/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240214.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 14, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 33 Headlines 1998 GRILL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Porras Suit Alleges ALL MY SONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Zepeda Suit Claims ALLOVIR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 19 APEX TECHNOLOGY: Drulias & Farzad Sue Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ASTROPHYSICS INC: Faces Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit AVENTA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Sierra Suit Says BOP ACQUISITION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Lohr Alleges BRINGER CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Badel Alleges CARE BY CASSIE: Buford et al. Sue Over Nonpayment of OT Wages CATERPILLAR LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bunch Alleges CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages COMMUNITY HEALTH: Foust Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Care Providers COMMUNITY HEALTH: Sharp Seeks Proper Overtime Wages DUKE ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cobb Alleges EVERCOMMERCE INC: Trust Sues Over Unlawful Stockholders Agreement EVOLUTION AB: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 25 F&E AIRCRAFT: Trejo Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California FALLON AMBULANCE: D'Angelo Sues Over Private Data Breach FOCUS CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fowler Alleges FUBOTV INC: Faces Beasley Suit Over Data Privacy Violations GENESIS RECOVERY: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Scott Suit Claims GREEN LEAF: Ramirez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages GROUP MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Durham Claims HEALTH EXTENSION: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ILOV305 I LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Atucha Alleges JANJER ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Alleges KELLER WILLIAMS: Agrees to Settle Commissions Class Suit for $70M KRAFT HEINZ: Sisca Sues Over Misleading Cheese Product Labeling LIVEPERSON INC: Browne Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties LL FLOOR DESIGNS: Valencia and Jimenez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches LOANDEPOT INC: Costello Sues Over Unprotected Private Data LONG ISLAND COMMUNITY: Jacobsen Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties MAKING MOVES: O'Sullivan Sues Over Crew Members' Unpaid Wages MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Nadel Suit Set for Feb. 23 MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Pasternacki Suit Set for Feb. 23 MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Poppe Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23 MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Shaffer v. Mattel Set for Feb. 23 MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Willis Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23 MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Wray Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23 MIAMI TOP CLEANING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Serafin Says MINDVALLEY INC: Thornton Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Info NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Shabazz Sues Over Loan Modification Denial NAUTIC PARTNERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bourque Alleges NEW SCHOOL: Lankau Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund PALM ENTERTAINMENT: Dahlquist Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool PERELMAN'S FAMILY: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PETER MARCUS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bullock Says PLANET HOME: Canepa Sues Over Unprotected Private Info PRGB INC: Clarke Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices PRIMMER PIPER: Gaboriault Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cooper Alleges PROSTAFF SERVICES: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SANSAI-PASADENA: Mendez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices SIKA AG: Artificially Inflated Prices for CCAs, D'Onofrio Claims SUNCAKES LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ferguson Alleges UNITED STATES: Various Parties File Suit Over Tolling Program UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Snyder Suit Says UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Discloses Private Info, Claxton Suit Says VERIZON WIRELESS: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set April 15 VIRGIN PULSE: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Elston Says [*] Current Issues Discussed in Data Breach Class Action Settlement [] Registration Now Open for 8th Annual Class Action Conference ********* 1998 GRILL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Porras Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- Bonnie S. Porras, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. 1998 Grill LLC a/k/a 19/98 Grill and Edward Contino, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00025-AW-HTC (N.D. Fla., January 31, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff from approximately April 22, 2023 to November 25, 2023. In this complaint, Plaintiff seeks to claim damages only for the period from September 27, 2023 to November 25, 2023 in which she was not properly compensated. The 1998 Grill is an American restaurant located at 17751 US-19, Fanning Springs, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ALL MY SONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Zepeda Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ZEPEDA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL MY SONS MOVING & STORAGE OF DALLAS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00248-G (N.D. Tex., January 31, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Zepeda was employed by Defendant from approximately 2010 through approximately June 2023 as a non-exempt, manual labor employee. He regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. Rather than receiving overtime pay -- time-and-one-half his regular rate of pay, which would include all compensation for hours worked, services rendered, or performance -- as required by the FLSA, Zepeda only received "straight time" pay for overtime hours worked, says the suit. Based in Texas, All My Sons Moving & Storage of Dallas, Inc. is a moving and storage company that provides services to residential and commercial customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis Gasper, Esq. GASPER LAW PLLC 1408 N. Riverfront Blvd., Suite 323 Dallas, TX 75207 Telephone: (469) 663-7736 E-mail: travis@travisgasper.com ALLOVIR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of AlloVir, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALVR), GrafTech International Ltd. (NYSE: EAF), Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart (NASDAQ: CART), and The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. AlloVir, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALVR) Class Period: March 22, 2022 - December 21, 2023 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 19, 2024 The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the posoleucel Phase 3 Studies were unlikely to meet their primary endpoints; (ii) as a result, it was likely that the Company would ultimately discontinue the posoleucel Phase 3 studies; (iii) accordingly, AlloVir overstated the efficacy and clinical and/or commercial prospects of posoleucel; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 22, 2023, AlloVir announced that it was discontinuing the posoleucel Phase 3 studies over efficacy concerns and stated that it would explore strategic alternatives for the Company. Specifically, AlloVir said it was discontinuing the posoleucel Phase 3 studies after pre-planned analyses concluded they wouldn't meet their primary endpoints. On this news, AlloVir's stock price fell $1.57 per share, or 67.38%, to close at $0.76 per share on December 22, 2023. For more information on the AlloVir class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/ALVR GrafTech International Ltd. (NYSE: EAF) Class Period: February 8, 2019 - August 3, 2023 (Common Stock Only) Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2024 The GrafTech class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GrafTech's manufacturing operations in Monterrey, Mexico had for decades chronically contaminated neighboring communities with harmful carcinogenic gasses and particulate matter; (ii) 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; (iii) 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; (iv) GrafTech's operations in Monterrey, Mexico were not in compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations; (v) 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; (vi) 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; (vii) 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; (viii) 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; (ix) 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 (x) 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. Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart (NASDAQ: CART) Class Period: pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about September 19, 2023; and/or September 19, 2023 - October 1, 2023 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2024 Instacart provides online grocery shopping services to households in North America. The Company sells and delivers a range of products in the food, alcohol, consumer health, pet care, and ready-made meals categories, in addition to others. The Company offers its services through a mobile application and website, while also providing software-as-a-service solutions to retailers. On August 25, 2023, Instacart filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on September 18, 2023 (the "Registration Statement"). On September 19, 2023, pursuant to the Registration Statement, Instacart's common stock began publicly trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "CART". On September 20, 2023, Instacart filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Instacart and other selling stockholders identified in the Prospectus sold 14.1 million and 7.9 million shares of the Company's common stock to the public, respectively, at the Offering price of $30.00 per share for total proceeds of approximately $400 million and $224 million to Instacart and the selling stockholders, respectively, after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions. The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. In addition, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Instacart had overstated the extent to which online grocery shopping and delivery habits among consumers were accelerating; (ii) Instacart had downplayed the extent of the competition that it faced in the online grocery shopping and delivery market; (iii) accordingly, Defendants overstated the Company's post-IPO growth, business, and financial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 22, 2023, Reuters published an article noting, among other things, that Instacart's stock price was falling after "lukewarm analyst reports" indicated that the Company would struggle from heavy competition. For example, the article noted that "BTIG analyst Jake Fuller gave Instacart a 'neutral' rating and warned that the company faces heavy competition from DoorDash (DASH.N) and Uber Technologies (UBER.N) in the slowly expanding market of grocery delivery." On this news, Instacart's stock price fell $0.65 per share, or 2.12%, to close at $30.00 per share on September 22, 2023. Then, on October 2, 2023, investment research firm Gordon Haskett initiated coverage of Instacart with a "hold" rating, stating that it "ha[s] doubts that online grocery delivery adoption will continue to materially increase at a time when consumers are becoming increasingly cautious about spending", while similarly citing the competitive environment in the online grocery shopping and delivery market as a headwind to the Company's business. On this news, Instacart's stock price fell $2.73 per share, or 9.2%, to close at $26.96 per share on October 2, 2023. As of the time the complaint was filed, Instacart's common stock continues to trade below the $30.00 per share Offering price, damaging investors. The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) Class Period: October 23, 2019 - January 24, 2024 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 1, 2024 Boeing, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, is one of the largest aerospace companies in the world. Its Commercial Airplanes Segment is a leading producer of commercial aircraft and offers a family of commercial jetliners including its 737 MAX. Approximately five years ago, two Boeing 737 MAX 8 planes were involved in fatal crashes caused by malfunctions due to design flaws in the 737 MAX's flight control software. The first crash occurred in October 2018 and the second crash occurred in March 2019 killing a total of 346 people and leading to 737 MAX planes being grounded from March 2019 to December 2020. According to the filed complaint, the Class Period starts on October 23, 2019, when Defendants boasted that Boeing was making progress towards the safe return to service of the 737 MAX. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants continued to assure investors that Boeing was laser-focused on safety and quality. Defendants also claimed that Boeing did not make trade-offs between safety and profit, and that safety was Boeing's priority. Also according to the filed complaint, unbeknownst to investors, statements such as those above were false and misleading because Boeing failed to disclose that it had been prioritizing its profits over safety, which led to poor quality control standards in the production of its commercial aircrafts such as the 737 MAX, resulting in a heightened risk of manufacturing flaws which could render the Company's new airplanes unsafe. This very risk had materialized during the Class Period. These false and misleading statements caused Boeing stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Also, according to the filed complaint, it took a near disaster to expose this heightened safety risk. The public first learned about it on January 5, 2024 when a panel called a “door plug” flew out of the side of a 737 MAX 9 (a variant of 737 MAX) during Alaska Airlines Flight 1282. This left a gaping hole in the plane's main cabin, feet from where passengers were sitting. Over the next few weeks, investigations into the incident continued and problems with such door plugs on other 737 MAX planes were discovered including loose bolts holding the door plugs in place, further revealing the Company's manufacturing and production missteps and leading to the grounding of many 737 MAX 9 planes. In reaction to these and other related disclosures, Boeing's stock price plummeted from $249.00 on January 5, 2024 to $201.88 on January 25, 2024, a $47.12 per share or 18.9% decline. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Phone: (212) 355-4648 Email: investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] APEX TECHNOLOGY: Drulias & Farzad Sue Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEAN WILLIAM DRULIAS AND MICHAEL FARZAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APEX TECHNOLOGY SPONSOR LLC, JEFF EPSTEIN, BRAD KOENIG, DAVID CHAO, PETER BELL, DONNA WELLS, ALEX VIEUX, AND STEVEN FLETCHER, Defendants, Case No. 2024-0094 (Del. Ch., February 2, 2024) asserts claims against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty arising from Apex's July 1, 2021 merger with AvePoint, Inc and that created Legacy AvePoint. The complaint contends that Defendants made material omissions by failing to disclose the true amount of cash underlying each Apex share is beyond peradventure. As a result, Plaintiffs and other Apex's stockholders relied on the materially misleading Proxy in deciding whether to exercise their redemption rights and in voting to approve the merger. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek monetary and/or rescissory damages against Defendants for their breaches of fiduciary duty owed to Apex public stockholders. Apex Technology Sponsor LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with principal offices located at 533 Airport Blvd., Suite 400, Burlingame, CA. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. Jason M. Avellino, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 S. Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-71 - and - Christopher H. Lyons, Esq. Tayler D. Bolton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 467-2660 - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. Erik W. Luedeke, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 W. Broadway. Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 ASTROPHYSICS INC: Faces Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------ ROSSYO ORTIZ, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASTROPHYSICS, INC., a Delaware corporation; LEE HECHT HARRISON, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MARK ZAYEK, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01341 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 18, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, failure to timely pay wages, failure to indemnify, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, marketing, from approximately May of 2022 through approximately June of 2023. Astrophysics, Inc. manufactures security X-ray scanners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Wesley Gonzales, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrawlaw.com jeff@tomorrowlaw.com wesley@tomorrowlaw.com AVENTA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Sierra Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Joana Sierra, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Aventa Health LLC, d/b/a Aventa Health, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60176-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 31, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals the proper compensation for every overtime hour worked at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate. During her employment, the Plaintiff always worked more than 40 hours weekly, but she was not paid for overtime hours. In addition, the Plaintiff was paid weekly by direct deposits without paystubs providing accurate information about the number of hours worked, wage rate paid, commissions paid, employee taxes withheld, etc., says the suit. Based in Coral Springs, FL, Aventa Health is a health care insurance marketplace or agency selling affordable health insurance plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BOP ACQUISITION: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Lohr Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN LOHR, individually and for others similarly situated v. BOP ACQUSITION LLC, BOP ABSTRACT LLC, BOP LAND SERVICES LP, and BOP LAND GP LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00069-MJH (W.D. Pa., Jan. 18, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. According to the complaint, BOP has engaged in a uniform shift rate pay scheme that violates the FLSA and PMWA by depriving Plaintiff and similarly situated employees of overtime wages for all overtime hours worked over 40. Likewise, BOP's uniform shift rate pay scheme violates the PWPCL by depriving Plaintiff Lohr and the Class members of earned wages for all their hours worked. Plaintiff Lohr was employed by the Defendants as a Landman in Pennsylvania from approximately January 2018 until January 2024. BOP Acquisition LLC, BOP Abstract LLC, BOP Land Services LP, and BOP Land GP LLC all operate under the same trade name -- BOP -- as a unified, full-service land and title company.[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 - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com BRINGER CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Badel Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS D. BADEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRINGER CORPORATION, and EDUARDO DE CASTRO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20400-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 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 Badel was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse manager. BRINGER CORPORATION operates as a transportation company. The Company offers air freight and cargo services. Bringer serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com CARE BY CASSIE: Buford et al. Sue Over Nonpayment of OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JONELLE M. BUFORD, MICKELL DAVIS, and CHRISTA BRIDGES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs V. CARE BY CASSIE, INC., CLARK WHEELER, CASSANDRA MICHELLE, and KATHRYN BACON, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00082-SRB (W.D. Mo. January 2, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs Buford, Davis, and Bridges have worked as direct support professionals for Defendant for approximately one year. Allegedly, they were subjected to Defendants' common policy and practice of refusing to correctly pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA. Based in Missouri, Care by Cassie, Inc. operates care facilities in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barry R. Grissom, Esq. GRISSOM MILLER LAW FIRM, LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 460 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 336-1213 Facsimile: (816) 384-1623 E-mail: barrv@grissommiller.com - and - Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC 3609 SW Pryor Rd. Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Telephone: (816) 600-0117 E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com CATERPILLAR LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bunch Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL R. BUNCH, individually and on behalf of all all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATERPILLAR LOGISTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00026-TMR-PBS (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 30, 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 Bunch was employed by the Defendant as a staff. CATERPILLAR LOGISTICS, INC. manufactures construction and mining equipment. The Company offers diesel and natural gas engines, industrial gas turbines, and electric locomotives. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- RAYDEL SANCHEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-20379 (S.D. Fla., January 31, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Checkers Restaurants employed Plaintiff Sanchez as a non-exempt, full-time employee from approximately January 01, 2021, to December 21, 2021, or 50 weeks. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours every week, but Defendant failed to pay him overtime wages. Instead, the Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as a manager even if his primary duty was non-exempted and manual in nature, says the suit. Checkers Restaurants is one of the largest chains of drive-through fast food restaurants in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Foust Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Care Providers ------------------------------------------------------------------ SARAH FOUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. and CLEVELAND TENNESSEE HOSPITAL COMPANY, LLC d/b/a TENNOVA HEALTHCARE - CLEVELAND, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00129 (M.D. Tenn., February 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay straight-time wages and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Tennessee common law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a care provider in Cleveland, Tennessee from approximately October 2020 to July 2022. Community Health Systems, Inc. is a healthcare services provider, headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. Cleveland Tennessee Hospital Company, LLC, doing business as Tennova Healthcare - Cleveland, is a healthcare services provider, headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William M. Hogg, 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 whogg@mybackwages.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Blayne E. Fisher, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 819 N. Shoreline Blvd., 6th Floor Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com blayne@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com - and - Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Sharp Seeks Proper Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER SHARP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. and CAMPBELL COUNTY HMA, LLC d/b/a LAFOLLETTE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00126 (M.D. Tenn., February 2, 2024) seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other applicable penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Tennessee common law. Plaintiff Jennifer Sharp was employed by Defendants during the relevant time period. Plaintiff Sharp did not receive compensation for all hours worked or the correct amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 hours each workweek, says the suit. Headquartered in Franklin, TN, Community Health Systems, Inc. is a foreign for-profit corporation that operates LaFollette Medical Center. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William M. Hogg, 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 whogg@mybackwages.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Blayne E. Fisher, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 819 N. Shoreline Blvd., 6th Floor Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com blayne@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com - and - Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com DUKE ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cobb Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- RONALD COBB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case 3:24-cv-00107 (W.D.N.C., Jan. 30, 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 Cobb was employed by the Defendant as a nuclear security officer. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION is an energy company located primarily in the Americas that owns an integrated network of energy assets. The Company manages a portfolio of natural gas and electric supply, delivery, and trading businesses in the United States and Latin America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Strianese, Esq. Tamara Huckert, Esq. STRIANESE HUCKERT LLP 3501 Monroe Rd. Charlotte, NC 28205 Telephone: (704) 966-2101 Email: chris@strilaw.com tamara@strilaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com EVERCOMMERCE INC: Trust Sues Over Unlawful Stockholders Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------------- VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REVOCABLE TRUST, Plaintiff v. ERIC REMER, PENNY BALDWIN, KIMBERLY ELLISON-TAYLOR, MARK HASTINGS, JOHN MARQUIS, JOE OSNOSS, JOHN RUDELLA, RICK SIMONSON, AND DEBBY SOO, PROVIDENCE STRATEGIC GROWTH II L.P., PROVIDENCE STRATEGIC GROWTH II-A L.P., PROVIDENCE STRATEGIC GROWTH III L.P., SLA CM ECLIPSE HOLDINGS, L.P. AND SLA ECLIPSE CO-INVEST, L.P., Defendants, and EVERCOMMERCE, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2024-0077 (Del. Ch., January 31, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiff, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public stockholders of nominal defendant EverCommerce, Inc., seeking declaratory relief invalidating a provision of the stockholders agreement between the EverCommerce, Inc. and the sponsor stockholders in violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Section 4.1 of the stockholders agreement contains the Chief Executive Officer Approval Right. It provides that, as long as the sponsor stockholders own at least 30% of the aggregate number of shares outstanding immediately following the consummation of the EverCommerce's Initial Public Offering, then EverCommerce may not hire or terminate its CEO without the express written consent of the sponsor stockholders. Headquartered in Denver, CO, EverCommerce is a publicly traded corporation that provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for small- and medium-sized businesses. [BN] 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 E-mail: 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 EVOLUTION AB: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Evolution AB (publ) (OTC: EVVTY) between February 14, 2019 and October 25, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 25, 2024. SO WHAT: If you purchased Evolution securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Evolution class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22119 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 25, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding Evolution's and Evolution's customers' compliance with governing laws; the effect of non-compliance on Evolution's revenue; and Evolution's predicted growth and growth strategies. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Evolution class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=22119 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] F&E AIRCRAFT: Trejo Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JESUS TREJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. F&E AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE (MIAMI), LLC and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV26730, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 2, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00931 to the proceeding. The case arises from F&E's alleged violations of the California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay sick pay at correct rates, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. F&E Aircraft Maintenance (Miami), LLC is a provider of aircraft line maintenance, headquartered in Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kasey L. Bond, Esq. KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 579-6400 Facsimile: (513) 579-6457 E-mail: kbond@kmklaw.com FALLON AMBULANCE: D'Angelo Sues Over Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- BREVAN D'ANGELO, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FALLON AMBULANCE SERVICE, TRANSFORMATIVE HEALTHCARE LLC and COASTAL MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10292-JEK (D. Mass., February 5, 2024) arises out of a targeted cyberattack and data breach caused by Defendants' failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other individuals' personally identifying information and personal health information. Between February 17, 2023 and April 22, 2023, an unauthorized party gained access to Transformative Healthcare's computer systems. During that time, the hackers copied the archived private information of Fallon Ambulance's patients. However, Plaintiff learned of the data breach when he received a notice from Fallon dated December 27, 2023, more than ten months after the data breach began, stating that Plaintiff's Private Information was exposed in the data breach, says the suit. Fallon Ambulance was a Massachusetts-based emergency medical transportation services company responding to patient emergencies and providing administrative services for affiliated medical transportation companies, until it ceased operations in December 2022. It was purchased by Defendant Transformative Healthcare's Massachusetts medical transportation division in 2018, which was subsequently acquired by Defendant Coastal Medical in 2022. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com imcloughlin@shulaw.com FOCUS CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fowler Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- TAMI FOWLER; DONNA WATSON; and ANABEL ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FOCUS CARE, INC. d/b/a/ FEV TUTOR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10253-IT (D. Mass., Jan. 30, 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. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as remote agents. FOCUS CARE, INC. d/b/a/ FEV TUTOR, INC. is a company that provides live online 1:1 tutoring services for K-12 students. They partner with K-12 educators to offer personalized and engaging instruction anytime, anywhere. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq. STEFFANS LEGAL, PLC 10 Wendell Ave. Ext. Suite 208 Pittsfield, Massachusetts, 01201 Telephone: (413) 418-4176 Email: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MC 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com FUBOTV INC: Faces Beasley Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE BEASLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FUBOTV, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00711 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendant knowingly and intentionally discloses its users' personally identifiable information, including a record of every video viewed by the user, to unauthorized third parties without first complying with the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's Website and app use first-party and third-party cookies, software development kits, pixels, Facebook's Business Tools, including Advanced Matching and Conversion API, Google Analytics, and related tracking tools to purposely track, record, and transmit its digital subscribers' interactions with Defendant's Website. The Defendant knowingly installed and used these tools, and it controlled which data was transmitted to unrelated third parties. In conjunction with this, it purposefully and specifically chose to: (1) track and record consumers' viewed video media, (2) disclose that information to Facebook 1 alongside its digital subscribers' individual Facebook ID ("FID") and other persistent identifiers, and (3) did this without its users' knowledge or consent via surreptitious technology. The Plaintiff and consumers were harmed by Defendant's unlawful conduct, which deprives them of their right to privacy in their own homes, and the disclosures at issue reveal highly personal details regarding their unique video requests and viewing habits, says the suit. FUBOTV, INC. is an Internet television service provider. The Company focuses primarily on channels that distribute live sports, plus news, network television series, and movies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Suite 4667 New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com GENESIS RECOVERY: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Scott Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAKEISHA SCOTT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENESIS RECOVERY AND WELLNESS OF OHIO LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00205-DAP (N.D. Ohio, February 2, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and brings Ohio breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to pay her at the agreed hourly base rate. Instead of compensating Plaintiff at one and one-half times her regular hourly rate for hours more than 40 hours per workweek, Defendant paid her at regular, straight time hourly rate for overtime hours worked, says the suit. Headquartered in Middleburg Heights, OH, Genesis is an Ohio for-profit limited liability company that operates as addiction treatment center. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIM, LLC Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 50 Public Square, Suite 1900 Cleveland, OH 44113 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, OH 44136 E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com GREEN LEAF: Ramirez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRUNO ADRIAN PAZ RAMIREZ, an individual, JUSTO RAMIREZ PEREZ, an individual, and CESILIO CARDONA CARRETO, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. GREEN LEAF THAI LIMITED, an Illinois corporation, RATTIYA UDOMPAICHITKUL, an individual, and DEER UDOMPAICHITKUL, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-470 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 18, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiffs were former employees of Defendants' Green Leaf Thai Cuisine restaurant who worked as dishwashers and cooks. They assert that Defendants paid all of their hours, including all of their overtime compensable hours, at their straight-time hourly rates of pay. Green Leaf Thai Limited is an Illinois corporation that operates the Green Leaf Thai Cuisine restaurant on North Western Avenue in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com GROUP MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Durham Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Durham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Group Management Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00217-BYP (N.D. Ohio, February 5, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 seeking to address the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed by Group Management Services as an hourly non-exempt employee November 1, 2022 through approximately May 31, 2023. The Defendant violated the FLSA and OMWFSA by automatically deducting a thirty-minute meal break from each and every shift Plaintiff worked regardless of whether he was able to take a meal break, regardless of whether they were permitted to take a full thirty-minute meal break, and regardless of whether they were completely relieved from duty for 30 minutes, says the suit. Headquartered in Ohio, Group Management Services, Inc., among other things, owns and operates hotels in Northeast Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com HEALTH EXTENSION: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH EXTENSION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00381 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.healthextension.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when it attempted on December 18, 2023 and again on December 29, 2023 to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, Plaintiff wanted to purchase the Grain Free Turkey & Salmon Recipe cat food. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the Grain Free Turkey & Salmon Recipe that Plaintiff wished to acquire, says the suit. 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. Health Extension, LLC offers pet foods and products including a variety of dry and wet foods, treats, supplements, and grooming essentials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ILOV305 I LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Atucha Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- FELIX A. ATUCHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ILOV305 I LLC D/B/A WILD N OUT 305; STEVEN DAVIDOVICI; and EREZ DAVIDOVICI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20397-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 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. Plaintiff Atucha was employed by the Defendants as a floor manager. ILOV305 I LLC D/B/A WILD N OUT 305 is a bar and restaurant located at Miami Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com JANJER ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- LISA BELL; HEATHER BARBAGALLO; KAILYN WAGNER; and JAMES LOFTUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JANJER ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00150-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 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. Plaintiffs Bell, Barbagallo, and Wagner were employed by the Defendant as servers. Plaintiff Loftus was employed as cook. JANJER ENTERPRISES, INC. owns and operates several International House of Pancakes restaurants throughout New York State. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Emmet Murphy, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 Email: jmurphy@vandallp.com - and - Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 Email: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com KELLER WILLIAMS: Agrees to Settle Commissions Class Suit for $70M ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Medici, writing for WFTV.com, reports that Keller Williams Realty has become the latest real estate giant to reach a settlement in a series of class-action lawsuits. The brokerage has agreed to pay $70 million to settle claims nationwide across class-action lawsuits that allege the National Association of Realtors' "participation rule" and "cooperative compensation" practices unfairly forced home sellers to pay inflated commissions to buyer agents and amounted to a conspiracy with brokerages to keep commissions high. The settlement states that Keller Williams will make it clear to franchisees that they are not required to offer compensation to buyer brokers, to inform customers that commissions are negotiable and that real estate agents must show properties regardless of the amount of offered compensation, according to a motion filed in the litigation. [GN] KRAFT HEINZ: Sisca Sues Over Misleading Cheese Product Labeling --------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN SISCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00813 (E.D.N.Y., January 3, 2024) alleges violations of the New York General Business Law and the New York Agriculture & Markets Law in connection with the Defendant's misleading product labeling of Velveeta Shells & Cheese. The representation that the said product is "Made With Real Cheese" results in it being misleading to consumers because they will expect the predominant component of the cheese sauce to be "real cheese," even though its most predominant ingredients are whey and canola oil, says the suit. Headquartered in Pennsylvania, Kraft Heinz Foods Company manufactures and sells sauces, meals, soups, snacks, and infant nutrition products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com LIVEPERSON INC: Browne Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------- SONJA BROWNE, Plaintiff v. JILL LAYFIELD, BRUCE HANSEN, KEVIN LAVAN, JIM MILLER, VANESSA PEGUEROS, WILLIAM G. WESEMANN, YAEL ZHENG, and JOHN SABINO, Defendants, and LIVEPERSON, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2024-0079 (Del. Ch., January 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and other public investors in connection with the Board's adoption of poison pill with a 5% trigger (NOL pill). The Defendants' public statements justify the NOL Pill as necessary to defend the value of the Company's net operating loss carry-forwards (NOLs) from being limited due to an "ownership change" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. However, the NOL Pill, uses a sweeping definition of "beneficial ownership" that aggregates shares based solely on agreements, arrangements, or understandings solely to voting -- something that has no effect on "economic ownership" under the Internal Revenue Code and would pose zero risk to the NOLs. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all stockholders of the company. LivePerson, Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation founded by Robert LoCascio in 1995. The technology company that develops conversational commerce and AI software. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Orrico, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 E-mail: corrico@gelaw.com - and - Joel Fleming, Esq. Amanda Crawford, Esq EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP 101 Arch Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 468-8602 E-mail: jfleming@equitylitigation.com acrawford@equitylitigation.com - and - Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. Jonathan C. Millis, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 E-mail: cmackintosh@gelaw.com jmillis@gelaw.com LL FLOOR DESIGNS: Valencia and Jimenez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------------- JACKSON VALENCIA and JOSE JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LL FLOOR DESIGNS, INC., BIG APPLE FLOOR SERVICES, INC., and LESTER LOCKWOOD, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00709 (S.D.N.Y., January 31, 2024) seeks equitable and legal relief for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Valencia as a floor designer from on or around March 1, 2017 until in or around June 2023. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was only compensated at a fixed hourly rate for all hours worked, including those over 40 per week, says the suit. LL Floor Designs, Inc. provides hardwood flooring design, flooring installation, and floor polishing services to commercial locations throughout New York and New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam Sackowitz, Esq. KATZ MELINGER PLLC 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 460-0047 Facsimile: (212) 428-6811 E-mail: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com LOANDEPOT INC: Costello Sues Over Unprotected Private Data ---------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA COSTELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOANDEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00242 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, and for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the the California Consumer Records Act. On January 8, 2024, Defendant reported the data breach. Two weeks later, Defendant explained that the company has determined that an unauthorized third party gained access to sensitive personal information of approximately 16.6 million individuals in its systems. However, the Defendant has not provided notice to its data breach victims, depriving them of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner, says the suit. Headquartered in Irvine, CA, LoanDepot, Inc. is a nonbank company that provides mortgages and other lending products. It advertises $179 billion in refinanced mortgages, $96 billion in new home purchases, and 200+ locations nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com LONG ISLAND COMMUNITY: Jacobsen Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------ NICHOLE JACOBSEN, KATHERINE KING, DEBORAH DALRYMPLE, and LAURA PHILLIPS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LONG ISLAND COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00386 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2024) is a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, against the Defendant for breaching its fiduciary duties in the management, operation and administration of the Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center DBA Long Island Community Hospital Retirement Savings Plan. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to meet its fiduciary obligations in basic ways. First, the Plan offered and maintained higher cost share classes when identical lower cost share classes of the same mutual funds were available. This resulted in the participants paying additional unnecessary operating expenses with no value to the participants and resulting in a loss of compounded returns. The Defendant failed to monitor the share classes of mutual fund investments and to substitute less expensive share classes of mutual funds from more expensive share classes of the very same mutual fund, thus wasting the assets of the Plan participants. Second, Defendant wasted participants' money by failing to appropriately select and monitor the Plan's stable value fund. Had Defendant monitored and evaluated the returns on the Plan's stable value fund, it would have realized that the Plan's stable value fund was an underperforming fund throughout the entire Class Period and that the Plan's parties-in-interest were benefitting from the returns on the stable value fund, at the cost of the Plan's participants. The Plaintiffs are participants in the Plan during the Class Period. Long Island Community Hospital is a 306-bed medical center situated in Suffolk County, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Samuel J. Adams, Esq. Ankita Sangwan, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com sjadams@pomlaw.com asangwan@pomlaw.com MAKING MOVES: O'Sullivan Sues Over Crew Members' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW O'SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAKING MOVES, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation; BRYGHT YOUNG THINGS FILMS LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; COREY ASKINS, an individual; and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01367 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 18, 2024) is a civil action brought under by the Plaintiff under the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to provide proper minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide compliant wage statements, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide employment records upon request, failure to provide compliant pay stubs, failure to pay all wages accrued upon separation from employment, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a crew member for the filming of a commercial entitled "NFL Shop" in August 2021. Making Moves, Inc. is an Oklahoma corporation conducted business within the County of Los Angeles, State of California and produced a commercial entitled "NFL Shop."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com MDL 2903: Class Cert Hearing in Nadel Suit Set for Feb. 23 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nadel, et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00791 (W.D.N.Y., Filed June 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 Nadel 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 Pasternacki Suit Set for Feb. 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pasternacki v. Fisher Price, Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00941 (W.D.N.Y., Filed July 17, 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 Pasternacki 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 Poppe Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Poppe v. Fisher Price, Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00870 (W.D.N.Y., Filed June 28, 2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order 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 Poppe 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 Shaffer v. Mattel Set for Feb. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaffer v. Mattel, Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00791 (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 Shaffer 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 Willis Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Willis v. Fisher Price, Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01107 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 21, 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 Willis 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 Wray Sleeper Suit Set for Feb. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wray v. Fisher Price, Inc. et al., v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01067 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 13, 2019), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order 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 Wray 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] MIAMI TOP CLEANING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Serafin Says ----------------------------------------------------------- RAUL H. SERAFIN, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MIAMI TOP CLEANING SERVICE LLC and ULYSSES GONZALEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20396-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 31, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly cleaning employee from approximately May 9, 2023, to November 21, 2023, or 29 weeks. While employed with Defendants, Plaintiff worked overtime hours not paid to him at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate, as required by law, says the suit. Based in Florida, Miami Top Cleaning Service LLC provides commercial cleaning and janitorial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MINDVALLEY INC: Thornton Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Info -------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY THORNTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINDVALLEY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00593 (N.D. Cal., January 31, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Video Privacy Protection Act by knowingly disclosing consumers' personally identifiable information (PII), including information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape provider. Allegedly, Mindvalley shares its customers' PII with Meta for advertising and marketing purposes via the Meta pixels on their website. In addition, Mindvalley did not obtain any informed written consent from Plaintiff with regards to the disclosure of video viewing histories. Headquartered in Palo, Alto, CA, Mindvalley owns and operates a subscription-based online video streaming platform called "mindvalley.com." In exchange for a monthly or annual fee, Mindvalley subscribers can request and watch hundreds of educational videos from their computer or mobile device. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie C. Erickson, Esq. Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. Kevin M. Osborne, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 44 Tehama Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415-635-0631 Facsimile: 415-599-8088 E-mail: julie@eko.law elizabeth@eko.law kevin@eko.law NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Shabazz Sues Over Loan Modification Denial --------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, d.b.a. RIGHTPATH SERVICING, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00498 (E.D. Pa., February 2, 2024), arises under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Plaintiff met the eligibility requirements for a loan modification program that should have been available and as authorized by the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Nationstar, however, inexplicably refused to issue the required loan modification offers to Plaintiff claiming that they were prohibited to do so for reasons that had no basis in fact or law, specifically, Nationstar claimed that the loan modification would not result in a decreased principal and interest portion of Plaintiff's payment, even though no such requirement exists, says the suit. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Nationstar Mortgage LLC operates as a mortgage servicer in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-62340 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com - and - Brian D. Flick, Esq. Daniel M. Solar, Esq. DANN LAW 15000 Madison Ave. Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com NAUTIC PARTNERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bourque Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- HAYLEY BOURQUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAUTIC PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00047-MSM-LDA (D.R.I., Jan. 31, 2024) is an action arising out of the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personal identifying information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Defendant maintained the PII in a reckless manner. In particular, the PII was maintained on the Defendant's computer networks in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a known risk to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition, says the suit. NAUTIC PARTNERS, LLC operates as a private equity firm. The Company focuses on healthcare, industrial products, and outsourced services sectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent L. Greene, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster St., 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457–7730 Facsimile: (401) 457–7708 Email: vgreene@motleyrice.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 Email: dlietz@milberg.com NEW SCHOOL: Lankau Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund ------------------------------------------------ MCKAYLA LANKAU, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. THE NEW SCHOOL, Defendant, Case No. 601034/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Jan. 18, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff for damages, restitution, and declaratory relief resulting from New School's retention of the tuition and fees paid by her and the other putative Class Members for in-person education and services not being provided. In March 2020, in response to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease, New School, like many other universities, transitioned to remote online-only education, canceled on-campus recreational events, canceled student activity events, and ordered students to refrain from going on campus. As a result, all on-campus education, services, and amenities were no longer available to New School students. This lawsuit seeks disgorgement of the prorated, unused amounts of the fees that Plaintiff and other putative Class Members paid, but for which they (or the students on behalf of whom they paid) were not provided the benefit, as well as a partial prorated tuition reimbursement representing the difference in fair market value between the on-campus product for which they had paid, and the online product that they received. The Plaintiff, an undergraduate student during the Spring 2020 semester, chose and paid tuition and fees to enroll in New School's on-campus, in-person education program, including all the benefits and services associated therewith for the entirety of the semester. New School is a university founded in 1919. New School offers numerous major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a number of graduate programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Anthony Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 1 Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, 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 nickc@lcllp.com PALM ENTERTAINMENT: Dahlquist Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool -------------------------------------------------------- Renee Terees Dahlquist, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Palm Entertainment, LLC, d/b/a Pub 42, Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-24-1859 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 4th Judicial, Hennepin Cty., February 5, 2024) alleges violations of the Minnesota Statutes Sections 181.14. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a server at its 7600 42nd Ave. N., New Hope, MN 55427 property from March 16, 2022, through her resignation in September 5, 2022. Allegedly, the Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff her full earnings in a timely manner because it diverted compensation from her by requiring coercing her to pay into an illegal tip pool and thereby reducing her compensation, says the suit. With a registered office address at 321 Westwood Drive North Golden Valley, MN 55422, Palm Entertainment, LLC owns and operates Pub 42. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Satre, Esq. SATRE LAW FIRM INTERNATIONAL PLAZA 7900 International Drive, Suite 300-7044 Bloomington, MN 55425 Telephone: (651) 212-4919 Facsimile: (651) 212-4203 E-mail: esatre@satrelaw.com admin@satrelaw.com PERELMAN'S FAMILY: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA WAHAB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERELMAN'S FAMILY JEWELRY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00385 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.kingsjewelry.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted on January 1, 2024 and again on January 4, 2024 to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, Plaintiff wanted to purchase the Men's Diamond Ring (Sterling Silver 1/10 Carat Total Weight Diamond With 8X6mm Emerald Shaped Black Onyx Center Surrounded By Rounds). Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the Men's Diamond Ring that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website, says the suit. 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. Perelman's Family Jewelry, Inc. is an online retailer offering various types of jewelry including engagement rings, wedding bands, custom jewelry, and fashion jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com PETER MARCUS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bullock Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN BULLOCK, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. PETER MARCUS PARADIGM, LLC, d/b/a Good Wipes, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00758 (S.D.N.Y., February 2, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily trafficked retail websites, which makes use of alternative text, accessible forms, descriptive links, resizable text and limits the usage of tables and JavaScript, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. Defendant's sighted customers can independently browse, select, and buy online without the assistance of others. However, blind persons must rely on sighted companions to assist them in accessing and purchasing on www.goodwipes.com, says the suit. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Peter Marcus Paradigm, LLC, is a Delaware Foreign limited liability company that manufactures and sells plant-based wet wipes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone. (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com PLANET HOME: Canepa Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ------------------------------------------------------ FRANK CANEPA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00140 (D. Conn., February 2, 2024) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on November 15, 2023, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive personally identifiable information that was being kept unprotected and alleges claims against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as November 15, 2023, Defendant did not file a Notice of data breach with the Office of the Maine Attorney General until January 25, 2024, and did not inform victims of the data breach by mailing them copies of the Notice until late January of 2024. Despite the prevalence of public announcements of data breaches and data security compromises, Defendant failed to take appropriate steps to protect Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from being compromised, says the suit. Headquartered in Connecticut, Planet Home Lending provides home loan services to individuals and businesses across the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com PRGB INC: Clarke Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD CLARKE, individually and behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRGB, INC. A BUILD, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-001522 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., February 2, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. On December 15, 2023, Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to Plaintiff in connection of the consumer debt. However, the communication was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff at 10:01 PM in Plaintiff's time zone, says the suit. Based in Draper, UT, PRGB, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that credit building products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Jennifer G. Simil, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC. 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 PRIMMER PIPER: Gaboriault Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info --------------------------------------------------------------- SHAWNA GABORIAULT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMMER, PIPER, EGGLESTON, & CRAMER, PC, and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00113-wks (D. Vt., February 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligent hiring and retention, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, publication of private facts, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within the Defendants' network system following a data breach that occurred from November 8, 2021, to November 11, 2021. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Primmer, Piper, Eggleston, & Cramer, PC is a law firm, headquartered in Burlington, Vermont. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew B. Delaney, Esq. P.O. Box 607 100 N. Main St. Barre, VT 05641 Telephone: (802) 479-0568 E-mail: andrew@mdrvt.com - and - Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cooper Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK W. COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES; and PURITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10251-ADB (D. Mass., Jan. 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, the Plaintiff and Class Members' names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. According to the complaint, despite its duties to the Plaintiff and Class Members related to and arising from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services and applications involving MOVEit, the Defendants stored, maintained, and hosted the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information on its MOVEit transfer services software that was negligently and recklessly configured and maintained so as to contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in multiple breaches of its network and systems or of its customers' networks and systems. As a result of the breach, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. As a result of Defendants' unreasonable and inadequate data security practices that resulted in the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members are at a current and ongoing substantial risk of identity theft and have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, says the suit. Progress Software Corporation develops, markets, and distributes applications. The Company offers databases, application, messaging servers, and development tools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 Email: kristenj@hbsslaw.com - and - Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: sean@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com PROSTAFF SERVICES: Velasquez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Teofila A. Velasquez and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Prostaff Services USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-20401-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 31, 2024) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards Act. Prostaff Cleaning employed Plaintiff Velasquez as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly housekeeping employee from approximately August 28, 2023, to December 17, 2023, or 16 weeks. During her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked a total of 45.5 hours weekly and she did not take bonafide lunchtime hours. However, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half her regular rate for every hour that she worked over 40, says the suit. Based in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Prostaff Services USA LLC is a commercial cleaning company that provides services to the hospitality industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SANSAI-PASADENA: Mendez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- ARMANDO HERRERA MENDEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANSAI-PASADENA, a business entity form unknown; PREMIUM ALTERNATIVE, INC., a California Corporation; YON S. LIPSKY; an individual; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01386 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 18, 2024) arises from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code arising out of, among other things, failure to pay wages, pay overtime, provide meal and rest breaks to its employees, furnish accurate wage statements, and maintain accurate payroll records. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work at their restaurant for approximately 15 years through approximately November 18, 2023. SANSAI-PASADENA, a business entity form unknown, and PREMIUM ALTERNATIVE, INC., a California Corporation, operate a curated food delivery service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq. SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (818) 473-5003 Facsimile: (818) 476-5619 E-mail: contact@slawla.com SIKA AG: Artificially Inflated Prices for CCAs, D'Onofrio Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- D'ONOFRIO GENERAL CONTRACTORS 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.; SAINT-GOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00783 (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful agreement to fix the prices for (a) concrete admixtures, (b) cement additives, and (c) admixtures for mortar (collectively, "CCAs"). CCAs, which can be either liquid or powdered, are added to concrete, cement, and mortar before or during the aggregate's mixing with water to give the finished product certain qualities. In sum, beginning no later than May 11, 2018, the Defendants entered into an agreement to consolidate their control over the global manufacture of CCAs and charge supracompetitive prices for CCAs through price increases and the imposition of surcharges. This agreement, which was effectuated through the Defendants' shared membership in numerous trade associations, resulted in the Plaintiff and members of the Class paying supra-competitive prices for CCAs in the United States and its territories. Through this action, the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and members of the Class, seeks to recover the overcharges they paid to the Defendants. D'Onofrio General Contractors Corp. is a construction company, with its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. Sika AG is a specialty chemicals company, with its primary place of business at Zugerstrasse 50 Baar, Zug, 6341 Switzerland. Sika Corporation is a specialty chemicals company based in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. Chryso, Inc. is a construction chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Rockwall, Texas. GCP Applied Technologies Inc. is a chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia. Compagnie de Saint-Gobain S.A. is a manufacturing company, with its primary place of business in France. Saint-Gobain North America is a building materials manufacturer based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. Master Builders Solutions Admixtures US, LLC is a chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Beachwood, Ohio. Master Builders Solutions Deutschland GmbH is a chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Mannheim, Germany. Cinven Ltd. is a private equity firm in London, England. Cinven, Inc. is a private equity firm in Manhattan, New York. The Euclid Chemical Company is a chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Cleveland, Ohio. RPM International, Inc. is a chemicals company, with its primary place of business in Medina, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Burt, Esq. Lillian R. Grinnell, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-1094 E-mail: burt@whafh.com grinnell@whafh.com - and - Fred T. Isquith, Sr., Esq. ISQUITH LAW PLLC 103 East 84th Street New York, NY 10028 Telephone: (718) 775-6478 E-mail: isquithlaw@gmail.com - and - Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (646) 799-6729 SUNCAKES LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ferguson Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ANGELIQUE FERGUSON; and IRIS HULSEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUNCAKES, L.L.C.; and SUNCAKES, TN, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00099 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 30, 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. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers. SUNCAKES, L.L.C. owns and operates IHOP franchised restaurants in Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com UNITED STATES: Various Parties File Suit Over Tolling Program ------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORKERS AGAINST CONGESTION PRICING TAX, DANNY BUZZETTA, DR. GREGOR WINKEL, LEE BERMAN, MEREDITH LeVANDE, RITA SUE SIEGEL, TOMMY LOEB, KATHRYN FREED, TREVER HOLLAND, RICKY YANG, PAUL ENG, BARUCH WEISS, ROBERT FRIEDRICH, KEVIN FORRESTAL, WARREN SCHREIBER, CHRISTOPHER RYAN, BEN MASON, DENNIS ROSARIO, RABBI Y.S. GINZBERG, JACOB ENGLANDER, AARON GONZALEZ, HOWARD CHIN, ELAINE LA PENNA, THOMAS ANTHONY SCARPACI, COUNCILMEMBER JOSEPH C. BORELLI, COUNCILMEMBER KRISTY MARMORATO, COUNCILMEMBER VICKIE PALADINO, COUNCILMEMBER JOANN ARIOLA, COUNCILMEMBER SUSAN ZHUANG, COUNCILMEMBER KALMAN YEGER, COUNCILMEMBER INNA VERNIKOV, COUNCILMEMBER DAVID CARR, COUNCILMEMBER ROBERT F. HOLDEN and ASSEMBLYMEMBER DAVID WEPRIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, SHAILEN BHATT, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, RICHARD J. MARQUIS, in his official capacity as Division Administrator of the New York Division of the Federal Highway Administration, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC MOBILITY REVIEW BOARD, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00367 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2024) is a class action joining other legal challenges brought by institutional, individual and pro se litigants to the arbitrary, capricious and unlawful proposed implementation of New York's Central Business District Tolling Program, referred here as Congestion Pricing. The Plaintiffs comprise grassroots community-based organizations and a cross-section of citizens representing various communities in New York City. The Plaintiffs raise critical socioeconomic issues left unexamined or unresolved by virtue of Defendants' unlawfully abbreviated and truncated environmental review process. They challenge FHWA's failure to conduct and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. FHWA published a Finding of No Significant Impact on June 22, 2023 in relation to the environmental consequences of Congestion Pricing despite the prior publication of a Final Environmental Assessment in May 2023 that found significant adverse environmental consequences, says the suit. According to the complaint, the significant environmental consequences of Congestion Pricing concern, among other things, the severe adverse impacts of increased traffic flow and congestion to certain neighborhoods within and in proximity to the Central Business District, particularly communities of low income, minority populations and neighborhoods designated as environmental justice communities, and the financial burdens upon the working poor with no mass transit options to commute to their employment. The Plaintiffs are residents of environmental justice communities in Chinatown, the Lower East Side, Clinton, East Harlem and the South Bronx. Due to Congestion Pricing, Plaintiffs and members of the putative class face risks of health concerns increasing the likelihood of heart and lung diseases, acute and chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks and general respiratory problems and premature mortality, the suit says. United States Department of Transportation is the executive department of the federal government responsible for oversight of the transportation planning process.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack L. Lester, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACK L. LESTER, ESQ. 41 Squaw Road East Hampton, NY 11937 Telephone: (631) 604-2228 E-mail: Jllcomlaw@aol.com UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Snyder Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Snyder, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Universty of Chicago Medical Center, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00985 (N.D. Ill., February 3, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, penalties, and attorney's fees and costs from the University of Chicago in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff Snyder was a full-time employee of UChicago who worked as an hourly-paid patient transport specialist from approximately April, 2017 through approximately February, 2023. Following the outbreak of the Coronavirus, UChicago implemented a company-wide policy requiring each of its hourly, non-exempt employees to undergo a physical and medical examination to check for symptoms of the Coronavirus each shift. This examination was imposed by UChicago as a requirement to work each shift. The examination was required by UChicago and was necessary for each employee to perform his/her work for UChicago. Unfortunately, UChicago refused to pay for this time, says the suit. Based in Hyde Park, IL, UChicago is a not-for-profit academic medical health system with hospitals, outpatient clinics and physician practices throughout Chicago and its suburbs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW, LLC 8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: 847-986-5889 Facsimile: 847-673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS: Discloses Private Info, Claxton Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Claxton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Univision Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00840 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2024) alleges that the Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by knowingly and intentionally disclosing the personally identifiable information of its website users. According to the complaint, Mr. Claxton never consented, agreed, nor otherwise permitted Defendant to disclose his PII and viewing information to third parties and certainly did not do so. Likewise, Defendant never gave Mr. Claxton the opportunity to prevent the disclosure to and interception of his PII by third parties. Univision is one of the largest Spanish media conglomerates and video content providers in the United States. Defendant owns and operates several online and mobile streaming applications, including www.tv.univision.com. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Suite 4667 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com VERIZON WIRELESS: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set April 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clifford Colby, writing for CNET, reports that you could be owed money in 2024 as part of a proposed $100 million settlement of a class action lawsuit, if you're a current or former Verizon customer who purchased a traditional, postpaid wireless plan in the past seven years. Verizon is making the payments to address claims that its service plans were misleading because the advertised prices didn't include an administrative charge. In the suit, the plaintiffs alleged (PDF) that Verizon Wireless implemented, charged and increased an administrative fee for postpaid wireless or data services in a deceptive and unfair manner. In a statement to CNET, a Verizon spokesperson said the company "clearly identifies and describes its wireless consumer Admin Charge multiple times during the sales transaction, as well as in its marketing, contracts and billing. This charge helps our company recover certain regulatory compliance and network-related costs." Here's what to know about the proposed settlement, including who is eligible for a payment of up to $100 and how to submit a claim. Here's how to check if your state has money or property you can claim. Who's eligible for money from the Verizon class action settlement? You may be eligible if you are a current or former US customer who purchased postpaid wireless or data services from Verizon and paid an administrative charge or an administrative and telco recovery charge between Jan. 1, 2016, and Nov. 8, 2023. A postpaid wireless plan means customers pay for the service after they use it, at the end of their billing cycle. The settlement doesn't include customers who purchased prepaid plans from Verizon. In an October fact sheet, Verizon reported that it served about 93 million retail postpaid customers as of Sept. 30, 2023. If you received a notice about the settlement by email or mail, you are eligible to file a claim, according to the official Verizon administrative charge settlement website. What settlement amount could I receive? If the settlement is approved and finalized, Verizon will pay $100 million into a settlement fund. Customers filing valid claims by the deadline could receive up to $100 each as part of the settlement, depending on how long they were a Verizon subscriber and how many valid claims are filed. How do I claim money as part of the Verizon settlement? The settlement's administrative site has a claim form that eligible class members can fill out and submit online. You can also download (PDF), fill out and mail a paper form to this address: Verizon Administrative Charge Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 The deadline to submit a claim is 11:59:59 p.m. PT, April 15, 2024. When will I get my settlement money? The settlement FAQ says payments will be issued by check or electronic payment after the settlement is approved and finalized. A hearing is scheduled for March 22, 2024. [GN] VIRGIN PULSE: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Elston Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHIRLEY ELSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIRGIN PULSE, INC. and WELLTOK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-05096 (W.D. Wash., February 2, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of an implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violations of the Washington Data Breach Disclosure Law and the Washington State Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within the Defendants' MOVEit software technology following a data breach in May 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Virgin Pulse, Inc. is a software development company, headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. Welltok, Inc. is a Software as a Service (SaaS) company based in Providence, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean R. Matt, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: sean@hbsslaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com [*] Current Issues Discussed in Data Breach Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark A. Olthoff and Shundra Crumpton Manning, writing for mondaq, report that very few civil cases ever reach a jury. Nearly every lawsuit is at some point resolved by the court on motion or through settlement. Class action cases are no different, including those filed after data breach incidents. Accordingly, developing a strategy early in a lawsuit timeline is critical -- whether to seek an early dismissal or an early out of court resolution. This article discusses a number of developments in the past year impacting class action settlements. And whether a case settles for tens of millions of dollars or substantially less, these recent events should be a part of any settlement consideration. Class Certification First, as we reported last year in this publication, two federal courts recently certified classes in data breach cases. Both cases were appealed and, in each instance, the appeals courts reversed or vacated the district court decisions (albeit for different reasons). While the lower courts' certification orders demonstrate data breach cases can be appropriate for class treatment, the fact that appeals courts have closely scrutinized the district courts' conclusions also shows there is uncertainty. In turn, a well-known axiom for any settle environment is where uncertainty exists on either or both sides. Claims Rates and Notices Second, courts, particularly in the federal system, are increasingly scrutinizing settlements in terms of fairness, reasonableness, and result. Courts are evaluating the claim rates and adequacy of notices being used. A California federal judge recently complained that predicted rates of 1%-9% were too low. He also found that the settlement notice provided to class members was too long and complicated. In denying the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval, the judge told the lawyers to find a way to boost up the expected number of claims. In another recent instance, a Michigan federal judge became irked when the settlement presented to him describing potential payouts failed to consider that settlement costs and attorney fees were being deducted from the settlement fund. He found the notice was misleading and rejected preliminary approval. The First Circuit Court of Appeals also recently vacated a class settlement where it found significant differences in the claims created conflicts within the class requiring separate class representatives and would not allow for equal treatment of class awards. Finally, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a settlement finding there is no "presumption of fairness" as to a settlement agreement that was negotiated at arm's length during a lengthy mediation before a neutral party. Rather, district courts must fully analyze all aspects of a settlement under the factors in Rule 23. Aggregators and Artificial Intelligence Relatedly, another somewhat recent development is the introduction of third-party aggregators using artificial intelligence ("AI") to boost objection, opt-out, and claims rates. In essence, aggregators are using AI to locate class members and then communicate with them to file objections, opt-outs (with the possibility of filing other suits), or submit claims on behalf of the class members. At least one court has sounded an alarm and rejected the use of an AI aggregator for these purposes. See In re Juul Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 2023 WL 6205473 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2023). The court overruled objections and set aside aggregated claims reasoning there was a lack of control over class communications and notice. On the other hand, some commentators have expressed that the use of AI could lead to more class member participation, better class notice, improvements in class administration, and higher claim rates. That said, AI is not a panacea for all problems and safeguards to prevent abuses and fraud would have to be implemented. Attorney's Fees Counsel fees continue to be a source of judicial consternation and a number of courts have continued to question attorney's fee awards in settlements. In a June 2023 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, the court reversed (and revoked) a district court order where the plaintiffs initially sought $6 million and the court reduced it to $1.7 million. Still, the appeals court rejected the amount because -- in the claims-made settlement -- only $53,000 in compensation was claimed. This resulted in attorney's fees of more than 30 times the amount. This case and others like it are now being used to change class action settlement structures. Plaintiffs are aggressively pushing for settlement terms that include non-monetary class-wide relief such as credit monitoring or certain forms of injunctive relief to demonstrate the value of the class settlement. There are also a significant number of cases where plaintiffs are demanding a common fund structure (as opposed to claims-made) to reduce the risk that settlements are not approved because they do not sufficiently compensate class members. Historically, claims-made settlements have been a better approach in data breach settlements because the structure permits compensation to be awarded to those class members that have interest in the settlement and have been harmed by the incident. A common fund structure, on the other hand, merely distributes a settlement fund without regard to anyone's possible damage -- potentially resulting in overpayments and underpayments to particular class members. Residual Settlement Funds Finally, residual settlement funds have received attention in the past year. Frequently, in a common fund settlement, these are funds remaining due to an inability to locate every class member. Several alternatives exist to distribute the remainder: (1) reversion to the defendant, (2) re-distribute to the class members who are known, (3) distribute to a cy pres recipient, (4) or escheat to a government. Ordinarily, courts reject returning money to the defendant that paid to settle and, in some instances, it is infeasible or uneconomical to re-distribute to the class members. This leaves alternatives (3) or (4) most likely. In the past year, courts have continued to struggle with the tension of distributing money to a cy pres recipient that has no connection to the lawsuit and judges determining how much should be awarded to any particular organization. In addition, critics have commented that cy pres awards divert funds from the real beneficiaries of the settlement. This said, courts have recently approved both cy pres distributions and awarded residual funds to the U.S. Treasury. The validity and application of cy pres and other alternatives will continue to be addressed by the courts. Each of these developments will continue to impact the future of data breach class actions and settlements. There are opportunities to be creative and seek novel ways to resolve these claims and parties and counsel alike should be open to building settlements that can reach the proposed classes yet also consider the necessary safeguards to protect against abuses. [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 ***