andMe nor any other plaintiffs' firm has formally
responded to Edelson's motion. Edelson's class action complaint
against 23andMe isn't technically before Chen, although the firm
has asked for its lawsuit to be transferred to him. With the
mediation set, it seems unlikely that Chen will appoint the Edelson
firm to lead talks.
But that doesn't mean the firm's concerns about a quick settlement
are unfounded.
I reached out to about 30 of the other plaintiffs' firms that have
filed complaints against 23andMe. Most didn't respond, and a couple
declined to comment.
But two of the most prominent class action firms in the 23andMe
litigation -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Stueve Siegel Hanson
-- told me via email that they share Edelson's view that the case
should not be settled until a court has appointed someone to
represent the class.
"We completely understand the position the Edelson firm is taking
in its motion and generally agree that proceeding to mediation
before leadership is appointed and with dozens of plaintiffs'
lawyers is both premature and ripe for chaos," said Stuart Davidson
of Robbins Geller. (Davidson said that Robbins Geller, which was
co-counsel with Edelson on a $650 million biometric privacy
settlement with Meta subsidiary Facebook, will also ask to lead the
23andMe litigation.)
The other plaintiffs' firms in the case are divided on the basic
question of when lead counsel should be appointed. Some are pushing
for Chen to pick interim class counsel now, but others believe the
decision shouldn't be made until the MDL panel decides where to
send the litigation. All of the plaintiffs' firms whose cases are
before Chen oppose the company's motion to stay the cases.
The upcoming mediation was first disclosed in a Jan. 19 brief from
23andMe. The company and its counsel at Greenberg Traurig did not
respond to my queries about Edelson's allegation that 23andMe may
try to use the mediation to reach a settlement before its customers
have had time to investigate the data breach and assert their most
potent claims, including claims under state laws barring the
disclosure of genetic information.
The Edelson firm has a history of speaking out against other
plaintiffs' firms, most notably in the Lion Air case that toppled
the once-renowned Girardi Keese firm. In an email, firm founder Jay
Edelson told me his fear in the 23andMe case is that plaintiffs'
firms without much experience in privacy cases will bite if 23andMe
offers a "quick and dirty" settlement in schedule mediation.
"This is not a case that should ever be settled in a race to the
bottom," Edelson said. "Class action lawsuits are meant to be
vehicles of accountability, not to act as lifeboats for companies
to escape the consequences of their misconduct."
Edelson also said he's not surprised that some other well-respected
firms are leery of mediation with the company at this early stage
of the case.
"For a long time, we've engaged in discussions with plaintiff law
firms who, behind closed doors, share our perspective on the need
for reform," he said. "We hope this marks a turning point in firms
calling out and taking affirmative steps to stop behavior we have
all known for years is unacceptable."
As I said, Edelson's lead counsel motion will almost certainly not
be granted before the mediation. And given that the firm's case
hasn't even yet been transferred to Chen, the motion is more
ceremonial than consequential at this point. But the firm has put
everyone else in the litigation on notice: If anyone tries to make
a quick deal, Edelson is going to make trouble. [GN]
ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Kucherry Files Suit in D. Utah
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Academy Mortgage
Corporation. The case is styled as Lisa Kucherry, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Academy Mortgage
Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00078-CMR (D. Utah, Jan. 29, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Academy Mortgage Corporation -- https://academymortgage.com/ --
operates as a mortgage lenders. The Company offers home financing
services such as mortgages and home equity loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles H. Thronson, Esq.
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
201 S. Main St., Ste. 1800
PO Box 45898
Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898
Phone: (801) 532-1234
Email: ecf@parsonsbehle.com
ACADIA PHARMA: Class Cert Hearing in Marechal Set for Feb. 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marechal v. Acadia
Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00762 (S.D. Cal.,
Filed April 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes entered an
order setting oral argument hearing on the motion for class
certification and appointment of class representatives and class
counsel on Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Acadia is a biopharmaceutical company.[CC]
ADVISORS IGNITE: Common Issues Don't Predominate in Van Elzen Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DAVID VAN ELZEN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVISORS IGNITE USA
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00859-WCG (E.D. Wis.), Judge
William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin issued a Decision and Order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification over issues on
commonality and predominance.
The putative class action alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and seeks
monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for
Plaintiff David Van Elzen on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated against Defendant Advisors Ignite USA,
LLC, and its owner and CEO Steven DeJohn.
The TCPA, as relevant here, prohibits any person, without prior
express consent, from making a telephone call, using a prerecorded
voice, to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone
service. The Act provides for statutory damages of $500 per
violation, which can be trebled if the violation is found to be
willful or knowing. Mr. Van Elzen alleges that Advisors Ignite and
DeJohn caused prerecorded calls to be made to consumers' cellular
telephone numbers without their consent in violation of the TCPA.
The case is currently before the Court on Van Elzen's motion for
class certification. He proposes to represent a class of "[a]ll
persons in the United States who (1) were called one or more times
by Advisors Ignite (2) from March 17, 2022 to June 30, 2022 (3)
with a ringless voicemail from SlyBroadcast (4) on their cellular
telephone number with an area code starting with a 7, 8, or 9 that
had not been ported in the 15 days prior to either call."
The term "ported," when used in this context, means that the number
was not transferred from one phone service provider to another
service provider. After the motion was fully briefed, the parties
stipulated to the dismissal of DeJohn.
The representative Plaintiff, David Van Elzen, is an insurance
agent residing in Menasha, Wisconsin. Advisors Ignite USA is a
marketing company located in Downers Grove, Illinois, that works
with independent insurance agents and financial advisors who, in
turn, work with independent marketing organizations to sell
annuities to major insurance carriers in the United States.
Advisors Ignite is a small business with only six employees.
In an effort to grow its business, Advisors Ignite decided to
utilize ringless voicemail technology to offer marketing events,
such as live insurance seminars, to get its name in front of
prospective business agents. Advisors Ignite's Chief Marketing
Officer had received several ringless voicemails on his cell phone
and thought it worth pursuing.
Advisors Ignite contacted SlyBroadcast, a company that claims on
its website to serve over three million people, who send voicemails
using its patented ringless voicemail technology. After reviewing
the SlyBroadcast website, Advisors Ignite contracted with
SlyBroadcast to begin a marketing campaign using ringless
voicemails.
Advisors Ignite purchased a list of insurance agents from Accupoint
Solutions, an industry data provider that offers extensive
information on insurance agents, financial advisors and firms that
distribute insurance products and services. Advisors Ignite also
purchased lists of names and contact information of insurance
agents from another company called Data Discovery.
The lists purchased by Advisors Ignite were delivered to
SlyBroadcast, which then conducted the campaign to send ringless
voicemails, recorded by DeJohn, to the insurance agents whose
telephone numbers appeared on the lists. Van Elzen claims to have
received one of the prerecorded ringless voicemails sent on
Advisors Ignite's behalf. As a result of this lawsuit, Advisors
Ignite has ceased sending prerecorded ringless voicemail messages
to insurance agents on its purchased lists.
A plaintiff requesting class certification must satisfy the four
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, as well as one of three alternative provisions listed in
Rule 23(b), Judge Griesbach notes, citing Oshana v. Coca–Cola
Co., 472 F.3d 506, 513 (7th Cir. 2006).
In this case, the proposed class consists of thousands of members.
Advisors Ignite does not dispute the size of the proposed class.
Van Elzen has proposed a way to identify members of the proposed
class and has limited their geographic dispersion by including only
telephone numbers of certain area codes, and judicial economy would
be served to avoid a multiplicity of actions. Advisors Ignite does
not contend that class certification should be denied on the basis
of numerosity. Thus, Van Elzen has met the numerosity requirement
of Rule 23(a), Judge Griesbach holds.
Mr. Van Elzen assumes that every insurance agent, who received just
one ringless voicemail from Advisors Ignite, suffered the same harm
he claims to have sustained as a result of receiving a message
offering a way to substantially increase his income. That seems
doubtful, Judge Griesbach notes. Advisors Ignite did not contract
with SlyBroadcast because it wanted to harass or annoy potential
customers. It no doubt thought that some number of insurance agents
that received its message would be interested in learning of the
services it offered that could significantly increase their
income.
Judge Griesbach opines that the mere fact that Advisors Ignite may
have violated the TCPA in placing the messages does not mean that
everyone who received one was harmed. This and other considerations
lead the Court to conclude that at least as to the issue of
standing, common issues of fact do not predominate. For this reason
alone, Judge Griesbach says Van Elzen's motion for class
certification will be denied.
For the same reason that the case fails to meet the commonality
requirement, Judge Griesbach finds it also fails the typicality
requirement of Rule 23(a). The question of whether each member of
the proposed class suffered an injury in fact is so particularized
as to make resolving it on a class wide basis difficult, if not
impossible. For this reason, as well, Van Elzen's motion will be
denied.
Advisors Ignite argues that Van Elzen is not an adequate class
representative because he allegedly acted in bad faith, engaging in
deceitful tactics to elicit calls falling under the purview of the
TCPA, to later file TCPA lawsuits based on those calls. Moreover,
Advisors Ignite argues that, besides Van Elzen's history of
providing online consent to similar defendants in prior cases, he
has not presented any evidence that Advisors Ignite acquired his
contact information through any of the contact lists that Advisors
Ignite purchased from third-party vendors.
Advisors Ignite contends that Van Elzen's history of filing TCPA
lawsuits is evidence of potential bad faith. It notes that this
lawsuit constitutes Van Elzen's twelfth TCPA action against
different defendants over the last ten years. But this does not
mean that Van Elzen is dishonest or could not be an adequate class
representative, Judge Griesbach points out. Advisors Ignite has
offered no such evidence here. Its argument that Van Elzen fails as
an adequate class representative, therefore, fails.
For the reasons set forth in this Decision and Order, the Court is
satisfied that a class action is not superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
Van Elzen's motion will, therefore, be denied.
For these reasons, Judge Griesbach holds that Van Elzen has not met
his burden to show that class certification is appropriate under
Rule 23, and the motion for class certification is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated Jan. 18,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/bddm3pjvfrom
PacerMonitor.com.
AEA INVESTORS: Faces Taylor Suit Over Investor's Veto Right
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAUL ALVAREZ; WENDY A. BECK; MARTIN ELTRICH;
JAMES HO; DANIEL JAMES; ELIZABETH C. LEMPRES; STEVEN RICHMAN; HARJ
SHOAN; JAMES MANGES; WAYNE MARINO; AEA INVESTORS FUND VI LP; AEA
TGP HOLDCO LP; 2594868 ONTARIO LIMITED; and TCP TRAEGER HOLDINGS
SPV LLC, Defendants, and TRAEGER, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No.
2024-0058 (Del. Ch., Jan. 23, 2024) seeks declaratory relief
invalidating a provision of the Stockholders Agreement between the
Company and the Investor Stockholders dated July 28, 2021 (the
"Stockholders Agreement") that gives the Investor Stockholders a
veto right over the Board's ability to hire or fire the Company's
Chief Executive Officer (the "CEO Approval Right").
AEA INVESTORS FUND VI LP operates as a private equity firm. The
Company offers invests in control buy outs, mezzanine debt,
acquisitions, recapitalizations, equity capital in the industrial,
specialty chemicals, and consumer products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
Email: kim@blockleviton.com
lindsay@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
Jason Leviton, Esq.
Saranna Soroka, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
AETHON ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clifton Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE CLIFTON, individually and for others similarly situated v.
AETHON ENERGY OPERATING LLC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00196-X (N.D. Tex.,
January 26, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from Aethon Energy under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Clifton worked for Aethon as a drilling consultant in
Texas and Louisiana from approximately July 2018 through August
2022. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours a week. However, Aethon did not pay Plaintiff
overtime. Instead, Aethon misclassified Plaintiff and the other day
rate drilling consultants as independent contractors and pays them
a flat amount for each day worked, regardless of the total number
of hours they worked in a workweek, says the suit.
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Aethon bills itself as the third
largest private natural gas business in North America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ALIERA CO: Court Grants Duncan Bid for Attorneys' Fees
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORLYN DUNCAN, BRUCE
DUNCAN, REBECCA WHITE, f/k/a REBECCA SMITH, ELLEN LARSON; JARED
BEARD, JAIME BEARD, HANNA ALBINA, AND AUSTIN WILLARD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE ALIERA
COMPANIES, INC., f/k/a ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; TRINITY HEALTHSHARE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
ONESHARE HEALTH, LLC, formerly known as UNITY HEALTHSHARE, LLC and
as KINGDOM HEALTHSHARE MINISTRIES, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability corporation Case No. 2:20-cv-00867-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order that:
1. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval
and
motion for Attorneys' Fees.
2. The Settlement Agreement is approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and its terms shall bind
all
class members.
3. Class Counsel are awarded attorney fees of 28% of the
Settlement
Fund and litigation costs of $61,521.42, as set forth above.
These amounts are ordered to be paid by the Claims
Administrator
from the Settlement Fund.
4. Case contribution awards of $10,000 each to Named Plaintiffs
Corlyn and Bruce Duncan, Rebecca White, Ellen Larson, Jaime
and
Jared Beard, Hanna Albina, and Austin Willard shall be
awarded
as described in the Settlement Agreement.
On June 13, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved an agreement of
a class-wide settlement of claims against the Defendant OneShare
Health, LLC.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4RM7L4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Class Allegations
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILDRED DUZANSON-BAPTISTE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-02417-MAS-RLS
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp entered an order denying
the Defendant's motion to strike and/or dismiss class allegations.
Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services holding company.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Jan. 16, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=78G3EZ
at no extra charge.[CC]
BARNARD COLLEGE: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Coccaro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Defendant's motion for judgment on
the pleadings in the lawsuit captioned JULIA COCCARO, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARNARD
COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03809-JPO (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Julia Coccaro brings this putative class action against
Defendant Barnard College ("Barnard") for breach of implied
contract and unjust enrichment based on the closing of Barnard's
campus during the COVID-19 pandemic. Presently before the Court is
Barnard's motion for judgment on the pleadings, under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(c), for failure to state a claim.
Barnard is a private liberal arts college, which has its principal
campus located in Manhattan. Coccaro was a student enrolled at
Barnard during the Spring 2020 semester, for which she paid tuition
and fees. The spring semester was scheduled to run from
approximately Jan. 21, 2020, through May 14, 2020. However, due to
the COVID-19 pandemic, after March 11, 2020, Barnard closed the
campus and cut off access to on-campus services, facilities, and
extracurricular activities.
Ms. Coccaro commenced this action on May 5, 2023. Barnard filed an
answer and a "motion to dismiss" pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on Aug. 4, 2023. She filed her
opposition to the motion on Aug. 25, 2023. Barnard filed its reply
in support of its motion on Sept. 15, 2023.
Barnard offers several arguments as to why Coccaro has failed to
adequately allege a breach of contract claim. First, Barnard argues
that Coccaro's tuition claim must be dismissed because she fails to
identify any specific contractual promise of in-person
instruction.
In the Second Circuit's recent decision, Rynasko v. New York
University, 63 F.4th 186 (2d Cir. 2023), the Second Circuit framed
the relevant inquiry at the pleading stage as whether a reasonable
factfinder could conclude that when the plaintiff enrolled in the
Spring 2020 semester, the parties mutually intended and implicitly
agreed that the university would provide generally in-person
courses, activities, facilities, and services.
The Court concludes that the Complaint meets this standard. Coccaro
alleges that Barnard's website describes its on-campus services and
facilities and the benefits of personal contacts with faculty and
staff and touts its campus life. Barnard's course catalogue
advertises the benefits of its residential community. Barnard also
advertises the benefits of using its new facilities.
While Barnard is correct that Coccaro has not identified any
specific promise of in-person instruction, the foregoing
allegations plausibly allege a mutual expectation that students
would receive generally in-person courses, activities, facilities,
and services, Judge Oetken opines.
Barnard raises three defenses, including that Coccaro fails to cite
any requirement in the Barnard's promotional materials that
instruction must be provided in a physical classroom setting --
particularly during a pandemic and in contravention of government
orders and that it is hard to imagine a more compelling reason to
modify the educational program.
This defense is unavailing at this stage, Judge Oetken holds. While
Barnard may ultimately prevail on the merits on its invocation of
the impossibility defense, it is not resolvable on the pleadings,
Judge Oetken points out.
Second, Barnard contends that the law does not allow the Plaintiff
to retain the benefits after she ratified Barnard's conduct and
then seek a refund because allowing that would amount to a
wholesale rewriting of the bargain and unjustly enrich Coccaro by
allowing her to receive the education and credits for a reduced
price after receiving the benefits from Barnard. Given the factual
nature of the waiver inquiry, the Court finds dismissal on this
basis to be inappropriate at this stage.
Third, Barnard argues that it included a disclaimer in its course
catalogue. Judge Oetken opines that the presence of a disclaimer
does not vitiate a student-plaintiff's implied contract claim
against her university.
Finally, Barnard advances an additional set of arguments as to why
Coccaro should not be permitted to recover on her mandatory fee
claim. Among other things, Barnard contends that Coccaro fails to
allege a specific promise linking the fees to services that would
be in-person "in the face of a pandemic." Judge Oetken holds that
this argument is unavailing at the present stage.
Barnard also argues that it is indisputable that it closed its
campus and shifted to online instruction in response to a
"nationally declared pandemic and subsequent state-mandated
shutdown of non-essential businesses" and that its conduct was not
tortious or fraudulent, and thus, its retention of the tuition
payments was not unjust. In short, Barnard argues, Coccaro has
alleged no facts showing that "equity and good conscience" require
a refund of tuition or fees.
Here too, Judge Oetken finds Barnard's argument is unavailing. The
relevant inquiry is not whether Barnard was justified in closing
its campus and shifting to online instruction, but whether Barnard
was justified in retaining the full amount of Coccaro's tuition and
mandatory fee payment.
For these reasons, Judge Oetken denies Barnard's Rule 12(c) motion
for judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk of Court is directed to
close the motion at ECF No. 18.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 18,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yd73bhczfrom
PacerMonitor.com.
BEST BUY: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Defective Pressure Cookers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Hornet reports that Best Buy has been hit by a class action
lawsuit after recalling nearly 930,000 Insignia Pressure Cookers
due to safety concerns.
The class action was filed in Georgia federal court by plaintiffs
who allege that the inner pot has incorrect volume markings, which
can cause people to put too much food into the pot.
The problem could cause the ejection of hot foods and liquids when
the pot is vented using the quick-release, or if it is opened when
the contents are under pressure.
The plaintiff, George D., alleges that he and other consumers who
bought the pressure cookers between October 2017 and June 2023 were
misled by the company into believing the products were safe.
He alleges that the volume markings in the pressure cookers is "the
most basic safety precaution" and "utterly critical" to ensure that
the contents of the pressure cooker will not be "spontaneously
released."
The lawsuit claims that the pressure cookers are "defective,
dangerous, inoperable, and worthless."
The plaintiff is seeking to represent all U.S. residents and people
in Georgia who purchased the recalled Insignia Pressure Cooker
models, including: NS-MC60SS8, NS-MC60SS9, NS-MC80SS9, NC-MCRP6NS9
and NS-MCRP6SS9.
The Insignia Pressure Cooker Class Action Lawsuit was filed on
January 5, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia -- Case Number 4:24-cv-00007-WMR. [GN]
BOEING CO: Rhode Island Files Class Suit Over Safety Lapses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Carpenter, writing for Spectrum News, reports that Rhode
Island's general treasurer filed a class action lawsuit against The
Boeing Company, alleging it betrayed the trust of the state's
pensioners.
The suit names President and CEO David Calhoun, former President
and CEO Dennis Muilenburg and Chief Financial Officer Brian West as
co-defendants.
"The disregard for safety displayed in these series of events
involving Boeing aircrafts are deeply concerning," General
Treasurer James A. Diossa said in a statement. "We believe that
this case has the potential to effect changes in Boeing's practices
to protect passengers and ensure their safety in the future."
Filed in a U.S. District Court in Virginia, the civil case comes
less than a month after a door plug blew out on a Boeing 737 Max 9
midflight and a string of other mishaps raised concerns about the
company's planes. The suit alleges Boeing issued false and
misleading statements to the market about its safety lapses.
The suit alleges Boeing assured investors it was focused on safety
after Max plane crashes in 2018 and 2019 killed 346 people.
Since the Jan. 5 incident, United Airlines and Alaska Airlines
reported finding loose bolts on some Max 9 planes. A Delta Air
Lines Boeing 757 lost a nose wheel before takeoff.
The Rhode Island lawsuit said the problems had caused Boeing's
stock price to plummet 19.5% from $249 per share prior to the
Alaska Airlines incident to $200.52 on Jan. 16.
The Federal Aviation Administration grounded all 737 Max 9 planes
for nearly a month and is currently investigating the airplane
maker's manufacturing and production lines to determine if the
company failed to ensure completed products conformed to its
approved design and were safe to fly.
Following the Jan. 5 incident involving an Alaska Airlines flight
in Oregon, Boeing has also increased inspections throughout its
build process at its factory in Washington state as well as Spirit
AeroSystems in Kansas, which reportedly makes 70% of the Max 9
fuselage.
The company suspended production at its Washington state 737
factory for production, delivery and support workers to participate
in quality improvement sessions. Similar "quality stand-downs" are
scheduled for additional Boeing factories and assembly sites for
all of the company's airplanes to provide hands-on training and
collaborate on what needs to be done to improve quality. [GN]
BRITISH AMERICAN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 25
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
March 25, 2024 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased British American Tobacco
p.l.c. ("BAT" or the "Company") (NYSE: BTI) securities between
February 9, 2023 and December 6, 2023, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investors suffering losses on their BAT investments are encouraged
to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On December 6, 2023, BAT disclosed that it would take an impairment
charge of approximately $31.5 billion after reassessing the value
of certain cigarette brands. The Company stated that it had been
affected by inflation-weary customers in the U.S. downgrading to
cheaper brands.
On this news, BAT's stock price fell $2.68, or 8.5%, to close at
$28.86 per American Depositary Receipts ("ADR") on December 6,
2023, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that:
(1) British American Tobacco materially understated the risks
and potential likelihood of an impairment to its Premium American
Cigarette Brands as a result of various longstanding headwinds and;
(2) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired BAT securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 25, 2024
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
Phone: 215-638-4847
Phone: 888-638-4847
Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
BT GROUP: GBP1.3B Overcharging Class Action Lawsuit Hearing Starts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lipscombe, writing for DCD, reports that a GBP1.3 billion
($1.65bn) case against BT Group for allegedly overcharging millions
of customers for fixed telephone lines got underway in the UK.
The case, which started on January 29, is expected to be heard over
the next eight weeks and is taking place in the Competition Appeal
Tribunal.
BT is accused of overcharging around 3.7 million landline customers
in a historic case led by former Ofcom official Justin Le Patourel
that alleges BT took advantage of a dominant market position to
charge "excessive" prices for landline customers, many of them
elderly.
BT has previously disputed the accusations and is fighting the
allegations in court.
The telco said the case is "profoundly flawed" and ignores basic
economic principles and market practices.
Le Patourel's case against BT dates back to the period between 2009
and 2017, where the claimants allege BT unfairly charged customers
who took a standalone fixed voice (SFV) connection during this
period before British telecoms regulator Ofcom stepped in.
If the case is ruled in favor of Le Patourel, it could be worth
between GBP300 ($381) to GBP400 ($508) per customer.
Following Ofcom's intervention, BT agreed to lower its prices in
2018, but that didn't stop a class action lawsuit being launched in
2021 by Le Patourel.
"Time really is of the essence," said Le Patourel. "More than 40
percent of our claimants are aged over 70, and over 150 of them are
dying every day. It really is vital that BT should refund every one
of them as soon as possible."
Le Patourel worked at Ofcom from 2003 through to 2016. During his
tenure, he held senior roles, including head of market
intelligence, and consumer policy and protection principal.
For BT, the case could be an expensive one and comes at a time when
the telco is pursuing cost-cutting measures.
BT announced last year it expects to cut up to 55,000 jobs by the
end of the decade as part of these measures, as it aims to utilize
artificial intelligence (AI).
BT has previously increased its cost savings target from GBP2.5
billion ($3.2bn) to GBP3bn ($3.8bn) by the end of 2025. [GN]
CALIFORNIA HEALTH: Class Settlement in Harbour Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HARBOUR, et al., v.
CALIFORNIA HEALTH & WELLNESS PLAN, et al., Case No.
5:21-cv-03322-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila
entered an order:
-- granting final settlement approval; and
-- granting motion for Attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs' motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is granted.
Class Counsel is awarded $2,500,000 in Attorneys' fees and
$37,333.06 in litigation costs. Class Representatives are granted
an incentive award of $1,500 each.
The parties shall file a post-distribution accounting in accordance
with this District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action
Settlements no later than September 26, 2024. The Court sets a
compliance deadline on Oct. 10, 2024, on the Court's 9:00 a.m.
calendar to verify timely filing of the post-distribution
accounting.
The case is a data privacy litigation brought by Representative
Plaintiffs John Harbour, Tami Wisnesky, Joweli Vunisa, and J. Doe
against the Defendants.
California Health offers health management, diversity resources,
and pharmacy services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Olce2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS: Gatchell Balks at Unprotected Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Gatchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cardiovascular Consultants, Ltd., Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00113-SMM (D. Ariz., Jan. 17, 2024) is a class
action arising from the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach
on Cardiovascular Consultants' network that resulted in
unauthorized access to highly-sensitive patient data belonging to
Plaintiff and over 500,000 Class Members.
On September 29, 2023, the Defendant became aware of an incident in
which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed information on its
computer systems. Upon information and belief, the cybercriminals
accessed and stole private information belonging to the Plaintiff
and Class members. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and
Class Members face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly
impending harm, heightened here by the loss of Social Security
numbers, a class of private information which is particularly
valuable to identity thieves. The Plaintiff and Class Members have
and will continue to suffer injuries associated with this risk,
including but not limited to a loss of time, mitigation expenses,
and anxiety over the misuse of their private information, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant, seeking redress
for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence;
(ii) breach of implied contract; (iii) unjust enrichment; (iv)
bailment; and (v) breach of fiduciary duty. Through these claims,
Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well
as injunctive and other equitable relief, including improvements to
Defendant's data security systems, policies, and practices, future
annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by
the Defendant.
Cardiovascular Consultants, Ltd. provides cardiovascular medicine
in Arizona and the Southwestern United States, offering medical
consultations and advanced testing including vascular and cardiac
ultrasound, surgical diagnostics, nuclear cardiology, PET, and
electrophysiology, as well as surgical services including invasive
cardiology, vascular, and endovascular.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
14648 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 130
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (480) 348-6400
Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
CARE ACCESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Appleberry Says
-------------------------------------------------------
BETTINA APPLEBERRY; and SHAMEEKA BOWMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARE ACCESS
RESEARCH LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00598 (N.D. Ill., Jan.
23, 2024) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiffs Appleberry and Bowman were employed by the Defendant as
patient educator and patient recruiter, respectively.
CARE ACCESS RESEARCH LLC provides clinical research and clinical
trial services. Care Access Research goal is to engage every
healthcare professional in clinical research and to make clinical
trials a care option for every patient. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Pasha Vaziri, Esq.
VAZIRI LAW LLC
111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1500
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312)690-2610
Email: pvaziri@vaziri.law
CAROTHERS HOLDING: Simpson Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUBERT SIMPSON, LYNDA
MASON, ALLISON MONTGOMERY, PIERRE DAVIS, LAVONNE JONES HAYNES
ANDERSON, MARIO BLACK, ANDREA BYERS, BURLIN ALLEN, SR., BURLIN
ALLEN, JR., and JAQUELINE W. McCLINTON, individually, and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAROTHERS
HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, doing business as York Memorial Cemetery,
a/k/a York Memorial Park, STONEMOR GP, LLC, STONEMOR, NORTH
CAROLINA, LLC, STONEMOR NORTH CAROLINA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC.,
STONEMOR, NORTH CAROLINA SUBSIDIARY, LLC, STONEMOR PARTNERS, LP,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00217-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certify the following classes and
appointing the individuals as class representatives for each class,
and similarly appointing their counsel as class counsel.
1) the "Contract Holder Class"
"All individuals, or their legal representatives, who
entered
into a contract with the Defendants for burial services at
York
Memorial Cemetery from January 1, 1969, through the date of
class certification." Allison Montgomery and Burlin Allen,
Sr.,
request appointment as class representatives.
2) the "Next of Kin Class"
"All individuals who are next of kin of any individual
buried
at York Memorial Cemetery from January 1, 1969, through the
date of class certification." Hubert Simpson, Lynda Mason,
Pierre Davis, Lavonne Jones Haynes Anderson, Mario Black,
Andrea Byers, Burlin Allen, Jr., and Jaqueline McClinton
request appointment as class representatives.
The suit involves the desecration of gravesites at York Memorial
Cemetery, one of the oldest and largest historically
African-American cemeteries in Charlotte, has happened before in
other locations, in some cases involving one of the same defendants
present in this case. When faced with such chilling conduct, courts
have routinely certified classes, finding the claims to arise from
a unifying legal theory and common facts.
For example, in a 2003 federal court action against a crematorium
and associated funeral homes where hundreds of human bodies (and
parts of human bodies) were found dumped in various locations on
the property surrounding the crematorium, the Northern District of
Georgia certified class claims for (1) breach of contract; (2)
negligence; (3) willful interference with remains and intentional
mishandling of a corpse; and (4) negligent interference with
remains and mishandling of a corpse.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4bgfJ6K at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Pamela A. Hunter, Esq.
715 East 5th Street, Ste. 106
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 376 7709
E-mail: pamelahunterlaw@bellsouth.net
- and -
Kimberly Best, Esq.
N. Clifton Cannon, Jr.
W. Terry Sherrill
SHERRILL & EMEHEL, P.A.
1850 E. Third Street, Suite 320
Charlotte, NC 28204
Telephone: (704) 332-8818
- and -
Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 630-8304
E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com
CATALINA SNACKS: Court Narrows Claims in Collyer Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
captioned KAREN COLLYER, Plaintiff v. CATALINA SNACKS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00296-AMO (N.D. Cal.).
The Defendant's motion to dismiss was heard before the Court on
Sept. 14, 2023.
The lawsuit is a putative consumer fraud class action. The
Defendant sells Catalina Crunch Keto Friendly Cereals in numerous
varieties, including Chocolate Banana, Honey Graham, Mint
Chocolate, and Apple Cider Donut. Plaintiff Karen Collyer purchased
the Chocolate Banana and Honey Graham flavors of the
Catalina Crunch Keto Friendly Cereals from grocery stores in
Monterey County in 2022.
Ms. Collyer complains that the packaging of the four cereals
deceive and mislead reasonable consumers because the cereals do not
contain a characterizing ingredient pictured and referred to on the
principal display panel. She asserts that reasonable consumers are
damaged by paying a price premium for the cereal that lacks the
healthful characterizing ingredients.
Ms. Collyer complains that the: (i) Chocolate Banana does not
include real bananas; rather, the banana taste appears to come from
"natural flavors"; (ii) Apple Cider Donut variety contains no apple
or apple cider; rather, the apple cider taste appears to come from
"natural flavors"; (iii) Mint Chocolate variety contains no mint;
rather, the mint taste appears to come from "natural flavors" ; and
(iv) Honey Graham variety contains no honey; rather, the honey
taste appears to come from "natural flavors."
On behalf of herself and a proposed class of California consumers,
Collyer asserts the following claims, and simultaneously seeks
damages and equitable restitution:
1. violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.;
2. violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq.;
3. violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"),
Cal Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq.; and
4. breach of implied warranty.
Under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Catalina challenges Collyer's standing to bring claims related to
products she never purchased: the Apple Cider Donut or Mint
Chocolate flavors of the Keto Friendly Cereals. Additionally,
Catalina moves to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. Further, Catalina additionally seeks
dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, which
Collyer does not oppose.
Judge Martinez-Olguin notes that several courts in this district
have held that a named plaintiff may have standing to assert claims
for unnamed class members based on products he or she did not
purchase so long as the products and alleged misrepresentations are
substantially similar, citing Yamasaki v. Zicam LLC, No.
21-cv-02596-HSG, 2021 WL 4951435, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2021).
Courts have found substantial similarity for purposes of standing
where (1) the products are physically similar; (2) the differences
between the products are immaterial because the legal claim and
injury to the customer are the same; and (3) both the products and
the legal claims and injury are similar.
Judge Martinez-Olguin finds that the products pass the three-part
test for "substantially similar." The Court agrees with Collyer
that the products are nearly identical in their ingredient lists.
And importantly, none of these ingredient lists include the
showcased flavors on the front of the packages, with such flavors
apparently included among the non-specific "natural flavors" in the
ingredient lists.
This satisfies the second prong because the distinction between the
showcased flavors and their absence in the ingredient lists appears
to be the alleged defect that gives rise to Collyer's fraud-based
claims, Judge Martinez-Olguin opines. Finally, both the products
and the legal claims and injury are similar where Collyer alleges
that the same absence of ingredients presented on the front of the
packaging gives rise to the same consumer fraud claims.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Collyer has standing to assert
claims related to the two cereal varieties she did not purchase
because they are substantially similar to the ones she did
purchase.
Catalina also moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a
claim. Catalina argues that: (1) Collyer has failed to state a
claim under the "reasonable consumer" standard; (2) the California
Unfair Competition Law, particularly the "unlawful" prong, is
preempted; (3) Collyer has not stated a claim for breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability; and (4) Collyer may not pursue
equitable relief.
Though a reasonable consumer is not expected to look to the back of
a product label to dispel a misleading claim on the front of a
product label, Judge Martinez-Olguin finds that Collyer fails to
show any deceiving statements. Collyer does not argue that the
product labels misrepresent the ingredients, sugar, or
carbohydrates.
The Catalina Crunch product labels contain no assertion that the
products are "made with" or "made from" any of the characterizing
flavors, Judge Martinez-Olguin holds. Nothing on the product labels
state or imply that the cereal flavors are derived entirely or
predominantly from banana, apple, mint, or honey. Thus, Judge
Martinez-Olguin points out, this is not a case in which the
Defendant misled consumers and then relied on a small-print
"ingredient list" on the alternate side of the packaging in an
attempt to correct those misinterpretations and provide a shield
for liability for the deception.
Judge Martinez-Olguin opines that a reasonable consumer would not
be deceived by the representations on these cereal product labels.
The Judge points out that Collyer fails to plausibly allege that
the product labels at issue are likely to deceive reasonable
consumers. Hence, the Plaintiff's California statutory claims all
fail on this basis and must be dismissed.
However, in light of the Ninth Circuit's authority discouraging
dismissal of consumer deception claims at the pleadings stage, the
Court finds it appropriate to grant leave to amend these claims.
Ms. Collyer disclaims violation of the FDCA, advancing her UCL
unlawful claim instead on violation of the Sherman Law, which
incorporates the FDCA, on the basis that the Defendant's products
fail to disclose that they are flavored. She alleges that
Catalina's product representations are misleading under California
law, not that the product representations are misleading under FDA
regulations. But while the FDCA does not preempt preexisting state
common-law duties that "parallel federal requirements," it does
preempt state-law claims that ultimately are dependent on the
existence of violations of federal law.
That is the case here, Judge Martinez-Olguin says. Collyer's claim
that the cereal labels at issue are unlawful is based on violation
of the Sherman Law, which expressly incorporates the FDCA and
regulations as state law. Accordingly, to the extent Collyer's
claims rely on violation of the FDCA, Judge Martinez-Olguin holds
that they are preempted. The unlawful prong portion of Collyer's
UCL claim, most notably included in paragraph 67 of the Complaint,
is, therefore, dismissed with prejudice.
Catalina Crunch cereals are intended for human consumption. Judge
Martinez-Olguin notes that Collyer does not claim that the cereals
were not fit for human consumption, only that the cereals did not
include all the ingredients she expected. Judge Martinez-Olguin
points out that this does not implicate the foodstuffs exemption to
the requirement of privity between purchaser and producer.
Therefore, Judge Martinez-Olguin holds, the claim for breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability cannot stand. Amendment cannot
cure this defect, and the cause of action is dismissed with
prejudice.
Citing Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir.
2020), Catalina argues that Collyer's claims for equitable relief
must be dismissed pursuant to federal common law because equitable
claims cannot stand where a plaintiff has an adequate remedy at
law. This case, however, is at the pleading stage, and the Court is
persuaded by decisions in this district which allow the pursuit of
alternative remedies at the pleadings stage. Accordingly, Judge
Martinez-Olguin says the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss is denied on this basis.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part
Catalina's Motion to Dismiss. Collyer's claims under the reasonable
consumer standard of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are all dismissed with
leave to amend except for the preempted portion of the UCL unlawful
prong claim that relies on the Sherman Law, which is dismissed with
prejudice.
Ms. Collyer's cause of action for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability is dismissed with prejudice. Collyer's amended
pleading, if any, shall be filed no later than Feb. 22, 2024. No
additional parties or claims may be added without leave of court or
stipulation of the Defendant.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 18, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y6cm6h94from PacerMonitor.com.
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Goodrow Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND GOODROW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., and COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC d/b/a XFINITY, Defendants, Case No.
0:24-cv-60100-WPD (S.D. Fla., Jan. 17, 2024) is a class action
against Defendants for their failure to adequately secure and
protect the personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiff
and Class Members, including but not limited to names, mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, partial Social
Security numbers, usernames and encrypted passwords, as well as
security question prompts and responses, who are the victims of a
targeted cyberattack on Defendants that occurred on or around
October 10, 2023.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their duties by
negligently and recklessly maintaining the PII of Plaintiff and
Class Members. It is believed that the means of the data breach and
the risk of improper disclosure were known and foreseeable to the
Defendants. Their failure to secure the PII left it in a dangerous
and vulnerable state.
As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
suffered ascertainable losses, including, but not limited to, a
loss of potential value of their private and confidential
information, the loss of the benefit of their contractual bargain
with Defendants, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the data
breach, says the suit.
Plaintiff Goodrow has been a customer of Xfinity since 2020.
Citrix Systems, Inc. provides cloud computing services to over 16
million cloud users, and thousands of organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
- and -
Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
Samuel Mukiibi, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-8300
Facsimile: (215) 567-8333
E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
smukiibi@feldmanshepherd.com
CONSUMERINFO.COM INC: Consumers' Info Sold to 3rd Parties, Cox Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Cox, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc., d/b/a Experian,
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Experian, Defendants,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00033 (S.D.W. Va., Jan. 16, 2024) arises from the
Defendants' bait and switch campaign against consumers through the
use of the term "free," which is used to lure consumers into
providing so-called "written permission" to access their credit
reports in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants use this ruse to sell
information about consumers, including Plaintiff, to third parties
and force consumers into arbitration of unrelated disputes without
a conspicuous disclosure of these terms next to the term "free" as
required by the FTC regulations on the use of the term "Free."
Consumers who think they are signing up to receive their free
credit reports, something Experian is required by law to provide to
consumers anyway and does on a different website, are duped by the
term "free" into having their information sold and being subjected
to unsolicited advertisements and other use of their private
financial information by third parties. Further, if they want to
object to it, the Defendants tricked them into allegedly agreeing
to arbitrate those claims to prevent consumers from vindicating
their consumer and privacy rights in court, says the suit.
ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of information
services company Experian Information.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin M. Sheridan, Esq.
Jed R. Nolan, Esq.
KLEIN & SHERIDAN, LC
3566 Teays Valley Road
Hurricane, WV 25526
Telephone: (304) 562-7111
Facsimile: (304) 562-7115
E-mail: ben@kleinsheridan.com
jed@kleinsheridan.com
- and -
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
923 Haddonfield Rd. Suite 300
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
CORECIVIC INC: Court Junks Bliss Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathleen Bliss, v.
CoreCivic, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01280-JAD-EJY (D. Nev.), the Hon.
Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey entered an order denying the motion for
class certification:
A Rule 23 Class of: All attorneys who received at least one
recorded "covered call” from a person confined in a CoreCivic
facility; and
A Nevada Subclass of: All Rule 23 Class members who received at
least one recorded "covered call" from a person confined at
Nevada Southern Detention Center.
A "covered call" is a call made by a detainee from any of 20
CoreCivic facilities to phone numbers associated with attorneys in
state-bar data or directories from all 50 states. "Covered calls"
only include those recorded and that exceeded specific durational
limits that account for call preambles and ring time.
Criminal-defense attorney Kathleen Bliss alleges that the Defendant
recorded privileged calls between herself and her incarcerated
clients at their facilities in violation of the Federal and Nevada
Wiretap Acts.
CoreCivic is a private corrections and detention-management company
with whom various governmental entities have contracted to operate
correctional facilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a5Vru3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAVITA INC: Teodosio Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOURDES M. TEODOSIO, AMBER
BROCK, GAROON J. GIBBSRACHO and DAMON A. PARKS, SR., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DAVITA, INC.,
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DAVITA, INC., THE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE OF DAVITA, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
1:22-cv-00712-WJM-MDB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
-- granting an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement;
-- granting preliminary certification of settlement class;
-- approving Class Notice;
-- approval of Plan of Allocation; and
-- scheduling of a fairness hearing.
DaVita provides kidney dialysis services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ygzl4n at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Wells, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
Brandon S. Williams, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
jayw@capozziadler.com
donr@capozziadler.com
brandonw@capozziadler.com
DEL MONTE FOODS: Settlement Deal in Stewart Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK STEWART, an
individual, JAVONTE WILLIAMS, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DEL MONTE FOODS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04919-RMI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert M.
Illman entered an order granting preliminary approval of class and
representative action settlement:
1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement and the Settlement Class based upon the terms set
forth in the Settlement Agreement filed herewith.
2. The Court conditionally certifies and approves, for
settlement
purposes only, the following Settlement Class as set forth in
the Settlement Agreement:
"All current or former non-exempt production persons employed
by
Defendant in California during the Class Period, who do not
opt
out of the Settlement."
3. The Court directs the mailing of the Notice to Class Members
by
U.S. first class mail to the Settlement Class Members in
accordance with the Implementation Schedule set forth below.
4. The Court confirms Derek Stewart and Javonte Williams as the
Class Representatives.
5. The Court approves Simpluris, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator.
6. The Court orders the following Implementation Schedule for
further proceedings:
Del Monte is an American food production and distribution company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DGhtRU at no extra
charge.[CC]
DERMTECH INC: Bagheri Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKA BAGHERI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DERMTECH, INC.;
JOHN DOBAK; and KEVIN SUN, Case No. 3:23-cv-02221-DMS-JLB (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order granting
movant Robert Weiner's motion to appoint lead plaintiff, approve
lead counsel, and consolidate cases; denying competing motions; and
vacating hearing.
The Court finds that the Bagheri and Quarford Actions are
essentially identical. The Bagheri and Quarford Actions involve the
same defendants, overlapping proposed classes, most of the same
factual allegations, and nearly identical claims under federal
securities laws.
On Oct. 16, 2023, the Plaintiff Bagheri filed the initial class
action complaint against DermTech alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Dec. 5, 2023, the Plaintiff
Quarford filed a similar class action complaint against DermTech
alleging similar violations of the Exchange Act stemming from the
same set of events.
DermTech produces and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RW7KHR at no extra
charge.[CC]
DIRECT BUILDING: Bid to Dismiss Jackson Class Action Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERARD JACKSON, v. DIRECT
BUILDING SUPPLIES LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01569-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order denying the
Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and
Defendant's motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f).
Direct Building Services argues that extensive individualized
factfinding would be required to determine whether an individual
received more than one telemarketing call.
In October 2023, Plaintiff, Gerard Jackson, filed a one-count
amended
complaint against Defendant, Direct Building Supplies, doing
business as Renu Solar.
In Nov. 2023, Direct Building Supplies filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim.
Jackson brings a class action suit against Direct Building Services
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
("TCPA"). He seeks to represent a class tentatively defined as
follows:
"All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers
were
on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2)
but
who received more than one telemarketing calls from or on behalf
of
the Defendant (3) within a 12-month period, (4) from four years
prior the filing of the Complaint."
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f6edQI
at no extra charge.[CC]
ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: Heflin Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Heflin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Electrostim Medical Services, Inc. d/b/a
EMSI, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00163-JLB-AEP (M.D. Fla., Jan.
17, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure
to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information that it
collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices,
including, but not limited to the personally identifying
information and protected health information as defined by the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information -- and
failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information.
This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised
due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and
their utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data.
Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
private information because of its value in exploiting and stealing
the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and
continuing risk to victims of the data breach will remain for their
respective lifetimes, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's
inadequate data security practices.
Electrostim Medical Services, Inc. is a medical device company
providing home electrical stimulation devices, bracing, and
accessories for pain management and physical rehabilitation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Separate Rule 54 Final Judgment in Bah OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAMADOU ALPHA BAH, V.,
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF BOSTON, LLC, and ENTERPRISE
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-12542-MLW (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Wolf entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiff's motion for the entry of separate and final
judgment under Rule 54(b) is allowed.
2. The denial of plaintiff's request for equitable tolling
and decertification of the conditionally certified National
Class shall be entered as a final judgment pursuant to Rule
54(b).
3. The Plaintiff's request, in the alternative, for the entry
of
an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b)
is
denied as moot.
The Plaintiff Bah was an assistant branch manager for ERAC Boston.
He has brought individual and collective claims against the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and
the Massachusetts Overtime Law. Bah alleges that defendants
violated the FLSA and the Massachusetts Overtime Law by failing to
pay overtime to assistant branch managers before November 27,
2016.
Bah sought to establish two classes:
-- a class of Massachusetts assistant branch managers seeking
relief from defendants under the Massachusetts Overtime Law
(the "Massachusetts Class"), and
-- a class of national assistant branch managers seeking
relief
from defendants under the FLSA (the "National Class").
The court dismissed plaintiff's original Complaint without
prejudice because it did not contain distinct allegations
concerning ERAC Boston and EHI, instead referring to the companies
jointly as "Enterprise," and because it did not address the First
Circuit's requirements for alleging that Bah had an employment
relationship with EHI.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car is an American car rental agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gn2rV7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Fisher Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fisher et al v. FCA US
LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-10426-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Matthew F. Leitman entered an order granting in part and denying in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
-- The motion is granted with respect to the Plaintiffs' fraud
claims in Counts 11, 13, 14 (dismissed as to Plaintiff
Cartabiano only), 21, 25, 26, 31, 32, and 38 of the First
Amended Complaint.
-- It is further granted with respect to Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claims in Counts 5, 12, 24, 29, and 35 of the
First
Amended Complaint.
-- Finally, the motion is granted with respect to the fraud
component of Plaintiffs' UCL claim in Count 6 of the First Amended
Complaint. Those claims are dismissed.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiffs bring a variety of
statutory and common-law claims against Defendant FCA US LLC
arising out of an alleged defect in the eTorque mild hybrid system
of their FCA vehicles.
The Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased or leased 2019-2023
model year Ram 1500 trucks and Jeep Wranglers and 2022 model year
Jeep Wagoneer vehicles equipped with an eTorque mild hybrid system
(the "Class Vehicles")
FCA is one of the world's leading automakers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CBhdNF at no extra
charge.[CC]
FLORIDA PIZZA: Franklin Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMIAH FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA PIZZA 4, LLC, D/B/A "JET'S
PIZZA," Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00161 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 17,
2024) is a collective action against the Defendant under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers
employed at Jet's Pizza restaurants.
The complaint alleges that Defendant employs delivery drivers who
use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to
its customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for
the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, Defendant uses its delivery drivers' tips to cover
reimbursements for their incurred expenses, which cause their wages
to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all
workweeks, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately July 31,
2021 to February 11, 2022, as a delivery driver at Defendant's
Jet's Pizza restaurant located in Tampa, Florida.
Florida Pizza 4, LLC owns and operate numerous Jet's Pizza
restaurants across the U.S. including in the state of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
- and -
R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
SORONDO ROSENBERG LEGAL PA
1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd. #329
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 708-7550
Facsimile: (786) 204-0844
E-mail: rer@sorondorosenberg.com
FORESCOUT TECH: Parties Directed to Meet and Confer on Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER L. SAYCE, et
al., v. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00076-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered
an order granting the defendants the opportunity to re-depose Mr.
Ort and file a sur-reply if warranted after the plaintiffs comply
with the production.
The Court finds it appropriate to set a 30-day substantial
completion deadline for the ordered discovery of Feb. 13, 2024. The
Court believes it is in the best interests of the parties and the
Court to re-set the class certification hearing and the date by
which plaintiffs' must file their reply to after this substantial
completion deadline.
The Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding the
following dates: the deadline for plaintiffs' reply to their motion
for class certification, a date for defendants' sur-reply, and a
new date for the class certification hearing. The Court agrees with
plaintiffs that the class certification hearing should not be
unduly delayed and urges the parties to set the deadlines as soon
as practicable. If the parties are unable to agree upon dates after
meeting and conferring, they may notify the Court and a status
conference will be scheduled.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants are attempting to "carve
out" the class period for purposes of discovery. The class period
for claims reinstated by the Ninth Circuit runs from May 9, 2019
through May 15, 2020.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' requests "attempt to
collapse two factually and legally distinct claims" that pertain to
two separate theories of liability: the 2019 statements and May 11,
2020, statement about the pending transaction with Advent.
ForeScout is a technology company that offers network security
control solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iW7l93 at no extra
charge.[CC]
FORTRA LLC: Minnesota Court Stays Proceedings in Anderson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota grants the Defendant's motion to stay
proceedings in the lawsuit titled Valerie Anderson, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Fortra LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-00533-SRN-DTS
(D. Minn.).
The consolidated class action lawsuit stems from a targeted
cyberattack committed against Fortra in January 2023. Fortra is a
Minnesota-based company that provides information technology
management software and services, including cybersecurity and data
conversion services, to customers worldwide. The cyberattack
resulted in a data breach, through which the hackers gained
unauthorized access to the information of 130 of Fortra's
customers. Fortra's customers include banks, healthcare providers,
healthcare benefits administrative service providers, and other
companies that maintain the sensitive data of individual clients.
The information accessed through the data breach included the
Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information ("PII"), which had
been shared with Fortra's various customers. The hackers, alleged
to be the Clop ransomware group or a related group, used a
managed-file transfer tool developed by Fortra--GoAnywhere MFT--to
remotely access the servers of Fortra's customers. Over the course
of ten days, the group was able to steal massive amounts of private
client and consumer data stored on the compromised servers.
The Plaintiffs brought suit against Fortra, alleging that it owed
and otherwise assumed common law, contractual, and statutory duties
to keep the plaintiffs' PII safe, secure, confidential, and
protected from unauthorized access and disclosure. They argue that
Fortra breached these duties by developing unsafe and unprotected
tools for the remote access of data, and by implementing inadequate
data security measures and protocols to protect their PII.
The consolidated complaint alleges three causes of action on behalf
of the entire class of Plaintiffs: (1) a claim for negligence, (2)
a claim for negligence per se, and (3) a claim seeking a
declaratory judgment. A sub-class of the Plaintiffs domiciled in
California allege three additional causes of action: (1) a claim
for violations of the California Consumer Records Act, (2) a claim
for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and (3) a
claim for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act.
On July 14, 2023, Fortra filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a
claim. The motion was fully briefed, and the Court heard argument
at a hearing on Oct. 11, 2023. That motion remains under
advisement.
Individuals, situated similarly to the Plaintiffs in this case,
have initiated lawsuits against Fortra's customers around the
country related to the same underlying data breach. Presently, the
Court is aware of related pending consolidated cases in eight
federal district courts: Rosa, et al. v. Brightline, Inc., No.
3:23-cv-2132-WHA, in the Northern District of California; Rougeau
v. Aetna Inc., No. 3:23-cv-635-VDO, in the District of Connecticut;
Skurauskis, et al. v. NationsBenefits Holdings, LLC, et al., No.
0:23-cv-60830-RAR, and companion case Skurauskis, et al. v. Santa
Clara Family Health Plan, No. 0:23-cv-61518-RAR, in the Southern
District of Florida; Shepherd v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc.,
et al., No. 1:23-cv-693-TWP-MG, in the Southern District of
Indiana; In re Intellihartx Data Security Incident Litigation, No.
3:23-cv-1224-JRK, in the Northern District of Ohio; In re
Imagine360, LLC Data Security Incident Litigation, No.
2:23-cv-2603-GEKP, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Ross,
et al. v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., No.
3:23-cv-2128-JKM, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and
Kuffrey, et al. v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., No.
3:23-cv-285-WDC, in the Middle District of Tennessee. Fortra is not
presently named as a party in any of the related actions.
On Oct. 16, 2023, NationsBenefits, LLC, a defendant in the
Skurauskis litigation, moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) to transfer and centralize all related actions in
the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 (see In re
Fortra File Transfer Software Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL
No. 3090, Doc. No. 1). The Plaintiffs in this case took no position
on the question of centralization, but argued that in the event of
consolidation, the proceedings should be centralized before this
Court. Fortra filed a response in support of the motion to transfer
and centralize the actions.
The Court first considers whether a stay would present any
potential for prejudice to the Plaintiffs in this case. Given the
likely short duration of any stay in this matter, the Court finds
that any associated potential for prejudice to the Plaintiffs is
minimal.
The Court next considers the hardships likely to be borne by Fortra
if a stay is denied in this case. Fortra argues that a stay would
protect it from conducting duplicative discovery tasks,
re-litigating discovery issues, and renegotiating discovery
protocols with added parties in the event of centralization by the
JPML. The Plaintiffs counter that the discovery efforts Fortra
seeks to avoid now are merely the completion of basic preliminary
discovery orders and a request for production of documents likely
relevant to all potentially related actions.
While the Plaintiffs may be correct that Fortra will ultimately
have to engage in these discovery tasks either way, their argument
somewhat misses the point, Judge Nelson opines. As one district
judge noted in ruling on a motion to stay, this litigation involves
the data of an estimated 3,000,000 victims across 14 states.
In addition to there being numerous defendants, Judge Nelson notes
that the plaintiffs in each of the ongoing cases differ and are
represented by separate counsel. Any orders or agreements obtained
in this case may have to be relitigated or renegotiated with the
added parties, potentially with different results--an avoidable
hardship that weighs in favor of staying the proceedings, Judge
Nelson points out.
Finally, the Court must consider what impact, if any, a stay would
have on judicial resources. As the Plaintiffs point out, Fortra did
not move for a stay until after its motion to dismiss this matter
was fully briefed and taken under advisement. Thus, the Court is
already familiar with the facts and law of this case, reducing the
amount of judicial resources likely to be conserved through a stay.
The Court agrees that at first glance, a stay now would have little
impact on the Court's resources.
That said, Judge Nelson says, the motion to dismiss before this
Court is not the only such matter pending. The district courts
presiding over related cases in the Southern District of Indiana,
the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the Southern District of
Florida also have motions to dismiss pending before them. As the
district court observed in Blackmore v. Smitty's Supply, Inc., 451
F. Supp. 3d 1003, 1004 (N.D. Iowa 2020), judicial economy concerns
weigh in favor of having one court, rather than several, deciding
motions.
In this case, even a brief stay might serve to avoid the potential
for inconsistent or duplicative rulings on pending motions to
dismiss, Judge Nelson opines. The Court finds that the three
factors on balance weigh in favor of granting a stay of all
proceedings and deadlines in this case, pending the JPML's decision
on centralization and transfer.
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings in
this case, the Court rules that:
1. The Motion to Stay Proceedings filed by Defendant Fortra
LLC is granted; and
2. All proceedings and deadlines in this case are stayed until
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determines
whether to centralize and transfer this action and
completes any transfer of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407. See In re: Fortra File Transfer Software Data
Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3090.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 18, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/2nxzbpdpfrom PacerMonitor.com.
Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com --
Christopher P. Renz -- crenz@chestnutcambronne.com -- Philip Joseph
Krzeski -- pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne PA,
in Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, counsel for all Plaintiffs.
Joseph M. Lyon -- jlyon@thelyonfirm.com -- Lyon Firm, in
Cincinnati, Ohio 45208, counsel for Plaintiff Valerie Anderson.
Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Michael J.
Laird -- michael.laird@zimmreed.com -- Rachel Kristine Tack --
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed PLLP, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402, counsel for Plaintiffs Robert Taylor, Tara Hartzel
Vancosky, Iraida Gonzalez, and Linda Caudill.
Danielle Lynn Perry -- dperry@masonllp.com -- Gary E. Mason --
gmason@masonllp.com -- Lisa A. White -- lwhite@masonllp.com --
Mason LLP, in Washington, D.C. 20015, counsel for Plaintiff Robert
Taylor.
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg
Schneider LPA, in Cincinnati, Ohio 45242, counsel for Plaintiffs
Alauntae Butts, Brett Yonally, Edward Hubler, Iraida Gonzalez,
Linda Caudill, Marquese York, Muhammed Zahid, Robert Taylor, and
Tara Hartzel Vancosky.
Daniel E. Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- David A.
Goodwin -- dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com -- Joseph Nelson --
jnelson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402, counsel for Plaintiffs Alauntae Butts, Marquese
York, and Muhammed Zahid.
Aaron R. Thom -- athom@thomellingson.com -- Samantha Ellingson --
sellingson@thomellingson.com -- Thom Ellingson, PLLP, in
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, and Bart Cohen --
bcohen@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser LLP, in Villanova,
Pennsylvania 19085, counsel for Plaintiff Brett Yonally.
Anne T. Regan -- aregan@hjlawfirm.com -- Nathan D. Prosser --
nprosser@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, in Edina,
Minnesota 55439, and Dylan J. Gould -- dgould@msdlegal.com --
Terence Coates -- tcoates@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock &
DeMarco, LLC, in Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, counsel for Plaintiff
Edward Hubbler.
Gary M. Klinger -- gklinger@milberg.com -- Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman PLLC, in Chicago, Illinois 60606, counsel for
Plaintiff Muhammed Zahid.
Kenneth Jay Grunfeld -- kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com -- Kopelowitz
Ostro Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert PA - Pennsylvania, in Bala
Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004, counsel for Plaintiff Iraida Gonzalez.
Danyll Foix -- dfoix@bakerlaw.com -- Gilbert S. Keteltas --
gketeltas@bakerlaw.com -- Kyle T. Cutts -- kcutts@bakerlaw.com --
Lisa Ghannoum -- lghannoum@bakerlaw.com -- Mary Pat Brogan --
mbrogan@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP, in Washington, D.C.
20036, counsel for Defendant Fortra LLC.
FUTURE FINTECH: Labelle Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
DENISE LABELLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FUTURE FINTECH GROUP INC., SHANCHUN HUANG,
JING CHEN, and MING YI, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00247 (D.N.J.,
Jan. 16, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and
other persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Future FinTech securities from March 10, 2020
through January 11, 2024, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose adverse
facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendant Shanchun
Huang manipulated the price of Future FinTech stock; (2) Defendant
Huang and Future FinTech lied to the Securities and Exchange
Commission about the nature of Defendant Huang's ownership of
Future FinTech stock; (3) Future FinTech understated its legal
risk; (4) Future FinTech did not disclose the unlawful measures
Defendant Huang took to prop up the price of its stock; and (5) as
a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit.
On this news, the price of the Company's stock went down by $0.27,
or 20.93%, to close at $1.02 on January 12, 2024, the suit
alleges.
As a result of the wrongful conduct alleged herein, the Plaintiff
and other members of the Class have suffered damages in an amount
to be established at trial.
Future FinTech Group Inc. is incorporated in Florida and its
headquarters are located in New York. The Company's business
activities include supply chain financial services and trading,
asset management and cross-border money transfer services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is are represented by:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
G.SKILL INT'L: Filing for Class Certification in Hurd Due March 15
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tristan Hurd, and Ken
Dimicco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. G.Skill International Enterprise Co., Ltd, et al.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00685-SSS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine
S. Sykes entered an order granting stipulation regarding motion for
class certification
briefing schedule:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class March 15, 2024
certification is due on:
2. The Defendants' opposition is April 19, 2024
due on:
3. The Plaintiffs' reply is due on: May 17, 2024
On Jan. 12, 2024, the Parties filed a Stipulation re Motion for
Class Certification Briefing Schedule and stipulated to a revised
briefing schedule for the motion for class certification.
G.Skill is a Taiwanese computer hardware manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O9Myjw at no extra
charge.[CC]
GAB.K LLC: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
ERVING MIGUEL MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. GAB.K, LLC d/b/a GABRIEL
KREUTHER d/b/a KREUTHER HANDCRAFTED CHOCOLATE TETON RESTAURANT
GROUP, LLC, and GABRIEL KREUTHER, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00352 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2024) is a class action brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to
recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime, due
to an invalid tip credit, (2) illegally retained tips, (3) improper
meal credit deductions; (4) unreimbursed uniform costs; (5) unpaid
spread of hours premiums, (6) statutory penalties, (7) liquidated
damages, and (8) attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a busser at a
restaurant, located in New York from September 2018 until his
termination on June 19, 2023.
The Plaintiff brings additional claims, pursuant to the New York
City Human Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights Law due
to Defendants' unlawful discrimination against him and other
similarly situated employees on the basis of their race and
national origin.
GAB.K, LLC owns and manages a restaurant based in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
GEICO CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Terminated Workers' Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that GEICO
Corporation faces a proposed class action wherein a former employee
claims the insurer, by company policy, unlawfully fails to pay
involuntarily terminated workers all wages due on their last day of
work.
The seven-page lawsuit alleges GEICO's purportedly untimely
payments violate the Massachusetts Wage Act, which requires the
insurance company to issue to involuntarily terminated employees
their wages in full -- including compensation for every hour worked
as of their final day and all accrued but unused paid time off --
on the date of termination.
The plaintiff, who worked in a Massachusetts office as a staff
counsel attorney, says that her supervisor -- co-defendant Patrice
L. Simonelli -- informed her in March 2023 that GEICO had
terminated her employment, effective immediately. However, rather
than issue the plaintiff's wages in full on her final day, as
required by state law, GEICO did not pay the woman's final paycheck
until nine days later, the suit contends.
According to the case, a benefits checklist given to the plaintiff
makes clear that it is GEICO's policy to issue final payments to
terminated workers "on the next scheduled payday" following their
last day of work "except as required by law."
Despite the document's "disclaimer" that certain laws may require a
"more timely payment" than the plaintiff's next payday, GEICO
nevertheless breached Massachusetts law by failing to issue the
woman her final paycheck on the day of her termination, the
complaint claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who, at any time within the
past three years, was terminated from their employment with GEICO
in Massachusetts, whether at a GEICO office or at their respective
homes in Massachusetts. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Seek to Extend Class Cert Briefing Sched
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA KIRIACOPOULOS,
CRAIG JOHNSON, BEVERLY TREVETHAN, SARAH BURNS, GERALYN DARR, STEVE
FIENE and THOMAS GRAHAM, ADARIUS BLAKE and AMY HENNING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:22-cv-10785-MAG-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order adopting the following revised briefing schedule
for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, GM's Response and
Plaintiffs' Reply to Class Certification:
(a) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on
or
before March 1, 2024;
(b) Defendant GM's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification shall be filed on or before March 22, 2024;
and
(c) The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification shall be filed on or before March 29, 2024.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u138UB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
eeh@millerlawpc.com
- and –
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
jerrodp@hbsslaw.com
GOLDEN HEAVEN: Rahman Files Securities Suit Over False Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAHAFUJUR RAHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN HEAVEN GROUP HOLDINGS LTD.,
QIONG JIN, and JINGUANG GONG, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00423
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2024) is a class action on behalf of persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
Golden Heaven securities between April 13, 2023 and December 8,
2023, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
During the Class Period, the Defendants, individually and in
concert, directly or indirectly, disseminated or approved the false
statements, which they knew or deliberately disregarded were
misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and failed to
disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading. The Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in that they: employed
devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; made untrue statements
of material facts or omitted to state material facts necessary in
order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading; or engaged in acts,
practices and a course of business that operated as a fraud or
deceit upon Plaintiff and others similarly situated in connection
with their purchases of the Company's securities during the Class
Period, the suit alleges.
As a result of the foregoing, the market price of the Company's
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. Had
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware that the
market price of the Company's securities had been artificially and
falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading statements and by the
material adverse information which Defendants did not disclose,
they would not have purchased the Company's securities at the
artificially inflated prices that they did, or at all, says the
suit.
Golden Heaven is an offshore holding company incorporated in the
Cayman Islands with principal executive offices located at No. 8
Banhouhaichuan Road, Xiqin Town, Yanping District, Nanping City,
Fujian Province, the People's Republic of China.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Mar 25
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against GrafTech International Ltd.
("GrafTech" or the "Company") (NYSE: EAF) in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GrafTech
common stock between February 8, 2019 and August 3, 2023, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares and incurred losses are advised
to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800)
575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information
concerning the action or join the case on our website,
www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses, you may, no later than March 25, 2024,
request that the Court appoint you as the lead plaintiff of the
proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about
your rights.
The filed complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
-- GrafTech's manufacturing operations in Monterrey, Mexico had
for decades chronically contaminated neighboring communities with
harmful carcinogenic gasses and particulate matter;
-- GrafTech had signed agreements with local authorities
committing itself to improving the environmental performance of its
Monterrey facility, but repeatedly failed to honor these
commitments;
-- GrafTech had been repeatedly warned over an approximately
30-year period regarding its wanton disregard for the environment
and health and well-being of people near its operations in
Monterrey, Mexico;
-- GrafTech's operations in Monterrey, Mexico were not in
compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations;
-- GrafTech had failed to adequately remediate the environmental
problems caused by the Monterrey facility following the 2019
administrative proceeding conducted by the Department of
Sustainable Development of the State of Nuevo Leon;
-- the government of Apodaca had sought intervention from the
State of Nuevo León authorities to curtail and prevent the adverse
environmental impacts and noncompliance with environmental laws and
regulations caused by the Monterrey facility;
-- GrafTech's purported cost leadership was achieved in
substantial part by failing to implement appropriate and effective
environmental safeguards at its manufacturing facility in
Monterrey, Mexico;
-- GrafTech's capital expenditures and/or related operational
projects were woefully insufficient to adequately address the harm
that GrafTech's operations in Monterrey, Mexico had inflicted on
the environment and people within the neighboring communities;
-- as a result of the above, GrafTech was acutely exposed to
undisclosed material risks that GrafTech's manufacturing operations
in Monterrey, Mexico would be severely disrupted by government
action or enforcement; and
-- as a result of the above, GrafTech was acutely exposed to
undisclosed material risks that its supplies of pin stock and
graphite electrodes would be withdrawn and/or materially
diminished, thereby materially harming GrafTech's business,
operations, reputation, and financial results.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas, and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735 or via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]
HAIN CELESTIAL: Class Cert Hearing Order Entered in Howard Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Howard et al v. Hain
Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00527 (N.D. Cal., Filed
Jan. 26, 2022), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order
regarding hearing on motion for class certification.
-- The Court is tentatively inclined to agree with the defendant
that
the class cannot include purchasers who bought the products for
children over age two.
-- But the parties should be prepared to discuss whether, setting
aside the other issues raised by the defendant in its brief
opposing class certification, there would be anything wrong
with
certifying a class limited to consumers who purchased the
products
for children under age two.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Hain is an international food and personal-care company.[CC]
HIRERIGHT LLC: Hoffman Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE HOFFMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HIRERIGHT, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02375-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order that:
-- HireRight's motion is granted, to the extent that it serves as
a
motion to dismiss, and Counts 3 and 4 are accordingly
dismissed
without prejudice.
-- The Plaintiff Hoffman is granted leave to amend her Complaint
within 14 days of thes Order. Counts 3 and 4 are not stricken
at
this time.
Accordingly, counts 3 and 4 of the Plaintiff's amended complaint
are dismissed without prejudice. Because it is unclear to this
Court whether the deficiency described above is a result of a mere
error in pleading or an actual factual deficiency, Hoffman is
granted
leave to amend her pleadings within 14 days of this Order.
The case arises out of allegations that HireRight which is in the
business of providing employment background checks, provided
outdated information about Plaintiff Nicole Hoffman regarding
unpaid court costs and fines, when, in fact, Hoffman did not have
any outstanding costs or fines.
Hoffman applied for employment as a Warehouse Operations Associate
II at Cardinal Health, Inc., at its Obetz, Ohio, location and was
allegedly denied the role because of the inaccurate information
reported by HireRight.
Hoffman alleges that the provision of inaccurate information
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
HireRight is a global family of background screening companies.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nhKzlq
at no extra charge.[CC]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court OKs Arbitration in Tamburo, Class Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Bedard, writing for JDSUPRA, reports that a district
court in the Seventh Circuit recently granted a motion to compel
arbitration and stay proceedings in a putative class action
involving Hyundai's Blue Link crash assistance program. Tamburo v.
Hyundai, No. 23-cv-00282, 2024 WL 22230 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2, 2024).
The named plaintiff, John Tamburo, bought a 2015 Hyundai vehicle in
2017 and enrolled in the vehicle's Blue Link feature and other
connected services, which included an SOS emergency button and
crash reporting. 2024 WL 22230, at *1. Hyundai claimed that, when
he enrolled, Tamburo assented to a Connected Services Agreement
("CSA") through a clickwrap device. Id. In 2021, after his
subscription lapsed, Tamburo logged into a Customer Web Portal and
re-assented to the CSA twice via clickwrap. Id. at *4. In 2022,
Tamburo re-assented to the terms of the CSA again when he logged
into the mobile app to access the connected services. Id.
Tamburo filed a putative class action against Hyundai on behalf of
himself and other customers who assented to the CSA, asserting
various state law claims. Id. at *1. He alleged, among other
things, that he was not informed that he had to accept the CSA in
order to enroll in the Blue Link feature or that the CSA contained
an arbitration provision and class action waiver. Id.
The district court applied the fact-intensive inquiry for internet
contract formation set forth in Sgouros v. TransUnion Corp., 817
F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2016), which looks to (1) "whether the web
pages presented to the consumer adequately communicate all the
terms and conditions of the agreement," and (2) "whether the
circumstances support the assumption that the purchaser receives
reasonable notices of those terms." Id. at *3 (citing Sgouros, 817
F.3d at 1034). The district court found that the clickwrap process
of "checking a box next to hyperlinked terms" generally provides
adequate notice and is "common in interstate commerce." Id. at *4.
Though there arguably was a factual dispute over whether Tamburo
had assented to the terms of the initial CSA when he signed up for
the Blue Link feature, the district court found that Tamburo later
assented to the CSA at least three separate times in 2021 and 2022.
Id. at *3-4.
The plaintiff nevertheless claimed that (1) he entered into the
CSAs under duress, and (2) the CSAs were unconscionably broad. The
district court dismissed each of these arguments in quick
succession.
First, the district court found that the CSA did not meet the "high
standard" of duress because a user could simply refuse to accept
the terms of the CSA and forego the Blue Link service. Id. at *4.
In other words, each user had "free will to accept or refuse the
terms and chose to click ‘I accept.'" Id.
Second, the district court concluded that the CSA was not
unconscionably broad because Blue Link and the other connected
services were voluntary; they did not "oppress or surprise" the
customer; the parties mutually agreed to arbitration and Hyundai
provided services in exchange; the CSA did not cause a significant
cost disparity between the parties; and a user could cancel at any
time. Id. at* 5.
The district court granted the motion to compel arbitration, stayed
the case pending arbitration, and deferred questions about whether
Tamburo's class claims were arbitrable to the arbitrator. Id. [GN]
IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Genc Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OZCAN GENC, HASAN GOKCE,
and SULEYMAN KOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI), LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00002 (D.N. Mar. I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting their motion to certify class under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The 107 Turkish workers have shown that they satisfy all four
prerequisites for a class action set forth in Rule 23(a) and that
their proposed class action is permissible because of the risk of
inconsistent or preclusive adjudications and the predominance of
common questions of law and fact for the more than 100 class
members. For these reasons, the three named Plaintiffs respectfully
request that the Court certify their Title VII discrimination claim
as a class action.
The Plaintiffs propose a class for their employment discrimination
case, brought pursuant to the provisions of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in a company-wide
practice of employment discrimination, both intentional and
systemic, on the basis of national origin, against Plaintiffs and a
class of similarly situated Turkish employees and former employees
as alleged in the Complaint, composed of all Turkish nationals with
whom Defendants contracted to work in construction of the Imperial
Palace Hotel in Saipan in 2020 under the H-2B temporary
non-agricultural workers program.
Imperial Pacific is a Chinese investment holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZKFFGu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard C. Miller, Esq.
BANES HOREY BERMAN & MILLER, LLC
First Floor, Macaranas Building
4165 Beach Road, Garapan
Saipan, MP 96950
Telephone: (670) 234-5684
Facsimile: (670) 234-5683
E-mail: RMiller@pacificlawyers.law
JOSEPH A. DIPIETRO: Moffi Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joseph A. Dipietro
Heating & Cooling, Inc. et al The case is styled as John Moffi, on
behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated v. Joseph A.
Dipietro Heating & Cooling, Inc., Revise Energy, Inc., Joseph A.
Dipietro, Case No. 2473CV00068 (Mass. Super. Ct., Bristol Cty.,
Jan. 29, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."
Joseph A. Dipietro Heating & Cooling, Inc. is a HVAC contractor in
Haverhill, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jeremy Shafran, Esq.
RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
92 State St.
Boston, MA 02109
JPD RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Compensation, Lopez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANASTACIO LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JPD RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a PIG N' WHISTLE,
MAGEE-MAHON CAFE INC. d/b/a PIG N' WHISTLE, JOHN MAHON, and CORMAC
MCCORMACK, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00605 (S.D.N.Y., January
27, 2024) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay proper
compensation to Plaintiff.
From approximately 2015 until on or about October 9, 2023, the
Plaintiff was employed as a line cook by Defendants. He worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
overtime and spread-of-hours compensation for the hours that
Plaintiff worked.
JPD Restaurant LLC owns, operates, and/or controls an enterprise of
Irish pubs and eating establishments in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 206
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 382-1600
E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com
KABANI ENTERPRISES: Junani Balks at Unpaid Straight Time, OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Azaan Junani, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Kashif Kabani; Kabani Enterprises, Inc.; Kabani Group LLC;
Speedy Express 40 Bella Terra LLC; Speedy Express 43 Naira
Enterprises LLC; Speedy Express 48 Westheimer LLC; Speedy Express
51 Operating Enterprises LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00176
(S.D. Tex., Jan. 17, 2024) is a collective action suit brought by
the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover
unpaid wages, including overtime wages, from the Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
Junani and Members of the Plaintiff Class their wages, including
overtime wages, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff and Members
of the Plaintiff Class routinely worked in excess of 40 hours a
week at Defendants' request, yet did not receive overtime wages as
the FLSA requires.
Additionally, the Defendants required Plaintiff and Members of the
Plaintiff Class to routinely work some hours each week
off-the-clock, and Defendants failed to pay any wages for these
hours. Under a uniform and pervasive enterprise-wide policy, the
Defendants require their employees to work off-the-clock hours and
overtime hours without paying the full wages owed, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at several of their
gas stations from October 26, 2022 until December 29, 2023. Mr.
Junani's primary job duties included operating the cash register,
assisting customers with their purchases of gasoline and other
items from their convenience store, assisting customers with their
gambling winnings from the electronic gambling machines located at
the Gas Stations, and general upkeep of the premises.
Kabani Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates gasoline stations with
convenience stores and gambling operations in the state of
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
430 W. Bell Street
Houston, TX 77019
Telephone: (713) 898-0982
E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com
KANSAS CITY LIFE: McMillan Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY A. MCMILLAN,
Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01100-BAH (D.
Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(3):
"All persons who own or owned a Better Life Plan, LifeTrack,
AGP,
MGP, PGP, Chapter One, Classic, Rightrack (89), Performer (88),
Performer (91), Competitor (88), Competitor (91), Executive
(88),
Executive (91), Protector 50, LewerMax, Ultra 20 (93),
Competitor
II, Executive II, Performer II, Ultra 20 (96), or Century II VUL
life insurance policy issued in the state of Maryland, that was
issued or administered by Defendant or its predecessors in
interest, and that was active on or after January 1, 2002."
The Defendant underwrites, sells, and administers a range of life
insurance and annuity products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jUaUst at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
David A. Hickey, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
perkins@stuevesiegel.com
lange@stuevesiegel.com
hickey@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
John J. Schirger, Esq.
Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
SCHIRGER FEIERABEND LLC
4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 561-6500
E-mail: Schirger@SFlawyers.com
Feierabend@SFlawyers.com
- and -
Veronica Nannis, Esq.
JOSEPH GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
Telephone: (301) 220-2200
E-mail: vnannis@jgllaw.com
L & J TIRES: Fails to Properly Pay Mechanics, Ramos Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
GENARO RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L & J TIRES LLC d/b/a/ RED LINE AUTO & TIRE
and JUAN ARIAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00618 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 28, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay earned
wages, failure to provide annual wage notices, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a mechanic from on or
about May 2, 2022 until on or about February 2023.
L & J Tires LLC, doing business as Red Line Auto & Tire, is a tire
shop business located in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
250 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
LANDS' END INC: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lands' End Inc. The
case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lands' End Inc., Case No.
0:24-cv-00226-JMB-DTS (D. Minn., Jan. 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lands' End -- http://www.landsend.com/-- is an American clothing
and home decor retailer founded in 1963 and based in Dodgeville,
Wisconsin, that specializes in casual clothing, luggage, and home
furnishings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
St. Michael, MN 55376
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
LOREAL USA INC: Cabiltes Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Krista Cabiltes, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Loreal USA, Inc., Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-05080 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Jan. 29, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00760 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- manufactures
and markets cosmetic products. The Company's cosmetic line includes
brand names such as L'Oreal, L'Oreal Professionel, Maybelline,
Ralph Lauren Fragrances, and Georgio Armani Parfums.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leah M. Beligan, Esq.
BELIGAN LAW GROUP LLP
19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92612
Phone: (949) 224-3881
Fax: (949) 724-4566
Email: lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net
- and -
Jerusalem Beligan, Esq.
BISNAR CHASE, LLP
1301 Dove St., Suite 120
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 752-2999
Email: jbeligan@bisnarchase.com
- and -
Michael L Fradin, Esq.
8 N. Court St., Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Phone: (847) 986-5889
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam Michael Reich, Esq.
Aaron D. Charfoos, Esq.
John Joseph Michels, III, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive, 45th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 499-6000
Email: adamreich@paulhastings.com
aaroncharfoos@paulhastings.com
jmichels@jonesday.com
- and -
Steven A. Marenberg, Esq.
IRELL & MANELLA
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 277-1010
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Gray Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
--------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. d/b/a
LENSCRAFTERS, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00160 (C.D. Cal., Jan.
23, 2024) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant aided,
employed, agreed, and conspired with Facebook to intercept
communications sent and received by the Plaintiff and Class
Members, including communications containing protected medical
information. Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable
remedies resulting from these illegal actions.
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. d/b/a LENSCRAFTERS offers prescription
glasses and sunglasses. The Company offers premium, luxury, and
sports eyewear, while also providing a managed care package that
includes medical and dental insurance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
LZ LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amsden Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER AMSDEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LZ LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 6:24-cv-03022-DPR (W.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2024) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Amsden was employed by the Defendant as a driver
operator.
LZ LOGISTICS, LLC is an interstate freight carrier based in
Mountain Grove, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matt J. Ghio, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
4818 Washington Boulevard, Suite 107
St. Louis, MO 63108
Telephone: (314) 208-3856
Email: mghio@cronelawfirmplc.com
MADONNA: Fellows Seeks Damages for Delay in Concert
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FELLOWS and JONATHAN HADDEN, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MADONNA LOUISE CICCONE,
LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC.; LIVE NATION MTOURS (USA), INC.; and
BROOKLYN EVENTS CENTER, LLC, D/B/A BARCLAYS CENTER, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00357-HG (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for false advertising, breach of
contract, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the New York General Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants had advertised,
promoted, and covenanted that Madonna Louise Ciccone, a concert
performer under the name "Madonna," would launch the North America
leg of her "Celebration Tour" in July 2023 in Brooklyn, New York,
at the Barclays Center, but the concerts did not happen until
December 2023, after Madonna delayed the start of her tour due to
illness. Moreover, the concerts at the Barclays Center were
advertised to start at 8:30 p.m., but Madonna did not take the
stage until after 10:30 p.m. on all three nights, with most concert
attendees leaving the Barclays Center after 1:00 a.m.
By the time of the concerts' announcements, Madonna had
demonstrated flippant difficulty in ensuring a timely or complete
performance, and Defendants were aware that any statement as to a
start time for a show constituted, at best, optimistic speculation.
As set forth infra, these acts or omissions are not countenanced by
law, and Plaintiffs and the Class Members should be compensated for
their damages, says the suit.
Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. operates as an entertainment company.
The Company provides live entertainment platform for artists,
performers, corporations and fans, as well as conducts concerts,
events, and venues management.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard A. Klass, Esq.
16 Court Street, 28th Floor
Brooklyn NY 11241
Telephone: (718) 643-6063
Facsimile: (718) 643-9788
E-mail: RichKlass@courtstreetlaw.com
- and -
Marcus W. Corwin, Esq.
MARCUS W. CORWIN, P.A. d/b/a CORWIN LAW
6501 Congress Avenue, Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 482-3636
Facsimile: (561) 962-2010
E-mail: mcorwin@corwinlawfirm.com
MAXIMUS INC: Forsyth Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY FORSYTH, individually, on behalf of his minor children,
S.F., J.F., and A.F, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIMUS, INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10218-ADB (D. Mass.,
January 26, 2024) arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and
data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and
exfiltrated highly-sensitive consumer data belonging to Plaintiff,
Plaintiff's Minor Children, and approximately 8,000,000 Class
Members, via a security vulnerability in Progress Software
Corporation's software program, MOVEit, which is used by Maximus to
transfer and/or exchange sensitive information and documents and
asserts claims against the Defendants for negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, bailment, breach of fiduciary
duty, and for violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Through these claims, the Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to
be proven at trial, as well as injunctive and other equitable
relief, including improvements to Defendants' data security
systems, policies, and practices, future annual audits, and
adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendants.
Maximus is a government services contractor that partners with
state, federal and local governments to provide communities with
critical health and human service programs. The company advertises
itself as an international leader in government services, providing
transformative technology services, digitally enabled customer
experiences, and clinical health services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven B. Rotman, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 207-0600
Facsimile: (617) 830-8312
E-mail: srotman@hausfeld.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
MAXSOLD INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Vanderburg Due March 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAY ANNE VANDERBRUG, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MAXSOLD
INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01707-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein entered an order granting joint motion to
amend case schedule as follows:
Deadline Date
Deadline to complete discovery on class Feb. 27, 2024
certification (not to be construed as
a bifurcation of discovery)
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion March 28, 2024
for Class Certification
Deadline for Defendant to File Responses April 29, 2024
to Motion for Class Certification
Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Reply in May 14, 2024
Support of Motion for Class Certification
MaxSold is a local pickup auction marketplace specializing in
estate sales, downsizing and inventory liquidation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OwXNC1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williams Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (618) 237-1775
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW PC
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Devon J. McCurdy, Esq.
LANE POWELL PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
Seattle, WA 98111-9402
Telephone: (206) 223-7000
E-mail: mccurdyd@lanepowell.com
- and -
Jillian M. Searles, Esq.
HODGSON RUSS LLP
605 Third Avenue, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10158
Telephone: (212) 751-4300
E-mail: jsearles@hodgsonruss.com
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Barton v. Mattel Set for Feb. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barton v. Mattel, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00670 (W.D.N.Y., Filed May 22, 2019), the
Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order scheduling hearing on
motion to certify class and initial pretrial conference for Feb.
23, 2024.
The hearing is to be held at United States District Court, Federal
Building, 11 Elmwood Avenue, Burlington, Vermont.
The Barton suit is being consolidated in RE: Rock 'N Play Sleeper
Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL
No. 1:19-md-2903).
The "Rock 'n Play Sleeper" is an inclined infant "sleeper" that the
Defendants, until they were forced to recall it on April 12, 2019,
marketed and sold for ten years as suitable for safe infant sleep,
including prolonged and overnight sleep.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' marketing of this product
as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep,
was intentional and overt. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the
product, but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were
sold, and other materials used to promote them, prominently
exclaim, "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"
and make similar statements about its fitness for nighttime sleep.
The Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and
unfit for its intended use. It poses a number of serious safety
risks that led to many documented infant deaths and injuries, the
Plaintiff adds.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving torts -- personal injury -- product liability.
Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and
entertainment company.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Black Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Linda Black v. Fisher
Price, Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01083 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 15, 2019), the Hon. Judge
Geoffrey Crawford entered an order scheduling hearing on motion to
certify class and initial pretrial conference for Feb. 23, 2024.
The hearing is to be held at United States District Court, Federal
Building, 11 Elmwood Avenue, Burlington, Vermont.
The Black suit is being consolidated in RE: Rock 'N Play Sleeper
Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL
No. 1:19-md-2903).
The "Rock 'n Play Sleeper" is an inclined infant "sleeper" that the
Defendants, until they were forced to recall it on April 12, 2019,
marketed and sold for ten years as suitable for safe infant sleep,
including prolonged and overnight sleep.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' marketing of this product
as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep,
was intentional and overt. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the
product, but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were
sold, and other materials used to promote them, prominently
exclaim, "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"
and make similar statements about its fitness for nighttime sleep.
The Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and
unfit for its intended use. It poses a number of serious safety
risks that led to many documented infant deaths and injuries, the
Plaintiff adds.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving torts -- personal injury -- product liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Cuddy Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cuddy v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00787
(W.D.N.Y., Filed June 13, 2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford
entered an order scheduling hearing on motion to certify class and
initial pretrial conference for Feb. 23, 2024.
The hearing is to be held at United States District Court, Federal
Building, 11 Elmwood Avenue, Burlington, Vermont.
The Cuddy immel suit is being consolidated in RE: Rock 'N Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL No. 1:19-md-2903).
The "Rock 'n Play Sleeper" is an inclined infant "sleeper" that the
Defendants, until they were forced to recall it on April 12, 2019,
marketed and sold for ten years as suitable for safe infant sleep,
including prolonged and overnight sleep.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' marketing of this product
as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep,
was intentional and overt. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the
product, but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were
sold, and other materials used to promote them, prominently
exclaim, "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"
and make similar statements about its fitness for nighttime sleep.
The Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and
unfit for its intended use. It poses a number of serious safety
risks that led to many documented infant deaths and injuries, the
Plaintiff adds.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving torts -- personal injury -- product liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Drover-Mundy Suit Set for Feb. 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Drover-Mundy, et al., v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00512 (W.D.N.Y., Filed
April 18, 2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order
scheduling hearing on motion to certify class and initial pretrial
conference for Feb. 23, 2024.
The hearing is to be held at United States District Court, Federal
Building, 11 Elmwood Avenue, Burlington, Vermont.
The Drover-Mundy suit is being consolidated in RE: Rock 'N Play
Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation (MDL No. 1:19-md-2903).
The "Rock 'n Play Sleeper" is an inclined infant "sleeper" that the
Defendants, until they were forced to recall it on April 12, 2019,
marketed and sold for ten years as suitable for safe infant sleep,
including prolonged and overnight sleep.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' marketing of this product
as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep,
was intentional and overt. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the
product, but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were
sold, and other materials used to promote them, prominently
exclaim, "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"
and make similar statements about its fitness for nighttime sleep.
The Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and
unfit for its intended use. It poses a number of serious safety
risks that led to many documented infant deaths and injuries, the
Plaintiff adds.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving torts -- personal injury -- product liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.[CC]
MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Fieker Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fieker v. Fisher Price,
Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01075
(W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 14, 2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford
entered an order scheduling hearing on motion to certify class and
initial pretrial conference for Feb. 23, 2024.
The hearing is to be held at United States District Court, Federal
Building, 11 Elmwood Avenue, Burlington, Vermont.
The Fieker suit is being consolidated in RE: Rock 'N Play Sleeper
Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (MDL
No. 1:19-md-2903).
The "Rock 'n Play Sleeper" is an inclined infant "sleeper" that the
Defendants, until they were forced to recall it on April 12, 2019,
marketed and sold for ten years as suitable for safe infant sleep,
including prolonged and overnight sleep.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants' marketing of this product
as safe for infant sleep, including prolonged and overnight sleep,
was intentional and overt. Not only is "Sleeper" in the name of the
product, but the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were
sold, and other materials used to promote them, prominently
exclaim, "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"
and make similar statements about its fitness for nighttime sleep.
The Rock 'n Play Sleeper is inherently unsafe as a sleeper and
unfit for its intended use. It poses a number of serious safety
risks that led to many documented infant deaths and injuries, the
Plaintiff adds.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
involving torts -- personal injury -- product liability.
Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for infants, toddlers and preschoolers.[CC]
META PLATFORMS: Bid for Class Certification in Hunt Due April 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN HUNT, v. META
PLATFORMS, INC., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-04953-PCP (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered a case management order as
follows:
-- Motion To Sever (Google): Feb. 1, 2024
-- Hearing: Motions to Sever (Google), March 7, 2024
Compel Arbitration (HRB, Google),
Dismiss (HRB, Google):
-- Motion To Dismiss (Meta): March 1, 2024
-- Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Meta): April 1, 2024
-- Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss April 15, 2024
(Meta):
-- Hearing: Motion To Dismiss (Meta): May 2, 2024
-- Initial Disclosures: June 24, 2024
-- Last Day to Amend Pleadings: Sept. 23, 2024
-- Completion of ADR: Oct. 1, 2024
-- Motion for Class Certification: April 1, 2025
-- Opposition to Class Certification: June 2, 2025
-- Reply in Support of Class July 17, 2024
Certification
Meta owns and operates Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp,
among other products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h8ovzJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
MOBILEYE GLOBAL: McAuliffe Files Securities Suit Over False Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MCAULIFFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOBILEYE GLOBAL INC., AMNON SHASHUA, MORAN
SHEMESH ROJANSKY, and ANAT HELLER, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00310 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024) is a class action on behalf
of the Plaintiff and other persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Mobileye securities between January 26, 2023,
and January 3, 2024, inclusive, pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Mobileye is a technology company engaged in the development and
deployment of advanced driver assistance systems and autonomous
driving software and hardware products. The Company generates the
majority of its revenue from the sale of EyeQ System-on-Chip. The
EyeQ SoCs is a computer chip used for driver-assistance and partial
autonomous driving. Mobileye sells EyeQ SoCs to Tier 1 automotive
suppliers who in turn sell to original equipment manufacturers.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that, to avoid the shortages experienced amid supply
chain constraints in 2021 and 2022, the Company's Tier 1 customers
had purchased inventory in excess of demand during fiscal 2023; (2)
that, as a result, the Company's customers had excess inventory on
hand, including approximately 6-7 million units of EyeQ SoCs; (3)
that, due to the build-up of inventory, there was a significant
risk that the Tier 1 customers would buy less product, thus
adversely impacting the Company's fiscal 2024 financial results;
and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says
the suit.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit alleges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
rdawson@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
MP2 ENTERPRISE: CMC in Brandi-Vanmeter Class Suit Set for Feb. 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandi-Vanmeter v. MP2
Enterprises, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00081 (D. Utah, Filed
Sept. 27, 2023), the Hon. Judge David Nuffer entered an order on
motion for initial scheduling conference because several of the
dates in the APMR are deferred until a ruling on the pending motion
for class certification:
-- This case is set for a Case Management Conference on Feb. 13,
2024.
-- Scheduling will be addressed at that hearing.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
MP2 Enterprises is a Pizza Hut Franchise.[CC]
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Fierro Sues Over Housing Market Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAEL FIERRO and PATRICK THURBER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, THE AGENCY REAL ESTATE FRANCHISING, LLC, COMPASS, INC.,
EXP WORLD HOLDINGS, INC., EXP REALTY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., EXP
REALTY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., EXP REALTY OF GREATER LOS
ANGELES, INC., EXP REALTY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., BERKSHIRE
HATHAWAY, INC., BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, FIRST TEAM REAL ESTATE -
ORANGE COUNTY, RODEO REALTY, INC., PINNACLE ESTATE PROPERTIES,
INC., CALIFORNIA REGIONAL MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE, INC., COMBINED
L.A./WESTSIDE MLS, INC., CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC.,
GREATER LOS ANGELES REALTORS, INC., ARCADIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, INCORPORATED, BURBANK ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, CITRUS
VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., GLENDALE ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, INGLEWOOD BOARD OF REALTORS, INC., MONTEBELLO DISTRICT
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., PALOS VERDES PENINSULA ASSOCIATION
OF REALTORS, PASADENA-FOOTHILLS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, RANCHO
SOUTHEAST REALTORS, SOUTH BAY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC.,
SOUTHLAND REGIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., TRI-COUNTIES
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, WEST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY REALTORS, MALIBU
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., MADERA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
FRESNO BOARD OF REALTORS, INCORPORATED, MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION
OF REALTORS, INC., and MARIPOSA COUNTY BOARD OF REALTORS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00449 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2024)
arises from the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct in
violation of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, and the
California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of the Classes consisting of all persons who listed
properties on a Multiple Listing Service in the Madera, Fresno, and
Los Angeles Counties in California using a listing agent or broker
affiliated with one of the Defendants named herein and paid a buyer
broker commission from four years prior to the filing of this
complaint, until the present.
The Plaintiffs and Class members allege that during the Class
Period, the Defendants have engaged or collaborated in
anticompetitive practices. This conspiracy centers around the
enforcement of an anticompetitive restraint that compels home
sellers to provide an inflated fee to the broker representing the
buyer of their properties, thus violating federal and state
antitrust regulations.
The conspiracy has led to various illogical, harmful, and
anticompetitive effects, including: (a) requiring sellers to pay
overcharges for services provided by buyer brokers to the buyer;
(b) maintaining, fixing, and stabilizing buyer broker compensation
at levels that would not exist in a competitive market; and (c)
promoting steering and actions that hinder innovation and entry by
new, lower-cost real estate brokerage service providers.
As a result, Defendants' conspiracy has inflated and stabilized
buyer broker commissions, resulting in higher total commissions
paid by home sellers like Plaintiffs and Class members. The
Plaintiffs and Class members have each incurred, on average,
thousands of dollars in overcharges and damages due to Defendants'
alleged conspiracy, says the suit.
National Association of Realtors is a trade association for real
estate brokers with over 1.5 million individual members. NAR
conspired with its largest affiliated associations in California
and some of the largest real estate brokerages that worked in
California during the Class Period.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew B. George, Esq.
Blair E. Reed, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 772-4700
Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
E-mail: mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
breed@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
mmccahill@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Justin B. Farar, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 460
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 614-7260
Facsimile: (310) 614-7260
E-mail: jfarar@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Julie Pettit, Esq.
David B. Urteago, Esq.
THE PETTIT LAW FIRM
2101 Cedar Springs, Suite 1540
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 329-0151
Facsimile: (214) 329-4076
E-mail: jpettit@pettitfirm.com
durteago@pettitfirm.com
- and -
Michael K. Hurst, Esq.
Chris Schwegmann, Esq.
Yaman Dasai, Esq.
LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 981-3800
Facsimile: (214) 981-3839
E-mail: mhurst@lynnllp.com
cschwegmann@lynnllp.com
ydesai@lynnllp.com
NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Court Stays Proceedings in Mattson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mattson v. New Penn
Financial, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00990 (D. Or., Filed June 5,
2018), the Hon. Judge Youlee Yim You entered an order staying all
proceedings, including any remaining discovery or class
certification motion practice, other motion practice, and trial
pending the Ninth Circuit's disposition of plaintiffs Rule 23(f)
petition and, if granted, the Ninth Circuit's disposition of
plaintiff's appeal.
The suit alleges violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
New Penn is a financial services, banking, and mortgage lending
company.[CC]
NEW YORK CITY: Fact Discovery Completion in Miller Due Oct. 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller et al v. City of
New York, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00065 (E.D.N.Y.. Filed Jan. 5,
2023), the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- Any amendment of the pleadings to add April 4, 2024
claims or join additional parties shall
be completed by:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed by: Oct. 29, 2024
-- All expert discovery shall be completed by March 17, 2025
-- The Parties are to submit their respective March 18,
2024
ex parte settlement positions to the
Chambers' email no later than:
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets
the Atlantic Ocean.[CC]
OAKLAND COUNTY: Wins Bid to Dismiss Taylor Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH TAYLOR, v. COUNTY
OF OAKLAND, CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, FREDERICK ZORN, SOUTHFIELD
NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORP., SOUTHFIELD NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
INITIATIVE, LLC, and KENSON SIVER, Case No. 4:19-cv-12548-DML-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson entered an order
granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint by the
Defendants.
The Court further entered an order that the motion by Oakland
County to strike the class allegations from the amended complaint
is granted, and all of the plaintiff's claims and allegations on
behalf of a putative class are stricken.
Oakland County foreclosed on plaintiff Kenneth Taylor's home to
cover his delinquent tax obligation. When Taylor failed to redeem
his property, the County sold it to the City of Southfield, which
sold it to other defendants in the case. Taylor alleges that his
home was worth considerably more than the amount of the property
taxes he owed.
Oakland is a principal county of the Detroit metropolitan area,
containing the bulk of Detroit's northern suburbs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s9pZhs at no extra
charge.[CC]
OYO HOTELS: Bid to Extend Class Certification Filing Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHREE VEER CORPORATION, ET
AL., V. OYO HOTELS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-03268-L (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Renee Harris Toliver entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendant's responses to class
discovery and extend deadline to file motions regarding class
certification and brief in support.
Moreover, the Defendant's objection to Plaintiffs' discovery
requests on that same basis is sustained.
In Oct. 2020, the Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in
Texas state court. The Defendant removed the case based on
diversity jurisdiction. The operative complaint alleges three
causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud by
nondisclosure; and (3) fraud and fraudulent inducement.
In February 2023, after having denied Defendant's most recent
motion to dismiss almost six months earlier, the Court ordered the
parties to submit a proposed discovery plan, including (1) an
estimate of the time needed for discovery; (2) specification of the
discovery contemplated; and (3) any limitations that should be
placed on discovery.
Oyo offers a chain of leased and franchised hotels, homes, and
living spaces.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fyk2yl at no extra
charge.[CC]
PENNSYLVANIA GAME: Kaper Files ADA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania Game
Commission. The case is styled as Richard Kaper, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Game
Commission, Case No. 1:24-cv-00164-CCC (M.D. Pa., Jan. 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Pennsylvania Game Commission --
https://www.pgc.pa.gov/Pages/default.aspx -- is the state agency
responsible for wildlife conservation and management in
Pennsylvania in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Helen Chandler Steiger, Esq.
Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
Phone: (412) 877-5220
Email: csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
- and -
Thomas M. Pie, Esq.
THE LAW FIRM OF THOMAS M. PIE, JR., LLC
210 Watters Station Road
Evans City, PA 16033
Phone: (740) 391-2760
Email: tmp@pielaw.net
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Filing of Class Cert Bids Amended to Sept. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON BRAUN and STEPHANIE
CARTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04185-JMY (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order amending
case schedule as follows:
Event Current Stipulated
Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Fact Discovery Completed Jan. 12, 2024 Apr. 12, 2024
Disclosure of Experts Feb. 1, 2024 May 1, 2024
Initial Expert Reports Feb. 20, 2024 May 22, 2024
Reply Expert Reports Apr. 5, 2024 July 8, 2024
Expert Discovery Completed May 3, 2024 Aug. 2, 2024
Dispositive and Class June 3, 2024 Sept. 3, 2024
Certification Motions
Responses to Dispositive July 3, 2024 Oct. 3, 2024
and Class Certification
Motions
Philadelphia Inquirer is an American media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mQkh3T at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John A. Macoretta, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN AND KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
E-mail: jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com
jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
dzinser@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenber, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
tnaylor@gs-legal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Angelo A. Stio, III, Esq.
Matthew R. Cali, Esq.
Ronald I. Raether, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (609) 951-4125
Facsimile: (609) 452-1147
E-mail: angelo.stio@troutman.com
matthew.cali@troutman.com
ron.raether@troutman.com
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Court Tosses Amended Complaint in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Orelia E. Merchant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's amended complaint in the lawsuit styled IN RE PIEDMONT
LITHIUM INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-04161-OEM-PK
(E.D.N.Y.).
Lead Plaintiff Ace Association LLC, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, brings the instant
putative class action against Defendants Piedmont Lithium, Inc.,
Keith D. Phillips, and Bruce Czachor asserting violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made misleading positive
statements in connection with a North Carolina lithium mining
project and subsequently sold stock between June 14, 2018, and July
19, 2021, prior to the release of a negative news article.
The Defendants move pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint in
its entirety.
Piedmont is an early-stage project company focused on developing an
integrated lithium business. At all times relevant to the instant
action, Keith D. Phillips served as Piedmont's President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Bruce Czachor served as Piedmont's Vice
President and General Counsel. Piedmont holds a 100% interest in a
lithium project located in Gaston County, North Carolina, within
the Carolina Tin-Spodumene Belt (the "Project").
After securing exploration rights and land in this region in 2016,
Piedmont planned, through the Project, to convert local
spodumene--a mineral that contains lithium--into battery-grade
lithium hydroxide, a critical component used for electric vehicle
manufacturing. The process entails using an open-pit mine and a
concentrator to extract and process spodumene, then using a lithium
hydroxide chemical plant to convert spodumene concentrate into
lithium hydroxide.
Piedmont retained HDR Engineering, a company that completed a
critical issues analysis of the Project in February 2018, which
identified certain steps Piedmont had to take before it could
commence the Project. In addition, and of particular relevance
here, Piedmont had to obtain certain federal, state, and local
permits.
The HDR Engineering analysis identified the relevant federal,
state, and local permits Piedmont needed for the Project to
commence. Piedmont had to obtain a state mining permit from the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") Division
of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources to operate the mine.
Additionally, Piedmont had to obtain zoning approval for the mine
and concentrator property from the Gaston County Board of
Commissioners (the "Commissioners").
In the summer of 2018, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
began issuing positive statements about the Project and the
associated permitting and rezoning process. In July and September
2018, the Defendants also represented that the state mining permit
application would be submitted by April 2019, and in August 2019
and early 2020, the Defendants represented that their mining permit
and rezoning applications would be submitted in the coming months.
Between June 2020 and March 2021, Piedmont raised approximately
$193 million through various public equity offerings to be used to
develop the Project. Piedmont completed public equity offerings
through shelf-registration statements filed with the SEC on F-3
Forms and final prospectuses filed with the SEC on 424B5 Forms in
June 2020, October 2020, and March 2021, (collectively, the
"Registration Statements"), generating aggregate gross proceeds
totaling $13 million, $57.5 million, and $122.5 million,
respectively. Piedmont stated that it intended to use the net
proceeds from these public equity offerings to continue to develop
the Project, including permitting.
On Sept. 28, 2020, Piedmont also announced that it reached an
agreement with Tesla, Inc., where Piedmont would supply Tesla with
spodumene concentrate over a five-year term, with an option for a
second five-year term, so long as deliveries would start between
July 2022 and July 2023.
In his capacity as General Counsel, Czachor was responsible for
signing all of Piedmont's 6-K forms between June 14, 2018, and July
19, 2021 (the "Class Period").
Between July 5 and July 6 of 2021, Defendant Phillips and non-party
Patrick Brindle, a project manager, completed their first reported
sales of Piedmont stock, selling approximately $3.46 million worth
of their personally-held Piedmont stock.
Three weeks later, on July 20, 2021, a Reuters article reported
that Piedmont had not yet spoken with or presented information to
the Commissioners about the Project, that five out of seven
Commissioners stated they may block or delay the Project, and that
the Project did not benefit from strong local government support.
The article also stated that Piedmont had not yet applied for a
state mining permit or zoning variance, that Piedmont needed to
have a state mining permit before it could even apply for rezoning,
and that Piedmont's application timelines were unrealistic. That
same day, Piedmont presented the Project to the Commissioners for
the first time. By the end of the day on July 20, Piedmont's stock
price had fallen nearly 20%.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made numerous misleading
and false public statements to Piedmont's investors in SEC filings
during the Class Period. These statements are categorized as
follows: (1) Piedmont had strong local government support for the
Project; (2) Piedmont was actively engaged in discussions with
relevant authorities regarding necessary zoning changes for the
Project; and (3) Piedmont would file for the necessary North
Carolina state mining permit and zoning variance within its stated
timelines.
The Plaintiff alleges that these statements were materially false
and misleading because the Defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded, but failed to disclose, that they did not have local
support with the Project, did not consult or plan to consult the
Commissioners about the Project, and had not taken the necessary
steps to timely obtain or file the required applications for
permitting and rezoning.
The Defendants contend that the amended complaint should be
dismissed because (1) the Plaintiff's claims premised on
forward-looking statements are precluded under the PSLRA and the
bespeaks caution doctrine; (2) the Plaintiff fails to allege any
actionable misstatement or omission; (3) the Plaintiff fails to
plead facts to demonstrate that the Defendants acted with scienter;
and (4) the Plaintiff fails to plead loss causation.
Judge Merchant notes, among other things, that the Defendants
primarily argue that the Plaintiff fails to plead any motive to
defraud because the alleged insider sales were small percentages in
comparison to the insiders' total holdings. The Defendants also
argue that the Plaintiff fails to allege that one of the Individual
Defendants sold stock, which they contend undermines any inference
of scienter. The Court agrees.
Defendant Phillips sold a percentage of stock that was either close
to or less than both Individual Defendants in In re eSpeed, Inc.
Sec. Litig., 457 F. Supp. 2d 266, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), and the
Plaintiff here failed to disclose whether Defendant Phillips made a
profit from these sales, Judge Merchant opines. Additionally,
Defendant Czachor, like the corporate insiders in eSpeed, is not
alleged to have sold stock despite being a top Piedmont executive
and having signed off on many of the alleged misstatements during
the class period.
The absence of any alleged sales by Defendant Czachor undermines a
finding of scienter here, Judge Merchant points out. Judge Merchant
adds that the cases the Plaintiff cites in opposition to this point
are not availing.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' alleged misstatements
allowed Piedmont to close a deal with Tesla. Judge Merchant holds
that this argument is likewise unavailing: a defendant's desire to
enter into transactions on favorable terms is generally not
sufficient to establish scienter. The Plaintiff has not plead
sufficiently particularized facts to establish the Tesla deal as a
motive for securities fraud.
In this case, Judge Merchant finds the Plaintiff fails to identify
any contemporaneous reports or statements that contradict the
Defendants' public statements. Instead, the Plaintiff directs the
Court to the HDR Engineering critical issues analysis completed in
February 2018 identifying the local, state, and federal permits
Piedmont needed to commence mining and concentrator activities,
which was four months prior to the start of the Class Period.
However, this tells the Court nothing about what the Plaintiff
claims is the "true state of affairs" of the permitting process, or
even what the steps Piedmont had and had not completed were. Judge
Merchant points out that all the critical issues analysis shows is
that the Defendants knew permits were required to commence the
Project.
Judge Merchant notes that it is unclear how the Project consisted
of the company's entire business if it was never launched during
the relevant period. Furthermore, even if the Project is considered
an operation that consisted of Piedmont's entire business, the
Plaintiff still only alleges that the Defendants knew that they
needed certain permits, not that the projected timelines to receive
the permits were unreasonable or unrealistic.
Viewed holistically, Judge Merchant finds the Plaintiff has failed
to adequately allege scienter based on the Court's findings that
the Plaintiff failed to adequately allege that the Defendants had a
motive and opportunity to defraud or that they were reckless.
Accordingly, the Court cannot discern a strong inference of
scienter, and the Plaintiff's claims under the Exchange Act Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 are, therefore, dismissed.
Because scienter has not been adequately pleaded, Judge Merchant
holds that the Plaintiff's claim under Section 20 of the Exchange
Act cannot stand and must also be dismissed.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The
Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 18,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/36rnmj8wfrom
PacerMonitor.com.
PRO SOURCE LENDING: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pro Source Lending
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, Isaac Santiago,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pro
Source Lending Group, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00795 (C.D. Cal., Jan.
29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Pro Source Lending Group -- https://www.prosourcelg.com/ --
provides business lending services to new and established companies
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Ford Files Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FORD,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-04147-JHS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff requests that the court
grant the Motion for Class Certification and certify the class.
Progressive offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YwFp4o at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Haggerty, Esq.
HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C.
1801 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 350-6600
Facsimile: (215) 665-8197
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
- and -
Scott Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIDT KRAMER P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 232-6300
- and -
Jack Goodrich, Esq.
JACK GOODRICH & ASSOCIATES
429 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 261-4663
PRP LOGISTICS: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRP Logistics, LLC.
The case is styled as Vicente Jimenez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. PRP Logistics, LLC, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0001096 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan.
29, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
PRP Logistics, LLC -- https://prplogistics.com/ -- provide premium
yard management services to your distribution centers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
PUBLIX SUPER: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Response Deadline in Roberts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.), Publix file a motion for
in-person case management conference and for stay of publix's
deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and
send notice to collective members.
This is a complicated, exceptional, and potentially mammoth case in
which the parties have diametrically opposed views on how to
proceed. It is, in other words, the paradigmatic example of a
matter that calls for this Court's early and close involvement.
Publix is an employee-owned American supermarket chain.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3MQ7tj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brett C. Bartlett, Esq.
Lennon B. Haas, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
Telephone: (404) 704-9690
Facsimile: (404) 724-1739
E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com
lhaas@seyfarth.com
- and -
Samuel J. Salario, Jr., Esq.
Jason Gonzalez, Esq.
LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ, PLLC
1700 S. MacDill Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL. 33629
Telephone: (813) 765-5113
E-mail: samuel@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com
jason@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com
michelle@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com
marsha@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com
PURECYCLE TECH: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Feb. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Theodore v. Purecycle
Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00809 (M.D. Fla, Filed
May 11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order
striking joint stipulation to narrow the scope of plaintiffs' class
certification motion.
-- On or before January 19, 2024,the Plaintiffs shall file their
amended motion for class certification.
-- On or before January 23, 2024, the Defendants shall file their
omnibus response to the motion.
-- On or before February 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall reply to
this
response.
The nature of suit states Securities Fraud.
PureCycle is a company focused on sustainable plastic recycling
within the waste management industry.[CC]
QUICK BOX: Tan RICO Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. QUICK BOX, LLC,
et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Linda Lopez entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The Court certifies the following classes:
(1) A nationwide class for the RICO claim consisting of all
consumers in the United States who, within the applicable
statute of limitations period until the date notice is
disseminated, were billed for products sold, shipped, or
caused
to be sold or shipped by any of the Defendants under the La
Pura, La'Pura, La' Pura, or LaPura brand names, and who did
not
receive a full refund for the products."
(2) A California subclass for the state law causes of action
consisting of all consumers in California who, within the
applicable statute of limitations period until the date
notice
is disseminated, were billed for products sold, shipped, or
caused to be sold or shipped by any of the Defendants under
the
La Pura, La'Pura, La' Pura, or LaPura brand names, and who
did
not receive a full refund for the products."
The following are excluded from the classes: governmental entities;
Defendants; any entity in which Defendants have a controlling
interest; Defendants' officers, directors, affiliates, legal
representatives, employees, co-conspirators, successors,
subsidiaries, and assigns; and any judge, justice, or judicial
officer presiding over this matter and the members of their
immediate families and judicial staff.
Additionally, the Court appoints LeAnne Tan as class
representative.
The Court appoints Kevin Kneupper and Cyclone Covey of Kneupper &
Covey, PC as class counsel.
The Court agrees with Konnektive Defendants that the class
definitions should be narrowed to exclude uninjured people by
incorporating Plaintiff's request to exclude consumers who received
a full refund.
The lawsuit involves an alleged fraudulent "free trial" scheme in
which the Defendants allegedly use fake celebrity and magazine
endorsements, as well as misrepresentations about price and limited
availability, to induce customers into purchasing beauty and
skincare products.
The Defendants allegedly advertise the products are available as a
"free trial" with only nominal shipping and handling charges, then
subsequently bill customers around $100 monthly for a subscription
service that customers did not knowingly agree to.
The Defendants allegedly operate "false front" websites to mislead
banks and credit card companies investigating complaints and
chargebacks.
The Plaintiff LeAnne Tan alleges that Defendants worked together to
perpetrate a lucrative "free trial" scam on the internet.
Quick Box is a Business-to-Business (B2B) company offering
last-mile delivery, same day & on-demand delivery service.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GZOxX1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Mantha Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MANTHA on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC,
Case No. 1:19-cv-12235-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
certifying the case as a class action.
QuoteWizard.com owns and operates an insurance comparison online
marketplace.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42wHXGN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Barrett, Esq.
Brian Glasser, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
siskra@baileyglasser.com
bhogan@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
1 South Ave., Third Floor
Natick, MA 01760
Telephone: (508) 655-1415
E-mail: mmcue@massattorneys.net
- and -
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
176 Federal Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 738-7089
E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq.
CW LAW GROUP, P.C.
188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701
E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com
RANGE RESOURCES: Rupert Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES A. RUPERT, WILLIAM
E. AND KAREN A. TRAVIS, AND BRYAN MARTIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RANGE RESOURCES -
APPALACHIA, LLC, RANGE RESOURCES CORP., Case No. 2:21-cv-01281-PLD
(W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying a putative class as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) class
action.
Range Resources is an independent natural gas and NGL producer.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48Q5nsS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
George A. Barton
BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC
5201 Johnson Drive, Ste. 110
Mission, KS 66205
Telephone: (913) 563-6253
E-mail: stacy@bartonburrows.com
- and -
William H. Knestrick, Esq.
NEIGHBORHOOD ATTORNEYS, LLC
8 East Pine Ave.
Washington, PA 15301
Telephone: (724) 705-7082
E-mail: william@neighborhoodattys.com
RENTGROW INC: Court Allows Sealing of Docs on Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Szewczyk v. RentGrow,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-10734 (D. Mass.. Filed May 11, 2022), the
Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered an order granting joint motion to
seal document motion to certify class and exhibits.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.
RentGrow provides resident screening services to property owners
and managers.[CC]
RENTGROW INC: Parties Seek to Seal Unredacted Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN SZEWCZYK, v.
RENTGROW, INC., and DOES 1–10, Case No. 1:22-cv-10734-MJJ (D.
Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their
joint motion to seal unredacted motion for class certification and
exhibits.
On Jan. 10, 2024, due to the public filing of Confidential
materials, RentGrow reached out to the Clerk of Court to request
that the documents be administratively sealed by the Clerk of Court
for a period of twenty-four hours. That administrative request was
granted.
On Jan. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff re-filed a redacted version of his
Memorandum of Law to remove the Confidential material, and he did
not publicly file the Exhibits.
RentGrow provides resident screening services to property owners
and managers.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OjVlbi at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy R. Bombard, Esq.
BOMBARD LAW OFFICE, PC
2 Summer Street, Suite 307
Natick, MA 01760
Telephone: (781) 214-0746
E-mail: jbombard@bombardlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
William M. Taylor, Esq.
Danni Shanel, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
125 High Street, 19th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 443-3711
Facsimile: (617) 204-5150
E-mail: taylorw@pepperlaw.com
danni.shanel@troutman.com
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Suit to Proceed as Individual Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abendroth v. Republic
Services Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00769 (D. Ariz., Filed May
3, 2023), the Hon. Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order that
the case will proceed as an individual action and a new scheduling
conference will be set by separate order because the Plaintiff has
not filed a motion for class certification or for conditional
certification of collective action.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Republic Services is a North American waste disposal company whose
services include non-hazardous solid waste collection, and waste
transfer.[CC]
RICOLA USA: S.D. New York Dismisses Singo Consumer Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled LONISE SINGO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICOLA USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-10369-NSR (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Lonise Singo commenced this putative class action against
Defendant Ricola USA, Inc., alleging the label on Ricola's "Green
Tea with Echinacea" flavored throat drops (the "Product") is false
and misleading. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges a reasonable
consumer would be misled by the Product's label because it implies
that the source of the Product's therapeutic benefits is botanical
ingredients, such as green tea and echinacea, as opposed to
menthol, the sole active ingredient.
Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
The Defendant manufactures, labels, and sells throat drops labeled
"GreenTea with Echinacea" and "Cough Suppressant -- Throat Drops"
(the "Product"). The Product is an over-the-counter ("OTC") drug,
and recent studies show consumers are increasingly purchasing OTC
drugs or plant-based ingredients to provide relief for coughs and
colds. The Product label depicts a large pink echinacea flower next
to a green throat drop.
The Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of "a true
copy" of the full product label for the Product. Accordingly, the
Court takes judicial notice of the Product's full product label,
attached as Exhibit 1 to the Defendant's request for judicial
notice.
Furthermore, the Product label lists the "active ingredient" in
each throat drop under "Drug Facts" as 4.1 milligrams of menthol
for the purposes of "cough suppressant" and "oral anesthetic."
Several ingredients are listed as "inactive ingredients, including
"green tea" and "extracts of echinacea."
The Plaintiff alleges that listing echinacea and green tea as
inactive ingredients is a tacit acknowledgement they have no
connection to the Product's functions. She claims when consumers
see the label "Green Tea with Echinacea" with a prominent pink
echinacea flower and green lozenge, they will expect the Product
achieves cough suppression and soothing effects from these
components. However, there is no credible evidence that botanical
ingredients, like echinacea and green tea, can alleviate symptoms
of upper respiratory infections, such as coughs.
The Plaintiff also argues that the Product's front label is
required to contain a statement of identity consisting of the
established name of the drug and its pharmacological category.
Specifically, she alleges the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
recommends that the strength of an OTC product's active ingredient
immediately follow the statement of identity. Accordingly, she
argues "Cough Suppressant -- Throat Drops" on the Product label
only provides the pharmacological category, as "throat drops" is
not the established name of menthol lozenges.
According to the Plaintiff, the Product's label should read
"Menthol Lozenge -- Cough Suppressant -- 4.1 mg," or some similar
variation. She further argues that the Defendant is the only one of
its competitors that fails to disclose menthol on its front label.
She, thus, alleges the Defendant's label is false and misleading to
reasonable consumers. Finally, the Plaintiff argues that because of
the Defendant's false and misleading representations, the Defendant
sells the Product at a premium price, at least $4.89 for 19
lozenges, excluding tax and sales.
On Dec. 7, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint on behalf of a
New York State Class and Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class comprised
of all individuals, who purchased the Product in New York, Texas,
North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Iowa, Mississippi, Virginia,
Arkansas, South Carolina, and Utah, asserting claims for (1)
violations of New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349
and 350; (2) violations of state consumer fraud acts of those
states in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class; (3) breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a
particular purpose, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; and (4)
unjust enrichment.
On April 17, 2023, the Defendant sought leave to file a motion to
dismiss, which the Court granted on April 20, 2023. On July 20,
2023, the parties filed their respective briefings on the instant
motion.
In her response letter to the Defendant's pre-motion letter seeking
leave to file a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff withdraws her
claims for unjust enrichment and breaches of the implied warranty
of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act "(MMWA"). In her Opposition, the
Plaintiff confirms her withdrawal of her unjust enrichment, implied
warranty, and MMWA claims, and withdraws all claims on behalf of
the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class. The Plaintiff's remaining
claims are on behalf of the New York State Class for violations of
GBL Sections 349 and 350 and breach of express warranty.
The Defendant seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint on the
grounds that her claims are preempted by the federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"). Alternatively, the Defendant argues its
packaging is not misleading to a reasonable consumer.
After due consideration, the Court concludes that the Defendant has
proved the Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the FDCA.
Judge Roman explains that the Plaintiff merely asserts a claim that
the Product is mislabeled, which is completely within the purview
of the FDA; thus, her claims are preempted. The core of her claims
then is that the Defendant's representations are false and
misleading because of the placement of key words on the Product's
label. However, the labeling requirements of the FDCA are clear:
the Product's label must contain the established name of the drug,
if any, and identify the product as a "cough suppressant" or an
"antitussive (cough suppressant)."
The Defendant adheres to those requirements, as the Plaintiff does
not dispute, and any relief the Court could grant her would require
the Defendant to place menthol on the front of the Product's
package. The Plaintiff, thus, clearly seeks to impose an additional
requirement beyond those set forth in the FDCA, and therefore, her
claims for violations of GBL Sections 349 and 350 and breach of
express warranty are preempted, Judge Roman holds.
Because the Plaintiff has failed to assert claims that are not
entirely dependent on the Defendant's Product label adhering to
FDCA requirements or FDA recommendations, her state law claims are
expressly preempted by federal law, Judge Roman holds, citing In re
Bayer Corp. Combination Aspirin Prod. Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig.,
701 F. Supp. 2d 356, 369 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
Finally, the Court notes the Plaintiff includes an allegation that
the Product contains other representations and omissions, which are
false and misleading, including the claim of "soothing relief,"
because it is not a demulcent. This single conclusory throwaway
line, however, is insufficient to save the Plaintiff's claims from
dismissal, Judge Roman points out.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's claims as
preempted by the FDCA. As such, the Court does not reach any other
ground for dismissal.
Judge Roman grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The
Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice.
The Plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint. If she
chooses to do so, she will file an Amended Complaint no later than
Feb. 16, 2024. The Defendant is, then, directed to answer or
otherwise seek leave to move in response to the Amended Complaint
no later than March 15, 2024.
The Plaintiff is advised that the Amended Complaint will replace,
not supplement, the Complaint, and so any claims that she wishes to
pursue must be included in, or attached to, the Second Amended
Complaint. Failure to timely amend will result in claims previously
dismissed without prejudice being deemed dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No.
13.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Jan. 18,
2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yu9cac6ffrom
PacerMonitor.com.
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-02989-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants
Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial Llc and Robinhood
Securities, LLC's motion for leave to file a sur-reply to
plaintiff's motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class
certification.
On Nov. 13, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which had been filed following extensive class
certification expert and fact discovery on the schedule ordered by
the Court at the outset of the litigation.
On Dec. 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs submitted a motion to set a
briefing schedule for their proposed renewed motion for class
certification. In the Motion, the Plaintiffs noted that Defendants
oppose any further briefing and expert discovery on class
certification and, based on discussions with the Defendants,
proposed that this issue of whether a renewed motion would even be
appropriate be addressed in connection with the requested
briefing.
Robinhood Markets is an American financial services company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9ASxxj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Samuel A. Danon, Esq.
Maria Castellanos Alvarado, Esq.
Tom K. Schulte, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
333 S.E. 2 Avenue, Suite 2400
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 810-2500
Facsimile: (305) 810-2460
E-mail: sdanon@huntonak.com
mcastellanos@huntonak.com
tschulte@huntonak.com
- and -
Antony L. Ryan, Esq.
Kevin J. Orsini, Esq.
Brittany L. Sukiennik, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
E-mail: aryan@cravath.com
korsini@cravath.com
bsukiennik@cravath.com
SEMINOLE ASPHALT: Bid to Certify Class in Willis Tossed as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Willis, et al., v.
Seminole Asphalt Paving, Case No. 6:22-cv-02125 (M.D. Fla. Filed
Nov. 15, 2022), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order:
-- Denying as moot motion to certify class; and
-- Denying as moot motion to strike in light of the parties'
settlement.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Seminole is a full service commercial asphalt paving company.[CC]
SIKA AG: County-Wide Sues Over CCA's Artificially Inflated Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COUNTY-WIDE MASONRY CORP., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO,
INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN
S.A.; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES US, LLC; MASTER BUILDERS
SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID
CHEMICAL COMPANY; and RPM INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00564 (S.D.N.Y., January 26, 2024) seeks damages and
injunctive relief from the Defendants in connection with the
collusive and concerted restraint of trade in concrete admixtures,
cement additives, and admixtures for mortar (collectively, "CCAs")
by the Defendants -- all of whom are direct competitors and leading
manufacturers of CCAs in the United States--during the class period
in violation of the Clayton Act, the Sherman Act and several state
antitrust laws.
The Plaintiff and class members have paid artificially inflated
prices for CCAs. Allegedly, Defendants' scheme included both price
increases and the imposition of surcharges on CCAs sold in the
United States.
Sika AG is a Swiss corporation with its primary place of business
at Zugerstrasse 50 Baar, Zug, 6341 Switzerland. The company
manufactures and sells CCAs around the world, including in the
United States, both directly and through its wholly-owned U.S.
subsidiary and co-defendant Sika Corporation, and/or through its
predecessors, affiliates, or subsidiaries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
Elana Katcher, Esq.
Jason A. Uris, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP
800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
mmccahill@kaplanfox.com
ekatcher@kaplanfox.com
juris@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Eric R. Lifvendahl, Esq.
LIFVENDAHL LAW, LLC
265 Latrobe Avenue
Northfield, IL 60093
Telephone: (847) 830-7002
E-mail: eric@liflaw.com
SOLID WASTE: Expert Discovery in Jones Due March 1
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER JONES, v. SOLID
WASTE SERVICES, INC., doing business as J.P. MASCARO & SONS, Case
No. 5:23-cv-02648-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher
entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
1. Motions for conditional certification of Jan. 19, 2024
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action are due by:
2. All fact and expert discovery in March 1, 2024
Phase (1) shall be completed no later
than:
3. Affirmative expert reports in Phase Feb. 8, 2024
(1), if any, are due by:
4. Rebuttal expert reports in Phase (1), Feb. 15, 2024
if any, are due by:
5. Expert depositions, if any, shall be March 1, 2024
concluded no later than:
6. All motions for FLSA collective action March 7, 2024
de-certification and Pennsylvania state
law class certification shall be filed
by:
Solid Waste provides solid waste treatment services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dkTb7s at no extra
charge.[CC]
SPORTSWEAR INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPORTSWEAR INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00365 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2024) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.prepsportswear.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
By failing to make its website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind
and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Sportswear Inc. operates the Sportswear online retail store, as
well as the Sportswear interactive Website and advertises, markets,
and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
SUPPORT SERVICES: Gates Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lakeythia Gates, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Support Services
Group, Inc. (a/k/a Legacy Support Services, LTD and/or Legacy
Support Services, LLC), Case No. 6:22-cv-00045-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Derek T. Gilliland entered an order granting agreed
motion regarding Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Certification
and Notice to Putative Collective Action Members:
1. The Court certifies a collective action under the federal
Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §216, as follows:
All current and/or former employees of Defendant who
work(ed)
as hourly paid customer service representatives (CSR) and/or
subject matter experts (SME) in the United States of America
between May 1, 2020 and May 1, 2022 (the "Putative
Collective
Action Members").
2. The Court approves the Notice, Consent form, and Client Data
Sheet provided as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to the Motion.
3. No later than 21 calendar days after the date of this Order,
the Defendant shall disclose the full names, last known
addresses, last known email addresses, and dates of
employment
of the Putative Collective Action Members to the Plaintiff's
counsel. The Contact Information shall be produced in a
usable
electronic format.
4. No later than 21 calendar days from the Plaintiff's
counsel's
receipt of the Contact Information from the Defendant, the
Plaintiff's counsel shall mail, via United States Postal
Service First Class Mail, and where possible also e-mail,
the
Notice Packet to each of the Putative Collective Action
Members
identified by Defendant as required by this Order.
5. The Court orders that the envelope in which the
aforementioned
Notice Packet is mailed state on the outside, in regular or
bold typeface, "Notice of Unpaid Overtime Wage Lawsuit –
Deadline to Join." The Plaintiff's counsel may also e-mail
the
Notice Packets to the Putative Collective Action Members
with
the same notice on the cover e-mail and subject line
attaching
the Notice Packet. The Plaintiff's counsel may include a
postage-paid and self-addressed envelope with the mailed
Notice
Packet.
Support Services is an outsourcing company providing customer
response and call center support outsource services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0iualn at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUSHI KATSUEI: Initial Pretrial Conference Set for April 24
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chakma, et al., v. Sushi
Katsuei, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-07804 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Sept
1, 2023), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered scheduling
order as follows:
-- Pretrial Conference – Initial by: April 24, 2024
-- The Plaintiff shall submit a letter to the Court with a joint
proposed briefing schedule for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Sushi Katsuei is a restaurant offering fresh sushi and seafood in
the heart of Brooklyn.[CC]
T-MOBILE USA: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; Clements Suit Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled BRADFORD ARTHUR CLEMENTS, Plaintiff v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-07512-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants
T-Mobile's unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismiss.
Plaintiff Branford Clements filed this data breach action against
Defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al., alleging claims arising
under various California consumer protection and privacy statutes,
common law torts, and the Stored Communications Act ("SCA").
While he was a T-Mobile customer, Clements alleges that his data
was stolen during multiple cyberattacks, causing him to suffer
identify theft and unauthorized purchases on his credit card. As a
result, pursuant to an arbitration provision in T-Mobile's Terms
and Services ("Arbitration Agreement"), Clements filed a consumer
arbitration claim in Texas with the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA").
According to the most recent update from the Parties, no arbitrator
has been appointed in the Texas arbitration, and the arbitration
has been held in abeyance.
Mr. Clements originally filed this action on Nov. 30, 2022, as a
petition to enforce his Arbitration Agreement with T-Mobile and
compel a change of venue for his arbitration case from Texas to
California. T-Mobile filed a motion to dismiss the original
petition on Feb. 3, 2023. The Court granted Clements's request to
extend his deadline to file a response to T-Mobile's motion to
dismiss. However, Clements failed to file a response by the
extended March 25, 2023 deadline. Instead, two days after his
deadline had passed, Clements filed a motion for leave to file a
first amended complaint, seeking to change his original petition to
enforce arbitration into a complaint for damages.
Despite his failure to comply with the Court's briefing schedule
order, the Court exercised leniency and granted Clements's motion
for leave to file a first amended complaint on May 17, 2023.
Notably, Clements also failed to timely file his First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") in accordance with the Local Rules, but the Court
again exercised leniency and accepted Clements's filing.
Mr. Clements amended and recast his original petition, this time
challenging the formation of the arbitration agreement and
contending that the Arbitration Agreement contains material
ambiguities resulting in a lack of mutual assent. He also contends
that the Arbitration Agreement is rescinded based on T-Mobile's
material breach or repudiation.
At the time of Clements's activation and purchase, T-Mobile's June
2, 2019 Terms and Conditions ("2019 Terms and Conditions") were in
effect. The 2019 Terms and Conditions included an Arbitration
Agreement providing in part that "any and all claims or disputes in
any way related to or concerning the agreement, our privacy notice,
our services, devices or products . . . will be resolved by binding
arbitration or in small claims court."
The Arbitration Agreement stated that customers may choose to opt
out of the mandatory arbitration procedures within thirty days from
the date of purchase or activation. T-Mobile updated its Terms and
Conditions on March 1, 2021 ("2021 Terms and Conditions"). The 2021
Terms and Conditions contained the same arbitration clause language
quoted, while adding a governing law provision stating that the
"[a]greement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, applicable
federal law, and the laws of the state or jurisdiction in which
your billing address in our records is located, without regard to
the conflicts of laws rules of that state or jurisdiction."
T-Mobile informed all primary account holders of the new 2021 Terms
and Conditions view email, text, and billing statements, which
stated that customers will have agreed to the updated terms by
using the service after the effective date.
Clements's FAC essentially alleges that the Parties never formed a
contract in 2019 due to lack of mutual assent to the Terms and
Conditions because the 2019 version does not specify whether the
Terms and Conditions or the AAA Rules control when there is a
conflict--unlike the current version of the Terms and Conditions,
which provides that T-Mobile's terms control when there is a
conflict with the AAA Rules.
T-Mobile filed the present motion to compel arbitration and dismiss
in response to Clements's FAC. Clements was required to file a
response by June 19, 2023. Clements failed to file a response by
June 19, 2023, or seek an extension to his filing deadline.
On Dec. 11, 2023, approximately six months after Clements's filing
deadline had passed, the Court took the unopposed motion under
submission.
As an initial matter, T-Mobile requests that the Court take
judicial notice of the 2019 and 2021 Terms and Services agreements,
as well as notices from T-Mobile regarding both agreements.
Clements has not opposed this request.
The FAC centers around Clements's contractual relationship with
T-Mobile under the 2019 and 2021 Terms and Conditions. Clements
also directly cites to both the 2019 and 2021 Terms and Conditions
in his original petition to compel arbitration and motion for leave
to file the first amended complaint. As such, Judge Davila says,
the authenticity of the agreements and notices regarding the
agreements cannot reasonably be questioned.
Therefore, the Court grants T-Mobile's request for judicial
notice.
Judge Davila notes that the lack of any written opposition raises
the issue of whether this action should be dismissed for failure to
prosecute or comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b). A failure to file an opposition to a motion to
dismiss as required by a district court's local rules can
constitute grounds for dismissal under Rule 41(b).
Having carefully considered the relevant factors, the Court
concludes that they favor the dismissal of the action.
Judge Davila opines that Clements has repeatedly failed to comply
with the Court's orders or Local Rules. Among other things,
Clements missed his extended deadline to file a response to
T-Mobile's first motion to dismiss the original petition. Thus, the
Court can discern no unique instances of prejudice to Clements
outside of the dismissal of this case.
The Court has considered whether to issue an order to show cause
prior to dismissal. However, considering that Clements has
demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance, and the Court has already
exercised repeated leniency regarding Clements's filing deadlines,
the Court finds it unnecessary and inequitable to permit Clements
another opportunity to comply. Therefore, the Court grants
T-Mobile's motion for his failure to prosecute this case or comply
with Court orders.
Even if the Court did not find dismissal warranted under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court also dismisses because
Clements is required to arbitrate his claims. Judge Davila opines
that it is clear that Clements expressed a mutual assent to
arbitrate. He signed the 2019 Terms and Services, which stated in
clear and bold language that any and all disputes related to the
agreement, privacy notice, services, devices, or products are
subject to arbitration.
The Court also briefly notes Clements's allegation that T-Mobile
rescinded the entire Arbitration Agreement by participating in a
class action settlement in the Federal District Court for the
Western District of Missouri. Clements alleges that by
participating in this Missouri class action settlement, T-Mobile
breached the class action waiver in Clements's Arbitration
Agreement, thereby, rescinding the entire Arbitration Agreement.
Judge Davila notes that Clements does not allege to be a class
member or allege any of the underlying facts of the Western
District of Missouri action. Clements has failed to show how
T-Mobile's class action litigation with parties, who are not a
member to the contract between Clements and T-Mobile bears any
relevance to this matter. Thus, the Court declines Clements's
invitation to invalidate the Arbitration Agreement on this ground.
Therefore, the Court finds that the Arbitration Agreement is valid
and encompasses the claims at issue and grants T-Mobile's motion to
compel arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 18, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yn7wtd7ffrom PacerMonitor.com.
TAKEDA PHARMARCEUTICAL: Plaintiffs File Motion for Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE ACTOS END PAYOR ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:13-cv-09244-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the End-Payor
Plaintiffs move Court for an order for class certification pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) under the antitrust
laws of Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa,
Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto
Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin:
"All entities that, for consumption by their members, insureds,
or
beneficiaries, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or
all
of the purchase price of Actos or generic pioglitazone in the
Class
States or territories,1 other than for resale, at any time from
Jan. 17, 2011 through and until December 31, 2015;" and
"All individuals who paid for some or all of the purchase price
of
Actos in the Class States or territories at any time from Jan.
17,
2011 through and until December 31, 2015."
The following entities are excluded from the Class:
(a) Defendants and their subsidiaries and affiliates; and
(b) federal and state governmental entities.
The following individuals are excluded from the Class:
(a) Judges assigned to this case and their chambers' staff and
any members of the judges' or chambers staff's immediate
family;
(b) Defendants' officers, directors and employees;
(c) individuals who after August 17, 2012 purchased only Actos
and did not purchase generic pioglitazone; and
(d) any "flat copay" consumers who purchased Actos only via a
fixed dollar copayment that does not vary on the basis of
the
drug's status as brand or generic.
The End-Payor Plaintiffs additionally move the Court to appoint the
following Plaintiffs as class representatives: 1199 SEIU-National
Benefit Fund; A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan;
Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance
Trust Fund; City of Providence, Rhode Island; Greater Metropolitan
Hotel Employers-Employees Health and Welfare Fund; Local 17
Hospitality Benefit Fund; Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund;
NECA-IBEW
Welfare Trust Fund; New England Electrical Workers Benefit Fund;
Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund; Teamsters
Union Local 115 Health & Welfare Fund
The End-Payor Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint the
following firms as Co-Lead Counsel: Hilliard & Shadowen LLP; Miller
Shah LLP; Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP; and Motley Rice LLP.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yi9ZXQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
Richard M. Brunell, Esq.
Tina Miranda, Esq.
Sherwin Faridifar, Esq.
Deirdre Mulligan, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
1135 W. 6th St., Suite 125
Austin, TX 78703
Telephone: (855) 344-3298
E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
rbrunell@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
tmiranda@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
sfaridifar@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
dmulligan@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
- and -
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 903-3170
Facsimile: (954) 515-0123
E-mail: jagoldstein@millershah.com
nfinkelman@millershah.com
lrubinow@millershah.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
Justin Boley, Esq.
Tyler Story, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
kae@wexlerwallace.com
jnb@wexlerwallace.com
tjs@wexlerwallace.com
- and -
Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
Michelle Clerkin, Esq.
Jacob Onile-Ere, Esq.
Johnny Shaw, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
777 Third Avenue, Fl 27
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 577-0040
E-mail: MBuchman@motleyrice.com
mclerkin@motleyrice.com
jonileere@motleyrice.com
jshaw@motleyrice.com
- and -
Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
Donna M. Evans, Esq.
Aaron J. Marks, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
E-mail: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
devans@cohenmilstein.com
amarks@cohenmilstein.com
TAKEDA PHARMARCEUTICAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify DP Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: ACTOS END PAYOR ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:13-cv-09244-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Direct
Purchaser Class Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for an order certifying the following
Direct Purchaser Class:
"All persons or entities in the United States and its
territories
and possessions, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, who
purchased Actos or its ABrated generic equivalent directly from
Defendants or any generic manufacturer at any time on or after
January 17, 2011 through January 31, 2013 (the "Actos class
period")."
Excluded from the class are the defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates,
and
all governmental entities.
Also excluded are Drogueria Bayamon, Drogueria Central, and
Belldina's Healthmart Pharmacy.
The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs also move for the Court to:
-- Appoint Meijer, Inc., Meijer, Distribution, Inc., and Cesar
Castillo LLC as representatives of the Direct Purchaser Class.
-- Confirm Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
and
Linda Nussbaum of Nussbaum Law Group as interim co-lead counsel
for the Class.
The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs are Meijer, Inc., Meijer,
Distribution, Inc., and Cesar Castillo LLC
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qUvLmN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
Abbye Klamann Ognibene, Esq.
Sophia Weaver, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
grega@hbsslaw.com
abbyeo@hbsslaw.com
sophiaw@hbsslaw.com
- and -
John Radice, Esq.
Rishi Raithatha, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM PC
475 Wall St. Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (908) 217-7399
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
rraithatha@radicelawfirm.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
John Bjork, Esq.
Trevor Scheetz, Esq.
David P. Germaine, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 224-1500
E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
tscheetz@sperling-law.com
dgermaine@sperling-law.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
Brett Leopold, Esq.
Peter Moran, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036-8718
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
bleopold@nussbaumpc.com
pmoran@nussbaumpc.com
U.S. POSTAL: Faces Clayton Suit Over Discriminatory Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANNE CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOUIS DEJOY, UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00759 (C.D. Cal., January 27,
2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 in connection with an alleged discrimination
against postal police officers (PPOs).
Plaintiff Clayton alleges that the Postal Service discriminated
against her and other PPOs by failing to provide PPOs, who are
predominately Black and Hispanic, with access to the Self-Referral
Counseling Program. As a direct result of the Postal Service's
discriminatory policies and/or practices, Plaintiff and the Class
members have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost
past and future income, compensation, and benefits, says the suit.
United States Postal Service owns, controls and provides postal and
mail service throughout the United States, including California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Osborn, Esq.
OSBORN LAW, P.C.
43 West 43rd Street, Suite 131
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 725-9800
Facsimile: (212) 515-5000
VALVE CORP: Completion of Class Cert Expert Discovery Due July 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC et al v.
Valve Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00563-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order extending certain
deadlines:
Event Current Date Proposed
Date
Deadline to (i) file Plaintiffs' Jan. 26, 2024 Feb. 8,
2024
Motion for Class Certification
accompanied by the evidence
and declarations on which
Plaintiffs rely, and (ii) disclose
Plaintiffs’ Class Certification
Expert Report(s)
Deadline to Complete Class July 26, 2024 July 26,
2024
Certification Expert Discovery
Deadline to file Valve's Aug. 12, 2024 Aug. 12,
2024
Daubert Replies and Valve's
Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Daubert Motions
Deadline to file Plaintiffs' Aug. 26, 2024 Aug. 26,
2024
Daubert Replies
Valve Corporation is an American video game developer, publisher,
and digital distribution company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AJRqJ7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David LeRay, Esq.
Adam Wolfson, Esq.
Charles Stevens, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
Facsimile: (206) 905-7100
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
charliestevens@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Stephanie L. Jensen, Esq.
Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Esq.
Scott A. Sher, Esq.
Allison B. Smith, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI P.C.
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
Seattle, WA 98104-7036
Telephone: (206) 883-2500
Facsimile: (206) 883-2699
E-mail: sjensen@wsgr.com
korourke@wsgr.com
ssher@wsgr.com
allison.smith@wsgr.com
- and -
David Golden, Esq.
A. Owen Glist, Esq.
Ankur Kapoor, Esq.
Jeffrey I. Shinder, Esq.
CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Ave., 22nd Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 204-4527
Facsimile: (202) 204-3501
E-mail: dgolden@constantinecannon.com
oglist@constantinecannon.com
- and -
W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Rubin, Esq.
Timothy B. McGranor, Esq.
Kara M. Mundy, Esq.
Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
52 East Gay Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 464-6400
Facsimile: (614) 719-4796
E-mail: kjrubin@vorys.com
tbmcgranor@vorys.com
kmmundy@vorys.com
tnmccormick@vorys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristen Ward Broz, Esq.
Nathan M. Buchter, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
2020 K. St. NW, Ste. 500
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone (202) 794-1220
E-mail: kbroz@foxrothschild.com
nbuchter@foxrothschild.com
- and -
Charles B. Casper, Esq.
Peter Breslauer, Esq.
Robert E. Day, Esq.
Jessica Rizzo, Esq.
MONTGOMERY McCRACKEN WALKER
& RHOADS LLP
1735 Market Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 772-1500
E-mail: ccasper@mmwr.com
pbreslauer@mmwr.com
rday@mmwr.com
jrizzo@mmwr.com
- and -
Blake Marks-Dias, Esq.
Eric A. Lindberg, Esq.
CORR CRONIN LLP
1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 625-8600
Facsimile: (206) 625-0900
E-mail: bmarksdias@corrcronin.com
elindberg@corrcronin.com
VERIZON CONNECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ducos Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JORGE DUCOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERIZON CONNECT FLEET USA LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 8:24-cv-00216 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 23, 2024) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Ducos was employed by the Defendant as an inside sales
representative.
VERIZON CONNECT FLEET USA LLC provides management solutions in
tracking vehicles in the field, streamline maintenance, increase
worker productivity and prioritize safe driving. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave #101
Tampa, FL 33626
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
Email: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
VMWARE INC: Lamartina Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LAMARTINA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
VMWARE, INC., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02182-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff requests that the Court:
(1) certify class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(3),
on behalf of:
All persons who purchased the publicly traded Class A common
stock of VMware during the period from August 24, 2018
through
February 27, 2020, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.
Excluded from the Class are Individual Defendants and their
immediate family members.
(2) appoint the Plaintiff Eastern Atlantic States Carpenters
Pension Fund as Class Representative; and
(3) appoint Robbins Geller as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class for
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants each made material
misstatements and omissions concerning their practice of
deliberately and artificially inflating the Company's backlog by
deferring revenues to later periods at management's discretion.
VMware operates as a cloud computing and virtualization technology
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WnPPqB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
Laurie L. Largent, Esq.
Scott H. Saham, Esq.
Ashley M. Kelly, Esq.
Ting H. Liu, Esq.
Stephen Johnson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
spenceb@rgrdlaw.com
llargent@rgrdlaw.com
scotts@rgrdlaw.com
ashleyk@rgrdlaw.com
tliu@rgrdlaw.com
sjohnson@rgrdlaw.com
WALT DISNEY: Wants to File Class Cert Opposition Docs
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENALE NIELSEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., a Florida Corporation,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-02055-DOC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David O. Carter entered an order
granting Defendant's application for Leave to file certain
documents in support of Opposition to motion for class
certification under seal.
An unredacted version of Walt Disney's Opposition to the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 1
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 3
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 4
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 10
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 15
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 16
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 17
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 18
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 23
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 24
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 25
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 26
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 29
-- Schoenfeld Decl. Ex. 31
Walt Disney was founded in 1964. The Company's line of business
includes the operating of amusement parks and kids parks.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2XHpWX at no extra
charge.[CC]
WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cesca v. Western Illinois
University Board of Trustees, et al., Case No.
4:23-cv-04043-SLD-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.
The Western Illinois University Board of Trustees originally was
appointed in October 1995 by then Illinois Governor Jim Edgar,
after the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation creating the
individual board, effective Jan. 1, 1996. Previously, WIU had been
governed by the Board of Governors of State Colleges and
Universities.
A copy of the Court's standing order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TDfOyt
at no extra charge.[CC]
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Class Cert Filing in Nguyen Modified to May 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY NGUYEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WESTLAKE
SERVICES HOLDING COMPANY; WESTLAKE SERVICES HOLDING COMPANY
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN; WESTLAKE SERVICES HOLDING COMPANY
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN COMMITTEE; DON HANKEY; BRET HANKEY;
IAN ANDERSON; PAUL KERWIN, EUGENE LEYDIKER, GRACIA ANG, and DOES 1
- 50, Case No. 8:23-cv-00854-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Fred W. Slaughter entered an order modifying the Parties' class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
Event Date
Last Date to File Motion for Class May 2, 2024
Certification
Last Date to File Opposition to May 23, 2024
Motion for Class Certification
Last Date to File Reply in Support June 13, 2024
of Motion for Class Certification
Hearing on Motion for Class July 11, 2024
Certification
Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off July 25, 2024
Expert Disclosure (Initial) Aug. 8, 2024
Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) Aug. 22, 2024
Expert Discovery Cut-Off Sept. 5, 2024
Last Date to Hear Motions Oct. 31, 2024
Deadline to Complete Settlement Nov. 14, 2024
Conference [L.R. 16-15]
Westlake offers auto finance, equity loans, and other financial
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7z1Qrk at no extra
charge.[CC]
YOUNG LIVING: O'Shaughnessy Wants to File Confidential Exhibits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE O'SHAUGHNESSY,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC D/B/A YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00470-HCN-CMR (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to grant leave to file confidential exhibits, as well as
portions of the Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification
and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof that
summarize or quote from confidential Exhibits and other information
designated as confidential by defendant, under seal:
1. Plaintiff's Reply includes Exhibits 1 through 8.
2. Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 ("Confidential Exhibits")
contain or are created from information marked as either
"CONFIDENTIAL," "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL –
ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY."
3. The Plaintiff's Reply summarizes and quotes portions of
CONFIDENTIAL Exhibits and other information designated
CONFIDENTIAL by Defendant. Therefore, this request is made in
accordance with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in
this
case.
4. The Plaintiff therefore seeks an Order in accordance with the
Stipulated Protective Order and DUCivR 5-3(b) permitting her
to
file under seal the CONFDIENTIAL Exhibits and the portions
of
the Reply that summarize or quote information designated as
CONFIDENTIAL by the Defendant.
Young Living is a multi-level marketing company selling essential
oils and other related products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 16, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JxMpSy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
Michael B. Angelovich, Esq.
Cody L. Hill, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
8701 Bee Cave Road
Building I, Suite 500
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
E-mail: jangelovich@nixlaw.com
mangelovich@nixlaw.com
codyhill@nixlaw.com
- and -
Robert E. Linkin, Esq.
J. David Rowe, Esq.
Ursula M. Smith, Esq.
MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP
807 Las Cimas Pkwy, Building II, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (737) 201-1600
E-mail: rlinkin@munckwilson.com
drowe@munckwilson.com
usmith@munckwilson.com
- and -
Jason A. McNeill, Esq.
Christopher M. Von Maack, Esq.
MCNEILL | VON MAACK
175 South Main Street, Suite 1050
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 823-6464
E-mail: mcneill@mvmlegal.com
vonmaack@mvmlegal.com
ZUFFA LLC: Court Denies Renewed Summary Judgment Bid in Le Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada denies with prejudice the Defendant's renewed
Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit entitled CHUNG LE,
NATHAN QUARRY, JON FITCH, BRANDON VERRA, LUIS JAVIER VASQUEZ, and
KYLE KINGSBURY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ZUFFA, LLC D/B/A ULTIMATE FIGHTING
CHAMPIONSHIP AND ZUFFA, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW
(D. Nev.).
Aside from the renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, also filed with
the Court are the Defendant's Motions to Exclude regarding Dr. Hal
Singer, Guy Davis, and Dr. Andrew Zimbalist; the Plaintiffs' Motion
to Strike; the Plaintiffs' Motion to Shorten Time; and a Joint
Stipulated Proposed Pre-Trial Schedule.
The Court grants the Motion to Strike as it relates to Zuffa's
Motions to Exclude regarding Dr. Singer and Dr. Zimbalist and
denies the Motion to Strike as to Guy Davis.
The Plaintiffs argue that Zuffa's three Motions to Exclude were
filed both untimely and violate the law of the case. They also aver
that Zuffa has included an untimely and unauthorized new expert
disclosure, in the form of the Declaration of Gregory K. Leonard.
Defendant Zuffa counters that the Court did not decide Zuffa's
Prior Motions to Exclude and, rather, the Court left the door open
for renewed motions. Further, Zuffa argues that the renewed Motions
to Exclude present an opportunity for the Court to consider the
2023 amendment to the Rule 702 Standard and other recent
developments.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs' Motion as it relates to the
expert opinions of Dr. Hal Singer and Dr. Andrew Zimbalist. In its
Aug. 9, 2023 Order on Class Certification, the Court evaluated the
full, well-developed record and found the opinions of Dr. Singer
and Dr. Zimbalist satisfied the Daubert and Federal Rule of
Evidence 702 standards.
The Court finds that its Certification Order was clear in its
finding of the reliability and validity of two of the Plaintiffs'
experts--Singer and Zimbalist. To the extent the Defendant was
confused about this finding, the Court, which is in the best
position to interpret its own orders, reiterates it here.
The Court further finds that Zuffa has not provided a sufficient or
adequate legal basis for the Court to reconsider its finding
regarding these two experts in its Certification Order. Therefore,
the Court finds the instant Motions to Exclude regarding Dr. Singer
and Dr. Zimbalist are untimely and that, in any event, they are
substantively insufficient.
Despite the chance to disclose and present similar testimony
previously or seek the Court's permission to file such a
declaration late or even seek a clarification regarding the limits
of the Court's orders on discovery and ruling on the Prior Motions
to Exclude, Zuffa filed a new expert declaration (Declaration of
Dr. Leonard), without notice or leave, in the middle of final
dispositive motions and preparations for trial. The Court finds
that Zuffa's justifications for its late filing are inadequate to
explain its delay and that its late filing is prejudicial to the
Plaintiffs given the stage of the litigation.
Thus, the Court finds that Dr. Leonard's new Declaration is
untimely and unjustified. This Declaration is, therefore, excluded
from the record and consideration.
By contrast, the Court finds that Zuffa's remaining Motion to
Exclude regarding Guy Davis, CPA, is properly brought. While Zuffa
previously raised a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Guy
Davis, the Court did not unambiguously and fully resolve that
motion regarding Davis. Therefore, the Court finds the Motion to
Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Guy A. Davis is
properly before the Court and, as such, denies the Motion to Strike
as it regards that motion.
Because Zuffa filed its response rapidly and the Court then
resolved the Motion to Strike, which underpins the Motion to
Shorten Time, the Court denies the Motion to Shorten Time as moot.
The Court next considers Zuffa's renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Motion is
denied.
The Court finds that based upon the record and its prior findings
there are genuine issues of disputed fact in the case requiring a
trial on the merits. First, the Court finds that its Certification
Order reviewed relevant admissible evidence and considered the
substantive issues in dispute in the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.
Specifically, the remaining disputed class action claims are
alleged violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 2. The Plaintiffs' claim is that Zuffa violated
Section 2 based on its alleged monopsony power, that is, where a
single buyer has concentrated power on the buyer side of the
market. Monopsony is a market situation in which there is a single
buyer.
In the earlier Order on Class Certification, the Court found that
the Plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate by
a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant had committed
the alleged Sherman Act violation on a classwide basis.
Second, the Court finds that the relevant and admissible evidence
it must now review and consider on summary judgment is duplicative
of the evidence that it reviewed for its Certification Order, that
the standard at certification was in fact higher than for summary
judgment, and that, therefore, its reasoning and findings in its
Certification Order would and do apply with equal force to the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Having carefully considered the parties arguments here, intervening
developments, and carefully considered the record and law
previously relied upon in the Class Certification Order, the Court
finds no reason to deviate from its prior reasoning and findings.
That is, the Court now finds that the Plaintiff has furnished
sufficient evidence to sustain a reasonable jury finding that Zuffa
violated 15 U.S.C. Section 2.
The Court finds that, based upon its prior findings and the record,
each of Zuffa's arguments for summary judgment is repetitive and
unavailing to change this result. The Court also finds, among other
things, that the Plaintiffs have provided competent evidence to
establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the direct
evidence of monopsony power in the relevant markets, and that the
Plaintiffs have presented cognizable evidence in a similar
regression that approximately 99 percent of fighters were affected
by the alleged scheme. At this stage, the Court finds that this
suffices to establish for Article III purposes an impact on a class
wide basis.
In conclusion, the Court finds that even on a fresh review of the
record and informed by the Parties' arguments and exhibits that the
Plaintiffs have raised genuine factual disputes as to each element
of Section 2. Therefore, the Court must deny the Motion for Summary
Judgment.
For these reasons, Judge Boulware denies with prejudice Defendant
Zuffa, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Judge Boulware also rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is
granted in part as regards to the Defendant's Motion to Exclude
Certain Opinions of Dr. Hal J. Singer, Motion to Exclude the
Testimony of Dr. Andrew Zimbalist, and the Dec. 1, 2023 Declaration
of Dr. Gregory K. Leonard, which the Clerk of Court is instructed
to strike from the docket. The motion is denied as regards the
remaining Motion to Exclude.
A ruling on the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of
Plaintiffs' Expert Guy A. Davis is deferred. A hearing regarding
the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiffs'
Expert Guy A. Davis was set for Jan. 19, 2024.
The Joint Stipulated Proposed Pre-Trial Schedule is denied without
prejudice to the final dates being set at forthcoming hearing.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 18, 2024, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/55wr9fxzfrom PacerMonitor.com.
[*] Gibson Dunn Shares 4th Quarter 2023 Update on Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP provides an overview of key class
action-related developments during the fourth quarter of 2023
(October to December).
Table of Contents
Part I reviews decisions from the Sixth and Tenth Circuits
reaffirming the importance of courts conducting a "rigorous"
analysis of each Rule 23 factor before certifying a class;
Part II provides an update on cases analyzing the need for
plaintiffs to demonstrate a classwide method of proving injury to
meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3); and
Part III discuses a Ninth Circuit decision scrutinizing the
adequacy of a lead plaintiff in a class settlement.
I. Circuit Courts Continue to Emphasize the Importance of
"Rigorously" Analyzing Each Rule 23 Class Certification Factor
In its landmark decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564
U.S. 338 (2011), the Supreme Court held (among other things) that
before certifying a class, district courts must conduct a "rigorous
analysis" of the Rule 23 factors. Id. at 351. This critical
requirement remains alive and well, as we've covered in previous
updates, including here and here. And this past quarter, circuit
courts have continued to emphasize that district courts cannot
grant class certification with a rubber stamp.
In Brayman v. KeyPoint Government Solutions, Inc., 83 F.4th 823
(10th Cir. 2023), the Tenth Circuit vacated an order granting class
certification because "[a] rigorous analysis requires more" than a
one-paragraph discussion of predominance. Id. at 838--39. The
district court had certified a class of employees who alleged their
employer required them to work uncompensated overtime. Although the
Tenth Circuit declined to conduct the commonality or predominance
analyses itself in the first instance, it provided suggestions
about "some of the questions that the district court would need to
consider when determining what issues in the class action were
common issues, what issues were individual issues, and which
predominate." Id. at 839--41.
As one example, the Tenth Circuit considered how the plaintiffs
would prove that an employee worked uncompensated overtime. The
plaintiffs contended that each class member would testify about how
many hours they worked per week, yet they failed to present any
"expert testimony, statistical data, or representative evidence"
showing how this was a common, rather than an individual, issue.
Id. at 839. As another example, the Tenth Circuit noted that to
succeed on their claims, the plaintiffs had to establish that their
employer knew of this overtime work, but the plaintiffs'
"unelaborated" interrogatory answers and deposition testimony were
not "sufficiently specific and representative to be 'common'
evidence that would be admissible in each [putative class member]'s
individual case" about the employer's knowledge for that particular
individual. Id. at 840.
Similarly, in In re Ford Motor Co., 86 F.4th 723 (6th Cir. 2023),
the Sixth Circuit concluded the district court did not conduct a
rigorous analysis of commonality, cautioning that Rule 23 "requires
a named plaintiff to offer '[s]ignificant' evidentiary proof that
he can meet all four of [its] criteria." Id. at 726 (emphasis
added). In re Ford involved allegations about alleged brake design
defects in pickup trucks over a five-year period. Id. Although the
district court certified Rule 23(c)(4) "issue" classes to resolve
three primary issues related to the purported defects, it did so
with "cursory treatment of commonality." Id. In particular, the
district court's analysis did "not make clear that the three
certified issues can each be answered 'in one stroke.'" Id. at 727
(quoting Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350). For instance, one certified issue
concerned whether the brakes in the pickup trucks were defective.
Although the plaintiffs alleged this was a common issue, the
district court failed to "grapple" with the evidence that certain
redesigns and manufacturing changes over the class period made a
material difference to the alleged defect. Id. at 728. The Sixth
Circuit reminded trial judges that they "must evaluate whether each
of the four Rule 23(a) factors is actually satisfied, not merely
that the factors are properly alleged." Id. at 729 (citations
omitted) (emphases added).
II. Circuit Courts Continue to Require Classwide Method of
Proving Injury Before Certifying Rule 23(b) Classes
Two decisions from this quarter, Huber v. Simon's Agency, Inc., 84
F.4th 132 (3d Cir. 2023), and Sampson v. United Services Automobile
Ass'n, 83 F.4th 414 (5th Cir. 2023), reaffirmed the principle that
plaintiffs must demonstrate a classwide method of proving injury to
meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).
Huber concerned a putative class action against a medical debt
collection agency that allegedly provided misleading and confusing
notices to debtors. See 84 F.4th at 141. The named plaintiff
claimed she incurred extensive financial costs as a result of the
misleading information. See id. at 143. The district court
certified a class of individuals who received the same information
from the defendant. Id. at 142.
On appeal, the Third Circuit held that under TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), and circuit precedent, merely
receiving a misleading notice, without allegations of financial
loss, was insufficient to establish Article III standing. Huber, 84
F.4th at 148-49. While the Third Circuit ruled that the class
action was justiciable because the named plaintiff herself had
standing, it reasoned that unnamed class members would need to put
forward specific information about their financial circumstances to
meet the justiciability requirement. Id. at 147-54. The Third
Circuit therefore vacated the certification order and remanded to
the district court to assess "the implications of [the]
individualized showings [the unnamed class members need to make]
for the predominance requirement." Id. at 157.
In remanding, the Third Circuit offered guidance as to how the
predominance inquiry should unfold: if few class members are able
to show that they suffered concrete financial injuries, then the
class should not be considered sufficiently cohesive to warrant
certification. Id. at 157-58. On the other hand, if many class
members appear likely to have standing or "if there is a plausible
straightforward method to sort them out at the back end of the
case," then the case may be able to proceed on behalf of the class.
Id.
In a similar case, Sampson v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 83
F.4th 414 (5th Cir. 2023), the Fifth Circuit vacated a class
certification order because the plaintiffs failed to identify a
classwide way of establishing the defendant's liability. Sampson
was a breach of contract action against an insurance company based
on its use of a particular method of vehicle valuation. See id. at
417. The plaintiffs-insureds claimed that if the defendant had used
a different valuation method, they would have gotten bigger payouts
when they totaled their cars. Id.
One of the questions on appeal was whether the plaintiffs could
establish classwide injury -- an essential element of the claims at
issue -- by relying on their preferred vehicle-valuation standard.
Id. at 421. According to the plaintiffs, the choice of the
appropriate vehicle-valuation standard was only a damages question,
and district courts have wide discretion to choose among damages
models at the class-certification stage. Id. The Fifth Circuit
acknowledged that district courts generally do have such
discretion, but the purported damages issue was actually entwined
with the question of injury. Id. at 421-22. Because the selection
of the appropriate vehicle-valuation standard was not just a choice
between "imperfect damages models," but rather went to the question
of liability, the Fifth Circuit concluded that "a district court's
wide discretion to choose an imperfect estimative-damages model at
the certification stage" had no application. Id. at 422–23.
III. The Ninth Circuit Vacates Approval of Class Settlement,
Holding that Class Representative Who Was Subject to Arbitration
Agreement Could Not Adequately Represent Class Members Who Were
Not
As reported in several previous updates (including here and here),
circuit courts have continued the trend of taking more active roles
in scrutinizing class settlements. This past quarter, the Ninth
Circuit vacated the approval of a class settlement in a case
against a dating app, holding that the lead plaintiff was not an
adequate representative of the class due to her conflict of
interest and failure to vigorously litigate on behalf of all
240,000 class members. See Kim v. Allison, 87 F.4th 994 (9th Cir.
2023).
In Kim, the plaintiff alleged a dating app's age-based pricing
scheme violated California law. Id. at 999. The defendant
successfully moved to compel arbitration as to the lead plaintiff
because she had agreed to a version of the app's terms of use that
included an arbitration clause. Id. While the plaintiff was
appealing the order compelling arbitration, she negotiated a class
settlement.
In this second appeal from the settlement approval, objectors
focused their arguments on the lead plaintiff's lack of adequacy,
arguing that "unlike the remainder of the class, [the plaintiff]
was subject to a binding arbitration order" and the class
definition did not account for that important difference. 87 F.4th
at 999. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the plaintiff was an
inadequate representative and vacated the settlement.
With respect to the plaintiff's conflict of interest, the Ninth
Circuit emphasized that she was subject to an agreement to
arbitrate, while potentially 7,000 other class members were not.
Id. at 1001. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had a strong
interest in settling her claims since she has "no chance of going
to trial," even "at the cost of a broad release of other claims
that are not subject to arbitration." Id. The conflict was
"exacerbated" by other provisions in the version of the terms of
use that she accepted, including a Texas choice-of-law provision
and limitation on liability that did not bind other class members.
Id. The court also faulted the plaintiff for making inadequate
efforts to conduct discovery before reaching a settlement, and said
her "approach to opposing [the defendant]'s motion to compel
[arbitration was] not suggestive of vigor" because she "belatedly
raised formation challenges" when opposing that motion and failed
to make "obvious arguments until after they were forfeited." Id. at
1002-03. [GN]
[*] Law Firms' Appointment as Lead Counsel in Class Suit Questioned
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Mass. Lawyers Weekly staff reports that where a putative
securities class action has been brought, a motion to appoint two
law firms as co-lead counsel should be denied without prejudice,
while the plaintiffs may renew their motion by identifying the
individual attorneys they seek to have appointed from each firm.
"Pending before the court are various motions to appoint lead
counsel pursuant to Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B), as amended by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109
Stat. 737 ('PSLRA'). For the reasons that follow, the court
appoints Trey Greene, Arman Reyes, Cameron Wyatt, and Pham Duy Anh
Dang as Co-Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to Sections 27(a)(3)(B)(v) and
21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the PSLRA. . . .
"Plaintiff Antonie Elas commenced this action on March 1, 2023, as
a putative securities class action under Secs. 10(b), 12(a)(2), and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Secs. 5 and 15 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933; and M.G.L. c. 110A, Secs. 410(a)
and (b). . . . Elas brings this action on behalf of all individuals
and entities who, between March 4, 2019, through November 28, 2022
(the 'Class Period'), invested in BlockFi, Inc.'s ('BlockFi')
BlockFi Interest Accounts ('BIAs') and were allocated
cryptocurrency (or transferred cryptocurrency assets) to a BIA
account in exchange for interest payments, and suffered financial
injury as a result of such investments. . . .
"The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to select and
retain lead counsel, subject to this court's approval. . . . Here,
Co-Lead Plaintiffs ask the court to appoint the Pomerantz and
Squitieri law firms as co-lead counsel and has submitted a document
containing the law firm resumes. . . . However, the request that
the court appoint a law firm, rather than individual attorneys,
raises the question of whether a law firm may serve as counsel
where it may not enter appearances, or file pleadings pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and where the Local Rule 83.5.2 requires that
when a party is represented by a law firm, 'the appearance must
include the name . . . of at least one attorney individual
attorney.' Accordingly, the request for appointment of lead counsel
is denied without prejudice. Co-Lead Plaintiffs may renew their
motion by identifying the individual attorneys they seek to have
appointed from each firm. In the alternative, Co-Lead Plaintiffs
may renew their motion for the appointment of the Pomerantz and
Squitieri law firms but must provide authority for the proposition
that the PSLRA, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or applicable
ethical rules contemplate and provide for the appointment of law
firms, as opposed to individual attorneys, as lead counsel. The
court does not anticipate finding persuasive court orders that
appoint law firms as counsel without specifically addressing the
issue." [GN]
[*] Number of U.S. Securities Class-Action Filings Rises in 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Souter, writing for Business Insurance, reports that The
number of securities class-action filings, which often lead to
directors and officers liability insurance claims, increased
slightly in 2023 to 215 from 208 in 2022, according to a report
released on January 31, 2024.
Despite the increase, the total was significantly lower than those
from 2017 to 2020, according to the annual study by San
Francisco-based Cornerstone Research Inc. and the Stanford Law
School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in Stanford,
California.
Filings related to special purpose acquisition companies, or SPACs,
accounted for the largest number of suits last year, with 17,
followed by cryptocurrency suits at 14 and COVID-19 filings at 10.
The three categories accounted for less than 20% of the total
filings, down from 35% in 2022.
Cryptocurrency filings fell by 39% from the 2022 peak, despite
high-profile litigation surrounding cryptocurrency exchanges such
as FTX Trading Ltd. and Binance Holdings Ltd.
"There is a simple explanation. Crypto prices rebounded in the
second half of the year. When prices are up, damages are harder to
allege, so litigation declines," said Joseph Grundfest, professor
at Stanford Law School and a former U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission commissioner.
However, 91% of cryptocurrency class actions filed in 2022 are
continuing, compared with 69% of all other filings from that year,
with the remainder being dismissed or settled.
Eight class actions were filed last year related to 2023 banking
industry turbulence, the report said. [GN]
[*] Registration Now Open for 8th Annual Class Action Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference.
Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action
industry for this one-day event.
CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club on Monday,
May 6, 2024. To register, visit
https://www.classactionconference.com/
For sponsorship or speakership opportunities, please contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***