/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240220.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, February 20, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 37
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement Granted
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in SDNY
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Ad-Free Streaming Charges
AMAZON.COM INC: Prime Subscribers File Class Action in Washington
AMYLYX PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 9
AUTONATION INC: Rivers Consumer Credit Suit Removed to D.S.C.
BANKERS LIFE: Harper Files Contract Suit in N.D. Illinois
BIG LEAGUE: Durante Files Civil Suit in California State Court
CARTESIAN THERAPEUTICS: Barabe Sues Over Misleading Statements
CCS ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Premium, Kelly Claims
CIGNA HEALTH: Sealing Bid on Class Cert Briefing Partly OK'd
CINFED FEDERAL CREDIT: Paige Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Kirkpatrick Files Suit in S.D. Florida
CLEAR HEALTH LLC: Davis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLOUD 9 ONLINE: Ledbetter Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Vape Pens
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Must Faces Securities Class Suit, Judge Rules
COLONIAL PENN: Cole Suit Removed to E.D. California
CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend Casey Class Suitin
CONTANGO RESOURCES: Rising Phoenix Files Suit in D. Wyoming
CRAFTY CRAB: Karichkowsky Seeks Unpaid OT for Restaurant Servers
CURIOSITYSTREAM: Bid to Appoint Bursor & Fisher as Counsel Nixed
DAIRLYLAND USA: Completion of Fact Discovery Due June 1
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: International Brotherhood Seeks to Certify Class
DELTA COUNTY, TX: Taylor Suit Stayed Pending Ruling on Class Cert
DELTA DENTAL: Dentists Seek to Certify Antitrust Class Suit
DEMI INC: Martinez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
DOCUSIGN INC: Considers Sealing of Materials in Weston
DOLLAR TREE: Alvarado Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
DOWNSTATE HEALTH: Underpays Senior Staff Assistants, Sanders Says
DUNKIN DONUTS: Garland Sues Over Discriminatory Surcharge
EDWARD JONES: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Dixon Suit
EF INSTITUTE: Kirkland Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
EL CHE CORPORATION: Leon Files Civil Suit in Cal. State Court
ENFANTS RICHES DEPRIMES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Rothman Suit Seeks to Certify Class
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Rothman Suit Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Several Antitrust Raps Over Price-rigging
ESURANCE PROPERTY: Katz Sues Over Breaches of Insurance Policies
FAIRWINDS CREDIT UNION: Stewart Files Suit in M.D. Florida
FANDANGO MEDIA: Kirk Alleges VPPA Violations on Unlawful Disclosure
FANDANGO MEDIA: Mannion Sues Over Unlawful Convenience Fee
FANNIE MAE: Plaintiffs Seek Prompt Approval of Judgment
FINCANTIERI MARINE: Fredrickson Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
FIRST AMERICAN: Settlement Class in Kimble Suit Gets Initial Nod
FORD MOTOR: Ecoboost Class Action Lawsuit Premature, Alleges Firm
FORD MOTOR: Response to Class Cert Brief Extended to March 13
FORRESTER RESEARCH: McLaughlin Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
FORTUNE SCHOOL: Elder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FRANKLIN CREDIT: Smith Files TCPA Class Suit in D. New Jersey
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Fowlkes TCPA Suit Files in D. New Jersey
FRONTIER ENVIRONMENTAL: Class Certification Discovery Due July 8
FULL SAIL: Parties Must Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Bid in Kiriacopoulos Extended to March 1
GERBER LIFE: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal
GOAT USA: Fagnani Sues Over Violation of Disabled's Civil Rights
GOLDMAN SACHS: Averts Class Action Over 401(k) Mutual Funds
GREENTREE HOME: Gonzalez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HAYKINGDOM INC: Salas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Story Can File Class Cert. Exhibits Under Seal
HERMES BNY: Settlement OK'd, Ramirez Suit Dismissed
HESAI GROUP: Pacella Class Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y.
HIGHTECHLENDING INC: June 29 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
HILL'S PET: Faces KetoNatural Suit Over False Pet Food Marketing
HILL'S PET: Plaintiffs Consider Sealing Materials
HMPS MANAGEMENT: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Breaks, Ramirez Says
HOME PARTNERS: Durham Sues Over Misleading Leases
HOME PARTNERS: Sheard Sues Over Misleading & Unenforceable Leases
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Giguere Seeks to Supplement Class Cert Reply
HORNE LLP: Hemphill Sues Over Breach of Contract in S.D. Miss.
HORSE AND HOME: Sends Unwanted Marketing Calls, Clarke Suit Says
HUDSON COUNTY, NJ: Kidwai Files Suit in D. New Jersey
HUT 8 CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 8
HUT 8 CORP: Mayiras Sues Over Misleading Statements
IFIT INC: Court OK's Douglass Unopposed Bid to Amend
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Beerly Files Negligence Suit in Oklahoma Court
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Faces Criticism on Cyberattack Class Suit Response
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Harper Files Negligence Suit in Oklahoma Court
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Salcedo Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct.
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Warner Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct.
INTERVET INC: Aviles Suit Removed to C.D. California
J & C ENERGY: Faces Garner TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
JIM N. NICKS NICEVILLE: Gettinger Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morris Files Suit in D. Colorado
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Prescription Drugs' Overcharges
JUST SALAD: Lewis Sues Over FTSA's Caller ID Rule Violations
KELLER BROTHERS: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Hernandez Says
KIA AMERICA INC: Hurst Suit Transferred to C.D. California
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Settlement Deal in Honigman Gets Final Nod
L'OCCITANE INC: Takes Aim at Zimmerman Reed Over Mass Arbitrations
LAZER SPOT: Johnson Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
LEGATOS HOLDINGS: Fagnani Sues Over Disabled Rights' Violations
LEIDOS INC: Parker Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Filing for Class Status in Luce Due May 6
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Beech Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
LONG BEACH: Tierney Sues Over Discrimination, Harassment at Work
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Newman Class Suit
LUND CONSTRUCTION: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MAKER ECOSYSTEM: $1.16MM Crypto Platform Class Settlement Okayed
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Fagnani Sues Over ADA Violations in S.D.N.Y.
MD VALUECARE: Console & Associates Investigates Data Breach
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OH: Faces Suit Over Illegal Water Bill Policy
NALLY JEWELS: Violates Disabled's Civil Rights, Gonzalez Claims
NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Faces Suit Over Voyager Digital Promotion
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Faces Antitrust Class Action in S.D. New York
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Can Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid
NATIONSTAR: Hurst Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
NESTLE USA: Falcone Suit Seeks Class Certification
NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Lemm Sues Over Misleading Business Statements
NILKHANT 2 CAR WASH: Yanes Sues to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
NORTHEASTERN HEALTH: Fact Discovery in Beckwith Suit Due July 18
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Gelman Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Gerber Files Suit in E.D. New York
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Hutcheon Files Suit in E.D. New York
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Yudin Files Suit in E.D. New York
NOVAVAX INC: Sinnathurai Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
NY CAPRI NAILS: Judge Recommends Denial of Li Class Cert Bid
NYC HARLEM: Class Settlement in Medina Suit Gets Initial Nod
OPENAI INC: Court Dismisses Copyright Infringement Class Suit
OPTEON APPRAISAL: Portions of Kimble's Corrective Action Reserved
ORLANDO HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due August 19
OROBORO INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OSI SYSTEMS: Pratt Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
PACIFIC LIFE: Johnson Privacy Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PAINTYOURLIFE LLC: Karmas Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
PANERA LLC: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Deadline Nixed
PENNEY OPCO LLC: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
PEOPLESBANK: Roswess Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Mellor Sues Over Shale Oil Market Conspiracy
PERSONA IDENTITIES: Parker & Batista Sue Over Biometric Collection
PERSONAL TOUCH: Class Settlement in Everetts Suit Gets Initial Nod
PHILLIPS 66: Robbins Seeks Summary Judgment on Liability
PINNACLE TOO: Charles Bid to Extend Discovery Deadline OK'd
PISA GROUP: Court OK's Notice to Class in Williams Suit
PK MANAGEMENT: Bejgi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
POLISH ON PEARL: Lee Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Snowdon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
POSTMEDS INC: Cohen Suit Removed to C.D. California
PRESSLER FELT: McKenzie Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
PRIMAL NUTRITION: Fagnani Sues Over Disabled Rights' Violations
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Rivera Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Brouse Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
QUENTIN SMILE DENTAL: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bratten Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
RALPH LAUREN: Salazar Files ADA Suit in N.D. California
REFINITIV US: All Discovery in Yayla Class Suit Due Feb. 13, 2025
RENO, NE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Castellanos Suit
RESTORATION HOLDINGS: Nissenbaum Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Hill
ROBLEN LLC: Cojom Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Discrimination
SAFELITE GROUP: Adams FTSA Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to M.D. Fla.
SALEM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: Stone Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
SAN DIEGO, CA: Legal Claims Over Flooding Seek Class-Action Status
SASR WORKFORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Kirksey Says
SELECT HEALTH: Mulvihill Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
SELECT REHAB: Plaintiffs Seek to File Third Amended Complaint
SERVICE EXPERTS: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Fagas Alleges
SHAWN LIQUORS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SIKA AG: J&L Imperium Alleges Price Fixing of Concrete Admixtures
SINGING RIVER HEALTH: Holder Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
SINGLEPOINT OUTSOURCING: Console & Associates Probes Breach Suit
SNACK HOUSE: Fagnani Sues Over ADA Violations in S.D.N.Y.
SOUTHERN FARM: Donley Insurance Contract Suit Removed to E.D. Ark.
STATE FARM: Court Dismisses Baldwin Suit
STUBHUB INC: Kern and Ball Sue Over Unlawful Ticket Fees
SUGARMDS LLC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNNYVALLEY SMOKE: Hernandez Files Civil Suit in Cal. State Court
TATA CONSULTANCY: Ross Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TAYLOR UNIVERSITY: McLaughlin Files Suit in N.D. Indiana
TELADOC HEALTH: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. New York
TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges
TIMOTHY LARSON: Ridenhour Files Suit in D. Connecticut
TOMMY BAHAMA R&R: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Maintenance Plans
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Solis Fraud Suit in S.D. California
TROPICANA MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Morgan Says
TRUEACCORD CORP: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
TRUEACCORD CORP: Wilson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
TUSK LTD: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
UN EXPRESS CORP: Shavlovsky Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Discrimination Class Suit for $6M
UNITED STATES: McCadney Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl.
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by March 12
UNITED STATES: Urbani Files Suit in D. Oregon
UNIVERSITY UROLOGY: Diambrose Suit Included in Consolidated Actions
UNIVERSITY UROLOGY: Vivas Suit Included in Consolidated Actions
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Kraemer Files TCPA Class Suit in S.D. Illinois
UTILITY TREE: Class Settlement in Lopez Suit Gets Initial Nod
VALFAIR CONSTRUCTION: Kimmons Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VENTURA FOODS: Gramstad Suit Stayed Pending OK of Settlement
VNET GROUP: Faces Faces Class Suit Over Securities Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: May Face Suit Over Fuel Tank Suction Jet Pumps
WALMART INC: Matthews Sues Over Mislabeled Juice Product
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Overdraft Fees
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Orders to Provide Info in Child Abuse Suit
WESTERN WORLD: Master Roof Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Refrigerators
WINDHAM MOUNTAIN: Mermelstein Sues Over Improper Fee Disclosure
WINE ART AND LIQUOR: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
[*] District Court Dismisses FDCPA Suit for Lack of Standing
[*] Registration Now Open for 8th Annual Class Action Conference
[*] U.S. Class-Action Decisions for 4Q 2023 Discussed
[*] Woodruff Sawyer Sees Uptick in Securities Class Suit Filings
*********
3M COMPANY: Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that an MDL was formed in South Carolina in
2018 to litigate allegations of PFAS contamination from the use of
specific PFAS-containing Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF MDL).
In the past year, two defendants -- DuPont and 3M -- have struck
proposed agreements to settle a particular category of cases:
lawsuits filed by public water systems (PWS) and also those PWS
that may have PFAS contamination but have not filed suit.
DuPont's historic agreed settlement is worth $1.185 billion and
resolves all PFAS related drinking water claims brought by public
water systems.
The Latest
Following the December 2023 final fairness hearing, the AFFF-MDL
Court granted the parties' motion for final approval of the DuPont
class settlement and to certify the settlement class. See attached
for a copy of the order.
The court first analyzed the requirements for certification under
Federal Rule 23(a) -- (i.e., ascertainability, numerosity,
commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation) -- and found
them satisfied. The court rejected various objections, including
objections to the "typicality" of the class representatives, and
whether conflicts exist between the class representatives and class
members. The court further found that this class qualified for the
Rule 23(b)(3) category -- (i.e., that common questions of law or
fact predominate, and that a class action is the superior method of
adjudication). On this point, the court was not persuaded by
objections that targeted the fact that there are class members that
have varying amounts and types of PFAS. Lastly, the court found
that the settlement agreement was "fair, reasonable, and adequate"
under Rule 23(e), rejecting the limited number of objections
(including those concerning the breadth of the release, and the
release of indemnity claims in connection with any personal injury
actions filed against the settling water provider).
The court noted that approximately 924 public water providers opted
out of this settlement agreement (retaining their claims against
DuPont), which represents about 6.6 percent of the entire eligible
class; and only 25 eligible class members filed objections.
Looking Ahead
DuPont's agreement on its Walk-Away rights was filed under seal, so
we do not have information on what would trigger/permit the
election of that right.
If DuPont does not exercise its Walk-Away rights, this settlement
will provide funds to those public water systems that opted into
the settlement to assist in removing PFAS from their drinking water
systems. [GN]
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in SDNY
------------------------------------------------------------------
AllianceBernstein L.P. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the ERISA Class Suit in the
Southern District of New York.
On December 14, 2022, four individual participants in the Profit
Sharing Plan for Employees of AB (the "AB Profit Sharing Plan")
filed a class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against AB,
current and former members of the Compensation and Workplace
Practices Committee of the Board of Directors, and the Investment
and Administrative Committees under the AB Profit Sharing Plan.
Plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of all participants in
the AB Profit Sharing Plan from December 14, 2016 to the present,
allege that defendants violated their fiduciary duties and engaged
in prohibited transactions under ERISA by including proprietary
collective investment trusts as investment options offered in the
AB Profit Sharing Plan.
The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement and other
equitable relief. AB is prepared to defend itself vigorously
against these claims and filed a motion to dismiss on February 24,
2023.
While the outcome of this matter currently is not determinable
given the matter remains in its early stages, the Company does not
believe this litigation will have a material adverse effect on it
results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.
AllianceBernstein L.P provides diversified investment management,
research, and related services based in Tennessee.
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Ad-Free Streaming Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Sims, writing for Indianapolis Star, reports Amazon Prime
announced on Jan. 29 that Prime Video customers would start being
charged a fee for ad-free streaming, but a recent Washington
lawsuit is saying not so fast.
The class-action lawsuit against Amazon Prime -- Napoleon v. Amazon
-- states a jury trial has been requested to challenge the legality
of the recent changes made by Amazon to create an ad-free streaming
tier.
Amazon Prime Video: Service will cost you more starting in 2024 if
you want to watch without ads
Here's what you need to know:
Is there an Amazon Prime class-action lawsuit over ad-free
streaming?
Yes. A class-action lawsuit was filed in the state of Washington by
plaintiff Wilbert Napoleon of Eastvale, Calif., on Feb. 9, 2024.
What does Amazon Prime lawsuit mean for consumers?
The class-action lawsuit is listed in excess of $5 million,
excluding interest and costs.
According to the lawsuit, Amazon has provided ad-free streaming of
movies and television shows on Prime Video for more than a decade.
When Amazon decided to charge a fee for ad-free viewing, all
customers were impacted including customers "who purchased the
yearly, ad-free subscription, and who are now mid-way through their
subscription."
The lawsuit claims subscribers already paid for the ad-free version
and it is unfair for the company to charge consumers for a service
in which they have already paid.
To support the claim, the lawsuit also notes Amazon advertised the
subscription as a service that included ad-free streaming of movies
and TV. The plaintiff states he and other consumers bought the
service "believing that it would include ad-free streaming of
movies and tv shows. But it does not."
The class-action lawsuit includes the citizens of every state.
Amazon Prime Video ad fee changes
Customers wanting to maintain the ad-free viewing experience are
expected to pay an additional $2.99 per month. Subscribers received
an email ahead of ads being introduced with information on how to
choose the more expensive ad-free tier.
According to USA Today, the advertisement launch begins in Canada,
Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States in early 2024.
Australia, France, Italy, Mexico and Spain will start later in the
year.
What is Amazon Prime Video membership cost or price?
The current price for an Amazon Prime Video membership is currently
$8.99 per month, while Amazon Prime -- which includes Prime Video
-- is $14.99 per month or $139 per year. Ad-free viewing would
require an additional $2.99 charge.
How do I cancel Amazon Prime Video?
Visit amazon.com to cancel your Prime Video membership. Click on
"Manage Your Prime Membership" to get started. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Prime Subscribers File Class Action in Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Gruenwedel, writing for MediaPlayNews, reports that a Prime
Video subscriber in California has filed a lawsuit against Amazon
alleging the recent rollout of an ad-supported option forces annual
and longtime subscribers to pay more ($2.99 monthly) for the
ad-free service option.
The suit, filed Feb. 9 by plaintiff Wilbert Napoleon in U.S.
District Court in Washington, alleges Amazon is violating multiple
consumer protection laws by misleading Prime subscribers who signed
up with the belief they were getting access to ad-free video
content.
Napoleon, who renewed his annual Prime membership in June 2023,
believes he should have access to ad-free Prime Video through May
2024 before having to decide whether to pay an additional monthly
fee.
"Reasonable consumers expect that, if you purchase a subscription
with ad-free streaming of movies and tv shows, that the ad-free
streaming for movies and TV shows is available for the duration of
the purchased subscription," read the complaint.
Napoleon, who is seeking an injunction and undisclosed financial
damages, wants the suit classified as class action status affecting
all Prime subscribers through Dec. 28, 2023. The suit claims there
are 160 million Prime subscribers in the United States. [GN]
AMYLYX PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 15 disclosed that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Amylyx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Amylyx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AMLX)
securities between November 11, 2022 and November 8, 2023,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AMX0035's
(commercially referred to as "RELYVRIO" in the U.S.), a treatment
used for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ("ALS"), also known as Lou
Gehrig's disease, commercial prospects; (2) patients were
discontinuing treatment with RELYVRIO after six months; (3) the
rate at which new patients were starting treatment with RELYVRIO
was decreasing; (4) accordingly, defendants had also overstated
RELYVRIO's prescription rate; (5) Defendants attempted to hide the
foregoing negative trends from investors and the market by blocking
analysts from viewing RELYVRIO's prescription data; and (6) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Amylyx
should contact the Firm prior to the April 9, 2024 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300.
Please visit our website at for more information about the firm.
[GN]
AUTONATION INC: Rivers Consumer Credit Suit Removed to D.S.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIANA RIVERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AUTONATION INC., Case No.
2024CP0700008, was removed from Beaufort Court of Common Pleas to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on
February 6, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 9:24-cv-00604-BHH to the proceeding.
The nature of the suit is stated as 480 Consumer Credit.
AutoNation Inc. is a used car dealers company headquartered in
Florida. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James Y. Becker, Esq.
HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD
P.O. Box 11889
Columbia, SC 29211
Telephone: (803) 779-3080
Facsimile: (803) 765-1243
E-mail: jbecker@hsblawfirm.com
BANKERS LIFE: Harper Files Contract Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bankers Life and
Casualty Company. The case is captioned as KENNETH HARPER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01105 (N.D.
Ill., February 7, 2024).
The suit is brought over alleged contract violations.
Bankers Life and Casualty Company is an insurance company
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
BIG LEAGUE: Durante Files Civil Suit in California State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big League Dreams
Manteca, a California limited liability company, et al. The case is
captioned as RHIANA DURANTE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. BIG LEAGUE DREAMS MANTECA, a
California limited liability company, et al., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2024-0001461 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., February 6,
2024).
A case management conference is set for August 30, 2024, before
Judge George J. Abdallah.
Big League Dreams Manteca is a sports venue operator in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park E., Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 712-8010
E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
CARTESIAN THERAPEUTICS: Barabe Sues Over Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN SLOAN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of CARTESIAN THERAPEUTICS, INC., Plaintiff v. TIMOTHY
BARABE, CARSTEN BRUNN, CARRIE SMITH COX, MURAT KALAYOGLU, AYMERIC
SALLIN, NISHAN DE SILVA, TIMOTHY SPRINGER, PATRICK ZENNER, and
CARTESIAN THERAPEUTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0105 (Del.
Ch., February 7, 2024) accuses the members of Cartesian's board of
directors for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the
solicitation of stockholder approval of the issuance of shares of
the Cartesian's common stock upon the conversion of shares of the
Cartesian's Series A Preferred Stock issued in connection with a
series of related merger transactions.
On January 31, 2024, Cartesian filed the proxy with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. Allegedly, the proxy failed to disclose a
litany of material information, the disclosure of which is
necessary for Cartesian stockholders to make an informed decision
whether to vote for or against the issuance proposal. Among other
things, the proxy failed to disclose for the disparity between the
company’s public market valuation and the final valuation, says
the suit.
Cartesian Therapeutics, Inc. is a Delaware corporation previously
known as Selecta Biosciences, Inc., went public in 2016 and its
primary product was, until the Merger, the ImmTOR platform, which
has the potential to mitigate unwanted immune responses to
autoantigens, gene therapy vectors and therapeutic vectors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3889
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19074
Telephone: (888) 715-1740
- and -
Abbott Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
Telephone: (475) 477-5031
CCS ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Premium, Kelly Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KELLY, individually and for others similarly situated v.
CCS ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a UNITED LOCATING SERVICES, Case No.
9:24-cv-00022-DWM (D. Mont., February 6, 2024) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from CCS Enterprises, LLC
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Kelly worked as a utility locator from August 2016 until
October 2020 and again, from October 2023 through December 2023.
While working as a utility locator, CCS Enterprises paid Kelly
under its illegal piece rate pay scheme, paying him a set amount
for each utility he located and marked. Moreover, CCS Enterprises
failed to pay Kelly overtime at the proper premium rate when he
worked more than 40 hours in a week, says the suit.
Headquartered in Missoula, MT, CCS Enterprises LLC provides
underground utility locating and damage prevention services to its
clients across multiple states. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq.
BECHTOLD LAW FIRM, PLLC
P.O. Box 7051
Missoula, MT 59807
Telephone: (406) 721-1435
E-mail: tim@bechtoldlaw.net
CIGNA HEALTH: Sealing Bid on Class Cert Briefing Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RJ, et al., v. CIGNA
HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-02255-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Parties'
renewed sealing motions regarding class certification briefing:
-- The Defendants' Motion is granted in part with respect to the
proposed redactions to Motion Exhibit 10, and otherwise
denied
as moot;
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion, is granted in part with respect to
the
proposed redactions to Motion Exhibits 8, 9, 16, 18, and 22
and
Reply Exhibits 2, 3, 11, and 12; and otherwise denied without
prejudice.
-- Within seven days of the entry of this order, the Plaintiffs
shall file one or more (as appropriate) of the following:
a. A statement advising the Court that the Plaintiffs
stipulate
to one or more of the excerpts to Motion Exhibits 3, 5,
15,
17, and 30 and Reply Exhibits 9, 10, and 13 proposed by
the
Defendants, after which the Court will evaluate the
sealability of those excerpts and make no ruling with
respect
to the sealability of the remainder of the documents;
and/or
b. A stipulated request to redact or seal with respect to one
or
more of the documents at issue (in which case Plaintiffs
shall also attach sealed and public versions of the
proposed
redactions or excerpts); and/or
c. A motion to consider whether another party's material
should
be sealed pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(f).
-- The Defendants shall file no proposal unless Plaintiffs file
a
motion to consider whether another party's material should be
sealed pursuant to this order, in which case Defendants shall
comply with the procedural requirements of such a motion.
The Court finds that there exist compelling reasons to seal
such information, and that Defendants’ proposed redactions are
sufficiently tailored.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
January 17, 2023, and lodged certain exhibits under seal in
conjunction with an administrative motion to seal.
Cigna offers life and health insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tCkWLq at no extra
charge.[CC]
CINFED FEDERAL CREDIT: Paige Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Daniel Paige, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Cinfed Federal Credit Union, Does
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. A 2305001 was transferred from
the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Dec. 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00830-JPH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Contract Dispute.
Cinfed Federal Credit Union -- https://www.cinfed.com/ -- provides
banking and financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence Richard Coates, Esq.
Dylan James Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sam Anthony Camardo, Esq.
127 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 861-7304
Fax: (216) 696-0740
Email: scamardo@bakerlaw.com
- and -
James A. Slater, Jr., Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
3200 National City Center
1900 E. 9th St.
Cleveland, OH 44114-3485
Phone: (216) 621-0200
Fax: (216) 696-0740
Email: jslater@bakerlaw.com
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Kirkpatrick Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citrix Systems, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Francis Kirkpatrick, Ina Paves,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Citrix Systems, Inc., Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Case No.
0:23-cv-62375-DMM (S.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Citrix Systems, Inc. -- http://www.citrix.com/-- is an American
multinational cloud computing and virtualization technology company
that provides server, application and desktop virtualization,
networking, software as a service, and cloud computing
technologies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amanda Jamison Allen, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
SunTrust Financial Center
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 500-1500
Fax: (813) 435-2369
Email: Amanda@Theconsumerprotectionfirm.com
- and -
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 973-4855
Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
Steven Patrick Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Fax: (954) 525-4300
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
- and -
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
210-A South MacDill Avenue
Tampa, FL 33609
Phone: (813) 500-1500
Fax: (813) 435-2369
Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Amy L. Drushal, Esq.
TRENAM KEMKER SCHARF BARKIN FRYE O'NEILL & MULLIS
101 E Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2700 PO Box 1102
Tampa, FL 33601-1102
Phone: (813) 223-7474
Fax: 229-6553
Email: adrushal@trenam.com
- and -
Katherine G. McKenney, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 570-1000
Email: kmckenney@goodwinlaw.com
- and -
Mark McPherson, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Email: MMcPherson@goodwinlaw.com
- and -
W. Kyle Tayman, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
1900 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 348-4000
Email: KTayman@goodwinlaw.com
CLEAR HEALTH LLC: Davis Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clear Health, LLC.
The case is styled as Joseph Allen Davis, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Clear Health, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00187-PAB (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Clear Health -- https://www.clearhealthcareer.com/ -- is the
location for Transparent Medicare Solutions, we issue Medicare
Advantage, Supplement, and Part-D (Rx).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian T. Giles, Esq.
GILES & HARPER-CINCINNATI
7247 Beechmont Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45230
Phone: (513) 379-2715
Email: bgiles@gilesharper.com
CLINIQUE LABORATORIES: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clinique
Laboratories, LLC. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Clinique Laboratories,
LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00701-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Clinique Laboratories, LLC -- https://www.cliniquelaboratories.com/
-- is an American manufacturer of skincare, cosmetics, toiletries
and fragrances, usually sold in high-end department stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
CLOUD 9 ONLINE: Ledbetter Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Vape Pens
---------------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH LEDBETTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLOUD 9 ONLINE SMOKE & VAPE, LLC,
KHALIL AMOR, GREEN RUSH, LLC., DBA XHALE CITY, THESY, LLC., DBA
ELEMENT VAPE, XHALE CITY FRANCHISE COMPANY LLC, STIIIZY IP, LLC,
L&K DISTRIBUTION, COOKIES CREATIVE CONSULTING & PROMOTIONS, INC.,
SAVAGE ENTERPRISES, CHRISTOPHER G. WHEELER, PRESTON WHEELER,
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES, ENCORE LABS, LLC, PHARMLABS SD, AND JOHN
DOES 1-1000, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00538-SDG (N.D. Ga.,
February 6, 2024) alleges violations of the Controlled Substances
Act of 1970 and the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and the federal RICO and asserts claims
against the Defendants for negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation/fraud, and unjust enrichment.
The suit alleges that Plaintiff has purchased vape pens
manufactured, distributed, tested, and/or sold by Defendants that
contained a concentration of more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight
basis of delta-9 THC even if she only intended to purchase the
products labeled as D8 vape pens.
Cloud 9 is a THC vape pen retailer with over 50 retail locations in
Georgia and Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew H. Stuart, Esq.
STUART & JOHNSTON, LLC
358 Roswell Street, NE Suite 1140
Marietta, Georgia 30060
Telephone: (404) 662-2616
E-mail: astuart@stuartandjohnston.com
- and -
Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
SUTTER & GILLHAM, P.L.L.C.
P.O. Box 2012
Benton, AR 72018
Telephone: (501)315-1910
Facsimile: (501) 315-1916
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Must Faces Securities Class Suit, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JSupra, disclosed that
on February 5, 2024, Judge Arun Subramanian of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York largely
declined to dismiss a putative class action asserting claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a manufacturer of
medical tests and certain of its executives. Stadium Capital LLC v.
Co-Diagnostics, Inc., 2024 WL 456745 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2024).
Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations
regarding the prospect of future sales of the company's medical
tests as the COVID-19 pandemic subsided. The Court held that
plaintiff plausibly alleged actionable misrepresentations regarding
comments made announcing earnings results for the first quarter of
2022, and plausibly alleged that defendants acted with scienter.
Plaintiff alleged that during the COVID-19 pandemic—from the
second quarter of 2020 through the first quarter of 2022—the
company's revenue was approximately $20 million per quarter, but
that in the second quarter of 2022 the company's revenue was only
$5 million. Id. at *1.
The Court first determined that three challenged statements were
actionable: (i) "changes in our operating environment and markets
have restricted our near term visibility"; (ii) "[o]ur ability to
accurately forecast . . . COVID-19 test sales through the balance
of the year has diminished"; and (iii) "we are experiencing sizable
fluctuations in order patterns from our customers . . . [and] it
has become difficult to predict with an expected level of precision
the cumulative impact of these and other factors on our future
financial results." Id. at *2. The Court explained that the
company's references to "near term visibility" and "fluctuations"
implied it was experiencing current or potential volatility, not
that its sales had actually already cratered, as plaintiff alleged,
and which was supported by the company's reported revenue figures.
Id. The Court found these statements would have provided "comfort
to investors" even though plaintiff alleged that the company knew
demand for tests was already in decline. Id. Moreover, the company
CFO expressly said in response to a question about whether the
company was "already seeing a decline in customer orders" that the
company's statements to this effect were "more about the timing and
being able to forecast the timing of orders . . . not necessarily a
demand issue that we're seeing," which the Court held reinforced
the determination that the challenged statements were plausibly
alleged to be misleading. Id. The Court held these statements were
not opinions or puffery because they described fluctuations in
order patterns and were "determinate, verifiable statements." Id.
The Court also determined that these statements were not
forward-looking, and to the extent they were, they were not
accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements, since the
cautionary language was misleading in light of historical fact, and
thus not subject to the safe harbor for forward-looking statements.
Id.
In addition, the Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged that
the company failed to disclose a trend with respect to its
declining sales as required by Item 303 of Regulation S-K by
failing to disclose that federal funding it had received for COVID
tests had run out. Id. at *4. The Court noted that it was plausible
that at least half the company's revenue was tied to this funding
since the company, in opposing the motion to dismiss, had argued
that half of the company's revenue was attributable to other
sources. Id. The Court also noted that even though decreased
federal funding for COVID testing had been publicized, "the
magnitude of the effect" on the company was not. Id.
But the Court held that various statements were not actionable
since they did not imply anything about overall demand for the
company's products, and otherwise described historical facts about
the company's performance. Id.
The Court then held that plaintiff adequately alleged scienter. Id.
at *5. The Court explained that plaintiff alleged that the
company's executives were reckless in making the challenged
statements because the executives had knowledge or access to facts
that contradicted those statements, as evidenced by the fact that
the executives noted that they were "able to monitor the daily
influx of demand for our tests" and "keep a close eye on"
distributor inventory "every day" and explained that they saw
"falloff" in inventory when they reported their disappointing
earnings results. Id. On the basis of these statements about sales
monitoring, the Court held that the executives "were likely to know
whether demand had fallen substantially for the product that
accounted for more than 99% of the company's revenue" and thus
scienter was supported by the "core operations doctrine" which
"reflects the commonsense assumption that executives are likely to
know more about things central to their business." Id. The Court
found that the company's statements noting "fluctuations" and an
"inability to forecast" also suggested they were monitoring sales,
knew sales were down and hoped that demand would later rebound. Id.
The Court similarly held that scienter was sufficiently alleged
with respect to the Item 303 claim, given the importance of federal
funding to the company's revenue. Id.
The Court rejected defendants' arguments against the inference of
scienter. First, the Court held that the individual defendants were
linked to the alleged fraud by their statements that they closely
monitored sales. Id. at *6. Second, while the individual defendants
were not alleged to have reviewed specific sales reports that
undermined their statements, the Court explained that in this case
plaintiff was not alleging the general existence of sales reports
but was instead pointing to the fact that the company's executives
themselves touted that they were monitoring sales at the time they
were speaking with investors. Id. Finally, the Court rejected the
suggestion the company lacked motive in light of the company's
stock buybacks, noting that the volume of stock buybacks was
significantly lower during the period plaintiff contended the
company's stock price was inflated than during the surrounding
periods, and the individual executives' stock holdings increased
because options had vested and were sold to cover certain tax
obligations. Id. Thus, the Court held that plaintiff adequately
alleged the company's executives knew sales were down and tried to
obscure that fact. Id.
Stadium Capital LLC v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc. [GN]
COLONIAL PENN: Cole Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mark Cole, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated and aggrieved v. COLONIAL PENN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 23CV012045
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Dec. 22, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-02993-KJM-AC.
On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the State Court Action
alleging claims for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act. On behalf of a putative class of California callers, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant records telephone calls made to Defendant's
toll-free customer service telephone line without warning or
disclosure to inbound callers that their calls might be recorded.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's acts and practices violate
Penal Code § 632.7 the moment a recording of a telephone
communication is made without the consent of all parties. The
Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties pursuant to Penal Code
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kathy J. Huang, Esq.
Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 S. Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 576-1000
Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
Email: kathy.huang@alston.com
rachel.lowe@alston.com
CONSOL ENERGY: Continues to Defend Casey Class Suitin
------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 9, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Casey class suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against CCC, COK, CONSOL Buchanan
Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori, the Company's Chief
Administrative Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia alleging ERISA violations in the
termination of retiree health care benefits.
Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of “lifetime health
benefits” allegedly made by various members of management during
Plaintiffs’ employment and that they were not provided with
copies of Summary Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company
the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare
Plan.
Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent
that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer
Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia
whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated.
On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey.
The Casey complaint was amended on March 1, 2018 to add new
plaintiffs, add defendant CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and
eliminate defendant CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt
to expand the class of retirees.
On October 15, 2019, Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class
certification was denied on all counts.
On July 15, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Order denying class
certification.
The Fourth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal on August 14, 2020.
On October 1, 2020, the District Court entered a pretrial order
setting the trial date, which was held in February 2021. No ruling
has been issued by the judge.
The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.
Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company LLC is an owner and operator of
underground coal mines, with its principal place of business in
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. [BN]
CONTANGO RESOURCES: Rising Phoenix Files Suit in D. Wyoming
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Contango Resources
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Rising Phoenix Royalty Fund III
LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Contango Resources LLC, Contango Resources Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00238-KHR (D. Wyoming, Dec. 18, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Contango -- https://contango.com/ -- is a platform used to acquire,
produce, develop, and manage domestic oil and gas assets.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brady L. Smith, Esq.
Harry S. Jordan, IV, Esq.
BRADY SMITH LAW PLLC
211 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 1320
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 293-3029
Email: brady@BLSmithlaw.com
skeeter@blsmithlaw.com
- and -
Randy C Smith, Esq.
RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES
211 N. Robinson, Suite 1310n
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 212-2786
Email: randy@rcsmithlaw.com
- and -
Scranton Gregory Thomas, Esq.
THOMAS & THOMAS LLC
316 S. Gillette Ave., Suite 200
Gillette, WY 82716
Phone: (307) 257-5298
Email: greg@tntlaw.org
CRAFTY CRAB: Karichkowsky Seeks Unpaid OT for Restaurant Servers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON KARICHKOWSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRAFTY CRAB ST. PETE INC. and MING
LIN ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 24-000585-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct., 6th
Jud. Cir., Pinellas Cty., February 6, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Statutes.
Mr. Karichkowsky worked for the Defendants as a server from April
2022 until July 2023.
Crafty Crab St. Pete Inc., is a restaurant owner and operator, with
its principal place of business in Pinellas County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Jones, II, Esq.
Heath C. Murphy, Esq.
JONES LAW GROUP
5622 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, FL 33707
Telephone: (727) 571-1333
Facsimile: (727) 573-1321
E-mail: distribution@JLGtampabay.com
CURIOSITYSTREAM: Bid to Appoint Bursor & Fisher as Counsel Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROHAN DRUVA, et al., v.
CURIOSITYSTREAM, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02265-SAG (D. Md.), the
Hon. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher entered an order as follows:
-- Denying the Defendant CuriosityStream's motion for
Reconsideration, and
-- Denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Bursor & Fisher,
P.A.,
as Interim Class Counsel.
The alleges that CuriosityStream violated the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act and California state law by disclosing their
personally identifiable information to Facebook.
Curiosity is an American media company and subscription video
streaming service that offers documentary programming including
films, series, and TV shows.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8YNAUi
at no extra charge.[CC]
DAIRLYLAND USA: Completion of Fact Discovery Due June 1
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Orbetta et. al v.
Dairlyland USA Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09000-JPC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John P. Cronan entered an order granting
request for an adjournment of the discovery schedule and deadline
to oppose the Plaintiff's motion for collective action
certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
-- The deadline to complete all fact discovery June 1,
2024
is adjourned to:
-- The deadline for Defendants' opposition to Feb. 16,
2024
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
collective action certification, is
adjourned to:
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply, March 11,
2024
if any, is adjourned to:
airyland wholesales and distributes dairy products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IaPjPn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Parties are represented by:
Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, PC
777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101
White Plains, N.Y, 10604
Telephone: (914) 218-6190
Facsimile: (914) 206-4176
E-mail: Jordan@elhaglaw.com
- and -
Raymond Nardo, Esq.
RAYMOND NARDO, P.C.
129 Third Street
New York, NY 11501
Telephone: (516) 248-2121
Facsimile: (516) 742-7675
E-mail: Raymond.Nardo@gmail.com
- and -
Eli Z. Freedberg, Esq.
Zack G. Sharpe, IV
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
900 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022.3298
Telephone: (212) 583-9600
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: International Brotherhood Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 98 PENSION FUND on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP; DELOITTE
LLP, Case No. 3:19-cv-03304-DCC (D.S.C.), the Lead Plaintiff
International Brotherhood asks the Court to enter an order:
1. Certifying action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule
of
Civil Procedure 23;
2. Appointing IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund as Class
Representative;
and
3. Appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Class
Counsel
and Tinkler Law Firm LLC as Liaison Counsel.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.02, counsel for Lead Plaintiff certifies
that, prior to filing the instant motion, they conferred with
Defendants’ counsel and attempted in good faith to resolve the
matter contained in the Motion.
Deloitte offers consulting services. The Company provides audit,
consulting, financial advisory, risk management, and tax services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 15, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/495YZxg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura H. Posner, Esq.
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Jan Messerschmidt, Esq.
Molly Bowen, Esq.
Margaret (Emmy) Wydman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street,14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
E-mail: lposner@cohenmilstein.com
stoll@cohenmilstein.com
jmesserschmidt@cohenmilstein.com
mbowen@cohenmilstein.com
ewydman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
William Tinkler, Esq.
TINKLER LAW FIRM LLC
Charleston, SC 29417-1813
Telephone: (843) 853-5203
Facsimile: (843) 261-5647
E-mail: williamtinkler@tinklerlaw.com
DELTA COUNTY, TX: Taylor Suit Stayed Pending Ruling on Class Cert
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK ANDRE TAYLOR II,
on behalf, of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA
COUNTY, DELTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, FORMER SHERIFF RICKY
SMITH, SHERIFF CHARLA SINGLETON, COUNTY ATTORNEY JAY GARRETT,
COUNTY JUDGE JASON MURRAY, and ZACH WILLIAMSON, Case No.
4:22-cv-00250-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos L. Mazzant
entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to stay pending
the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and
the Defendants' motions for summary judgment on qualified and
absolute immunity.
The deadlines contained in the Court's Amended Scheduling Order are
stayed until further notice and the Final Pretrial Conference is
cancelled.
The Court, after considering the pleadings, the applicable law, and
the arguments of counsel, is of the opinion that such Motion is
well-taken and should be granted.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WWoIRa at no extra
charge.[CC]
DELTA DENTAL: Dentists Seek to Certify Antitrust Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Sean P. McConnell, Esq., of Duane
Morris, disclosed that on February 6, 2024, in In Re Delta Dental
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:19-CV-06734, MDL No. 2931 (N.D. Ill.
Feb. 6, 2024). roughly 240,000 dentists and dental practices sought
class certification in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against Delta Dental, the largest dental
insurance system in the United States, on grounds that Delta Dental
and its related entities artificially lowered the reimbursement
rates paid for dental goods and services to Plaintiffs in violation
of the federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs moved for class
certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) on the grounds
that all class members have been harmed substantially by the
alleged conspiracy between Defendants and that evidence common to
the class confirms the existence of the conspiracy to suppress
reimbursement rates in violation of Sherman Act Section 1.
Corporate counsel should follow In Re Delta Dental Antitrust
Litigation as the ruling on class certification could have a
significant impact class action law, generally, and on trade and
professional associations facing antitrust issues, specifically.
Case Background
Plaintiffs are dentist and dental practices who participate
pursuant to provider agreements in Delta Dental's Premier or PPO
networks. Defendants are the largest dental insurance system in the
United States and are comprised of Delta Dental, its 39 state-level
member companies and their national coordinating entities, Delta
Dental plans Association and DeltaUSA. Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants formed a cartel and committed per se violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act by agreeing to reduce reimbursements
to Plaintiffs through territorial restrictions, agreeing to fix the
prices for specific dental goods and services, and agreeing to
restrict competition from other competitors.
Rule 23 Contentions
Plaintiffs argue that class certification is appropriate under Rule
23(b)(3) because evidence common to the class can prove the
existence of the conspiracy and harm to the class in the form of
lower reimbursement rates. Plaintiffs claim that written agreements
imposed territorial restrictions on competition and required
adherence to uniform, or fixed, prices for dental goods and
services. The agreements also restricted efforts to sell dental
insurance under different brands. According to the model advanced
by Plaintiffs' economic expert, Plaintiffs will be able to
establish both class-wide impact and class-wide damages on behalf
of more than 97 percent of the proposed class. Plaintiffs also
argue that Defendants' procompetitive justifications for the
restrictions are irrelevant in a per se antitrust case, but, in any
event, are without merit because premiums paid by dental patients
increased substantially during the class period and Delta Dental
passed on the increased premiums to executives in the form of
generous salaries.
Implications For Corporate Defendants
In Re Delta Dental Antitrust Litigation is another example of a
federal court class certification decision that will turn whether
evidence of common, injury-producing conduct exists. It will be
interesting to follow whether the Court credits evidence as capable
of showing the impact of the allegedly anticompetitive conduct
across all class members at trial. [GN]
DEMI INC: Martinez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Demi, Inc. The case
is styled as Artemio Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Demi, Inc. doing business as:
Trattoria Demi, Case No. 1:24-cv-00777 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 30, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Demi, Inc. doing business as Trattoria Demi --
https://trattoriademi.com/ -- is an Italian restaurant with warm
space & sidewalk seats for Italian staples from shrimp scampi to
meatball sandwiches & wine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
- and -
Travis Phillip Lampert, Esq.
ATLAS CONSUMER LAW - A DIVISION OF SULAIMAN LAW GROUP,
LTD
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 581-5456
Email: tlampert@sulaimanlaw.com
DOCUSIGN INC: Considers Sealing of Materials in Weston
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD R. WESTON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
DOCUSIGN, INC., DANIEL D. SPRINGER, MICHAEL J. SHERIDAN, CYNTHIA
GAYLOR, and LOREN ALHADEFF, Case No. 3:22-cv-00824-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
administrative motion to consider whether other parties' material
should be sealed.
Document Portion(s) Sought To Designating
Entity
Be Sealed
Defendants' Memorandum Page 2, line 15 DIL,
Peregrine
in Opposition to through 16.
Plaintiff's Page 3, line 16. PERSI
Motion for Class Page 8, line 4 DIL
Certification through 6.
Page 19, line 27, DIL,
Peregrine
through page 20, line 1.
Page 20, line 1 DIL
through 2.
Page 20, line 2 Peregrine
through 3.
Bretan Declaration Page 2, line 3 DIL
through 4.
Page 2, line 15 PERSI
through 16.
Page 3, line 4 Peregrine
through 5.
DocuSign offers a cloud-based digital transaction administration
platform and e-Signature solutions.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=73vq5N at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dean S. Kristy, Esq.
Jennifer C. Bretan, Esq.
Marie Bafus, Esq.
Katherine A. Marshall, Esq.
Gregory P. Adams, Esq.
Sofia Ritala, Esq.
Felix S. Lee, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 875-2300
Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
E-mail: dkristy@fenwick.com
jbretan@fenwick.com
mbafus@fenwick.com
kmarshall@fenwick.com
gadams@fenwick.com
sritala@fenwick.com
flee@fenwick.com
DOLLAR TREE: Alvarado Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar Tree, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Yolanda Alvarado, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dollar Tree, Inc.,
Zeroed-In Technologies, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00672-AWA-DEM (E.D.
Va., Dec. 19, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Dollar Tree, Inc. -- https://www.dollartree.com/ -- is an American
multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glenn Edward Chappell, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Email: GChappell@tzlegal.com
DOWNSTATE HEALTH: Underpays Senior Staff Assistants, Sanders Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYERLINE SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUSAN FRASER-MCLEARY and DOWNSTATE
HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 503665/2024 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., February 6, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay
for accrued vacation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
Ms. Sanders worked as a senior staff assistant at the Downstate
Health Science University from September 2017 to December 2021.
The State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Health Science
University is a public medical school located in Kings County
Brooklyn New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rodney R. Austin, Esq.
RODNEY R. AUSTIN PLLC
6143 186th St.
Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
Telephone: (718) 475-2119
E-mail: rodney@Raustinlaw.com
DUNKIN DONUTS: Garland Sues Over Discriminatory Surcharge
---------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Garland, Tonya Hughes, Natasha Hernandez, Geaneen Cojum,
Arsenio Pelayo, Albert Fitch, Pauleen Mara, Lora Premo, Urcelina
Medeiros, Ruby Smith, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. DUNKIN DONUTS LLC, a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 3:23-cv-06621-TSH (N.D. Cal., Dec. 26, 2023), is brought
against the Defendants' discrimination against Plaintiffs and the
putative class members by levying a Surcharge for its Non-Dairy
Alternatives in the form of Non-Dairy Alternatives added to its
coffee-based drinks and other beverages in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, California Unruh Civil Rights Act,
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Hawaii Anti-Discrimination Act,
Texas Human Resource Code, Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Law,
New York Civil Rights Law and constitutes common law Unjust
Enrichment.
When Plaintiffs visited Dunkin coffee shops, they ordered drinks
that included milk as part of the regular menu item. Plaintiffs
requested to substitute milk for Non-Dairy Alternatives,
specifically soy, oat, coconut, or almond “milk,” and were
charged an extra $0.50 - $2.15 surcharge by Dunkin for the
substitution, depending on the date and the location of the store.
Dunkin charged from $0.50 to $2.15 surcharge (“Surcharge”) to
its customers who were lactose intolerant to substitute milk for
Non-Dairy Alternative products in its beverages throughout the
class period. The Defendant’s Surcharge is the same for all
Non-Dairy Alternatives, making no distinction among the costs of
the various different Non-Dairy Alternatives. In fact, Dunkin
created a separate, higher-priced menu, aimed at customers who
cannot ingest milk.
In 2023, the average price of a Dunkin crafted coffee drink was
$3.25, therefore the Surcharge could be up to 40% of the average
drink price. Also, milk is not the only ingredient in a drink at
Dunkin, therefore the Surcharge represents an even higher
percentage proportional to the price of milk (up to 200%). There is
no material difference between the price of lactose-containing
milks and the price of Non-Dairy Alternatives that would support
levying the Surcharge to substitute for a Non-Dairy Alternative in
Dunkin drinks.
Dunkin’s standard offering in most beverages is 2% cow’s milk.
Dunkin will substitute whole milk, or fat-free skim milk for the 2%
milk ingredient to its beverages at no additional charge. Dunkin
offers several options when it comes to the content of fat in the
milk but does not offer a lactose-free milk option. Dunkin will
modify its regular beverage offerings to remove caffeine or make
caffeine-free beverages at no additional charge for persons with a
variety of conditions, including hypertension.
Dunkin will modify its regular beverage offerings to remove sugar
or use sugar-free sweeteners at no additional charge for those
persons with diabetes or who need to control weight. Dunkin advises
customers to inform the “server” if there is a food allergy and
informs them that their products may contain or may have come in
contact with allergens. However, they only accommodate those with
lactose intolerance or allergies to milk by imposing a surcharge.
There is no expertise or additional work required of Dunkin
employees that would substitute whole milk or fat-free milk in
place of 2% regular milk, or who would make caffeine-free or
sugar-free beverages, to also be able to substitute Non-Dairy
Alternatives such as soy, almond, coconut, oat, or other
lactose-free “milk” in place of 2% regular milk. Dunkin charges
customers with lactose intolerance and milk allergies an
excessively high Surcharge to substitute Non-Dairy Alternatives in
its drinks.
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure
that Defendant charges the same price to lactose intolerant
customers and customers with milk allergies for the same menu items
as regular customers and that it does not add a Surcharge for
Non-Dairy Alternatives such as soy, almond, coconut, oat, or other
lactose-free “milk,” says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs suffer from lactose intolerance and milk allergies.
Dunkin operates over 9,500 coffee stores in the United States and
over 125 in the state of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 810-7047
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
EDWARD JONES: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Dixon Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE DIXON, et al., v.
EDWARD D. JONES & CO. L.P., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00284-SEP
(E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an amended case
management order as follows:
1. This case has been assigned to Track 3 (Complex).
2. The deadline for motions for joinder of additional parties
or
amendment of pleadings has passed.
3. Disclosure shall proceed in the following manner:
(a) The deadline by which the parties were to have made all
disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
has
passed.
(b) The Plaintiff shall disclose all Phase I expert witnesses
and shall provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2),
Fed. R. Civ. P., no later than July 12, 2024, and shall
make
such witnesses available for depositions, and have
depositions completed, no later than Aug. 16, 2024.
(c) The Defendant shall disclose all Phase I expert witnesses
and shall provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2),
Fed. R. Civ. P., no later than September 30, 2024, and
shall
make such witnesses available for depositions, and have
depositions completed, no later than Nov. 8, 2024.
(d) The Plaintiff shall disclose all Phase I rebuttal expert
witnesses and shall provide the reports required by Rule
26(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., no later than December 20,
2024,
and shall make expert witnesses available for
depositions,
and have depositions completed, no later than Jan. 24,
2025.
(e) The presumptive limits of ten (10) depositions per side
as
set forth in Rule 30(a)(2)(A), Fed. R. Civ. P., and 25
interrogatories per party as set forth in Rule 33(a),
Fed.
R. Civ. P., shall apply.
(f) Requests for physical or mental examinations of parties
pursuant to Rule 35, Fed. R. Civ. P., must be made no
later
than Dec. 1, 2023, and any exams must be completed by
Jan.
31, 2024.
(g) The parties shall complete all Phase I fact/non-expert
discovery no later than May 10, 2024. The parties shall
complete all Phase I expert discovery no later than Jan.
24,
2025.
4. This case shall be referred to alternative dispute resolution
on
Dec. 18, 2024, and that reference shall terminate on Feb. 14,
2025.
5. Motions for Class Certification under Rule 23 and Conditional
Certification and dispositive Phase I summary judgment
motions,
including dispositive motions relating to the named
Plaintiffs’
individual claims, or, if applicable, motions to exclude
testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), or Kumho Tire Co. Ltd v.
Carmichael,
shall be filed no later than March 21, 2025.
Edward Jones is a financial services firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UfCB5s at no extra
charge.[CC]
EF INSTITUTE: Kirkland Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EF Institute for
Cultural Exchange, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brandy
Kirkland, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v.
EF Institute for Cultural Exchange, Inc., EF World Journeys, Inc.
formerly known as: Go Ahead Travel, Inc.; Academic Healthplans,
Inc. formerly known as: Specialty Insurance Solutions, Case No.
2:24-cv-00434 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
EF -- https://www.ef.edu/ -- is an international education company
offering study abroad, language learning, cultural exchange and
academic programs around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.
30 E. Butler Ave
Ambler, PA 19002
Phone: (267) 468-7638
Fax: (877) 600-2112
Email: kimmel@creditlaw.com
EL CHE CORPORATION: Leon Files Civil Suit in Cal. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against El Che Corporation.
The case is captioned as CONCEPCION LEON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EL CHE CORPORATION,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0001523 (Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty.,
February 7, 2024).
A case management conference is set for August 6, 2024, before
Judge Blanca Banuelos.
El Che Corporation is trucking company in Lodi, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, PC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 320-0519
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
ENFANTS RICHES DEPRIMES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enfants Riches
Deprimes, LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Enfants Riches
Deprimes, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00668 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Enfants Riches Deprimes -- https://enfantsrichesdeprimes.com/ -- is
a Los Angeles and Paris based luxury fashion brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Rothman Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Rothman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Equinox Holdings, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-09760-CAS-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a class of:
"All Equinox members with a Home Club in California, whose
Membership Agreement included the Refund Clause, and who did not
receive a refund of prepaid membership dues for any period
during
which the Defendants' Equinox-branded Fitness Clubs were
closed."
Excluded from all of the above-defined putative class are: (1)
Defendant and any entity in which the Defendant has or had a
controlling interest; (2) the officers and directors of the
Defendant at all relevant times, the members of the Defendant's
officers' and directors' immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and (3) any
judge
to whom this action is assigned and any members of such judges'
staffs and immediate family members.
Equinox Holdings is an American luxury fitness company which
operates several lifestyle brands.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aunhsz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-7047
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ P.C.
1 Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355 0300
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Rothman Suit Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Rothman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Equinox Holdings, Inc., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-09760-CAS-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order allowing the filling under seal of Exhibits III,
JJJ, KKK of the Declaration of Trenton R. Kashima in support of
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Equinox is an American luxury fitness company which operates
several lifestyle brands.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j8YO4T at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trenton R. Cashima, Esq.
John . Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760
Telephone: (619) 810 7047
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ P.C.
1 Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355 0300
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Faces Several Antitrust Raps Over Price-rigging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (ELS) disclosed in its Form
10-Q/A report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 23,
2024, that Beginning on August 31, 2023 through October 12, 2023,
certain private party plaintiffs filed several putative class
actions against Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc. and several
owner/operators of manufactured housing communities, including ELS,
alleging that the community owner/operators used JLT Market Reports
produced by Datacomp to conspire to raise manufactured home lot
rents in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
ELS purchased Datacomp in connection with the MHVillage/Datacomp
acquisition during the year ended December 31, 2021.
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. together with MHC Operating
Limited Partnership and its other consolidated subsidiaries is a
fully integrated owner of lifestyle-oriented properties consisting
of property operations and home sales and rental operations
primarily within manufactured home and recreational vehicle
communities and marinas.
ESURANCE PROPERTY: Katz Sues Over Breaches of Insurance Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN KATZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and
NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00955-DG-JAM (E.D.N.Y., February 7, 2024) arises out of the
Defendants' uniform misconduct related to the payment of sale tax
in the event an insured's auto is declared a total loss.
Allegedly, Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company (EPC)
systemically breaches its standardized personal auto insurance
policies with its insureds (including Plaintiff) that expressly
state the "applicable sales tax" or the "sales tax that applies"
will be paid for damaged or stolen autos.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for, among
other things, breach of contract, violation of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, and negligence.
Headquartered in Northbrook, IL, EPC is a foreign corporation
insurance company that writes private passenger personal auto
insurance, offering coverage to insureds in at least 22 states,
including the State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
Kaitlyn M. Burns, Esq.
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
29 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10006-3205
Telephone: (212) 952-0014
E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com
rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com
kburns@fdpklaw.com
- and -
429 Fourth Avenue
Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-8400
Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
- and -
Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
Andrea Clisura, Esq.
VOZZOLO LLC
499 Route 304
New City, NY 10956
Telephone: (201) 630-8820
Facsimile: (201) 604-8400
E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com
aclisura@vozzolo.com
- and -
345 Route 17 South
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
Telephone: (201) 630-8820
Facsimile: (201) 604-8400
E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com
- and -
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com
FAIRWINDS CREDIT UNION: Stewart Files Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fairwinds Credit
Union. The case is styled as Andrew Stewart, III, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. Fairwinds Credit Union,
Case No. 6:23-cv-02444-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla., Dec. 21, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act.
Fairwinds Credit Union -- https://www.fairwinds.org/ -- is an
American credit union headquartered in Orlando, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
6810 North State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Phone: (561) 569-7062
Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
FANDANGO MEDIA: Kirk Alleges VPPA Violations on Unlawful Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Kirk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Fandango Media, LLC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00895 (S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2024) accuses 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.
The Defendant has installed tracking technologies on its Website
such as Facebook Pixel, which is used to track, record, and send
Facebook its subscribers' granular Website and apps activity,
including the names of specific videos that subscribers requested
and/or viewed each time through Defendant's Website and apps, says
the suit.
Headquartered in Universal City, CA, Fandango Media, LLC. dba
("Vudu") is one of the largest pre-recorded video content providers
in the United States. The company owns and operates its online and
mobile streaming applications, including the website, www.vudu.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
FANDANGO MEDIA: Mannion Sues Over Unlawful Convenience Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
Shane Mannion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FANDANGO MEDIA, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-11150-DEH
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's
unlawful convenience fee regarding movie tickets which violates the
New York State Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.
For over a year, Defendant has been nickel and diming movie goers
on its website in violation of the New York State Arts and Cultural
Affairs Law. Whenever a movie-goer selects a ticket on the website
drafthouse.com or Defendant's mobile phone application, they are
quoted a fee-less price, only to be ambushed by a $1.89
"convenience fee" per ticket at checkout after clicking through the
various screens required to make a purchase. This cheap trick has
enabled Defendant to swindle substantial sums of money from its
customers.
To stop this hustle, New York passed Arts and Cultural Affairs Law
which provides that "every operator of a place of entertainment
shall disclose the total cost the ticket, inclusive of all
ancillary fees that must be paid in order to purchase the ticket."
"Such disclosure of the total cost and fees shall be displayed in
the ticket listing prior to the ticket being selected for
purchase." And "the price of the ticket shall not increase during
the purchase process."
For these reasons, Plaintiff seeks relief in this action
individually, and on behalf of all other ticket purchasers for
Defendant's film screenings in the state of New York for actual
and/or statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' costs and fees, and
injunctive relief under New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased two tickets to see a movie at a cinema in
Astoria, New York on May 7, 2023 through Defendant's website.
The Defendant sells movie tickets throughout the United States,
including in the state of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com
FANNIE MAE: Plaintiffs Seek Prompt Approval of Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC SENIOR
PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT CLASS ACTION LITIGATIONS, Case
No. 1:13-mc-01288-RCL (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting prompt approval of the Judgment as the Plan
of Allocation.
The Plaintiffs had hoped that they could have submitted the present
motion as a simple consent motion. However, while the Defendants
have not identified any specific dispute as to the form of
Judgment, they maintain two objections to the proposed Plan of
Allocation.
On Dec. 7, 2021, the Court entered its Memorandum Opinion Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and an Order certifying
the following Classes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders:
1. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Fannie Mae
as
of the date of certification, or their successors in interest
to
the extent shares are sold after the date of certification
and
before any final judgment or settlement (the "Fannie
Preferred
Class");
2. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Freddie Mac
as
of the date of certification, or their successors in interest
to
the extent shares are sold after the date of certification
and
before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie
Preferred
Class"); and
3. All current holders of common stock in Freddie Mac as of the
date of certification, or their successors in interest to the
extent shares are sold after the date of certification and
before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie Common
Class").
The Defendants, who did not challenge class certification, had
previously stated, including in the parties' Joint Response to
Court Order of November 15, 2021 [ECF No. 135], that they did not
object to certification of the Classes under the proposed
definitions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BKBS1K at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
David H. Thompson, Esq.
Vincent J. Colatriano, Esq.
Peter A. Patterson, Esq.
Brian W. Barnes, Esq.
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 220-9600
Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
E-mail: ccooper@cooperkirk.com
- and -
Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Rd.
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: ezagar@ktmc.com
- and -
Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
Samuel C. Kaplan, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com
skaplan@bsfllp.com
- and -
Michael J. Barry, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com
- and -
Adam Wierzbowski, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: adam@blbglaw.com
FINCANTIERI MARINE: Fredrickson Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Fredrickson, On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fincantieri Marine Group, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00367 (D.D.C., February 7, 2024) arises
from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard
personally identifiable information of its customers, former
customers, and other personnel.
Despite the breach occurring on April 12, 2023, the Defendant did
not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until January 5,
2024. In response to the data breach, Defendant claims that it has
implemented additional technical safeguards to help prevent a
similar incident in the future. However, the details of the root
cause of the data breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the
remedial measures undertaken to ensure a breach does not occur
again have not been shared with regulators or Plaintiff and Class
members, who retain a vested interest in ensuring that their
information remains protected, says the suit.
Headquartered in Washington, DC, Fincantieri Marine Group is a
maritime custom ship builder which services and repairs warships.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Ave., Ste. 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
FIRST AMERICAN: Settlement Class in Kimble Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCIA KIMBLE, v. FIRST
AMERICAN HOME WARRANTY CORP. and FIVESTRATA LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-10037-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to
certify a settlement class and for preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement agreement and procedure for providing class
notice.
The proposed settlement agreement is preliminarily approved,
subject to objections by absent class members and except for the
determination of the attorney’s fees and costs.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the following
settlement class is conditionally certified in this case:
The 21,953 persons identified by the records of FiveStrata whose
telephone numbers were registered in the National Do-Not-Call
Registry and who were called by FiveStrata on behalf of First
American.
The Court further entered an order that:
-- Counsel of record for the named plaintiff, namely attorneys
Christopher E. Roberts and Jacob U. Ginsberg, are appointed as
counsel for the designated settlement class.
-- The Plaintiff Marcia Kimble is appointed as the class
representative.
-- Atticus Administration, LLC is approved as the claims
administrator for the settlement.
-- On or before Jan. 26, 2024, the defendants shall provide
notice of this proposed class settlement to the appropriate
state
and federal authorities.
-- The plaintiff's counsel shall file proof of mailing of the
class
notice in conformity with this order on or before Feb. 2,
2024.
-- The expenses of printing and mailing and publishing all
notices
required hereby shall be paid as described in the settlement
agreement, with no more than $55,842 coming from the
settlement
fund.
-- The notice of class settlement must inform the absent class
members that Proofs of Claim and supporting documentation
must
be submitted on or before April 30, 2024.
-- On or before May 14, 2024, the plaintiff’s counsel must file
a
motion for final approval of the settlement identifying absent
class members who opt out or object.
-- A hearing shall be held at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 20,
2024 in Room 767 of the Theodore Levin United States
Courthouse,
231 West Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, Michigan.
-- Any class member may appear at the settlement hearing and
be heard to the extent allowed by this Court, either in
support
of or in opposition to the good faith, fairness,
reasonableness,
and adequacy of the proposed settlement or the plaintiff’s
counsel's application for an award of attorney's fees,
reimbursement of expenses, and an incentive award to the
representative plaintiff.
-- Applications for incentive awards, attorney's fees, or
reimbursable expenses under Rule 23(h) must be filed on or
before
May 30, 2024.
-- Class counsel shall be responsible for maintaining a file of
all
responses to the notice of settlement and any and all other
written communications received from the class members.
On Jan. 6, 2023, plaintiff Marcia Kimble filed her complaint in
this case on behalf of similarly situated individuals who had
received calls from the First American Home Warranty Corporation
despite being registered on the Federal Do-Not-Call Registry.
She brought one claim under section 227(c)(5) of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act seeking statutory damages and
an order enjoining future violations.
First American provides home warranty products and services.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FNAyzl
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 863-5700
E-mail: croberts@butschroberts.com
- and -
Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN PA
30 E. Butler Ave.
Ambler, PA 19002
Telephone: (267) 468-5374
E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark A Silver, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
303 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 5300
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 527-4000
Facsimile: (404) 527-4198
E-mail: mark.silver@dentons.com
- and -
Michael R. Turco, Esq.
BROOKS WILKINS SHARKEY & TURCO
401 S. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400
Birmingham, MI 48009
Telephone: (248) 971-1800
Facsimile: (248) 971-1801
E-mail: turco@bwst-law.com
- and -
Herman D. Hofman, Esq.
VARNUM ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Bridgewater Place
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
Telephone: (616) 336-6375
Facsimile: (616) 336-7000
E-mail: hdhofman@varnumlaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Ecoboost Class Action Lawsuit Premature, Alleges Firm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints reports that a Ford EcoBoost class action lawsuit
should allegedly be dismissed because the plaintiffs haven't taken
advantage of recall repairs.
That's the argument from Ford in the EcoBoost class action which
alleges the 1-liter 3-cylinder engines fail in these models.
2016-2017 Ford Fiesta
2018-2021 Ford EcoSport
2016-2018 Ford Focus
The EcoBoost lawsuit alleges there are problems with the oil pump
which destroy the EcoBoost engine.
The 13 customers who sued, all who own Ford EcoSport SUVs,
reference special service messages Ford sent to dealer technicians
about the 1-Liter EcoBoost engines.
Special service message (SSM) 48093 was issued in July 2019 for
2018-2019 Ford EcoSport vehicles with 1-liter EcoBoost engines that
"may exhibit a loss of engine oil pressure with an illuminated oil
pressure warning lamp."
Ford reissued the message in September 2020 as SSM 49200 which told
dealers the EcoBoost engines may require replacements.
Ford later issued SSM 49726 which expanded the vehicles to some
2016-2018 Ford Focus and 2018-2019 Ford EcoSports with 1.0L
EcoBoost engines built before July 3, 2019. Dealers were told to
replace the engine assemblies for failed engine oil pump
tensioners.
SSM 49918 in June 2021 said to, "[r]eplace the engine assembly with
a long block option 6006 and the turbocharger."
Motion to Dismiss the Ford EcoBoost Class Action Lawsuit
Ford argues the class action should be tossed because the
plaintiffs allegedly don't specify what the oil pump problem is,
instead using "only generalities, including that there are
'manufacturing, workmanship, and/or design defects which lead to a
loss of oil pressure and an oil pump failure.'"
Ford says the plaintiffs do not describe what is wrong with the oil
pumps, what is leading to the problem or explain what Ford could
have done differently to avoid it.
According to Ford, the Ecoboost lawsuit should be stopped due to
the prudential ripeness doctrine, meaning the allegations aren't
ready for court because Ford issued an oil pump recall.
With the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration overseeing
the oil pump recall, Ford recalled 2016-2018 Ford Focus and
2018-2022 Ford EcoSport vehicles.
The Ford recall says the "engine oil pump drive belt tensioner arm
may fracture, separate from the tensioner backing plate, and/or the
oil pump drive belt material may degrade and lose teeth, resulting
in a loss of engine oil pressure."
This happens because the "oil pump drive belt tensioner arm
retention caulking joint is not robust to the vibration experienced
by the component over time, which can cause arm separation."
"The instrument cluster will display a low oil pressure warning
message and may also display a check engine light."
According to Ford, none of the plaintiffs allege their vehicles
have been repaired under the recall because the recall was issued
after the first amended lawsuit was filed.
Without the recall repairs, the judge would allegedly have to "deal
in hypotheticals," meaning the class action lawsuit is allegedly
"unfit for judicial decision pursuant to the doctrine of prudential
ripeness."
The oil pump recall includes free replacement of the affected parts
and if necessary, reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses.
"Once Plaintiffs have availed themselves of the benefits of the
recall, this Court will be better positioned to rule on whether
Ford breached any warranties or if Plaintiffs have incurred any
harm. The claims here are not fit for decision at this time." —
Ford's motion to dismiss the EcoBoost lawsuit
In addition to the issue of the prudential ripeness doctrine, Ford
alleges the class action should fail because it includes the Ford
Fiesta and Focus. However, none of the plaintiffs own those
models.
Fraud and consumer protection claims should also be dismissed
because the plaintiffs allegedly do not plead that Ford had
pre-sale knowledge of any alleged EcoBoost engine defect.
Ford's motion to dismiss also alleges the plaintiffs bring express
warranty claims, but they concede the express warranty expired at
60,000 miles and they were each beyond lthe imit when the oil pump
defect allegedly manifested.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim allegedly fails because the
Act requires at least 100 named plaintiffs, but the EcoBoost class
action includes only these 13 plaintiffs.
Marlon Bolton / Goergia / 2018 Ford EcoSport
Jenny Ptaszek / Michigan / 2018 Ford EcoSport
Gina Bilotta / New Jersey / 2019 Ford EcoSport
Veronica Maldonado / California / 2018 Ford EcoSport
John Wright / Maryland / 2019 Ford EcoSport
Margaret Vasquez / Texas / 2019 Ford EcoSport
Tracey Drotos / Michigan / 2019 Ford EcoSport
Scott Martin / Florida / 2018 Ford EcoSport
Melissa Allard / North Carolina / 2019 Ford EcoSport
Lisa Rutherford / Tennessee / 2020 Ford EcoSport
Gina and Michael Carrell / Texas / 2020 Ford EcoSport
Makayla Bonvillain / Louisiana / Used Ford EcoSport
The Ford EcoBoost class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware: Bolton, et al., v.
Ford Motor Company.
The plaintiffs are represented by Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP, Berger Montague PC, and Capstone Law APC.[GN]
FORD MOTOR: Response to Class Cert Brief Extended to March 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL WEIDMAN et al., v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-12719-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered an order extending class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' Class Certification Feb. 1, 2024 Feb. 13, 2024
Brief due:
Defendant's Response to March 1, 2024 March 13,
2024
Class Certification Brief due:
Plaintiffs' Reply in support of March 15, 2024 March 27,
2024
Class Certification due:
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VX1P9Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 West University Drive, Ste. 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Melvin Butch Hollowell, Jr., Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
1001 Woodward Avenue, Suite 850
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 483-0880
E-mail: mbh@millerlawpc.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Annika K. Martin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Ave S, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
akmartin@lchb.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick G. Seyferth, Esq.
Stephanie A. Douglas, Esq.
Roger P. Meyers, Esq.
A. Lane Morrison, Esq.
BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC
100 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 400
Troy, MI 48084
Telephone: (248) 822-7800
E-mail: seyferth@bsplaw.com
douglas@bsplaw.com
meyers@bsplaw.com
morrison@bsplaw.com
- and -
Randall W. Edwards, Esq.
Damali A. Taylor, Esq.
Kelsey M. Larson, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
E-mail: redwards@omm.com
dtaylor@omm.com
klarson@omm.com
FORRESTER RESEARCH: McLaughlin Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forrester Research,
Inc. case is styled as Jeff McLaughlin, Dulce Chimilio, David
Schachner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Forrester Research, Inc., Case No. 2381CV03524 (Mass.
Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Dec. 20, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Administrative Civil Actions."
Forrester -- https://www.forrester.com/ -- is a research and
advisory company that offers a variety of services including
research, consulting, and events.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South St., Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
FORTUNE SCHOOL: Elder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rex and Margaret
Fortune School of Education, et al. The case is styled as Lanisha
Elder, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Rex and Margaret Fortune School of Education, et al., Case No.
23CV013990 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 22, 2023).
Fortune School -- https://www.fortuneschool.us/ -- is a
multifaceted nonprofit organization committed to educating
tomorrow's leaders..[BN]
FRANKLIN CREDIT: Smith Files TCPA Class Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin Credit
Management Corporation. The case is captioned as AMELIA SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FRANKLIN CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-00709
(D.N.J., February 6, 2024).
The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Franklin Credit Management Corporation is a finance service
company, headquartered in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leanna Alexis Loginov, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (917) 628-5842
E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Fowlkes TCPA Suit Files in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Mortgage
Corporation. The case is captioned as DAN FOWLKES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00695-CPO-EAP (D.N.J., February 6,
2024).
The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Freedom Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage company headquartered in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
FRONTIER ENVIRONMENTAL: Class Certification Discovery Due July 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN PECK and EVAN P.
SOUTHERN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FRONTIER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. formerly known as
FRONTIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY doing business as FRONTIER
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Case No. 2:23-cv-01014-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge William S, Stickman IV entered an amended case
management order as follows:
-- Any consented-to-amended pleadings or joinder April 8,
2024
Shall be filed by:
-- Class certification discovery shall close on: July 8,
2024
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, Sept. 5,
2024
Brief in opposition is due by:
-- Any reply brief is due by: Sept. 19,
2024
Frontier provides design-build services specifically formatted for
environmentally sensitive reclamation activities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CEEX5N at no extra
charge.[CC]
FULL SAIL: Parties Must Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beckwith v. Full Sail, LLC
d/b/a Full Sail University, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00136 (M.D.
Fla., Filed Jan. 19, 2024 Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order
directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a
motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable
deadlines in their case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for
(1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and
defendant;
(2) discovery - class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Full Sail offers degrees in both undergraduate and graduate level
curriculum.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Bid in Kiriacopoulos Extended to March 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA KIRIACOPOULOS,
CRAIG JOHNSON, BEVERLY TREVETHAN, SARAH BURNS, GERALYN DARR, STEVE
FIENE and THOMAS GRAHAM, ADARIUS BLAKE and AMY HENNING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:22-cv-10785-MAG-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A.
Goldsmith entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion to revise and extend the class certification briefing
schedule:
a. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification March 1,
2024
shall be filed on or before:
b. The Defendant GM's Response to Plaintiffs' March 22,
2024
Motion for Class Certification shall be filed
on or before:
c. The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' March 29,
2024
Motion for Class Certification shall be filed
on or before:
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kZi2gi at no extra
charge.[CC]
GERBER LIFE: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE LOGUIDICE and
EMILIE NORMAN, v. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
7:20-cv-03254-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs seek leave to file
their reply in support of the motion for class certification, as
well as the declaration of Natalie A. Lyons and accompanying
exhibits, under seal.
The Plaintiffs contends that while they disagree with the
designations, the Reply and supporting documents are nearly
entirely comprised of information that has been marked by Defendant
as Confidential under the governing protective order in this case,
such that certain documents must be placed entirely under seal
while other documents nearly entirely contain information marked as
Confidential by the Defendant and determinations regarding
redaction and publication cannot be reasonably made by them, and
therefore, there is good cause to place the filings entirely under
seal.
Gerber Life provides juvenile and family life insurance products to
middle-income families along with medical insurance to small- and
medium-sized businesses.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h2p6MS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Natalie Lyons, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
nlyons@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
Amanda Rosenberg, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
Facsimile: (202) 615-3948
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
arosenberg@kalielgold.com
- and -
James J. Bilsborrow
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
GOAT USA: Fagnani Sues Over Violation of Disabled's Civil Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goat USA Inc. The
case is captioned as MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. GOAT USA INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00877-LGS (S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2024).
The suit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Goat USA Inc. is a lifestyle and apparel company doing business in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
GOLDMAN SACHS: Averts Class Action Over 401(k) Mutual Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Goldman
Sachs Group Inc. defeated an appeal by a class of employees who
said their 401(k) plan offered poorly performing in-house mutual
funds that paid fees to the company.
The employees never introduced evidence showing that Goldman kept
its funds in the plan for the purpose of advancing its own
interests, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said on
Feb. 14 in an unpublished opinion rejecting claims that Goldman
breached its duties of prudence and loyalty. In fact, the record
"suggests otherwise," because it includes evidence that Goldman
managed the plan using a "robust process" that included fiduciary
training sessions and reliance on an unbiased, outside investment
adviser, the court said.
The court declined to fault Goldman for allegedly waiting too long
to remove certain challenged funds from the plan, explaining that
retirement plan fiduciaries don't breach their duties by choosing
to keep investments "that, in the fiduciary's reasonable
assessment, may perform well in the long term despite short-term
underperformance." And Goldman's alleged failure to adopt a formal
investment policy statement for the plan doesn't amount to a
fiduciary breach, the court said, noting that both parties' experts
agreed that this step isn't a requirement for prudent fiduciaries.
The employees' claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act's prohibited transaction rules also fail, the court said,
because the plan was treated "no less favorably" than other
retirement plans serviced by the same recordkeeper.
The 17,000-person class action challenges Goldman's decision to
offer its own proprietary funds in the 401(k) plan covering its
workforce. Goldman kept these funds in the plan when they performed
poorly, charged excessive fees, and engaged in self-dealing under
ERISA, according to the lawsuit.
A Manhattan federal judge sided with the company in 2022,
concluding that it appropriately monitored these funds at regular
meetings and with outside investment advice. The judge previously
denied the company's motion to dismiss in 2020, together with its
motion to quickly appeal that decision to the Second Circuit.
Dozens of recent ERISA lawsuits have targeted financial companies
that put their own funds in their workers' 401(k) plans. These
cases have garnered hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements,
with settling employers including Reliance Trust Co. ($39.8
million), McKinsey & Co. ($39.5 million), Wells Fargo & Co. ($32.5
million), SunTrust Banks Inc. ($29 million), and Deutsche Bank
($21.9 million).
The Second Circuit's opinion was issued by Judges Gerard E. Lynch,
William J. Nardini, and Sarah A. L. Merriam.
Nichols Kaster PLLP and Apollo Law LLC represent the workers.
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP represents Goldman.
The case is Falberg v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., 2d Cir., No.
22-2689, unpublished 2/14/24. [GN]
GREENTREE HOME: Gonzalez Files ADA Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greentree Home
Candle, LLC. The case is captioned as YANILZA GONZALEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GREENTREE HOME CANDLE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00901 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 7, 2024).
The suit is brought over alleged violations of the American with
Disabilities Act.
Greentree Home Candle, LLC is a producer of beeswax candles,
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Telephone: (718) 740-5060
E-mail: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
HAYKINGDOM INC: Salas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haykingdom, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Ruben Salas, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Haykingdom, Inc., et al., Case No. 23CV013925
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 21, 2023).
Hay Kingdom -- http://www.haykingdom.com/-- offers the most wide
range of forage products with 5 compress facilities on the west
coast.[BN]
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Story Can File Class Cert. Exhibits Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Story v. Heartland Payment
Systems, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00724 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2019),
the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order granting the
motion for leave to file under seal.
-- The Plaintiffs may file the exhibits to 202 the motion to
certify
class under seal or redacted as described on pages 3-4 of the
motion for leave to File under seal, subject to the Court's
review
after filing.
-- The Plaintiffs must file the exhibits no later than 29, 2024.
The suit alleges contract related violations.
Heartland is a U.S.-based payment processing and technology
provider.[CC]
HERMES BNY: Settlement OK'd, Ramirez Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEJANDRO PEREZ RAMIREZ,
et al., v. HERMES BNY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01580-AS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order
approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice.
-- All pending motions are moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to
close the case.
The parties in this action, brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor Law (NYLL),
advised the Court that they agreed to a settlement.
By Order entered Nov. 2, 2023, the Court directed the parties to
submit a joint letter explaining the basis for the proposed
settlement and why it should be approved, with reference to the
factors set forth in Wolinsky v. Scholastic, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
On Jan. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff submitted the executed settlement
agreement as well as a letter addressing why the settlement should
be approved.
The settlement's key terms are a release by Plaintiff of any claims
against Defendants related to this action and a payment of $20,000,
$2,326.50 of which will be paid to Plaintiff's counsel.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Jan. 19,
2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XmUCG5 at no extra charge.[CC]
HESAI GROUP: Pacella Class Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALAN PACELLA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HESAI GROUP, YIFAN LI, LOUIS T. HSIEH,
KAI SUN, SHAOQING XIANG, CAILIAN YANG, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, GOLDMAN
SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., MORGAN STANLEY ASIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, HUATAI SECURITIES (USA), INC., COGENCY
GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02634, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 6,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-00876-JHR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' false and misleading
statements in connection with Hesai Group's initial public offering
in February 2023 which caused compensable damages in violation of
the Securities Act of 1933.
Hesai Group is a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) solutions
company based in China.
Goldman Sachs (Asia) LLC is an investment banking firm based in
Hong Kong, China.
Morgan Stanley Asia Limited is an investment banking firm based in
Hong Kong, China.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is an investment banking firm
based in New York, New York.
Huatai Securities (USA) Inc. is an investment banking firm based in
New York, New York.
Cogency Global, Inc. is an authorized U.S. representative of Hesai
Group. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
HIGHTECHLENDING INC: June 29 Extension for Class Cert Filing Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THANE CHARMAN, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HIGHTECHLENDING INC, d/b/a AMERICAN SENIOR, a business entity and
JOHN DOE an unknown business entity, Case No. 3:23-cv-01235-AJB-KSC
(S.D. Cal.), the Parties jointly request that the deadlines in the
Scheduling
Order be continued by 90 days to allow the Parties to perform
necessary depositions and discovery in this case, as follows:
-- Scheduled deadline for completing discovery May 23, 2024
by all Parties to be extended from
February 23, 2024 to:
-- Scheduled deadline for filing a Motion June 29,
2024
for Class Certification by the Plaintiff
to be extended from March 29, 2024 to:
-- Scheduled telephonic Status Conference for Sept. 28,
2024
June 28, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. to be or later
Rescheduled for:
On Dec. 27, 2023, the Defendant received a settlement demand from
the Plaintiff and Defendant is currently gathering evidence and
data to respond to the settlement demand.
The Defendant needs the extra time to gather credible evidence from
various sources to negotiate this settlement demand. Id. In the
event the settlement discussions fail, the Parties can utilize
evidence gathered to bring or oppose a Motion for Class
Certification, identify further witnesses for depositions, and
prepare their respective
witnesses for depositions.
On July 2, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against Defendant in this Court alleging (1) Violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and (2) Violations Unlawful Prong
of California Unfair Competition Law. Declaration of Shannon Marie
Jenkins.
On July 24, 2023, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Insufficient Service of Process. On July 25, 2023, the Court set a
briefing schedule for the Motion to Dismiss and ordered a Motion
Hearing date for September 18, 2023.
On Aug. 9, 2023, the Defendant filed Answer. On Aug. 10, 2023, the
Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
HighTechLending is a mortgage bank and direct lender in
Califiornia.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vWunXy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Defendant are:
Shannon Marie Jenkins, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF YURI SIMPSON
HIGHTECHLENDING, INC. D/B/A/
AMERICAN SENIOR
E-mail: sjenkins@tldlaw.com
The Attorneys for Plaintiff Thane Charman are:
Yuri Simpson, Esq.
Chris Reichman, Esq.
PRATO REICHMAN, APC
E-mail: yuri@lifelinelegal.com
chrisr@prato-reichman.com
HILL'S PET: Faces KetoNatural Suit Over False Pet Food Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
KETONATURAL PET FOODS, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC.,
a subsidiary of COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., MORRIS ANIMAL FOUNDATION,
MARK MORRIS INSTITUTE, LISA M. FREEMAN, DARCY, B. ADIN, JOSHUA A.
STERN, RYAN C. FRIES and JOHN E. RUSH, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-02046 (D. Kan., February 6, 2024) challenges the
Defendants' alleged egregious, wide-ranging, and damaging campaign
of coordinated, for-profit, faux-scientific misinformation.
According to the complaint, Hill's and a cluster of associated
entities and individuals embarked on a drastic and unlawful course
to excel in "non-traditional" pet food brands. They carried out a
scheme to falsely convince American dog owners that a massive,
unrelated, and hugely diverse group of dog food products --
essentially any product made by any of the hundreds of independent
firms that were collectively eroding Hill's market share -- all
increase the risk and severity of a deadly canine heart disease
called dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). To carry out the scheme,
Hill's, along with a group of closely-bound academic veterinarians
and front organizations operating on Hill's behalf, acted in a
coordinated conspiracy and promote the false idea that
"non-traditional" dog foods raise the risk of canine DCM, the suit
asserts.
Headquartered in Topeka, KS, Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. is one of
the largest and oldest pet food companies in the United States,
with annual revenues in excess of $2 billion and a corporate
history stretching back more than 75 years. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
Kate McGuire, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
E-mail: burt@whafh.com
mcguire@whafh.com
- and -
Michael A. Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
(816) 945-7175
E-mail: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com
HILL'S PET: Plaintiffs Consider Sealing Materials
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA MOORE, GRETA L.
ERVIN, RAFF ARANDO, NICHOLS SMITH, RENEE EDGREN, and CYNTHIA WELTON
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MARS
PETCARE US, INC.; ROYAL CANIN U.S.A., INC.; and HILL'S PET
NUTRITION, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-07001-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs file an administrative motion to Consider Whether
Another Party's Material Should Be Sealed.
Pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order issued in this case,
the materials sought to be sealed by this administrative motion
have been designated by the defendants are third-party materials
designated in other matters, as either "CONFIDENTIAL" or
"CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY."
The portions of the documents sought to be sealed are:
Document Portions to be Filed Under
Seal
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL Pg. 2, lines 10–11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS Pg. 3: lines 14, 17–19, 20–21
AND AUTHORITIES IN Pg. 4: lines 5–6, 16–17,
17–18, 19,
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR 25–26
CLASS CERTIFICATION Pg. 5: lines 3–4, 5–8,
10–12, 19–21
AGAINST DEFENDANT HILL'S Pg. 6: lines 1, 9–11
PET NUTRITION, INC. Pg. 8: lines 14–25
Pg. 9: lines 3–6, 6–9,
20–24
Pg. 10: line 1
Pg. 12: lines 18, 25, 27–28
Pg. 13: lines 1–2, 11–12,
12–13, 14,
21–27
Pg. 14: lines 3–4, 9–14,
18–20, 22–24
Pg. 15: lines 8–9, 11–14,
18–19, 20–
22, 23–24
Pg. 16: lines 7, 8–9, 10–13,
15–16,
26–28
Pg. 17: lines 11–13, 15–16,
27–28
Pg. 18: lines 1–2, 21
Pg. 19: lines 8–11
Hill's Pet is an American pet food company that produces dog and
cat foods.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=crNYsj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. Kelly, Esq.
Matthew D. Davis, Esq.
WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY
& SCHOENBERGER
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108-2615
Telephone: (415) 981-7210
Facsimile: (415) 391-6965
E-mail: mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
mdavis@walkuplawoffice.com
- and -
Michael L. McGlamry, Esq.
Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq.
Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq.
POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 523-7706
Facsimile: (404) 524-1648
E-mail: mmcglamry@pmkm.com
kimjohnson@pmkm.com
carolinemcglamry@pmkm.com
- and -
Lynwood P. Evans, Esq.
Edward J. Coyne III, Esq.
Luke C. Tompkins, Esq.
WARD AND SMITH, P.A.
127 Racine Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
Telephone: (910) 794-4800
Facsimile: (910) 794-4877
E-mail: lpe@wardandsmith.com
ejcoyne@wardandsmith.com
LCTompkins@wardandsmith.com
- and -
Daniel Shulman, Esq.
SHULMAN & BUSKE PLLC
126 North Third Street, Suite 401
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 870-7410
Facsimile: (612) 870-7462
E-mail: dan@shulmanbuske.com
- and -
Ellen M. Carey, Esq.
FORDE & O'MEARA LLP
191 North Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 641-1441
E-mail: ecarey@fordellp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Fredrick Tubach, Esq.
Hannah Y. Chanoine, Esq.
Gerard Savaresse, Esq.
Jeffrey A. N. Kopczynski, Esq.
Anna Schneider, Esq.
Richard B. Goetz, Esq.
Justine M. Daniels, Esq.
Jason Zarrow, Esq.
Amy Laurendeau, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
Direct: (415) 984-8876
Office: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
E-mail: mtubach@omm.com
hchanoine@omm.com
gsavaresse@omm.com
jkopczski@omm.com
aschneider@omm.com
rgoetz@omm.com
jdaniels@omm.com
alaurendeau@omm.com
jzarrow@omm.com
- and -
Jeffrey E. Faucette, Esq.
SKAGGS FAUCETTE LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Office: (415) 295-1197
Facsimile: (415) 433-5994
E-mail: jeff@skaggsfaucette.com
- and -
Stephen D. Raber, Esq.
Joseph Bushur, Esq.
Campbell Curry-Ledbetter, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Office: (202) 434-5000
Facsimile: (2020 434-5029
E-mail: sraber@wc.com
jbusher@wc.com
ccurry-ledbetter@wc.com
HMPS MANAGEMENT: Fails to Provide Meal & Rest Breaks, Ramirez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself, the general public, and all
other "aggrieved employees" v. HMPS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03124 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., February 6, 2024) alleges several violations of the
California Labor Code and the relevant Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders.
Among other things, Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees
were forced to continue working through their meal and rest breaks
in order to assist Defendant's needs. Because of this, Plaintiff
and Defendant's California employees were unable to take their
required meal and rest breaks. Moreover, Defendant failed to pay
premium wages of one hour's pay for each missed meal and rest break
to Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees who were denied
timely meal and rest breaks, says the suit.
HMPS Management Services, LLC is a California Limited Liability
doing business in Cerritos, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
Nidah Farishta, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Telephone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
Nidah@OLFLA.com
HOME PARTNERS: Durham Sues Over Misleading Leases
-------------------------------------------------
Ayoka Durham and Marcus Durham, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Home Partners Holdings LLC,
OPVHHJV LLC, d/b/a Pathlight Property Management, SFR Borrower
2022-1 LLC, and HP Maryland I LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-03490-LKG (D.
Md., Dec. 22, 2023), is brought seeking damages and to enjoin
Defendants from continuing to use their misleading or unenforceable
leases and a return of the monies paid to Defendants through their
illegal leases.
The Defendants operate two rental programs: a "right-to-purchase"
(RTP) program, which is the primary means through which they
acquire single family residences, and a non-right-to-purchase
rental program, through which they rent out homes they have already
purchased (NRTP). Whether a prospective tenant chooses the RTP or
NRTP program, Defendants represent for every home that is available
for lease, that the home is "professionally managed by Pathlight
Property Management, the exclusive property manager for Home
Partners of America, offering excellent customer service, 24/7
emergency maintenance service, online application and payments, and
pet-friendly options." Despite these promises, Defendants routinely
require tenants to enter contracts of adhesion that purport to
waive and modify the warranty of habitability through several
different lease provisions found in Defendants' uniform adhesion
contracts.
In addition, Defendants, through form contracts of adhesion,
require tenants to agree to take on maintenance and repair costs
that otherwise would be borne by Defendants. In their leases,
Defendants misleadingly state that the tenants' rental rates were
negotiated and would otherwise be higher but for the tenants'
alleged agreement to maintain and repair. In reality, Defendants
unilaterally set rental rates, without assigning any consideration
for the tenants' alleged agreement or the value of their services.
During and at the end of tenancies, and using the same form leases,
Defendants routinely pursue their tenants for payment of normal
wear and tear damage, or pre-existing or other damage to
Defendants' real property, which was not caused by the tenants at
all. This conduct also violates the warranty of habitability and
statutory consumer protection laws.
Finally, under their leases, Defendants assess tenants with
numerous lease administration and property management fees,
including but not limited to a "pay-to-pay" utility fee, an HVAC
filter fee, late fees, and for the cost of insuring Defendants'
property. The reason for Defendants' use of its misleading form
leases is simple: Sophisticated corporate landlords intentionally
include unenforceable or misleading clauses in their leases
"trusting they could profit from inserting such terms. These
clauses are likely to mislead tenants into believing that they
reflect the legal state of-affairs," says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are adults residing in Hughesville, Maryland and are
citizens of Maryland.
The Defendants are corporate landlords who collectively own, lease,
and manage approximately 17,000 homes in over 80 markets across the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: tpacheco@milberg.com
sharris@milberg.com
HOME PARTNERS: Sheard Sues Over Misleading & Unenforceable Leases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Sheard, Richard Allen, and Gabrielle Todd, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Partners
Holdings LLC, OPVHHJV LLC, d/b/a Pathlight Property Management, and
HPA US1 LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-04012-NJR (S.D. Ill., Dec. 22, 2023),
is brought seeking damages and to enjoin Defendants from continuing
to use their misleading or unenforceable leases and a return of the
monies paid to Defendants through their illegal leases.
The Defendants operate two rental programs: a "right-to-purchase"
(RTP) program, which is the primary means through which they
acquire single family residences, and a non-right-to-purchase
rental program, through which they rent out homes they have already
purchased (NRTP). Whether a prospective tenant chooses the RTP or
NRTP program, Defendants represent for every home that is available
for lease, that the home is "professionally managed by Pathlight
Property Management, the exclusive property manager for Home
Partners of America, offering excellent customer service, 24/7
emergency maintenance service, online application and payments, and
pet-friendly options." Despite these promises, Defendants routinely
require tenants to enter contracts of adhesion that purport to
waive and modify the warranty of habitability through several
different lease provisions found in Defendants' uniform adhesion
contracts.
In addition, Defendants, through form contracts of adhesion,
require tenants to agree to take on maintenance and repair costs
that otherwise would be borne by Defendants. In their leases,
Defendants misleadingly state that the tenants' rental rates were
negotiated and would otherwise be higher but for the tenants'
alleged agreement to maintain and repair. In reality, Defendants
unilaterally set rental rates, without assigning any consideration
for the tenants' alleged agreement or the value of their services.
During and at the end of tenancies, and using the same form leases,
Defendants routinely pursue their tenants for payment of normal
wear and tear damage, or pre-existing or other damage to
Defendants' real property, which was not caused by the tenants at
all. This conduct also violates the warranty of habitability and
statutory consumer protection laws.
Finally, under their leases, Defendants assess tenants with
numerous lease administration and property management fees,
including but not limited to a "pay-to-pay" utility fee, an HVAC
filter fee, late fees, and for the cost of insuring Defendants'
property. The reason for Defendants' use of its misleading form
leases is simple: Sophisticated corporate landlords intentionally
include unenforceable or misleading clauses in their leases
"trusting they could profit from inserting such terms. These
clauses are likely to mislead tenants into believing that they
reflect the legal state of-affairs," says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are citizens of Illinois.
The Defendants are corporate landlords who collectively own, lease,
and manage approximately 17,000 homes in over 80 markets across the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Michael Dunn, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Email: michael.dunn@milberg.com
- and -
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
Lindsey L. Larson, Esq.
Amy Ortega, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Phone: (952) 941-4005
Email: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
llabellelarson@hjlawfirm.com
aortega@hjlawfirm.com
- and -
Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
Eura Chang, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Email: seellingstad@locklaw.com
jcbourne@locklaw.com
echang@locklaw.com
HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Giguere Seeks to Supplement Class Cert Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH GIGUERE, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HOMEWORKS ENERGY,
INC., MARTIJN FLEUREN, individually and MAX VEGGEBERG,
individually, Case No. 3:21-cv-30015-MGM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to supplement
his reply to defendants' Opposition to motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiff moves to supplement the record with regard to his
Motion for Class Certification to include the affidavit of their
disclosed expert Dr. Liesl Fox.
As Dr. Fox states in her Declaration, the process of determining
which HomeWorks employees have sustained damages as a result of the
challenged pay practice is straightforward and would entail writing
a code using SAS software to scan paysheets kept by HomeWorks in
the ordinary course of business for all class members.
HomeWorks Energy is an environmental services company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v2cFXV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Dinsmore, Esq.
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
One Monarch Place, Suite 1340
Springfield, MA 01144
Telephone: (413) 785-1400
E-mail: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com
rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
HORNE LLP: Hemphill Sues Over Breach of Contract in S.D. Miss.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horne, LLP. The case
is captioned as EBONY HEMPHILL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. HORNE, LLP, Case No.
3:24-cv-00074-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., February 7, 2024).
The suit is brought against the Defendant over alleged contract
violations.
Horne, LLP is a provider of outsourced accounting, financial
operation consulting and business strategy solutions, headquartered
in Ridgeland, Mississippi. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen Wright Mullins, Sr., Esq.
MULLINS LAW FIRM
3712 Tuthill Place
Mobile, AL 36608
Telephone: (228) 218-3543
Facsimile: (228) 217-4928
E-mail: jackfish28@gmail.com
HORSE AND HOME: Sends Unwanted Marketing Calls, Clarke Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horse and Home
Estates, LLC. The case is captioned as TERRY CLARKE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HORSE AND HOME
ESTATES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-20477 (S.D. Fla., February 6,
2024).
The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Horse and Home Estates, LLC is a real estate company doing business
in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
HUDSON COUNTY, NJ: Kidwai Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hudson County
Prosecutor's Office, et al. The case is styled as Yursil Kidwai, on
behalf of himself and ohers similarly situated v. Hudson County
Prosecutor's Office, Esther Suarez, Jane Weiner, Ashley Rubel also
known as: Ashley Thormann, Leslie Murphy, Julia Medina, Ronald
Edwards, Hudson County Department of Corrections And
Rehabilitation, Hudson County Correctional Facility, John Does
1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-23206-ES-ESK (D.N.J., Dec. 19, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
Hudson County Prosecutor's Office -- https://hcpo.org/ -- is a
public prosecutor's office in Jersey City, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly A. Zampino, Esq.
Mark A. Berman, Esq.
HARTMANN DOHERTY ROSA BERMAN & BULBULIA, LLP
433 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 1002
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 441-9056
Fax: (201) 441-9435
Email: mberman@hdrbb.com
HUT 8 CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 8
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Hut 8 Corp. ("Hut 8" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: HUT) of a class action securities lawsuit.
CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
Hut 8 investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between November 9, 2023 and January 18, 2024. Follow the
link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of
our team:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/hut-8-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=66782&wire=4
HUT investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that:
(1) one of the largest shareholders in U.S. Data Mining Group,
Inc. d/b/a US Bitcoin Corp. ("USBTC"), one of the companies that
merged to create Hub 8, is an undisclosed related party;
(2) one of USBTC's core assets has historically failed to
provide energy and high-speed internet;
(3) the profitability of certain USBTC assets were overstated;
and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Hut 8 during the relevant
time frame, you have until April 8, 2024 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
There is no cost or obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.
CONTACT:
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
HUT 8 CORP: Mayiras Sues Over Misleading Statements
---------------------------------------------------
RYAN MAYIRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUT 8 CORP., JAIME LEVERTON, and SHENIF
VISRAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00904 (S.D.N.Y., February 7,
2024) asserts claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the alleged false and/or
misleading statements issued for Hut 8's merger with USBTC.
Plaintiff Mayiras brings this class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hut 8 securities
between November 9, 2023 and January 18, 2024, inclusive. On
January 18, 2024, at approximately 10:30 AM EST, J Capital Research
published a report which alleged, among other things, that Hut 8's
merger with USBTC was premised on a number of alleged
misstatements, including (1) that the USBTC had an "undisclosed
related party" as one of its largest shareholders, (2) that one of
USBTC's core assets, the King Mountain JV, "has historically failed
to provide energy and high-speed internet," and (3) that the
Company had misstated certain finances of the King Mountain JV by
failing to account for certain interest expenses, says the suit.
Headquartered in Miami, FL, Hut 8 is a crypto currency and data
mining company engaged in Bitcoin mining and hosting, managed
services, energy arbitrage, and operating traditional data centers.
Its common stock trade on the NASDAQ stock market under the symbol
"HUT." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
rdawson@glancylaw.com
IFIT INC: Court OK's Douglass Unopposed Bid to Amend
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. iFIT INC., Case
No. 2:23-cv-00917-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to
amend.
-- The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the Amended
Agreement
satisfies the elements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and is fair,
adequate, and reasonable.
-- The order incorporates by reference all other findings made
and deadlines established by the Preliminary Approval Order.
IFIT develops, manufactures, and markets fitness equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YKKNDS at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Beerly Files Negligence Suit in Oklahoma Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health Inc.
The case is captioned as DONALD BEERLY, JR., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, v. INTEGRIS HEALTH INC., Case
No. CJ-2024-819 (D. Okla., February 6, 2024).
The case type is stated as Civil relief more than $10,000:
Negligence General.
Integris Health Inc. is a healthcare provider in Oklahoma. [BN]
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Faces Criticism on Cyberattack Class Suit Response
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Tomlinson, writing for Nondoc, reports that several lawsuits
have been filed against INTEGRIS Health, the largest not-for-profit
Oklahoma-owned health system in the state, after a hacker claims to
have obtained names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and
contact and demographic information from more than 2.2 million
patients during a November cyberattack.
Meanwhile, a separate health care system that serves northeast
Oklahoma suffered a cyberattack within the same week, and lawmakers
are proposing legislation that would require hospitals to notify
the Attorney General's Office after data breaches occur.
Although INTEGRIS Health's leadership believes their attack
occurred Nov. 28, impacted patients were not notified of the breach
until the bad actor emailed people on Christmas Eve seeking payment
in exchange for deletion of their personal health information.
INTEGRIS Health is Edmond's largest private employer and operates
the city's largest hospital. Several people whose families
apparently had their personal information stolen declined to speak
publicly about the data breach for fear of reprisal by the hacker,
although each expressed frustration with INTEGRIS for the apparent
delay in notifying patients about the breach.
One Edmond resident affected by the data breach -- who agreed to
speak with NonDoc on the condition of anonymity -- said the hacker
emailed him Dec. 24 with his name, Social Security number, phone
number and address. INTEGRIS Health notified him of the attack Jan.
5, about 38 days after the breach occurred and 12 days after the
hacker emailed patients. By that time, news outlets had already
reported the hack publicly.
"They breached in November, the bad guys let me know in December,
and I don't hear anything from INTEGRIS until the start of the new
year?" the man told NonDoc on the condition of anonymity. "It
appears to me that INTEGRIS couldn't organize a two-car funeral."
INTEGRIS Health has offered 24 months of free credit monitoring to
patients impacted by the data breach.
"The notion of giving someone free credit monitoring for two years
after knowing they have been hacked for nearly two months seems
like a half-assed gesture to help you," the INTEGRIS patient said.
Initially, 11 separate class-action lawsuits were filed against
INTEGRIS Health in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma. In the latest court filings, Timothy DeGiusti, chief
U.S. district judge, consolidated each case under Zinck et al v.
INTEGRIS Health Inc.
Owing to the sheer amount of class-members involved in the case,
the court has found some potential conflict-of-interests involving
its law clerks. The mother of one law clerk assigned to the case is
a class member, while two other law clerks in the court's chambers
are class members themselves, DeGiusti wrote in a Jan. 31 order.
If any party of the case files an objection against those law
clerks by 5 p.m. Monday, Feb. 5, the court will find a
"conflict-free law clerk from another judge in the Western
District." If no objections are filed, those law clerks will
continue on the case.
Additionally, there are jurisdictional concerns under the Class
Action Fairness Act. CAFA vests federal courts with jurisdiction
over putative class actions where the amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million in the aggregate and there is minimal diversity between
the parties.
"Amanda Harvey, counsel for INTEGRIS, stated that, based on
preliminary calculations, there are approximately 2,285,646
INTEGRIS patients impacted by the data breach. Of those patients,
Ms. Harvey stated it is currently believed that approximately 90
percent are Oklahoma residents," DeGiusti wrote in the Jan. 31
order.
To address the issues under CAFA, DeGiusti ordered Harvey to file a
notice with the court by Feb. 13, "in which counsel shall set forth
INTEGRIS's most recent interpretation of the figures regarding
residency of putative class members, as discussed during the status
conference."
Brooke Cayot, a communications manager with INTEGRIS Health,
provided a statement directing impacted patients to the company's
website for further information.
"The privacy, confidentiality and security of our patients'
personal information are top priorities for INTEGRIS Health. As we
work with third-party specialists to investigate this matter and
determine the scope of affected data and to whom that data relates,
we are providing the latest information for patients and the public
here," Cayot wrote. "As we confirm affected individuals, we are
reaching out to them to provide notification and support, including
24 months of access to free credit monitoring and identity
protection services. As our investigation into this matter is
ongoing, we are unable to provide additional information at this
time."
INTEGRIS Health switched security providers in fall 2023
INTEGRIS Health representatives have largely declined to answer
specific questions about the situation, but Cayot confirmed the FBI
is involved in an ongoing investigation.
"We are unable to answer some of the below questions as we continue
to work with third-party specialists, as well as the FBI, to
complete the investigation," Cayot said. "INTEGRIS Health takes the
security of our patients' information seriously. Our security team
regularly consults with industry experts on the latest protections
and safeguards available to thwart illegal activity.
"We understand the uncertainty and concerns that the data breach
has caused our community. It is an unfortunate reality of doing
business today that new threats continuously emerge in an attempt
to disrupt the care we provide and impact the trust of those who
rely upon us in their time of need."
Sometime in fall 2023, INTEGRIS Health changed its software
security provider from VMWare to Citrix. However, the health system
has since switched back to VMWare "temporarily."
"We did move to Citrix in the fall," Cayot said. "However, we moved
temporarily back to VMware."
Complications related to the switch to Citrix last fall allegedly
caused an array of problems, including at least one weekend during
which nurses and doctors struggled to access certain patient data.
Asked whether the changes in software security systems is believed
to be related to the data breach, Cayot declined to answer.
Jonathan Rule, the chief hospital executive of INTEGRIS Health
Edmond, spoke on the hospital's growth and expanding workforce
needs during a Zoom presentation at an Edmond Economic Development
Authority meeting Jan. 16, but he did not address the data breach.
INTEGRIS Health is the fourth largest employer in Edmond, following
Edmond Public Schools, the University of Central Oklahoma and the
City of Edmond.
"We said we're going to grow with Edmond, and we've done that.
We're now the largest private employer in the city," Rule said. "As
we add additional clinics and as we continue to operationalize the
rest of our expansion, I fully anticipate that we'll probably move
into that number three spot here in the next three to five years."
Ardent Health Services sustains separate November cyberattack
Around the same time as the INTEGRIS Health data breach, Ardent
Health Services -- the parent company of the Hillcrest Healthcare
System, which serves northeast Oklahoma -- endured a cyberattack of
its own. Although Ardent announced its breach within a week of it
occurring, patients whose data had been breached were not contacted
directly by the company for nearly two months, according to a
timeline of statements on the Ardent Health website.
In a Nov. 27 press release, Ardent Health Services announced it
became aware of a "cybersecurity incident" that occurred Nov. 23,
five days before the INTEGRIS Health breach.
In response, Ardent Health Services informed law enforcement of the
incident and "took its network offline, suspending all user access
to its information technology applications, including corporate
servers, Epic software, internet and clinical programs," according
to the press release. The health care provider restored access to
Epic, its electronic health record provider, on Dec. 6, according
to another press release.
In a Jan. 22 press release, Ardent Health Services said its
investigation into the issue "revealed that an unauthorized actor
extracted copies of documents that include certain individuals'
personal information." That information includes addresses, phone
numbers, Social Security numbers, email addresses, medical
treatment information, health insurance and claims information, as
well as Medicaid and Medicare numbers.
"On Jan. 22, 2024, Ardent Health Services and its affiliated
entities began mailing letters to individuals whose information may
have been involved in the incident," the updated statement reads.
"Our data review process is ongoing and will take time to complete.
As we identify additional impacted individuals, we will mail
letters to them in accordance with all applicable laws."
Asked whether there is any indication the Ardent cyberattack and
INTEGRIS cyberattack could be related, Brittany Parmley, a
spokeswoman for Hillcrest, said that question should be directed to
law enforcement.
Asked what agency is investigating the Hillcrest data breach,
Parmley replied that Ardent would not share that information.
"Everything that we have shared is available online," Parmley
said.
Both INTEGRIS Health and Ardent Health Services use Epic as their
electronic health record provider. However, Cayot said INTEGRIS
Health officials could not consider whether the two November
cyberattacks were linked in any way, emphasizing that the
investigation is still ongoing.
"We are unable to speculate on whether the Hillcrest cyberattack
was related. INTEGRIS Health's investigation and review of
potentially impacted data to determine the type of information and
to whom it relates is ongoing," Cayot said Feb. 5. "We have emailed
letters to those with an email on file and additional letters will
begin mailing later this week."
'Playing corporate amnesia'
William Federman, an attorney representing the group of INTEGRIS
patients affected by the data breach, said the company has not
communicated effectively with its customers.
"INTEGRIS has not been forthcoming with many details. It appears
there was a ransomware attack. It appears the ransomware attack was
successful to infiltrate INTEGRIS' cyber environment. It further
appears that the ransomware attackers gained access to the
confidential health and personal information of INTEGRIS' employees
and potentially patients," Federman said. "We're fairly confident
that information was exfiltrated (. . .) because all of the
(lawsuit) class members have been receiving essentially blackmail
emails from the bad actor wanting to be paid off."
After the perpetrator emailed patients Dec. 24, INTEGRIS Health
posted a statement to its website that day notifying patients of
the cyberattack.
"Regrettably, we are writing to inform you of a cyber event that
may have impacted our patient data. Specifically, we became aware
of unauthorized access to a certain portion of our network that
stores patient information," the Dec. 24 statement said. "Upon
becoming aware of the activity, INTEGRIS Health promptly took steps
to secure the environment and commenced an investigation into the
nature and scope of the activity. There was no interruption to any
services as a result of this event, and INTEGRIS Health remains
fully operational."
After allegedly failing to receive extorted payments from INTEGRIS
Health itself, the hacker attempted to extort patients, Federman
said, by giving them until Jan. 5 to pay $50 for their stolen
personal health information. If they failed to make the payment,
"[the hacker] threatened it would sell the entire database to (dark
web) data brokers on Jan. 5, 2024," the litigation complaint
states.
It is unclear whether patient data was sold Jan. 5.
In their email to patients, the hacker said they contacted INTEGRIS
after the breach, "but INTEGRIS refused to resolve the issue,"
according to the complaint.
INTEGRIS Health's updated statement said an investigation was
launched after "becoming aware of the suspicious activity."
"The investigation determined that certain files may have been
accessed by an unauthorized party on Nov. 28, 2023. INTEGRIS Health
initiated a review of the potentially accessed data to determine
the type of information and to whom it related, which is currently
underway," the statement said. "As that review was ongoing, on Dec.
24, 2023, INTEGRIS Health learned that patients began receiving
communications from a group claiming responsibility for the
unauthorized access."
The company ecnouraged "anyone receiving such communications to NOT
respond or contact the sender, or follow any of the instructions,
including accessing any links."
Federman claims INTEGRIS Health put its patients at risk by failing
to take action against the cyberattack in a timely manner.
"It's very troubling that INTEGRIS is not ahead of the game here
and seems to be behind the eight ball. INTEGRIS should have done
something to lock down its system to prevent the problem from
happening. Once the problem happened, they should have advised the
[affected patients] immediately so they could have taken action,"
Federman said. "It's essentially been silence from INTEGRIS. You
just can't be the ostrich with your head in the ground. You have to
be proactive. You're failing your customers, your patients."
Federman said he expects INTEGRIS Health to "stiff arm" the class
members of his lawsuit as they continue to seek more information
about the attack and its impact.
"It doesn't behoove anyone -- the class members, INTEGRIS, nobody
-- for INTEGRIS to simply keep a secret here," Federman said.
"That's what they're doing: Playing corporate amnesia."
The civil complaint filed Dec. 28 lists five causes of action:
Negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
Legislation filed related to notice of data breaches
Prior to the Oklahoma Legislature gaveling in for its 2024 regular
session Feb. 5, Sen. Brent Howard (R-Altus) filed legislation in
December that would modify notice requirements for data breaches of
certain security systems. The bill would add new definitions for
"reasonable safeguards" and "restricted information."
Senate Bill 1337, if passed, would require entities or individuals
to "provide notice to the attorney general of such breach without
unreasonable delay but in no event more than 60 days after
discovery of the breach." Currently, Oklahoma's existing Security
Breach Notification Act provides no time frame for when the
attorney general should be notified of such a breach.
While the Security Breach Notification Act already allows the
attorney general or a district attorney exclusive authority to
bring action and obtain either actual damages or a civil penalty
not to exceed "$150,000 per breach of the security of the system or
series of breaches of a similar nature that are discovered in a
single investigation," Howard's legislation would also allow the
attorney general or a district attorney to seek actual damages and
civil penalty equaling $150,000 or $2,000 per individual affected
per breach, whichever is greater. The bill also adds hospitals as
specific entities to be in compliance with provisions of the act.
Asked if SB 1337 was filed in response to the recent data breaches
at hospitals, Howard said the bill is part of an initiative that
began in the Attorney General's Office back in "August or
September."
"This one is something that the Attorney General's Office has been
working on, and I've kind of helped just shepherd it through,"
Howard said. "But yeah, it's to put that within the AG's office and
overview within there."
Phil Bacharach, communications director for Attorney General
Gentner Drummond, called the bill a "common-sense" proposal.
"Businesses and consumers all too often find themselves victimized
by hackers and other unscrupulous actors, and without recourse for
prosecution," Bacharach said. "SB 1337 would help ensure bad actors
are held accountable for data breaches. It's a common-sense,
pro-business and pro-consumer measure." [GN]
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Harper Files Negligence Suit in Oklahoma Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health Inc.
The case is captioned as TY HARPER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. INTEGRIS HEALTH INC., Case No.
CJ-2024-818 (D. Okla., February 6, 2024).
The case type is stated as Civil relief more than $10,000:
Negligence General.
Integris Health Inc. is a healthcare provider in Oklahoma. [BN]
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Salcedo Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Yovany Cordero Salcedo, on behalf of himself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v Integris Health,
Inc., Case No. CJ-2024-621 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma Cty., Jan.
30, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Civil relief more than $10,000: CLASS
ACTION."
Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501
not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in
the state of Oklahoma.[BN]
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Warner Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Zachary Warner, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v Integris Health, Inc.,
Case No. CJ-2024-620 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma Cty., Jan. 30,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Civil relief more than $10,000: CLASS
ACTION."
Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501
not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in
the state of Oklahoma.[BN]
INTERVET INC: Aviles Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jerry Aviles, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Intervet Inc. doing business as:
www.homeagain.com, Case No. 23STCV28285 was transferred from the
Los Angeles County Superior Court of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 27,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10825-RGK-BFM to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Intervet Inc. develops, manufactures and markets abroad range of
veterinary medicines and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric J. Bakewell, Esq.
Benita Sheung-Won Yu, Esq.
Emily Horak, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR AND GALLAGHER LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2905
Phone: (310) 855-3000
Fax: (310) 855-3099
Email: ebakewell@willkie.com
byu@willkie.com
ehorak@willkie.com
J & C ENERGY: Faces Garner TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J & C Energy
Enterprises LLC, doing business as ESD Solar. The case is captioned
as BENJAMIN JOHN GARNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. J & C ENERGY ENTERPRISES LLC, doing business
as ESD SOLAR, Case No. 8:24-cv-00354 (M.D. Fla., February 6,
2024).
The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
J & C Energy Enterprises LLC, doing business as ESD Solar, is a
solar panel installer based in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
JIM N. NICKS NICEVILLE: Gettinger Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jim N. Nicks
Niceville, LLC. The case is styled as Shawn Gettinger, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Jim N Nicks Niceville,
LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-02965-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla., Dec. 26, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jim N. Nicks Niceville, LLC -- https://www.jimnnicks.com/ -- is a
Barbecue restaurant and a laid-back chain known for slow-cooked BBQ
& cheese biscuits, plus burgers, salads & classic sides.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morris Files Suit in D. Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson
Consumer, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Rethea Morris, Robert
Haid, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., The Procter
& Gamble Company, The Procter & Gamble Distributing, LLC, Walmart
Inc., and John Does 1-200, whose true name is unknown, Case No.
1:23-cv-03409-NRN (D. Colo., Dec. 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Product Liability.
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American
multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLC
1641 North Downing Street
Denver, CO 80218
Phone: (720) 704-6028
Fax: (619) 255-1515
Email: khannon@singletonschreiber.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Prescription Drugs' Overcharges
------------------------------------------------------------
medriva.com reports that a new class action lawsuit has been filed
against Johnson & Johnson, raising intriguing questions about
employer liability in cases of overpayment for drugs. This could
have far-reaching implications for the pharmaceutical industry,
affecting how employers negotiate drug prices and assess liability
for overpayment. According to a Reuters report, the suit alleges
that Johnson & Johnson overcharged employees for prescription
drugs, seeking to recover damages on their behalf.
The Allegations Against Johnson & Johnson
The lawsuit has been initiated by Ann Lewandowski, a health care
policy and advocacy director at Johnson & Johnson. The company is
accused of overpaying its pharmacy benefit manager for its
employees' medications. Stat News reveals that these overpayments
allegedly trickled down to workers' paychecks in the form of high
health insurance premiums, escalated out-of-pocket drug costs, and
stagnant wage growth.
One striking case presented in the lawsuit is Johnson & Johnson's
alleged payment of more than $10,000 for a single 90-day
prescription of teriflunomide, a generic medicine for multiple
sclerosis. This is a stark contrast to the price of the same 90-day
prescription that could be purchased for a mere $30 elsewhere
without insurance.
Impact on the Company and the Pharmaceutical Industry
As outlined by Politico Pro, the lawsuit brings not only Johnson &
Johnson but also the entire pharmaceutical industry under scrutiny.
If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, this could transform
how health benefits are administered, prompting companies to
reassess their relationships with pharmacy benefits managers and
potentially leading to more intense negotiations around drug
prices.
A Bloomberg report further emphasizes the potential ramifications
of the lawsuit. The health plan of Johnson & Johnson allegedly
wasted workers' money by agreeing to inflated prices for
prescription drugs. If these allegations hold up in court, it could
lead to more stringent regulations and closer scrutinization of
health plans offered by employers.
Past Legal Troubles for Johnson & Johnson
It's important to note that this is not the first time Johnson &
Johnson has found itself in legal hot water. As reported by the
Lawsuit Information Center, the company is grappling with a class
action lawsuit related to talcum powder allegedly causing ovarian
cancer. With numerous cases pending and substantial settlement
amounts offered by J&J, these lawsuits signify a serious challenge
for the company.
The outcome of these lawsuits could potentially drive significant
changes in the pharmaceutical industry, affecting drug pricing,
employer liability, and health plan administration. It is a
development that deserves close attention from stakeholders in the
pharmaceutical sector and health care industry. [GN]
JUST SALAD: Lewis Sues Over FTSA's Caller ID Rule Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUST SALAD, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-001547 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., February 5,
2024), seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for
violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
Plaintiff Lewis alleges that the Defendant violated the FTSA's
Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable
of receiving phone calls when it made telephonic sales calls by
text message.
Just Salad, LLC is registered as a foreign limited liability
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
KELLER BROTHERS: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Hernandez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SONIA HERNANDEZ, BLANCA MENJIVAR, and SIDIA BELTRAN, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KELLER
BROTHERS, INC., FERVAS CONSTRUCTION LLC, GREEN GENERATION
LANDSCAPING & DESIGN, LLC, and FERNANDO VASQUEZ, Defendants, Case
No. 8:24-cv-00253-AAQ (D. Md., Jan. 25, 2024) arises from
Defendants' misclassification of Plaintiffs as independent
contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law,
Maryland Prevailing Wage Rate Law, and the Maryland Workplace Fraud
Law.
According to the complaint, during certain weeks Plaintiffs worked
more than 40 hours per week and were entitled to be compensated for
that overtime work at the properly calculated overtime rate but
Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs at the overtime rate for their
overtime work.
The Defendants improperly classified Plaintiffs as independent
contractors. As a result of being improperly classified as
independent contractors Plaintiffs were harmed, including by not
being paid at the overtime rate for overtime work, says the suit.
Plaintiffs Hernandez, Menjivar, and Beltran worked for Defendant
Fernando Vasquez and his companies as construction workers and
landscaping workers from approximately 2016, the fall of 2020, and
approximately August 2021, respectively.
Keller Brothers, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which is in the
construction business and which often acts as a construction
general contractor.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
1100 N Glebe Rd, Suite 1010
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (703) 665-9529
E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew Handley, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
201 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200K
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 559-2411
E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com
KIA AMERICA INC: Hurst Suit Transferred to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hailey Hurst, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Motor
America Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-07240 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 21,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-02505-JVS-KES to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide
range of cars that meet your lifestyle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Blake Jones, Esq.
Joshua L. Rubenstein, Esq.
BLAKE JONES LAW FIRM, LLC
One Shell Square
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4100
New Orleans, LA 70139
Phone: (504) 525-4361
Fax: (504) 525-4380
Email: jones@nola-law.com
jrubenstein@nola-law.com
- and -
Jason Zachary Landry, Esq.
Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
MARTZELL AND BICKFORD
338 Lafayette Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 581-9065
Email: jzl@mbfirm.com
lcentola@mbfirm.com
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Settlement Deal in Honigman Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLADYS HONIGMAN; and D.
JOSEPH KURTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Case No. 15-CV-2910 (PKC)
(RML) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered an order as
follows:
-- The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement in this matter
satisfies all four factors under Rule 23(e)(2) and the
Grinnell
factors, and thus is substantively fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
-- The Court hereby affirms its prior decision finally approving
the Settlement Agreement and certifying the Settlement Class.
-- In addition, the Court approves and awards:
(1) attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,169,335.02,
(2) litigation expenses and charges in the amount of
$138,331.23,
and
(3) class representative incentive awards of $10,000 and
$5,000
to Kurtz and Honigman, respectively.
These payments shall be paid by Defendant to Plaintiffs
and Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
In April 2022, eight years after the instant lawsuits were
initiated, Plaintiffs and Defendant Kimberly-Clark entered into the
Settlement Agreement, which, together with the exhibits attached
thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed
settlement and the dismissal of the instant class action lawsuits
as to Defendant.
Kimberly-Clark is an American multinational personal care
corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DAaaXI at no extra
charge.[CC]
L'OCCITANE INC: Takes Aim at Zimmerman Reed Over Mass Arbitrations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of news.bloomberglaw.com reports that L'Occitane
Inc. asked a federal court to order Zimmerman Reed LLP to stop
"manufacturing frivolous claims" against it under the California
Invasion of Privacy Act as part of what it said was an illegal
mass-arbitration shakedown scheme.
The cosmetics and home products firm also argued that CIPA should
be struck down as unconstitutional because it improperly restrains
speech and provides an exemption for communications occurring over
public utility networks without providing the same exemption to
other modern information-services providers.
L'Occitane filed the lawsuit after Zimmerman Reed notified it in
November 2023 that it had begun filing demands for arbitration.
[GN]
LAZER SPOT: Johnson Collective Action Gets Conditional Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORNEUUS JOHNSON and JAMES
STRICKLAND, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
V. LAZER SPOT, INC., A Georgia Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-01852-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Mark H. Cohen entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify
collective action:
"All hourly paid yard spotter employees who worked for Defendant
in
the state of Georgia in the past three years and who were paid
'straight time for overtime' for any overtime hours worked at
any
time in that three-year period."
The Court further entered an order that:
-- The Parties shall jointly submit any proposed modifications or,
in
the alternative, file any objections to Plaintiffs' proposed
notice within 21 days of the date of this Order.
-- The Defendant shall provide to the Plaintiffs within 21 days of
the date of this Order a list of all putative class members
that contains the last known contact information, including:
fall
name, address, mail address, telephone number, dates of
employment
Job title, location and dates of employment and dates of
birth.
-- The parties must confer in good faith and endeavor to jointly
submit any proposed modifications to Plaintiffs' proposed
notice
within 21 days of the date of this Order.
The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), alleging that Lazer Spot, Inc., failed to pay them, and
other similarly situated employees, overtime wages to which they
were entitled.
The Plaintiff Cornelius Johnson worked for Defendant as a yard
spotter from February 2019 to March 2022.
Lazer provides yard management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OZea8t at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEGATOS HOLDINGS: Fagnani Sues Over Disabled Rights' Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legatos Holdings Inc.
The case is captioned as MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEGATOS HOLDINGS INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00878 (S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2024).
The suit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Legatos Holdings Inc. is a retail company doing business in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
E-mail: michael@gottlieb.legal
LEIDOS INC: Parker Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
James F. Parker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LEIDOS, INC. and DILIGENT CORPORATION, Case No.
1:23-cv-11070-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2023), is brought arising
from the Defendants’ failures to protect highly sensitive
personal information and data, including Personally Identifying
Information (“PII”), of its current and former employees,
including Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members.
As part of its business, Leidos collects and stores a litany of
highly sensitive PII about its current and former employees,
Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members. And Leidos used
Diligent’s software to store this PII. But Leidos lost control
over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated Diligent’s
insufficiently protected computer systems in a series of data
breaches (together, the “Data Breach”).
It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access
to Defendants’ network before the breach was discovered. In other
words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop,
or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing
cybercriminals unrestricted access to current and former
employees’ PII.
On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendants’ systems because Defendants failed to adequately train
its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class’s PII. In
short, Defendants’ failures placed the Class’s PII in a
vulnerable position rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach
notice.
Leidos is an international corporation with business in the
“civil, defense, health, and intelligence” sectors.BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 558-5500
Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC - NASHVILLE
223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 250-3937
Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Filing for Class Status in Luce Due May 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as William M. Luce, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated natural persons, v. Lexington
County Health Services District, Inc., Brian D. Smith in both his
official and individual capacity, and Lynn Coggins in both her
official and individual capacity, Case No. 3:22-cv-03898-MGL
(D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered a second amended
conference and scheduling order as follows:
1. A conference of the parties pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f)
shall
be held no later than Jan. 24, 2024.
2. No later than Feb. 7, 2024, the required initial disclosures
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) shall be made.
3. No later than Feb. 7, 2024, the parties shall file a Rule
26(f)
Report in the form attached to this order.
4. Motions to join other parties and amend the pleadings
(Fed.R.Civ.P.16(b)(3)(A)) shall be filed no later than March
20,
2024.
5. Pre-certification discovery shall be completed no later than
April 19, 2024.
6. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed
on
or before May 6, 2024.
7. The Plaintiff(s) shall file and serve a document identifying
by
full name, address, and telephone number each person whom
Plaintiff(s) expects to call as an expert at trial and
certifying that a written report prepared and signed by the
expert including all information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed to other parties by August 12,
2024.
8. The Defendant(s) shall file and serve a document identifying
by
full name, address, and telephone number each person whom
Defendant(s) expects to call as an expert at trial and
certifying that a written report prepared and signed by the
expert including all information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed to other parties Sept. 11,
2024.
9. Counsel shall file and serve affidavits of records custodian
witnesses proposed to be presented by affidavit at trial no
later than October 11, 2024.
10. Motions in limine must be filed no later than December 9,
2024.
11. All other motions, except those to complete discovery, those
nonwaivable motions made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, and
those
relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial, shall be
filed on or before November 8, 2024.
12. Mediation shall be completed in this case on or before Oct.
25,
2024.
13. No later than Dec. 6, 2024, the parties shall file and
exchange
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3)pretrial disclosures.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NwNKU0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Beech Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN BEECH, on behalf
of herself and the class members described in complaint, v. THE
LITIGATION PRACTICE GROUP, PC, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00057-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Halil Suleyman
Ozerden entered an order denying without prejudice plaintiff
Carolyn Beech's motion to certify class with respect to the
Defendants other than the Litigation Practice Group, PC.
The Court said that it cannot grant the Plaintiff's request as
presented and as such it should be denied without prejudice. The
Plaintiff may refile her motion on or before Feb. 1, 2024, but she
must satisfy Rule 23 by either specifying how each individual class
or subclass satisfies Rule 23, or by instead proposing a single
general class.
Additionally, the Plaintiff has not shown that "each subclass
independently satisfie[s]" Rule 23's other requirements.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of multiple classes or
subclasses, she is required to brief and analyze all the
requirements of Rule 23 as to each class or subclass.
The Plaintiff Beech brought this action pursuant to the Credit
Repair Organizations Act ("CROA"). The Complaint alleged that the
Defendant was a credit repair organization which violated CROA.
Litigation Practice was a firm that specialized in debt relief,
bankruptcy, and litigation manners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HLWytM at no extra
charge.[CC]
LONG BEACH: Tierney Sues Over Discrimination, Harassment at Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH TIERNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
governmental entity; MILLIKAN HIGH SCHOOL, a governmental entity;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV03137 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 6, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Employment and
Housing Act, the California Family Rights Act, Whistleblower
Protection Under California Labor Code, and California Civil Code.
The case arises from the Defendants' predominantly racial, color,
gender, age, association, opposing illegal, unsafe and unhealthy
conduct, and practices, which caused the Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees to be disabled. Moreover, the Defendants failed
to provide a timely, good faith, interactive process, and
reasonable accommodation for disabled employees. The Plaintiff and
Class members also suffered interference, harassment, and
retaliation for needing, requesting, and/or taking FEHA/CFRA
disability leaves, says the suit.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a special education
teacher.
Long Beach Unified School District is a school district
headquartered in Long Beach, California.
Millikan High School is a high school in Long Beach, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. McCarty, Esq.
Daniel E. Hoffman, Esq.
Jane Braugh, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT WARMUTH
17700 Castleton St., Suite 168
City of Industry, CA 91748
Telephone: (626) 282-6868
Facsimile: (626) 642-0808
E-mail: imccarty@law888.com
dhoffman@law888.com
jbraugh@law888.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Newman Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMMY NEWMAN and ANTONIO
RINCON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-03467-CAS-PD (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder entered an order granting
the parties' joint stipulation to amend scheduling order to
Continue Discovery Cutoff, Trial, and all Scheduling Order
Deadlines based on ongoing settlement discussions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JzdAJj at no extra
charge.[CC
LUND CONSTRUCTION: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lund Construction
Co., et al. The case is styled as Felipe Gutierrez, and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Lund Construction Co., et al., Case
No. 23CV013934 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 21, 2023).
Lund Construction Co. -- https://www.lundconst.com/ -- is a
construction company in North Highlands, California.[BN]
MAKER ECOSYSTEM: $1.16MM Crypto Platform Class Settlement Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce E. Cutler at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Maker
Ecosystem Growth Holdings Inc. will pay $1.16 million to settle
claims by cryptocurrency account holders, following a federal
judge's approval of a class action accord.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the US District Court for the Northern
District of California approved the settlement ending the lawsuit
by "Vault" holders on the Maker platform. Plaintiffs alleged Maker,
also called Metronym, misrepresented the risks associated with the
decentralized finance platform by promising that its own digital
currency, DAI, was shored up by other digital assets.[GN]
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Fagnani Sues Over ADA Violations in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCormick & Company,
Incorporated. The case is captioned as MYKAYLA FAGNANI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:24-cv-00879
(S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2024).
The suit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
McCormick & Company, Incorporated is a spice and extract
manufacturing company, headquartered in Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
E-mail: michael@gottlieb.legal
MD VALUECARE: Console & Associates Investigates Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
The data breach lawyers at Console & Associates, P.C. are
investigating the MD Valuecare data breach that was reported after
the company was affected by a recent cyber security attack at
HealthEC. The MD Valuecare data breach resulted in the below
information of certain individuals being compromised:
names,
medical information,
dates of birth,
and health insurance information
What Happened?
According to the Attorney General of Maine, the MD Valuecare data
breach was reported after they were affected by a recent cyber
security attack at HealthEC. HealthEC recently became aware that
the company was the target of a cyberattack prompting them to
launch an investigation. It was confirmed that an unauthorized
party was able to access certain HealthEC systems, including files
containing information belonging to MD Valuecare patients between
July 14, 2023 and July 23, 2023. On December 22, 2023, MD Valuecare
sent out data breach letters to those individuals whose information
was affected by the breach.
About MD Valuecare
MD Valuecare, LLC is a healthcare services provider based in
Richmond, Virginia that is a group of 20 independent physician
Healthcarepractices that provide care to Medicare patients,
including:
Chickahominy Family Practice
Commonwealth Primary Care
Dominion Medical Associates
Dermatology Associates of Virginia
Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc.
Neurosurgical Associates
OrthoVirginia
Pulmonary Associates of Richmond
Richmond Gastroenterology Associates
Vascular Surgical Associates
Virginia Cancer Institute
Virginia Cardiovascular Specialists
Virginia Diabetes and Endocrinology
Virginia Ear, Nose, and Throat Associates
Virginia Eye Institute
Virginia Physicians for Women
Virginia Urology
Virginia Women's Center
MD Valuecare employs over 430 physicians.
Can I File A MD Valuecare Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit?
Our data breach lawyers are eager to speak to victims of the MD
Valuecare data breach to determine what damages they sustained and
what compensation may be available to them. Victims can file a data
breach class action lawsuit if you recently received a NOTICE OF
DATA BREACH from MD Valuecare. Contact the Console & Associates,
P.C. law firm at (866) 778-5500 for a free consultation to discuss
your legal options, or submit a confidential contact form.
Also, consider reading our Guide for Victims of a Data Breach to
learn what your next steps should be. Data breach victims should
remain alert for signs of identity theft and take steps to secure
their accounts and personal information. [GN]
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OH: Faces Suit Over Illegal Water Bill Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Dawes at daytondailynews.com reports that a class action
lawsuit filed in federal court this month seeks to challenge a
Montgomery County policy that allows its county water department to
withhold services until a billing delinquency is paid off,
regardless of whether the property owner accrued the delinquency.
The lawsuit was filed against the Montgomery County commission by
Summit Sun Investments LLC, a Yellow Springs based company, in a
U.S. district court that includes southern Ohio.
Summit Sun Investments LLC, owned by Naomi Ewald, is a business
that purchases, restores and resells local properties, according to
the complaint. An attorney representing the business did not return
a request for comment.
Montgomery County County Environmental Services spokeswoman Megan
O'Leary said her department does not comment on pending
litigation.
The business purchased a location on Far Hills Avenue in Dayton in
2023. Before that property's purchase, the title search came up
free and clear, according to the complaint; no delinquent utility
assessments also came up for the property.
The filing says the business contacted the county to switch water
services over to its name and was told the previous owner left an
existing water and sewer bill balance, resulting in water being
turned off at the property.
Water department workers told the business' owner that water would
not be turned back on unless the delinquency was paid off, the
complaint says. This $5,750 bill included the delinquent balance,
shut off fees, late payment fees and more.
Summit Sun Investments paid the delinquency in order to set up its
water and sewer services.
A copy of Montgomery County Environmental Services rules and
regulations, last updated in 2016, states that water bill
delinquencies are the responsibility of the current property owner,
"even if they were not the owner of the property when the charges
were accrued."
"If a bill remains unpaid, the service shall be subject to
termination and additional fees may be applied," the rules state.
"Service shall not be restored until all delinquencies and charges
associated with the parcel are paid."
Other county water providers, including Greene, have similar
policies for delinquent bills.
Montgomery County's rules and regulations states that "it reserves
the right to use all legal means to collect debt," including
special assessments to property taxes. The lawsuit alleges this
practice is not legal under the Ohio Revised Code.
In addition to the repayment of delinquency payments made by new
property owners, the lawsuit seeks an end to the Montgomery County
policy.
"The fact that Montgomery sees these unpaid rates, penalties, and
charges as a ‘debt' demonstrates that Montgomery County
understands that it is doing nothing more than trying to collect a
debt from someone who does not owe the debt, using its monopoly on
access to water and sewer," the lawsuit states.[GN]
NALLY JEWELS: Violates Disabled's Civil Rights, Gonzalez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nally Jewels, Inc.
The case is captioned as YANILZA GONZALEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NALLY JEWELS, INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00907 (S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2024).
The suit is brought over alleged violations of the American with
Disabilities Act.
Nally Jewels, Inc. is a jewelry company doing business in New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Telephone: (718) 740-5060
E-mail: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Faces Suit Over Voyager Digital Promotion
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Sencil at news.bitcoin.com reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against the National Basketball Association
(NBA), accusing the league of gross negligence through its
marketing agreements with the now-bankrupt crypto exchange Voyager
Digital Holdings, leading to investor losses of over $4.2 billion.
The NBA is embroiled in a legal battle, facing a class action
lawsuit over its previous marketing agreements with the now-defunct
cryptocurrency exchange Voyager Digital Holdings. Investors allege
these partnerships led to substantial financial losses totaling
approximately $4.2 billion, following the collapse of the digital
currency platform amid the volatile crypto market downturns of
2022.
Filed on Feb. 6 in a Miami district court, the lawsuit accuses the
NBA of gross negligence for its role in promoting Voyager,
particularly through a marketing deal with Mark Cuban's Dallas
Mavericks. The plaintiffs argue that:
The NBA carefully and deliberately decided to embrace the risks
associated with cryptocurrency exchanges such as Voyager, FTX, and
Coinbase, and go all in. This decision, however, led to significant
legal and financial repercussions.
Leveraging the NBA's global reputation, the league is accused of
promoting and selling billions in what are claimed to be
unregistered and illegal securities to the public.
This lawsuit follows on the heels of previous legal challenges,
including one against Cuban for his endorsement of Voyager.
Voyager's law firm, McCarter & English, faces accusations of
issuing "fraudulent legal opinions" to support the legality of
Voyager's offerings, a claim the firm denies, promising a robust
defense.
Amidst these controversies, the lawsuit asserts that the NBA's
significant promotional role helped Voyager utilize the NBA's
esteemed reputation to endorse and sell what are alleged to be
illegal crypto securities. This includes claims against Voyager's
legal team for claiming that the firm's VGX token was not an
unregistered security, despite the ongoing lack of formal
classification for crypto assets in the United States.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages, including from the proceeds of
Cuban's recent $3.5 billion sale of the Mavericks. The suit also
references the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's legal action
against Voyager co-founder Stephen Ehrlich for allegedly fraudulent
operations.[GN]
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Faces Antitrust Class Action in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that the National
Hockey League and three major junior leagues were sued on Feb. 14
over claims that they unlawfully restrict compensation and
employment mobility for thousands of teenage players in violation
of U.S. antitrust law.
The proposed class action lawsuit, opens new tab was filed in
Manhattan federal court by two former players in the junior hockey
leagues, which admit athletes aged 16 to 20 and are seen as a path
to professional play.
The World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America
Division is also a named plaintiff.
The lawsuit contends that the NHL and other defendants conspired to
suppress player compensation and agreed to impose "no poach"
agreements that restrict player movement within the leagues.
"To their great shame, the NHL not only enables the exploitation of
children, but financially benefits from this system," Ethan Litwin
of Constantine Cannon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a
statement.
The defendants did not respond to requests for comment. In addition
to the NHL, they include the Canada-based Western Hockey League,
Ontario Major Junior Hockey League, Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey
League, and umbrella organization Canadian Hockey League (CHL).
Major junior hockey generates hundreds of millions of dollars
annually, the lawsuit said. It said the case challenges a system
that treats "teenaged athletes as the property of the Major Junior
Clubs that control those players' rights and their futures."
The defendants unlawfully set up exclusive geographic territories
in which players are recruited for five-year contracts, limiting
their mobility, the plaintiffs said.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and a court
injunction against alleged anticompetitive conduct for a potential
class comprising thousands of current and former players.
The case is World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North
America Division et al v. National Hockey League et al, U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, No.
1:24-cv-01066. [GN]
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Can Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENIO AND ROSA
CONTRERAS, WILLIAM PHILLIPS, TERESA BARNEY, KEITH AND TERESA
MARCEL, SHERLIE CHARLOT, and JENNIE MILLER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; SOLUTIONSTAR HOLDINGS LLC
(N/K/A XOME HOLDINGS LLC), a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
and SOLUTIONSTAR FIELD SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-00302-MCE-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
request to seal certain portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification:
The following unredacted documents, previously filed as ECF No.
133, shall be maintained under seal pursuant to L.R. 141 and the
Amended Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case on August
1, 2019:
1. The Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion
for
Class Certification;
2. The Declaration of Laura R. Gerber in Support of Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification; and
3. Exhibits 13–23, 25–47, and 50–52 to the Declaration of
Laura R.
Gerber.
Nationstar provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity
loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gdemIh at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATIONSTAR: Hurst Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hailey Hurst, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Nationstar doing business as: Mr.
Cooper, Case No. 2316-CV29899 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on Dec. 21, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00939-DGK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper --
https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
1656 Washington Street, Suite 140
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Fax: (816) 332-6295
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Edward T. Pivin, Esq.
LEWIS RICE LLC-STL
600 Washington Ave., Ste. 2500
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 444-7851
Fax: (314) 612-7851
Email: epivin@lewisrice.com
NESTLE USA: Falcone Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIE FALCONE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NESTLE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00723-L-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order in accordance with Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
-- Certifying classes for the following claims asserted in the
Third
Amended Class Action Complaint ("TAC").
-- The Plaintiff moves for class certification under Rules 23(a)
and
(b)(2) of the following class for violations of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") (Count I of the TAC), and
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (Count II):
Injunctive Relief Class (California Only)
"All persons who purchased at least one Nestle Product labeled
with the words "sustainably sourced", "responsibly sourced",
uses
"sustainably harvested cocoa beans", "improve[s] the lives of
cocoa farmer", or "better lives" and that has "Nestle Cocoa
Plan",
"Rainforest Alliance" and/or "Utz" logos during the period from
April 19, 2015, to the present;"
-- The Plaintiff also seeks certification of the following class
under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) for violations of the CLRA and
UCL:
Damages Class (California Only).
"All persons who purchased at least one of the following Nestle
Products during the following time periods:
(i) Semisweet Morsels (12 or 72 oz) from 11/21/18 to
present;
(ii) Mini Semisweet Morsels (10 or 20 oz) from 10/17/17 to
present;
(iii) Dark Chocolate Morsels (10 or 20 oz) from 5/4/15 to
present;
(iv) Milk Chocolate Morsels (11.5 or 23 oz) from 4/19/15 to
present;
(v) Mini Marshmallows Hot Cocoa (6 or 8 Pack) or Rich Milk
Chocolate Hot Cocoa (6 Pack, 8 Pack or 27.7 oz) from
12/14/17 to present;
(vi) Nesquik Powder 16 oz from 7/6/15 to 4/27/20;
(vii) Nesquik Powder 9.3 oz or 41.9 oz from 5/3/15 to
12/12/17;
(viii) Nesquik Powder 18.7 oz from 4/7/17 to present.
-- Together, the Injunctive Relief Class and the Damages Class
are
the "Class."
Excluded from the Class are any of Nestle's officers,
directors,
or employees; officers, directors, or employees of any entity
in
which Nestle currently has or has had a controlling interest;
and
Nestle's legal representatives, heirs, successors, and
assigns.
-- In addition, the Plaintiff Marie Falcone seeks to be appointed
as
class representative for the Injunctive Relief Class and the
Damages Class.
-- The Plaintiff also moves for an order appointing Reese LLP and
Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes, LLP, as class
counsel,
pursuant to Rule 23(g).
Nestle produces and distributes nutritious food and beverage
products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mu0dfY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
Aya Dardari, Esq.
Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
John C. Washington, Esq.
Catherine E. Sweetser, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-4990
E-mail: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com
jfields@sshhzlaw.com
adardari@sshhzlaw.com
hoffpaul@aol.com
jwashington@sshhzlaw.com
catherine.sdshhh@gmail.com
- and -
George V. Granade, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Lemm Sues Over Misleading Business Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER EDWARD LEMM, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.,
THOMAS R. CANGEMI, and JOHN J. PINTO, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00903 (E.D.N.Y., February 6, 2024) accuses the Defendants
of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the
Defendants' materially false and/or misleading statements about the
Company’s business, operations, and prospects.
Allegedly, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that,
among other things, the New York Community Bancorp (NYCB) was
experiencing higher net charge-offs and deterioration in its office
portfolio, and that, as a result, NYCB was reasonably likely to
incur higher loan losses. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the NYCB's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Headquartered in Hicksville, NY, NYCB is a large commercial-real
estate lender in the New York City market area, where it
specializes in rent-regulated, non-luxury apartment buildings. It
is engaged in several national businesses, including multi-family
lending, mortgage originations and servicing, and warehouse
lending.Its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange
under the symbol "NYCB." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
rdawson@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
NILKHANT 2 CAR WASH: Yanes Sues to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liliana Carolina Yanes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nilkhant 2 Car Wash, LLC d/b/a Bethpage Car
Wash, Rakeshbhai Patel, Darpan Patel and Ronak Patel, Case No.
2:23-cv-09454-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 26, 2023), is brought against
Defendants to recover overtime premium pay as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA") and by the New York Labor
Law (the "NYLL") and the supporting New York State Codes, Rules and
Regulations, Failure to pay regular wages under NYLL; Call-in pay
as required by NYCRR; Tip theft under NYLL; Statutory damages for
wage statement violations of NYLL; Statutory damages for wage
notice violations under NYLL.
The Defendant's car wash opened to the public at 8:00 AM. The
Defendants required the Plaintiff to report to work at least 10
minutes before the opening of the car wash. She was not paid for
this time. The Defendant's interior cleaning services were provided
until 5:00 PM, after which time the car wash only provided exterior
washes. The Plaintiff was required to work until the last car
entering at 5:00 PM was cleaned, the towels were collected and
washed, and the car wash was closed-down for the day. This resulted
in anywhere from 10-30 minutes of additional work after 5:00 PM.
The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff for this time.
The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff for time she was required
to be present at the car wash, but during which the car wash was
not open to the public. For example, on numerous occasions the car
wash did not immediately open at 8:00 AM due to inclement weather,
but instead opened at 9:00 AM or thereafter. The Plaintiff was not
paid for this "waiting" time.
The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff for at least 4 hours when
she reported to work as scheduled. More specifically, the
Plaintiff, on several occasions, reported to work before 8:00 AM as
required by the employer. However, if the car wash did not
officially "open" to the public due to inclement weather, and the
Plaintiff was sent home, the Plaintiff did not receive any
compensation.
The foregoing practices resulted in the failure to pay overtime
wages when the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek,
and regular wages to the extent that, in a given week, the
plaintiff was paid for fewer than 40 hours. The Defendants deprived
the Plaintiff of gratuities. There were "tip boxes" into which
customers deposited cash tips. The Defendants did not keep accurate
records of these cash tips. The Defendants had a tip pool, but did
not keep records of the tip pool. The Defendants also permitted
individuals with managerial authority to participate in the tip
pool, thereby depriving the Plaintiff of gratuities to which she
was entitled, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Nilkhant as a manual worker, driving
and cleaning vehicles.
Nilkhant operated a car wash.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven John Moser, Esq.
MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
5 East Main Street
Huntington, NY 11743
Phone: (631) 824-0200
Email: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com
NORTHEASTERN HEALTH: Fact Discovery in Beckwith Suit Due July 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTY BECKWITH,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated, v. NORTHEASTERN HEALTH GROUP, INC. Case No.
0:23-cv-62387-JIC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Alicia O. Valle
entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Parties Exchange Rule 26(a)(1): Feb. 15, 2024
-- Initial Disclosures Joinder of March 1, 2024
Parties, Amendment of Pleadings,
and Motions for Class Certification:
-- Exchange Rule 26(a)(2) Expert: June 6, 2024
-- Disclosures and Summaries/Reports July 3, 2024
Exchange Rule 26(a)(2) Expert
Rebuttal Summaries/Reports:
-- Fact Discovery Completed: July 18, 2024
-- Expert Discovery Completed: Aug. 1, 2024
-- Dispositive Pretrial Motions Aug. 15, 2024
and Motions to Exclude or
Limit Expert Testimony:
-- Mediation Completed: Sept. 19, 2024
-- Motions in Limine: Oct. 3, 2024
-- Responses to Motions in Limine, Oct. 14, 2024
Joint Pretrial Stipulation, and
Designation of Deposition:
Northeast provides inpatient nursing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3U8cIO at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Gelman Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Gelman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. and PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES,
INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00667 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2024), is brought
seeking monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief
arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the Personally
Identifiable Information1 ("PII") and Protected Health Information
("PHI") (together, "Private Information") of its patients, which
resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on or
around between April 7, 2023 and April 19, 2023 and the compromised
and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing
widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class
members.
On May 2, 2023, Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. ("PJA") detected
unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined
that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained
certain files from its systems between April 7 and April 19, 2023
("Data Breach").
As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendants failed to prevent,
the Private Information of Defendants' patients, including
Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including
their name, date of birth, address, medical record number, hospital
account number, and clinical information such as name of the
treatment facility, the number of your healthcare providers,
admission diagnosis, and date(s) and time(s) of service.
The Defendants failure to safeguard Patients' highly sensitive
Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the
Data Breach violates its common law duty, New York law, and
Defendants implied contract with its Patients to safeguard their
Private Information. The Plaintiff and Class members now face a
lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the
information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be
made private again, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff obtained healthcare or related services from
Northwell. As a condition of receiving services,
Northwell Health, Inc., is a New York private not-for-profit
hospital servicing over 2 million patients each year.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
lloginov@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: 305-975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Gerber Files Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwell Health,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Laurie Gay Gerber, David Mayo,
Madeleine E. Schwartz, Sandra Vasquez, Anatoli Belov, Irina Belov;
Eryn Kaplan, individually and as a natural guardian of H.M.K., a
minor child; Amanda Marconi, R.M. a minor, by and through her legal
guardian Amanda Marconi; Cory Coyle, Patrick Nealon, John Kerly
Jerome, Crystal Brewster, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Northwell Health, Inc., Perry Johnson &
Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:24-md-03096-RPK (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Northwell Health -- https://www.northwell.edu/ -- is a nonprofit
integrated healthcare network that is New York State's largest
healthcare provider and private employer, with more than 81,000
employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
Israel David, Esq.
ISRAEL DAVID LLC
17 State Street, Suite 4010
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 739-0622
Email: blake.yagman@davidllc.com
israel@israeldavidllc.com
- and -
Andrew G. Costello, Esq.
Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC
1 Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
Email: acostello@leedsbrownlaw.com
jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Jeffrey Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Jason Scott Goldstein, Esq.
Raymond C. Silverman, Esq.
PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
6 Harbor Park Drive
Port Washington, NY 11050
Phone: (516) 466-6500
Email: jgoldstein@yourlawyer.com
rsilverman@yourlawyer.com
- and -
James Jackson Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 558-5500
Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Carol Cecilia Villegas, Esq.
Danielle Izzo, Esq.
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Phone: (212) 907-0824
Fax: (212) 818-0477
Email: cvillegas@labaton.com
dizzo@labaton.com
mcanty@labaton.com
- and -
Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 559-4908
Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jonathan Michael Sedgh, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
350 Fifth Avenue
Suite 6705
New York, NY 10118
Phone: (212) 225-6747
Email: jsedgh@forthepeople.com
- and -
Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 298-3283
Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew Buckley Cashmore, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY LLP
Prudential Tower
800 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02199
Phone: (617) 235-4088
Fax: (617) 235-0412
Email: andrew.cashmore@ropesgray.com
- and -
Christopher Conniff, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1211 Avenue Of The Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 596-9036
Fax: (646) 728-2922
Email: christopher.conniff@ropesgray.com
- and -
William L Roberts, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY LLP
Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02199-3600
Phone: (617) 951-7313
Email: william.roberts@ropesgray.com
- and -
Ashley Flynn, Esq.
Joel Michael Maxwell, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
3 WTC, 175 Greenwich St., 55th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 908-1393
Email: aflynn@cozen.com
jmaxwell@cozen.com
- and -
Seth Adam Nirenberg, Esq.
ABRAMS, GORELICK, FRIEDMAN & JACOBSON LLP
One Battery Park Plaza
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 422-1200
Fax: (212) 968-7573
Email: snirenberg@cozen.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Hutcheon Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwell Health,
Inc. The case is styled as Maureen Hutcheon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northwell Health, Inc.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00658-HG (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Northwell Health -- https://www.northwell.edu/ -- is a nonprofit
integrated healthcare network that is New York State's largest
healthcare provider and private employer, with more than 81,000
employees.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 367-7100
Fax: (631) 367-1173
Email: malba@rgrdlaw.com
srudman@rgrdlaw.com
rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Yudin Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwell Health,
Inc. The case is styled as Hinda Leah Yudin, individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Northwell Health, Inc.,
Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09445-JMA-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Northwell Health -- https://www.northwell.edu/ -- is a nonprofit
integrated healthcare network that is New York State's largest
healthcare provider and private employer, with more than 81,000
employees.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell M.Z. Twersky, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
450 Seventh Avenue, Ste. 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Phone: (212) 279-5050
Email: mtwersky@aftlaw.com
NOVAVAX INC: Sinnathurai Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sothinathan Sinnathurai,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Novavax, Inc., Stanley C. Erck and John J. Trizzino, Case No.
8:21-cv-02910-TDC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Theodore D. Chuang
entered an order that:
-- The stay order on Dec. 20, 2023 is lifted.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied
without
prejudice.
On Dec. 20, 2023, the parties filed a joint status report
requesting a stay of the pending motion for class certification and
all others deadlines in this action. That same day, the Court
issued an Order staying this case and granting the parties leave to
file a motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement by Jan. 12, 2024.
Novavax is an American biotechnology company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1raYkI at no extra
charge.[CC]
NY CAPRI NAILS: Judge Recommends Denial of Li Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEQUAN LI, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. NY CAPRI NAILS & SPA INC
d/b/a Capri Nails & Spa, SUNGJUN AN a/k/a Sung Jun An a/k/a/ Eric
An, HEEKYOUNG AN a/k/a Heek Young An, Case No. 2:20-cv-06296-KAM-ST
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Steven Tiscione recommends that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Rule 23 be denied
in its entirety.
-- Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(2) of
the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have 14
days
from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written
objections.
-- Failure to file timely objections shall constitute a waiver of
those objections both in the District Court and on later appeal
to
the United States Court of Appeals.
-- Judge Tiscione said, "After reviewing the citations and the
parties' arguments, this Court agrees with Defendants that the
above points further bolster this Court's conclusion that
predominance is not satisfied. Given Plaintiff's lack of
personal
knowledge regarding the 36 employees at issue, plus differences
in
pay and tip amounts outlined by the Sungjun An Affidavit, it is
apparent that predominance is lacking and that certification
should be denied under Rule 23 for this reason as well."
-- However, since commonality and typicality are lacking,
superiority
does not alter this Court's recommendation that certification
should be denied.
The Plaintiff Li brought an action against NY Capri Nails & Spa,
Sungjun An and Heekyoung An alleging overtime violations under the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Plaintiff asserts that he was employed by Defendants to work as
a Massage Worker at 3155 Long Beach Rd Oceanside, New York.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class:
"All who were employed or are currently employed by the
Defendants,
other than Defendants themselves, during the six years
immediately
preceding the intuition of this action, i.e., from December 29,
2014 through date the decision of this motion."
Capri Nails is a nail salon.
A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Jan. 17, 2024
is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YxTnAg at no extra charge.[CC]
NYC HARLEM: Class Settlement in Medina Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARISOL MEDINA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NYC
HARLEM FOODS INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01321-VSB (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order as follows:
(1) Granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement;
(2) Conditionally certifying the settlement class and appointing
Plaintiff as the class representative of the settlement
class;
(3) Appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; and
(4) Approving the Plaintiff's notice of settlement.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York State Labor Law
("NYLL"), the New York Code of Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR"), and
The New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, against the Defendants.
The Plaintiff proposes a settlement class of current and former
employees who worked for Defendants in the State of New York from
February 15, 2015, through the date of this Opinion & Order.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1HRWjU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Bouklas, Esq.
BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
Jericho, NY
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth Rolande Gorman, Esq.
John Joseph Byrnes, III, Esq.
MILBER, MAKRIS, PLOUSADIS & SEIDEN, LLP
Woodbury, NY
OPENAI INC: Court Dismisses Copyright Infringement Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Yeo, writing for MSE Asia, reports that a U.S. federal court
has partially dismissed a class action lawsuit accusing OpenAI of
infringing on copyright by training its AI chatbot on authors'
work. This doesn't mean ChatGPT's developer is in the clear,
though.
Brought by authors Paul Tremblay, Sarah Silverman, Christopher
Golden, and Richard Kadrey, the lawsuit specifically accuses OpenAI
of direct copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement,
knowingly distributing a work after removing its copyright
information, unfair competition, negligence, and unjust enrichment.
However, four of these six allegations were thrown out on Monday,
with a California judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin determining that
the plaintiffs had not provided enough facts or reasoning to
support their claims.
"Plaintiffs fail to explain what the [OpenAI language model]
outputs entail or allege that any particular output is
substantially similar -- or similar at all -- to their books,"
Martinez-Olguin wrote, specifically addressing the allegation of
vicarious copyright infringement.
The only two claims left standing are the allegation of direct
copyright infringement, which was the sole allegation which OpenAI
did not attempt to have dismissed, and the accusation that the
company is engaged in unfair business practices.
"Assuming the truth of Plaintiffs' allegations -- that Defendants
used Plaintiffs' copyrighted works to train their language models
for commercial profit -- the Court concludes that Defendants'
conduct may constitute an unfair practice," wrote Martinez-Olguin.
Though undoubtedly a blow to the plaintiffs, the court's rejection
of the majority of their claims doesn't mean this case is done and
dusted. The plaintiffs now have until Mar. 13 to file an amended
complaint addressing the issues raised, which may put their
dismissed complaints back on the agenda. OpenAI also still needs to
address the two allegations which weren't dismissed.
The development of generative AI technology has been plagued by
legal and ethical issues, with OpenAI facing multiple legal
challenges regarding its AI chatbot. Last December The New York
Times sued both OpenAI and its major financial backer Microsoft in
a similar case, alleging that they'd used the publication's
copyrighted articles to train their AI chatbot. [GN]
OPTEON APPRAISAL: Portions of Kimble's Corrective Action Reserved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott Kimble, v. Opteon
Appraisal, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-06399-FPG-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Mark w. Pedersen entered an order reserving portions of
Kimble's motion for corrective action and equitable tolling and
deny in part his motion.
Judge Pedersen also deny as moot the remaining portion of Kimble's
motion for expedited hearing, insofar as it sought oral argument on
the motion for corrective relief and equitable tolling.
Kimble may request an evidentiary hearing for me to make findings
of fact and conclusions of law concerning corrective action. Kimble
must do so within 14 days of the date of this order.
The Plaintiff Scott Kimble made that gamble here. Kimble brought
this collective action in the Western District of New York. Yet his
employer, Defendant Opteon Appraisal, is headquartered in Arizona
and incorporated in Delaware. Certainly, Kimble’s claim is
connected to New York because it arose here.
The question before me is if out-of-state plaintiffs who did not
work for Opteon in New York and did not reside in New York during
the relevant time can join Kimble’s FLSA collective action. I
hold that they cannot. These out-of-state plaintiffs lack a
sufficient connection to this forum.
I summarize my ruling on Kimble's pending motion for corrective
action. For the reasons stated here and below, I deny in part and
reserve in part on Kimble's motion for corrective action and
equitable tolling.
Opteon is an appraisal company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AgzJQa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
Jason J. Rozger, Esq.
BERANBAUM MENKEN BEN-ASHER
& BIERMAN LLP
80 Pine St 32nd Fl
New York, NY 10005
- and -
Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
1330 Broadway, Ste 1630
Oakland, CA 94612
The Defendant is represented by:
William J. Anthony, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
900 Third Ave, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10022
- and -
Riane F. Lafferty, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
375 Woodcliff Dr, Ste 2D
Fairport, NY 14450
ORLANDO HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due August 19
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cyr v. Orlando Health,
Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-00588 (M.D. Fla., March 15, 2023), the Hon.
Judge William F. Jung entered an order granting motion to amend the
case management and scheduling order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff Class Certification Expert May 22, 2024
Disclosures due:
-- The Defendant's due: July 3, 2024
-- Class certification motion due: Aug. 19, 2024
-- Response due: Sept. 20, 2024
-- Reply due: Oct. 8, 2024
-- Discovery cut-off is: April 29, 2025
-- The Plaintiff expert disclosure due: June 2, 2025
-- The Defendant expert disclosure due: July 2, 2025
-- Rebuttal due: July 16, 2025
-- Dispositive motion filing deadline is: Aug. 6, 2025
-- The final pretrial statement is due: Dec. 4, 2025
-- Select/schedule mediation by: Nov. 12, 2024
-- Conduct mediation by: Dec. 12, 2024
The suit alleges violation of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act.
Orlando Health is a private, not-for-profit network of community
and specialty hospitals based in Orlando, Florida.[CC]
OROBORO INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oroboro, Inc. The
case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Oroboro, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00675
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Oroboro -- https://oroborostore.com/ -- is a multi-brand online
fashion retailer and boutique offering a curated collection of
luxury and emerging designers, handcrafted ceramics and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
OSI SYSTEMS: Pratt Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Latrece Pratt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OSI SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV15644 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Dec. 19, 2023), is brought against Defendants for
California Labor Code violations and unfair business practices
stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate
records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all
wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.
The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of not paying
Plaintiffs and the Class for all hours worked, including all
overtime wages. Plaintiff and the Class were required to work "off
the clock" and uncompensated. For example, Plaintiff and the Class
were required to boot up their computers in order to clock into
work, which took time that was off the clock and uncompensated.
Also, Plaintiff and the Class were not permitted to work overtime
when working from home, and as a result Plaintiff and the Class
were required to work off the clock to complete work,
uncompensated. Also throughout the statutory period, Plaintiff and
the Class received non-discretionary bonuses and incentives, and
other remuneration. However, Defendants failed to incorporate all
remuneration when calculating the correct overtime rate of pay,
sick day rate of pay, and meal break premium rate of pay, leading
to underpayment to Plaintiff and the Class, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an accounts payable
specialist from 2018 to the present.
The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Los Angeles County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Allen Feghali, Esq.
Hyunjin Kim, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
Email: kmoon@moonyanglaw.com
hkim@moonlawgroup.com
afeghali@moonlawgroup.com
PACIFIC LIFE: Johnson Privacy Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and
PACIFIC LIFE & ANNUITY COMPANY, Case No. 2023CH09247, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
February 6, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-01057 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' use and collection of genetic
information to determine life insurance coverage eligibility in
violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act.
Pacific Life Insurance Company is an insurance provider, with its
principal place of business located in Newport Beach, California.
Pacific Life & Annuity Company is an insurance provider, with its
principal place of business located in Newport Beach, California.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Wendy N. Enerson, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 382-3100
E-mail: wenerson@cozen.com
- and -
Michael J. Miller, Esq.
Ilya Schwartzburg, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
E-mail: mjmiller@cozen.com
ISchwartzburg@cozen.com
PAINTYOURLIFE LLC: Karmas Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PaintYourLife, LLC.
The case is captioned as VICTORIA KARMAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PAINTYOURLIFE, LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01065 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2024).
The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
PaintYourLife, LLC is an artwork company doing business in
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
PANERA LLC: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Deadline Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL MEN CHAN, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PANERA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, BEVERLY NGUYEN,
an individual and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:23-cv-04194-JLS-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton
entered an order denying without prejudice stipulation to continue
current motion for class certification deadline.
Any renewed stipulation to continue deadlines in the Court's
Scheduling Order must be accompanied by amended dates for all the
deadlines that will need to be continued as a result of the
requested extension.
Panera operates as a chain of bakery-cafes.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b6KJEm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin D. Reese, Esq.
Karen Luh, Esq.
Judy Kang, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Kevin.Reese@jacksonlewis.com
Karen.Luh@jacksonlewis.com
Judy.Kang@jacksonlewis.com
PENNEY OPCO LLC: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penney OPCO, LLC. The
case is styled as Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Penney OPCO, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-17117 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Penney OpCo LLC -- http://www.jcprestructuring.com/-- doing
business as JCPenney and often abbreviated JCP, is an American
department store chain that operates 663 stores across 49 U.S.
states and Puerto Rico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James P Nasiri
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 460-5976
Email: jnasiri@seyfarth.com
PEOPLESBANK: Roswess Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PeoplesBank. The case
is styled as Lynann Roswess, on behalf of Himself and all others
similarly situated v. PeoplesBank, Case No. 2479CV00071 (Mass.
Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Jan. 31, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business."
PeoplesBank -- https://www.bankatpeoples.com/home/ -- is a local
community bank offering a variety of personal and business banking
solutions and resources to help you meet your financial needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Smit, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South St., Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Mellor Sues Over Shale Oil Market Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MELLOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION;
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG
RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00253 (D. Nev., February 6, 2024) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff arising from Defendants' conspiracy
to coordinate, and ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil
production, which has had the purpose and effect of fixing,
raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil and seeking to
recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief as
appropriate, based on violations of the Sherman Act and various
state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
As a direct result of the said conspiracy, the price of gasoline
and diesel purchased for commercial use by marine vessels at fuel
docks in and throughout the United States. Between at least 2017
and 2023, Defendants and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) met and communicated regularly with one another to
exchange confidential production and capacity information, and to
coordinate their collective crude oil output in response to
then-prevailing market conditions. Afterwards, Defendants publicly
confirmed these meetings and the fact that they and OPEC discussed
production strategies, future investment plans, and price targets
in unusually candid terms, says the suit.
Headquartered in Midland, TX, Permian Resources Corporation is a
Delaware corporation was formed in 2022 in a transaction between
Colgate Energy Partners III, LLC and Centennial Resource
Development, Inc. Primarily known as "Centennial," the company is a
major producer of crude oil from shale oil formations in New Mexico
and Texas, which is refined into commercial marine fuel and sold
throughout the United States. Its common stock is listed on the New
York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "PR." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark J. Bourassa, Esq., Esq.
Jennifer A. Fornetti, Esq.
Valerie S. Christian, Esq.
THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP
2350 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (702) 851-2180
Facsimile: (702) 851-2189
E-mail: mbourassa@blgwins.com
jfornetti@blgwins.com
vchristian@blgwins.com
- and -
Stuart G. Gross, Esq.
Travis H. Smith, Esq.
GROSS KLEIN PC
The Embarcadero
Pier 9, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 671-4628
Facsimile: (415) 480-6688
E-mail: sgross@grosskleinlaw.com
tsmith@grosskleinlaw.com
- and -
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY, LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
mweiler@schneiderwallace.com
PERSONA IDENTITIES: Parker & Batista Sue Over Biometric Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
TREY PARKER and JESSICA BATISTA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERSONA IDENTITIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01103 (N.D. Ill., February 7, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendant for damages and other legal
and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant Persona Identities, Inc. in collecting, capturing,
storing, using, obtaining, and possessing biometric identifiers and
biometric information of Plaintiffs without obtaining prior consent
in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
In addition, the Defendant further disclosed DoorDash delivery
drivers' biometrics in its possession to third parties without
prior consent, says the suit.
Based in San Francisco, CA, Persona Identities, Inc. is a
California corporation that operates as an identity infrastructure
company that markets and sells biometric software that purports to
help businesses identify and register consumers, users, or
employees. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Caroline C. Donovan, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7408
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
cdonovan@bursor.com
PERSONAL TOUCH: Class Settlement in Everetts Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL EVERETTS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PERSONAL
TOUCH HOLDING CORP., Case No. 2:21-cv-02061-JMA-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack entered an order granting unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.
The Court concludes that the settlement class likely meets each of
Rule 23(a)'s four threshold requirements: (1) numerosity, (2)
commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation.
In addition to finding that the class satisfies Rule 23(a), the
Court also determines that the settlement class likely meets the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
The Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval submitted by
Plaintiff would require Class Counsel to file a motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and a service award before -- and
only before --- the opt-out, objection, and claims deadline.
The Court directs Class Counsel to file a supplemental fees motion
21 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.
The Defendants agree to pay separately "Identity Defense Total
Service, any service award, and any attorney's fees and litigation
costs."
With respect to attorneys' fees, "Defendant agrees not to oppose an
application by Plaintiff's counsel on an award of attorneys' fees
and litigation costs not to exceed $510,000.00.
But unlike the moneys placed into a common fund, whatever unpaid
portions of the $3,000,000 "Aggregate Cap" exist seemingly will not
inure to the benefit of the settlement class.
The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class comprised
of:
(i) an Exposure Class consisting of individuals whose
personally
identifiable information or protected health information
was
potentially exposed in the security breach, and
(ii) a Non-Exposure Class consisting of individuals whose
personally identifiable information or protected health
information was not potentially exposed in the security
breach, defined as follows:
Settlement Class:
"All individuals who are a member of the Exposure Class or the
Non-Exposure Class."
The Settlement Class specifically excludes:
(i) PTHC and its officers and directors;
(ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly
request
exclusion from the Settlement Class;
(iii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this
settlement;
(iv) the attorneys representing the Parties in the Litigation;
and
(v) any other individual found by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of
initiating,
causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity
involved
in the DataBreach or who pleads nolo contendere to any
such
charge.
PTHC represents that the Settlement Class contains
approximately 750,000 individuals who received notice
from
PTHC of the Data Breach.
Exposure Class:
"All individuals who received notice of the security breach
that
PTHC announced on or around March 24, 2021 and whose personally
identifiable information or protected health information was
potentially exposed in the security breach."
The Exposure Class specifically excludes:
(i) PTHC and its officers and directors;
(ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly
request
exclusion from the Settlement Class;
(iii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this
settlement;
(iv) the attorneys representing the Parties in the Litigation;
and
(v) any other individual found by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of
initiating,
causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity
involved
in the Data Breach or who pleads nolo contendere to any
such
charge.
Non-Exposure Class:
"All individuals who received notice from Defendant of the
security breach that Defendant announced on or around March 24,
2021 and whose personally identifiable information or protected
health information was not potentially exposed in the security
breach."
The Non-Exposure Class specifically excludes:
(i) PTHC and its officers and directors;
(ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly
request
exclusion from the Settlement Class;
(iii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this
settlement;
(iv) the attorneys representing the Parties in the Litigation;
and
(v) any other individual found by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of
initiating,
causing, aiding or abetting the climinal activity
involved
in the Data Breach or who pleads nolo contendere to any
such
charge.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cBeGMK
at no extra charge.[CC]
PHILLIPS 66: Robbins Seeks Summary Judgment on Liability
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEAN A. ROBBINS and
TIMOTHY GREEN, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly
situated, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-00292-RS (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
summary judgment or in the Alternative partial summary judgment as
to liability in favor Of the certified classes -- the Certified
Classes, the Auto-Deduct Class and the Rounding Class.
The Plaintiffs and the certified classes of employees who worked
from Defendants are entitled to partial summary judgment as to
liability, and/or in the alternative summary judgment. The Court
certified the following classes of individual who worked for
Defendant:
-- Rounding Class:
"All non-exempt hourly California employees from November 17,
2013
to present for whom Phillips 66 rounded their punch time."
-- Auto-Deduct Class:
"All non-exempt hourly California employees from November 17,
2013
to present for whom Phillips 66 did not require the precise
recordation of start and end times of each meal period."
On Nov. 27, 2017, the Plaintiff Robbins filed a class action
against his former employer Phillips 66 in the San Francisco County
Superior Court captioned Robbins v. Phillips 66 Company, Case No.
CGC-17-562672, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated.
Phillips 66 is an American multinational energy company.
A copy of the Court's order
the Plaintiff's motion
the Defendant's motion
dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E36BTx at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Segal, Esq.
Farrah Grant, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 888-7771
Facsimile (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
farrah@setarehlaw.com
PINNACLE TOO: Charles Bid to Extend Discovery Deadline OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEXLON CHARLES, v.
PINNACLE TOO, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04232-DEH-JW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer E. Willis entered an order
extending discovery deadline.
Accordingly, the briefing period for submitting an Opposition and
Reply to the Motion for Class Certification is also extended.
To permit sufficient time to schedule the remaining depositions,
fact discovery shall close on Feb. 15th. Therefore, the deadline
to submit an Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification is
extended to Feb. 29th.
The Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to demonstrate due
diligence because they did not seek to reschedule needed
depositions in the period between December 5th and December 20th.
The Plaintiff says that the Defendants followed up on Jan. 2nd, but
that this date was "a mere three days before the close of fact
discovery."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5dvRIa at no extra
charge.[CC]
PISA GROUP: Court OK's Notice to Class in Williams Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANINE WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE
PISA GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-04752-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered an order approving and directing
notice to the class:
-- Notice shall be sent only to holders of the 279 unique phone
numbers referenced in the Court's Memorandum of February 24,
2023.
-- The Notice shall specify an opt-out period of 60 days.
-- The Plaintiff is directed to provide notice within 90 days of
this
order.
Pisa operates as a telemarketing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d03OEP at no extra
charge.[CC]
PK MANAGEMENT: Bejgi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PK Management LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Negin Bejgi, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PK Management LLC, a limited liability
company, et al., Case No. 23CV013953 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., Dec. 21, 2023).
PK Management, LLC -- https://pkmanagement.com/ -- is a nationwide
property management company based in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN]
POLISH ON PEARL: Lee Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elexis Lee, on behalf of
herself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, v. Polish on Pearl, Inc., a Colorado Corporation and
Amanda Van't Hul, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-03343-PAB-STV (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her
motion and memorandum in support for stage one conditional
certification of collective action pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section
216(b).
The Plaintiff contends that she is similarly situated to the
Putative Class Members because together, they were the victims of
common polices or plans alleged to violate the Fair Labor (FLSA).
Thus, the Court should grant Plaintiff's Motion and authorize
Notice be issued to the Putative Class Members.
On Dec. 19, 2023, the Plaintiff Elexis Lee filed her class and
collective action complaint on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated past and present workers of Defendants.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges violations of the FLSA, the
Colorado Minimum and Pay Standards Order no. 38.
The Plaintiff moves here for stage-one conditional certification of
a Putative Class, comprised of two (2) subclasses, consisting of:
-- Subclass I
"Anyone who, since December 19, 2020, worked for the
Defendants
as a W2 employee and worked more than 40 hours in an
individual
work week;" and
-- Subclass II
"Anyone who, since December 19, 2020, executed an Independent
Contractor Agreement and worked for Defendants as an
independent
contractor."
POP provides manicure, pedicure and other salon, spa and beauty
services to appointment and walk-in customers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 18, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ijadWh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80237
E-mail: sengelson@billhornlaw.com
jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Snowdon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Marie Snowdon, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00691-MSD-RJK (E.D. Va.,
Dec. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA Group, Inc.) --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- is a publicly traded global
debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aryeh Eliezer Stein, Esq.
MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
1212 Reisterstown Road
Baltimore, MD 21208
Phone: (443) 326-6011
Fax: (410) 782-3199
Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com
POSTMEDS INC: Cohen Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Daniel Cohen, Mayra Mendez, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PostMeds, Inc.,
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV28038 was transferred
from the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10664-FLA-MAA to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Account
Receivable.
PostMeds, Inc., doing business as TruePill --
https://www.truepill.com/ -- provides online pharmacy delivery
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Michael Treglio, Esq.
Mark D. Potter, Esq.
POTTER HANDY, LLP
100 Pine Street Suite 1250
San Diego, CA 92111
Phone: (415) 534-1911
Fax: (888) 422-5191
Email: jimt@potterhandy.com
mark@potterhandy.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Marcus Shane McCutcheon, Esq.
BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (714) 754-6000
Fax: (714) 754-6611
Email: mmccutcheon@bakerlaw.com
PRESSLER FELT: McKenzie Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pressler, Felt &
Warshaw, LLP, et al. The case is styled as Giselle McKenzie, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HYPHEN LLC
doing business as: HELIX FINANCIAL, LEAD BANK, Case No.
2:23-cv-23379-SDW-JRA (D.N.J., Dec. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Pressler, Felt & Warshaw -- https://pfwattorneys.com/ -- provides
clients with the ability to access their account level information
as well as view customizable portfolio level data.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Phone: (201) 507-6300
Email: lh@hershlegal.com
PRIMAL NUTRITION: Fagnani Sues Over Disabled Rights' Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primal Nutrition,
LLC. The case is captioned as MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRIMAL NUTRITION, LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00918-ALC (S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2024).
The suit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Primal Nutrition, LLC is a retail company, headquartered in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Rivera Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Josefine Rivera, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Progressive Advanced
Insurance Company, Case No. 231202744 was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 31, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00462 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Progressive -- https://www.progressive.com/ -- operates as an
insurance firm. The Company offers property, casualty, life, and
health insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
1114 Ave. of The Americas 38th Fl.
New York, NY 10036-7703
Phone: (212) 389-5000
Email: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Brouse Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Richard Brouse, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons v. Progressive Specialty
Insurance Company, Case No. 231202742 was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 31, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00460 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Progressive Specialty Insurance Company --
https://www.progressive.com/ -- operates as an insurance firm. The
Company offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
1114 Ave. of The Americas 38th Fl.
New York, NY 10036-7703
Phone: (212) 389-5000
Email: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
QUENTIN SMILE DENTAL: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quentin Smile Dental
Services, P.C. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Quentin Smile Dental
Services, P.C., Case No. 2:24-cv-00700 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Quentin Smile Dental -- https://www.dentistinbrooklyn.com/ -- is a
modern, family-owned dental practice located in the heart of
Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bratten Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gregory Bratten, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, a
Delaware Corporation, and OPTUM360 LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-02546 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Jan. 31,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00569-MCA-MAH to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Quest Diagnostics -- https://www.questdiagnostics.com/ -- is an
American clinical laboratory.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson St., 8th fl.
New York, NY 10013
Phone: (212) 355-9500
Email: jlichtman@lchb.com
- and -
Sarah Zandi, Esq.
Melissa Gardner, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Phone: (415) 956-1000
Fax: (415) 956-1008
Email: szandi@lchb.com
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Henry Hoffman, Esq.
HEATHER BENZMILLER SULTANIAN
1 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 853-2174
Email: david.hoffman@sidley.com
hbenzmiller@sidley.com
- and -
Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 839-8555
Fax: (212) 839-5599
Email: ejoyce@sidley.com
- and -
Amy P. Lally, Esq.
1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS
17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 595-9500
Fax: (310) 595-9501
Email: alally@sidley.com
- and -
Alex Akerman, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 576-1149
Fax: (213) 576-1100
Email: alex.akerman@alston.com
RALPH LAUREN: Salazar Files ADA Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ralph Lauren
Corporation. The case is styled as Vivian Salazar, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ralph Lauren
Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-06669-CRB (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ralph Lauren Corporation -- http://www.ralphlauren.com/-- is an
American publicly traded fashion company that was founded in 1967
by American fashion designer Ralph Lauren.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Jennifer Michelle Leinbach, Esq.
Jesenia Anahy Martinez, Esq.
Jesse S. Chen, Esq.
Shahin Rezvani, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com
jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com
jchen@wilshirelawfirm.com
srezvani@wilshirelawfirm.com
REFINITIV US: All Discovery in Yayla Class Suit Due Feb. 13, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMET S. YAYLA, et al., v.
REFINITIV US LLC, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00830-CJC-JDE (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order
as follows:
order:
(1) All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
completed
by Feb. 13, 2025. Discovery motions must be filed and heard
prior to this date.
(2) The parties shall have until April 14, 2025, to file and
have
heard all other motions, including motions to join or amend
the
pleadings.
(3) A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, June 16, 2025
at
03:00 PM. Full compliance with Local Rule 16 is required.
(4) The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at
08:30 AM.
(5) The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 -- Private
Mediation.
(6) The Plaintiff shall have until Sept. 16, 2024, to file and
have
heard any class certification motion.
Refinitiv operates as a publishing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wJRL4Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
RENO, NE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Castellanos Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE CASTELLANOS, et
al., v. CITY OF RENO, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00693-MMD-CLB (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge Miranda M. Du entered an order denying the
Defendants' partial Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.
The Court further entered an order that:
-- The Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is
granted.
-- The Plaintiffs Brianna Morales, Natalee Wells, and Cecelia
Whittle's claims are dismissed from this action without
prejudice.
-- The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket
accordingly.
-- The Clerk of Court is further directed to update the docket
to
reflect that Plaintiff Maryann Rose Brooks's claims were
dismissed in accordance with the Court's prior April 5, 2023
order.
The Plaintiffs sued the Defendants to challenge the City's
regulations affecting adult interactive cabarets ("AICs") and AIC
performers (commonly known as strip clubs and strippers,
respectively).
The Plaintiffs are AIC performers and were between the ages of 18
and 21 years old at the commencement of this action.
The Plaintiffs challenge the May 8, 2019, amendments to the Reno
Municipal Code.
Reno is a city in the northwest section of the U.S. state of
Nevada, along the Nevada -- California border, about 22 miles north
from Lake Tahoe, known as "The Biggest Little City in the World."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TqmKUK at no extra
charge.[CC]
RESTORATION HOLDINGS: Nissenbaum Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restoration Holdings,
LLC. The case is captioned as STUART NISSENBAUM, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RESTORATION HOLDINGS,
LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01075 (N.D. Ill., February 7, 2024).
The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Restoration Holdings, LLC is a healthcare management company,
headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith James Keogh, Esq.
Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe, Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
E-mail: Keith@keoghlaw.com
tsostrin@keoghlaw.com
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Hill
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hill v. Rivian Automotive,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01396-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Rivian Automotive is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and
automotive technology and outdoor recreation company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6rqSAZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROBLEN LLC: Cojom Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Milton Robinson Teletor Cojom, and similarly situated individuals
v. ROBLEN, LLC f/d/b/a VICOLO PIZZA RESTAURANT; VIKTOR BERISHA;
Case No. 3:23-cv-01669 (D. Conn., Dec. 23, 2023), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), the Connecticut Fair Employment
Practices Act ("CFEPA") to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages, including overtime, double unpaid wages, including overtime,
liquidated damages, back pay, front pay, pre-judgment interest,
discrimination damages, damages for assault; damages for negligent
infliction of emotional distress; and attorneys' fees and costs.
Throughout the course of Plaintiff's employment at Vicolo Pizza,
Defendants adopted and maintained policies and practices that
required the Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
without the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations. Defendants further failed to
maintain accurate records of the hours worked by Plaintiff so as to
avoid paying him appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The
Defendants failed to abide by the notice provisions of the FLSA and
CMWA. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with meal breaks as
required by law. The Plaintiff is an undocumented, foreign-born
person originally from Guatemala with no English proficiency. At
all times relevant, Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's
immigration status. Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff
in violation of the FLSA and the CFEPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from January 1, 2020 to
June 1, 2022 in various capacities, including as: a dishwasher, a
food preparer, a food runner, and a busboy.
Vicolo Pizza was an Italian pizzeria and restaurant with over two
(2) decades of service to surrounding communities located in the
State of Connecticut and State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. Rapice, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. RAPICE, LLC
1234 Summer Street, Third Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
Phone: (203) 359–2047
Fax: (203) 359–3251
Email: richard@rapicelaw.com
SAFELITE GROUP: Adams FTSA Suit Moved From S.D. Ohio to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled COURTNEY ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-01646, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on February 6, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:24-cv-00266-JA-LHP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending
unsolicited text messages in violation of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.
Safelite Group, Inc. is a national provider of motor vehicle glass
repair and replacement, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
SALEM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: Stone Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salem Community
Hospital. The case is styled as Michael Stone, Leeanne Varner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Salem Community Hospital, Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., Case
No. 4:23-cv-02421-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 20, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Salem Regional Medical Center -- https://www.salemregional.com/ --
is an Independent, Private, Not-for-Profit Hospital.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER
One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Fax: (513) 345-8294
Email: tnaylor@gs-legal.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Ste. 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
SAN DIEGO, CA: Legal Claims Over Flooding Seek Class-Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mcdonald at sandiegouniontribune.com reports that the
ramifications of the flooding that drove hundreds of people from
their homes and caused millions of dollars in damage last month
continue to swamp San Diego City Hall.
Three more legal claims have been filed against the city, accusing
officials of failing to properly maintain flood channels and
stormwater drains. The claims are required before any civil lawsuit
can be filed, and the attorneys representing the claimants are
seeking class-action status.
"The city of San Diego has admitted that for many years the city
failed to adequately fund maintenance of the city's stormwater
network," one of the claims says. "In so acting, the city of San
Diego has violated its legal duty."
City officials had no immediate response to the allegations in the
claims, which seek at least $250,000 each. Public agencies
regularly decline to comment on legal proceedings so as not to
jeopardize their positions in the courtroom.
The claims were filed by San Diego residents Juan Alberto Lopez,
JoAnn Murphy and Adrian Manuel Rico, all of whom say they suffered
major losses in recent weeks as a result of the city's stormwater
and flood-control failures.
"As a result of the city of San Diego's failure to maintain its
storm drain system in a workable condition, the surface water flow
from the January and February 2024 rain has resulted in a taking
of, or damage to, hundreds of homes," the Rico claim states.
The documents say the failures were citywide, affecting at least 17
different neighborhoods from Southcrest and Chollas Creek to areas
north of Interstate 8 such as Carmel Valley and Del Cerro.
"This claim seeks not only to recover damages for insured property
owners, but also seeks injunctive relief requiring city action be
taken to restore and maintain the city of San Diego's storm drain
system," the claims say.
San Diego already had been served with a legal claim filed late
last month by an attorney representing Beta Street resident Gregory
Montoya.
Montoya was among a handful of Southcrest-area residents who sued
the city five years ago, after storm waters from a 2018 rainstorm
overflowed Chollas Creek and severely damaged their homes.
That case was settled for just over $200,000, but the agreement did
not require the city to make improvements to the flood channel that
would have prevented future damage.
On Jan. 22, millions of gallons of unchecked storm runoff overtook
Beta Street and nearby neighborhoods, washing away scores of cars
and flooding hundreds of homes and apartments.
Many of those victims continue to be displaced, even though city
and county officials have worked to provide emergency housing and
other relief.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reported days later that the city has a
decadeslong record of failing to maintain its flood-control
channels or collect enough revenue in fees to pay for
improvements.
Under the current fee structure, homeowners pay just 95 cents per
month toward infrastructure improvements that city officials say
are badly needed and will cost $2 billion or more.
The City Council president proposed raising such fees to help pay
for upgrades, and the council said it wanted aggressive action on
stormwater in the upcoming city budget.
Legal claims to public agencies must be filed and rejected before a
lawsuit can proceed.
The claims filed say they expect to seek class-action status, which
if granted would let the group of plaintiffs grow far beyond the
three named claimants to include potentially thousands of victims.
[GN]
SASR WORKFORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Kirksey Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
RADANIS KIRKSEY, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. SASR
WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00073
(E.D.N.C., February 7, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff in connection with
the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Kirksey was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid
remodeler. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid
employees performed work for Defendant 40 hours or more per week
within weekly pay periods. However, the Defendant failed to
"edit-in" to its timekeeping system or compensate them for the time
they performed such overtime hours per week at the applicable FLSA
overtime compensation rates of pay, says the suit.
SASR Workforce Solutions, LLC is a staffing company for remodeling
and related services for the retail, warehouse, distribution, and
grocery businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
- and -
Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
KARL S. GWALTNEY MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone: (919) 526-0450
Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
SELECT HEALTH: Mulvihill Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Select Health of
South Carolina, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Mulvihill,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Select Health of South Carolina, Inc. d/b/a First Choice Next, a
South Carolina coporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00523-DCN (D.S.C., Jan.
31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Select Health -- https://www.selecthealthofsc.com/ -- is one of the
state's largest health insurers through the First Choice health
plan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Duffy, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RYAN P DUFFY PLLC
1213 W Morehead Street, Suite 500 Unit 450
Charlotte, NC 28208
Phone: (704) 741-9399
Email: ryan@ryanpduffy.com
SELECT REHAB: Plaintiffs Seek to File Third Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN,
CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, and JUSTIN LEMBKE, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs request
that the Court enter an Order granting leave of Court for them to
file and serve the Third Amended Complaint and permit Plaintiff
Hardt to join this action as a named Plaintiff and Representative
of the therapists' claims under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
(IMWL).
The operative complaint is Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint,
which includes claims under the IMWL for failure to pay overtime
premiums to a class of Therapists.
The Defendant insisted that the Rule 23 class action for the
Illinois state law claims be pursued here in this case, despite
previously blocking and opposing the Plaintiff's attempt to join a
new class rep for the Class of Therapists.
Select Rehabilitation is a provider of contract rehabilitation
services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O5P30R at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave 101
Tampa, FL 33625
E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
- and -
Benjamin Lee Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS LAW P.A.
464 Sturdivant Ave
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
E-mail: bwilliams@williamslawjax.com
Telephone: (904) 580-6060
Facsimile: (904) 417-7494
SERVICE EXPERTS: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Fagas Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Service Experts
Heating & Air Conditioning, LLC. The case is captioned as LEXUS K.
FAGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. SERVICE EXPERTS HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-00234-BYP (N.D. Ohio, February 7, 2024).
The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Service Experts Heating & Air Conditioning, LLC is a provider of
heating and air conditioning systems services, doing business in
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE - MINNEAPOLIS
Ste. 1700
100 Washington Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 767-3613
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 721-1178
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
SHAWN LIQUORS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shawn Liquors, Inc.
The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Shawn Liquors, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-00706 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shawn Liquors, Inc. -- https://www.shawnfinewine.com/ -- is a wine
and liquor store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SIKA AG: J&L Imperium Alleges Price Fixing of Concrete Admixtures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J&L IMPERIUM INDUSTRIES, LLC, 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
CORPORATION, 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. 2:24-cv-00545 (E.D. Pa., February 5,
2024), arises from Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix the prices
for (a) concrete admixtures, (b) cement additives, (c) admixtures
for mortar, and (d) products containing or bundled with any of the
foregoing (collectively, "CCAs") and asserts claims against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.
The Defendants' unlawful agreement caused direct purchasers of CCAs
in the United States and its territories, including Plaintiff and
the Class, to pay supra-competitive prices for CCAs sold by
Defendants in the United States and its territories from the period
beginning no later than May 11, 2018, says the suit.
Sika AG is a Swiss corporation with its primary place of business
at Zugerstrasse 50 Baar, Zug, 6341 Switzerland. During the Class
Period, Sika AG manufactured and sold CCAs around the World,
including in the United States, both directly and through its
predecessors, affiliates, and/or subsidiaries, including Defendant
Sika Corporation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
William E. Hoese, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
whoese@kohnswift.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
Erich P. Schork, Esq.
Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC
1920 McKinney Ave, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (501) 821-5575
Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
erichschork@robertslawfirm.us
sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us
SINGING RIVER HEALTH: Holder Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Singing River Health
System Foundation. The case is styled as Duncan Holder, Jennifer
Holder, Michael Chatman, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Singing River Health System Foundation, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00026-LG-RPM (S.D. Miss., Jan. 31, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Singing River Foundation -- https://singingriverhealthsystem.com/
-- exists to help patients and employees in need and supports
programs and initiatives that improve the health of our
community.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin H. Wilson, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA - Jackson
4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200
Jackson, MS 39211-5991
Phone: (601) 718-0940
Fax: (601) 503-1616
Email: bwilson@forthepeople.com
SINGLEPOINT OUTSOURCING: Console & Associates Probes Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The data breach lawyers at Console & Associates, P.C. are
investigating the SinglePoint Outsourcing data breach that was
reported after the company was targeted in a recent cyber security
attack. The SinglePoint Outsourcing data breach resulted in the
below information of certain individuals being compromised:
name,
Social Security number,
date of birth,
driver's license number,
and bank account information
What Happened?
According to the Attorney General of Montana, the SinglePoint
Outsourcing data breach was reported after they were targeted in a
recent cyber security attack. On November 30, 2023, the company
learned of a potential data security incident involving its
computer network prompting them to secure their systems and launch
an investigation. It was confirmed that an unauthorized party was
able to access and acquire certain files from the company's IT
network, including those containing confidential consumer
information. On February 12, 2024, SinglePoint Outsourcing sent out
data breach letters to those individuals whose information was
affected by the breach.
About SinglePoint Outsourcing
SinglePoint Outsourcing is a business services company located in
Visalia, California that provides its clients with a range of Data
Breach Alertoutsourcing solutions, such as benefits management,
workers' compensation management, talent management, human
resources management, and more. SingleSource is owned and operated
by Triad Solutions.
Can I File A SinglePoint Outsourcing Data Breach Class Action
Lawsuit?
Our data breach lawyers are eager to speak to victims of the
SinglePoint Outsourcing data breach to determine what damages they
sustained and what compensation may be available to them. Victims
can file a data breach class action lawsuit if you recently
received a NOTICE OF DATA BREACH from SinglePoint Outsourcing.
Contact the Console & Associates, P.C. law firm at (866) 778-5500
for a free consultation to discuss your legal options, or submit a
confidential contact form. [GN]
SNACK HOUSE: Fagnani Sues Over ADA Violations in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snack House Foods,
LLC. The case is captioned as MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SNACK HOUSE FOODS, LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00919 (S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2024).
The suit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Snack House Foods, LLC is a manufacturer of snack foods,
headquartered in Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
E-mail: michael@gottlieb.legal
SOUTHERN FARM: Donley Insurance Contract Suit Removed to E.D. Ark.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PHYLLIS DONLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 16JCV-24-00003, was removed from
Craighead County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas on February 7, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-00020-KGB to the proceeding.
The nature of the suit is stated as 110 Contract - Insurance.
Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance
agency in Ridgeland, Mississippi. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
William A. Waddell, Jr., Esq.
FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
Regions Center, Suite 2000
400 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 370-1510
E-mail: waddell@fridayfirm.com
STATE FARM: Court Dismisses Baldwin Suit
----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILLIP S. BALDWIN,
individually and as special administrator of the Estate of Phillip
D. Baldwin, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, et al. Case No.
4:23-cv-00008-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Brian S. Miller
entered an order as follows:
-- Granting State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's motion to
dismiss;
-- Granting the motion to dismiss of Patrick Campbell Insurance
Agency and Patrick Campbell.
-- Denying as moot Phillip Baldwin's motion for class
certification,
State Farm's motion to strike class allegations, and State
Farm's
motion to stay discovery.
The Phillip D. Baldwin was killed in a motor vehicle accident while
driving his motorcycle in Grant County, Arkansas.
Phillip Sr. had insurance coverage through State Farm. State Farm
denied uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM)
coverage because Phillip Sr. had purportedly signed a form
rejecting UM and UIM coverage.
Phillip S. Baldwin, individually and as special administrator of
Phillip Sr.'s estate, brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of
motorcyclists across the country who
(1) had motorcycle insurance coverage from State Farm including
a
signed form rejecting UM or UIM coverage,
(2) filed a claim for UM or UIM coverage, and
(3) had the claim denied based on the signed rejection form.
Baldwin alleges that defendants altered Phillip Sr.'s insurance
policy without his consent and forged his signature on the
rejection form.
Baldwin also alleges that defendants engaged in a strategy to get
insureds to waive UM and UIM coverage by altering insurance
agreements by forging signatures and copying digital signatures,
misrepresenting available coverages, and misleading insureds about
other policies they owned.
State Farm and the Campbell defendants move to dismiss Baldwin's
second amended complaint. State Farm also moves to strike the class
allegations from the complaint and to stay discovery. Baldwin moves
for class certification.
State Farm operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jkgmyT at no extra
charge.[CC]
STUBHUB INC: Kern and Ball Sue Over Unlawful Ticket Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
LOWELL KERN and JOSEPH BALL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STUBHUB, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00871-AT (S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2024) arises from
the Defendant's conduct of improperly charging its consumers on its
website in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs
Law.
When ticket purchasers visit Defendant's website to buy an
admission ticket to an event, they are initially quoted one price,
only to later be shown the true total ticket price, which includes
an additional "Fulfillment and Service Fee." As a result of
Defendant's failure to adhere to fee disclosure standards,
Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually, and on behalf
of all other ticket purchasers of Defendant for actual and/or
statutory damages in the amount of fifty dollars per violation,
reasonable attorneys' costs and fees, and injunctive relief under
the said law, says the suit.
StubHub, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in New York, NY. It owns and operates the website
http://www.stubhub.com.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
ek@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
SUGARMDS LLC: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SUGARMDS, LLC. The
case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. SUGARMDS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00686 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
SugarMDs -- -https://sugarmds.com/ -- offers Natural Medicine
formulated by Dr. Ahmet Ergin Top-Notch Endocrinologist.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
SUNNYVALLEY SMOKE: Hernandez Files Civil Suit in Cal. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunnyvalley Smoke
Meats, Inc. The case is captioned as JOSE HERNANDEZ and JOSE
OREGEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. SUNNYVALLEY SMOKE MEATS, INC., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0001476
(Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., February 6, 2024).
A case management conference is set for August 8, 2024, before
Judge Blanca Banuelos.
Sunnyvalley Smoke Meats, Inc. is a producer of meat products in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Megan E. Ross, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP PC
1801 Century Park E., Ste. 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (855) 237-3890
E-mail: megan@melmedlaw.com
TATA CONSULTANCY: Ross Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tata Consultancy
Services Limited, et al. The case is styled as Moises Ross,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Tata Consultancy Services Limited, an Indian corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV31760 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Dec. 28, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) -- https://www.tcs.com/ -- is a
global leader in IT services, consulting, and business solutions,
leverages technology for business transformation and helps catalyze
change.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Yslas, Esq.
Diego Aviles, Esq.
Harry Erganyan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com
daviles@wilshirelawfirm.com
herganyan@wilshirelawfirm.com
TAYLOR UNIVERSITY: McLaughlin Files Suit in N.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taylor University.
The case is styled as Justin McLaughlin, Aturina Eshw, on behalf of
themselves, and all others similarly situated v. Taylor University,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00527-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind., Dec. 21, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Default.
Taylor University -- https://www.taylor.edu/ -- is a private,
interdenominational, evangelical Christian university in Upland,
Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593
Email: athomas@cohenandmalad.com
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Philip R Zimmerly, Esq.
Tyler J Moorhead, Esq.
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP - IND/IN
111 Monument Cir Ste 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 684-5000
Fax: (317) 684-5173
Email: pzimmerly@boselaw.com
tmoorhead@boselaw.com
TELADOC HEALTH: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teladoc Health, Inc.
The case is styled Myschelle Taylor, Muhammad Uddin, individually,
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Teladoc Health, Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-00664-NSR (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Wiretapping -
Injunctive Relief or Civil Fine.
Teladoc Health, Inc. -- http://www.teladochealth.com/-- is a
multinational telemedicine and virtual healthcare company
headquartered in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Seth Tusa, Esq.
TUSA P.C.
P.O. Box 566, 53345 Main Rd., Ste. 10-1
Southold, NY 11971
Phone: (631) 407-5100
Fax: (631) 706-1373
Email: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com
TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA R. GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-10324-MFL-KGA
(E.D. Mich., February 7, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other
relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant since approximately May 15,
2017 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Her most recent base hourly
rate of pay was $30.99. In addition to the base rate of pay,
Defendant incorporated various types of routine and
non-discretionary pay into its payment structure. Throughout
Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, on occasions where she
worked the second or third shifts, she also earned a shift
differential. However, the Defendant failed to incorporate any
shift differentials and non-discretionary bonuses into its hourly
employees' regular hourly rate calculation, the Plaintiff says.
Headquartered in Northville, MI, Tenneco Automotive Operating
Company designs, manufactures, and sells automotive products for
original equipment and aftermarket customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
TIMOTHY LARSON: Ridenhour Files Suit in D. Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timothy Larson, et
al. The case is styled as Terencia Ridenhour, Danidsha Ayala,
Carolina Carrion, Shakima N. Glover, Diane Lukowski, Amy Otis,
Kristie Ricker, Wendy Serrano, Melissa Riddle, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Timothy Larson,
Commissioner of the Connecticut Office of Higher Education; Sean
Seepersad, Division Director of Academic Affairs; Manisha Juthani,
Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Public Health; Chris
Andresen, Section Chief for Practitioner Licensing and
Investigations; Case No. 3:23-cv-01672-JCH (D. Conn., Dec. 26,
2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Timothy D. Larson is an American politician from Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Slossberg, Esq.
Kristen Zaehringer, Esq.
Timothy Cowan, Esq.
HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
135 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
Phone: (203) 877-8000
Fax: (203) 878-9800
Email: dslossberg@hssklaw.com
KZaehringer@hssklaw.com
tcowan@hssklaw.com
TOMMY BAHAMA R&R: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andrew Wilkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tommy Bahama R&R Holdings, Inc., Case
No. 23-00954-TT was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Chester County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of on Dec. 21, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05084-GEKP to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Tommy Bahama -- https://www.tommybahama.com/ -- offers luxury
lifestyle clothing for men and women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Phone: (862) 227-3106
Fax: (973) 525-2552
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James S. Malloy, Esq.
DINGESS, FOSTER, LUCIANA, DAVIDSON & CHLEBOSKI LLP
20 Stanwix Street, Third Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 926-1817
Fax: (412) 926-1801
Email: jmalloy@dfllegal.com
TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Arena LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Anthony Robert Phoenix, Adrienne Gene
Vincent-Phoenix, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Toyota Arena LLC, City of Ontario, Does 1-10, Case No.
8:23-cv-02403-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal., Dec. 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Toyota Arena -- https://www.toyota-arena.com/ -- hosts over 125
events annually including concerts, family shows, and sporting
competitions.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catherine Cabalo, Esq.
Khushpreet R Mehton, Esq.
Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway and Wise LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 766-3592
Fax: (415) 840-9435
Email: ccabalo@peifferwolf.com
kmehton@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Irakli Karbelashvili, Esq.
ALLACCESS LAW GROUP
1400 Coleman Avenue Suite F28
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Phone: (408) 295-0137
Fax: (408) 295-0142
Email: irakli@allaccesslawgroup.com
- and -
Adam Brett Wolf, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY AND WISE LLP
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 866-9662
Fax: (415) 840-9435
Email: awolf@peifferwolf.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher M. Pisano, Esq.
Dana Lui, Esq.
Alexander Michael Brand
BEST BEST AND KRIEGER LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 617-8100
Fax: (213) 617-7480
Email: christopher.pisano@bbklaw.com
dana.lui@bbklaw.com
alexander.brand@bbklaw.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Maintenance Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a ToyotaCare Plus class action
lawsuit alleges the maintenance plans are not the deal and savings
that Toyota allegedly claims they are.
According to the lawsuit, ToyotaCare Plus is supposed to cover
scheduled services typically paid by vehicle owners at specific
mileage intervals.
The class action says an example is a customer who instead of
paying for maintenance every 5,000 miles, can pay upfront for a
ToyotaCare Plus plan to cover all scheduled maintenance for five
years and/or up to 55,000 miles.
But the plaintiff asserts Toyota falsely markets the ToyotaCare
Plus plan as "a superior value and lower-cost alternative to paying
for each scheduled service individually at the time of service."
The class action lawsuit alleges a ToyotaCare Plus plan can cost
upwards of $1,000.
The ToyotaCare Plus brochure alleges regular service visits cost
$100 and any major service visits would cost $400, and the total
value of the maintenance package is allegedly $1,900, but a
customer can purchase it for $1,025.
ToyotaCare Plus Lawsuit: The Plaintiff
Plaintiff Teresa Solis says she paid $1,025 for the ToyotaCare Plus
package thinking she would be saving $875 in the long run, but she
contends eventually she realized the $1,900 value was far from
accurate.
The plaintiff claims she took her vehicle to a Toyota dealership
but certain work was being performed ahead of schedule or
completely skipped.
According to the ToyotaCare Plus class action, the plaintiff
brought her vehicle in for the 20,000-mile regular service in
January 2022, but Toyota allegedly did not perform the 20,000-mile
service and instead performed the service scheduled for 30,000
miles.
The class action alleges the bill for this "major service" was
roughly $200, not the $400 she was told it would be.
Then in July 2022 when she brought the vehicle in for the 30,000
major service, she contends she was given the 35,000 regular
service and the bill came to $30 (not the $100 she was sold). Had
she paid out of pocket, it would have been just $43.
"Ultimately, Ms. Solis realized she would have only paid between
$800 and $900 – less than the total price she paid for the
Maintenance Plan." — ToyotaCare Plus lawsuit
The plaintiff says she was confused and she questioned the service
department at the Toyota dealership as to why maintenance was being
performed "ahead of schedule" and why the amounts charged were
lower than what Toyota told her they would be.
The plaintiff asserts she was told everything was being done as it
should, but at the end of the plan she realized if she had paid
out-of-pocket each time she brought her car in for service, she
would have only paid between $800 and $900. This is less than the
total price she paid for the ToyotaCare Plus plan.
In addition, the class action lawsuit alleges when the plaintiff
took her car in at 45,000 miles for scheduled major service, Toyota
told her she had only one more service remaining. The plaintiff was
also allegedly told she needed to pay extra for cabin and air
filters.
The lawsuit alleges the value of the ToyotaCare Plus plan was
inflated and designed by Toyota to cost consumers more than if they
had paid for repairs and maintenance.
According to the Toyota class action, Toyota makes a lot of profit
by deceiving customers about the ToyotaCare Plus maintenance plan.
The ToyotaCare Plus class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California: Teresa
Solis v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Singleton Schreiber.[GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Solis Fraud Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., et al. The case is captioned as TERESA SOLIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-00251-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal., February 7, 2024).
The nature of the suit is stated as 370 Other Fraud.
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is an automobile company,
headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Daniel Bluth, Esq.
Christopher Ross Rodriguez, Esq.
John Richard Ternieden, Esq.
Trent J. Nelson, Esq.
SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
1414 K. Street, Suite 470
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 248-8478
(916) 256-2312
E-mail: abluth@singletonschreiber.com
crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com
jternieden@singletonschreiber.com
TROPICANA MANUFACTURING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Morgan Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAWANA MORGAN, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TROPICANA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01100 (N.D. Ill., February 7, 2024) seeks to recover
Plaintiff's unpaid wages and other damages from Tropicana
Manufacturing Company, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Morgan worked for Tropicana as a Quality Control Lab Tech
in Bradenton, FL since approximately December 2021 until July 2023.
From December 2021 until mid-October 2022, Tropicana misclassified
Morgan as an independent contractor and refused to pay her overtime
wages. Instead, during this time, Tropicana paid Morgan straight
time for overtime, says the suit.
Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Tropicana produces, manufactures, and
sells bottled fruit juices to consumers across the country. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.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
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
TRUEACCORD CORP: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
case is styled as Jessica Williams, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No.
3:23-cv-01495-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla., Dec. 21, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is the
industry-leading recovery and collections platform powered by
machine learning and a consumer-friendly digital experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th St, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
TRUEACCORD CORP: Wilson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
case is styled as David Wilson, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No.
8:23-cv-02931-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla., Dec. 21, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is the
industry-leading recovery and collections platform powered by
machine learning and a consumer-friendly digital experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th St, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: zane@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
- and -
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO PA
401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
TUSK LTD: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tusk, LTD. The case
is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Tusk, LTD., Case No. 1:24-cv-00707 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tusk, LTD. -- https://tusk.com/ -- offers a collection of fine
leather bags, wallets, and accessories for men, women, and travel,
featuring Italian leathers, finely woven fabrics, and
handmade.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
UN EXPRESS CORP: Shavlovsky Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UN Express Corp., et
al. The case is styled as Stan Shavlovsky, Natallia Krusheva, and
on behalf of all plaintiffs similarly situated v. UN Express Corp.,
et al., Case No. 23CV014033 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Dec.
26, 2023).
Un Express Co., Ltd. was founded in 1990. The company's line of
business includes distributing construction materials.[BN]
UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Discrimination Class Suit for $6M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
acainternational.org reports that the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau has agreed to pay $6 million to settle a discrimination
lawsuit brought by current and former Black and Hispanic employees,
according to a recent article from American Banker.
After nearly 10 years of legal battles, Judge Beryl A. Howell from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted
approval for the CFPB to settle the class-action lawsuit.
The class comprises 85 individuals, mainly women, who served or are
serving as Consumer Response Specialists and claim to have suffered
from the bureau's pervasive discrimination, retaliation, and unfair
policies. Specially, they alleged they were paid lower wages than
their white counterparts and faced retaliation when speaking up.
The lead plaintiffs in the case, Carzanna Jones and Heynard
Paz-Chow, helped establish the National Treasury Employees Union at
the CFPB and served, respectively, as union steward and chief
steward. They both filed internal complaints in 2014 with the
CFPB's Office of Civil Rights and engaged in negotiations to reform
the bureau's compensation system. In 2018, they filed a lawsuit
alleging that Blacks and Hispanics employed as consumer response
specialists were subjected to discriminatory and retaliatory
policies and practices.
Despite the settlement, the CFPB does not admit to any wrongdoing.
In a statement, the bureau asserted its ongoing commitment to
ensuring fair treatment for all employees. Notably though, the
bureau highlighted recent updates to its pay structures,
emphasizing that these changes are unrelated to the discrimination
allegations.
The settlement agreement includes a $6 million fund allocated to
the 85 class members and an additional $1.5 million designated for
attorney's fees for the class counsel. [GN]
UNITED STATES: McCadney Files Suit in U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USA. The case is
styled as Myles McCadney, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. USA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00152-CNL (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl.,
Jan. 31, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Military Pay – Retirement.
The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states
covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the
northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the
Pacific Ocean.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason Ellis Perry, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JASON PERRY, LLC
13654 Barberry Drive
Wellington, FL 33414
Phone: (800) 576-5648
Email: jason.perry@jeperrylaw.com
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by March 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Astakhov. et al., v.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., Case
No. 1:23-cv-07565 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered
a scheduling order as follows:
-- The Defendants shall respond to the Feb. 20, 2024
motion by:
-- The Plaintiffs shall file a reply, March 12, 2024
if any, by:
-- The Court shall hold another conference March 14, 2024
by telephone on:
The nature of suit states Other Statutory Actions.
U.S. Citizenship regulates permanent and temporary immigration to
the United States.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Urbani Files Suit in D. Oregon
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of
America. The case is styled as Ellen Urbani, Nathaniel West, Rowan
Maher, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. United States of America, Case No. 3:23-cv-01920-AN
(D. Ore., Dec. 19, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states
covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the
northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the
Pacific Ocean.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher A. Larsen, Esq.
PICKETT DUMMIGAN MCCALL LLP
210 SW Morrison, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (503) 223-7770
Fax: (503) 227-2530
Email: chris@pdm.legal
- and -
David F. Sugerman, Esq.
Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
DAVID F. SUGERMAN ATTORNEY, PC
707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (503) 228-6474
Fax: (503) 228-2556
Email: david@sugermandahab.com
nadia@sugermandahab.com
- and -
Gabriel Michael Chase, Esq.
CHASE LAW, PC
621 SW Alder St., Ste. 600
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (503) 294-1414
Fax: (503) 294-1455
Email: gabriel@chaselawpc.net
- and -
Joseph E. Piucci, Esq.
PIUCCI LAW
900 SW 13th Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: (503) 701-0357
Fax: (503) 228-2571
Email: joe@piucci.com
- and -
Michelle R. Burrows, Esq.
MICHELLE R. BURROWS PC
16869 SW 65th Ave., Ste. # 367
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Phone: (503) 241-1955
Email: michelle.r.burrows@gmail.com
UNIVERSITY UROLOGY: Diambrose Suit Included in Consolidated Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH DIAMBROSE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JED
C. KAMINETSKY, M.D., P.C. d/b/a "UNIVERSITY UROLOGY" and
"UNIVERSITY UROLOGY ASSOCIATES," Case No. 1:23-cv-06484-JHR
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered an order
consolidating related actions and appointing interim co-lead class
counsel.
-- No further filings shall be made in Case No. 1:23-cv-06652,
which
shall be administratively closed. All pleadings therein
maintain
their legal relevance until the filing of the Consolidated
Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint shall be filed within
the
next 45 days.
-- All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related
Actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated
Action.
-- The Court shall enter a scheduling order for further pretrial
proceedings as soon as is reasonably practicable.
-- The Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action shall file an
operative
Consolidated Complaint within 45 days of the date of this
Order.
The Defendant shall have 30 days from the date on which the
Plaintiffs file the Consolidated Complaint to file a response
thereto.
-- The following are appointed and shall serve as overall the
Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
- and -
Mason Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IzXe79 at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIVERSITY UROLOGY: Vivas Suit Included in Consolidated Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRES VIVAS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. JED C. KAMINETSKY,
M.D., P.C. d/b/a UNIVERSITY UROLOGY Case No. 1:23-cv-06652-NRB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered an order
consolidating related actions and appointing interim co-lead class
counsel.
-- No further filings shall be made in Case No. 1:23-cv-06652,
which
shall be administratively closed. All pleadings therein
maintain
their legal relevance until the filing of the Consolidated
Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint shall be filed within
the
next 45 days.
-- All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related
Actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated
Action.
-- The Court shall enter a scheduling order for further pretrial
proceedings as soon as is reasonably practicable.
-- The Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action shall file an
operative
Consolidated Complaint within 45 days of the date of this
Order.
The Defendant shall have 30 days from the date on which the
Plaintiffs file the Consolidated Complaint to file a response
thereto.
-- The following are appointed and shall serve as overall the
Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
- and -
Mason Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M3rRGY at no extra
charge.[CC]
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Kraemer Files TCPA Class Suit in S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USHealth Advisors,
LLC. The case is captioned as DAVID KRAEMER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00275-RJD (S.D. Ill., February 6, 2024).
The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
USHealth Advisors, LLC is a wholly-owned national sales and
distribution subsidiary of USHealth Group, Inc., doing business in
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan L. Coleman, Esq.
COLEMAN, PLLC
66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
E-mail: stefan.coleman@gmail.com
- and –
Avi Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
UTILITY TREE: Class Settlement in Lopez Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLORENTINO LOPEZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UTILITY TREE SERVICE, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability
Company; Case No. 3:22-cv-01404-JES-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
James E. Simmons, Jr. entered an order granting motion for
preliminary approval of class and PAGA action settlement.
1. The Parties have agreed to settle and seek a Judgment
resolving
this action in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the
Settlement Agreement. The Court notes that Defendant has
agreed
to create a common fund of $850,000.00 to cover
(a) settlement payments to Class Members who do not validly
opt
out;
(b) Class Representative Service Payments of up to $5,000.00
for
each Plaintiff;
(c) Class Counsel's attorneys' fees not to exceed 33 13/% of
the
Gross Settlement Amount ($283,333.33) and up to
$25,000.00
in costs for actual litigation expenses incurred by Class
Counsel;
(d) Settlement Administration costs of up to $15,000.00; and
(e) PAGA Settlement payment in the amount of $25,000.00, with
75% ($18,750.00) to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency ("LWDA") and 25% ($6,250.00) to the
Employees' PAGA portion;
2. For purposes of settlement only:
(a) Moon Law Group, PC and Wilshire Law Firm, PLC are
appointed
as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and
(b) The Plaintiffs Florentino Lopez and Luis Hernandez are
appointed Class Representatives.
3. The Court preliminarily approves Class Counsel's ability to
request attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Gross
Settlement Amount ($288,333.33), and costs/expenses not
exceeding $25,000.00.
4. The Court preliminarily approves the requested Class
Representative enhancement payments of $5,000.00 to Plaintiff
Florentino Lopez and $5,000.00 to Plaintiff Luis Hernandez.
5. The Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on
May 22, 2024.
Utility Tree is a vegetation management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HUuCPZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
VALFAIR CONSTRUCTION: Kimmons Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odell Kimmons, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. VALFAIR CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00108
(W.D. Tex., Jan. 30, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff overtime wages for all overtime hours worked despite
classifying Plaintiff as a non-exempt, overtime eligible employee.
Throughout the course of this employment, Plaintiff was paid on a
non-exempt basis and regularly required to work in excess of 40
hours per week (overtime hours); however, Plaintiff was not paid
overtime premium pay for all overtime hours worked. Rather,
Plaintiff and other similarly situated Plaintiffs were paid
according to their scheduled shift times when they were required to
work off the clock. For example, Plaintiff was regularly required
to stay 30 minutes or more past his regular shift time but would
not be paid for this time. Because Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours, this uncompensated time is owed at overtime
rates, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant during the three years
prior to the filing of this suit and until January of 2024.
Valfair Construction, Inc. operates in this District and does over
$500,000.00 per year in business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (469) 399-1070
Email: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com
VENTURA FOODS: Gramstad Suit Stayed Pending OK of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIM GRAMSTAD and AISAN
ROUHANINIA ATHARI, individually and as Representatives of a
Putative class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the
VENTURA FOODS, LLC PROFIT SHARING 401(K) PLAN, v. VENTURA FOODS,
LLC and DOES 1 through 10 Case No. 8:22-cv-02290-JWH-JDE (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting
joint stipulation to extend stay for the case and all deadlines
pending motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement:
-- The case is stayed until March 22, 2042
-- All pending deadlines regarding the briefing schedule for the
motion for class certification are vacated.
-- The deadline to file a motion for preliminary approval on class
action settlement is March 22, 2024.
Ventura Foods produces and markets food products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eNrAap at no extra
charge.[CC]
VNET GROUP: Faces Faces Class Suit Over Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against VNET Group, Inc. ("VNET" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:VNET).
Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
The class action concerns whether VNET and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.
You have until February 26, 2024, to ask the Court to appoint you
as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you are a shareholder who
purchased or otherwise acquired VNET securities during the Class
Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
As of February 28, 2022, VNET's co-founder, Josh Sheng Chen,
beneficially owned approximately 78.52 million VNET shares
individually and through his sole ownership of certain companies,
including GenTao Capital Limited ("GenTao") and Sunrise Corporate
Holding Ltd. ("Sunrise").
On August 19, 2021, he and his companies entered into a $50.25
million margin loan facility with Bold Ally (Cayman) Limited ("Bold
Ally"), pledging all of his shares of GenTao, Sunrise, and Beacon
Capital Group Inc. as collateral, thus effectively pledging a
significant percentage of his VNET shares as collateral (the
"Facility Agreement").
On February 13, 2023, Bold Ally announced it would exercise its
rights under the Facility Agreement following a default by GenTao
and was entitled to 48,515,634 Class A ordinary shares (in the form
of 8,085,939 American depositary shares, or "ADSs" or "shares") and
27,757,992 Class B ordinary shares of the Company.
On this news, VNET's share price fell $0.20 per share, or 3.2% to
close at $6.11 per share on February 13, 2023, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The Company's share price continued to decline by
$1.09 per share, or 17.8%, over the next consecutive trading
session to close at $5.02 per share on February 14, 2023, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on February 15, 2023, VNET disclosed that its Board of
Directors (the "Board") had approved and authorized the issuance of
up to 555,000 newly created Class D ordinary shares to the
Executive Chairman of the Board, and that these shares would be
granted a 500-to-1 vote per share power. The Company stated this
measure was required in order to "protect the Company's interests
and continued stability."
On this news, VNET's share price fell $0.10 per share, or 2%, to
close at $4.92 per share on February 15, 2023, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: May Face Suit Over Fuel Tank Suction Jet Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed against Volkswagen over reported
problems with the fuel tank suction jet pump in certain 2015-2020
Audi A3 and VW Golf vehicles.
In 2016, the automaker recalled more than 110,00 model year
2015-2016 Volkswagen Golf, GTI, Golf SportWagen, Audi A3 and A3
Cabriolet vehicles over concerns that they may have come equipped
with a damaged suction jet pump inside the fuel tank. This reported
defect can lead to gas leaks, presenting a risk of fire.
Attorneys believe the 2016 recall may have failed to adequately
address the issue or cover enough vehicles and are looking into
whether a class action lawsuit can be filed on behalf of drivers.
Volkswagen, Audi Fuel Tank Suction Pump Recall
Volkswagen's 2016 recall included certain 2015-2016 VW Golf, GTI,
Golf SportWagen, Audi A3, and A3 Cabriolet vehicles with suction
jet pumps containing seal rings that may have been assembled with
too much tension.
According to the NHTSA's recall report, this component is designed
to purge fuel from the evaporative emissions (EVAP) system.
However, the reported suction pump defect can cause fuel to flow
directly into the EVAP system, accumulate, and leak through the
charcoal canister filter element. Notices sent to affected VW and
Audi drivers warned that gas leaks pose a serious fire hazard when
exposed to an ignition source.
The letters stated that other symptoms of suction pump failure
could include refueling issues, such as premature fuel nozzle
shutoffs and fuel spillbacks, or a gas odor inside the car.
Although the automaker offered to replace suction pumps in covered
vehicles free of charge, consumers have continued to report
problems related to the part, particularly in newer model years not
included in the recall.
Drivers Report Issues Even After Recall
In December 2023, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) announced that it had received 79 complaints
from drivers who said their 2015-2020 Volkswagen Golf and Audi A3
vehicles had exhibited fuel leaks or other issues related to the
reported defect.
Specifically, consumers say they've experienced gas leaks in the
rear right area of the vehicle, near the fuel tank filler door and
the rear right wheel well. They've also complained of refueling
problems, gas odors in the cabin and the risk of fire associated
with suction pump failure.
These complaints have prompted the NHTSA to investigate whether
VW's 2016 recall adequately addressed the suction pump issue. The
probe will inspect more than 447,000 Volkswagen Golf and Audi A3
vehicles with model years between 2015 and 2020, Reuters reports.
How Could a Class Action Lawsuit Help?
If successful, a lawsuit could help compensate owners and lessees
for repairs and replacements, as well as the loss of value of their
vehicles. It could also force Volkswagen to recall all affected
models and provide a permanent fix for the issue.
In September 2022, VW issued warranty extensions for the fuel tank
suction jet pumps in 2015-2020 Volkswagen Golf, 2015-2020
Volkswagen Golf SportWagen and 2019-2022 Jetta A7 GLI vehicles for
15 years or 150,000 miles. Although the automaker agreed to provide
free replacements of failed suction jet pumps in these vehicles, a
successful class action lawsuit could help certain Volkswagen
drivers get back some of the money they spent on repairs before the
warranty extensions were announced.[GN]
WALMART INC: Matthews Sues Over Mislabeled Juice Product
--------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
Case: 4:24-cv-00202-JSD (E.D. Mo., February 7, 2024) arises from
the Defendant's misleading labeling of Great Value brand juice
product in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act,
the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.
The said product is "misbranded" and misleads consumers because its
labeling as "Yellow Cling Peaches in 100% Juice" causes them to
expect only peaches and 100% juice. The fine print of the
ingredient list on the bottom of the package reveals purchasers do
not receive only peaches and 100% juice. The print indicates the
presence of added water, juice concentrates, natural flavor, and
added seasoning in the form of lemon juice, says the suit.
Headquartered in Arkansas, Walmart is an American multinational
retail corporation that operates a chain of over 5,000 supercenters
throughout the nation, with almost four hundred in Missouri,
selling everything from furniture to electronics to groceries.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Harvath
HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC
75 W Lockwood Ave Ste 1
Webster Groves MO 63119
Telephone: (314)550-3717
E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf, writing for Top Class Action, reports that a new Wells
Fargo class action lawsuit claims the company did not provide
customers with proper notification about overdraft fees.
Customers are supposed to provide written consent for overdraft
fees, but Wells Fargo had employees read an unscripted summary of
the fees and then opted in the customers if they gave a verbal
affirmation, the Wells Fargo lawsuit claims.
According to the lawsuit, Wells Fargo's practices violate Federal
Reserve regulations; all of the bank's overdraft fees charged to
customers who opted in before May 2022 are therefore illegal, the
class action argues.
Wells Fargo has a "long and documented history of troubling
overdraft practices," according to the class action.
In 2012, the lawsuit notes, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
confirmed a $203 million judgment against Wells Fargo over claims
the bank misrepresented its overdraft practices. The judgment
included an injunction against the bank misrepresenting its process
for transactions related to overdraft services, the lawsuit says.
Wells Fargo also makes it virtually impossible for customers to
resolve their claims of illegal overdraft practices, the class
action says.
The Wells Fargo overdraft rules require complainants to go into an
individualized arbitration process, but the company has instead
forced complainants into mass arbitration "in which the success or
failure of their claims was tied to the claims of thousands of
other Wells Fargo accountholders," the lawsuit says.
The process arbitrator also imposed onerous pleading requirements,
which caused the dismissal of many claims and led the plaintiffs to
file the class action. The requirements were not in the arbitration
rules or law, the lawsuit claims.
Apple Federal Credit Union is accused of unlawfully assessing $29
overdraft fees on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient
funds, a class action lawsuit from May 2023 alleges.
The plaintiff is represented by Richard D. McCune, Steven A.
Haskins, Valerie L. Savran and Emily J. Kirk of McCune Law Group.
The Wells Fargo class action lawsuit is Penuela, et al. v. Wells
Fargo NA, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00883, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Orders to Provide Info in Child Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Donahue, writing for WSAZ, reports that more than four
months after two children were found locked inside a closed-off
area of a barn in Sissonville and the children's adopted parents
Donald Lantz and Jeanne Whitefeather were charged with felony gross
child neglect, Federal Magistrate Judge Cheryl Eifert has ordered
Child Protective Services to provide information about the
situation in ongoing, class-action litigation against the State of
West Virginia initially filed in 2019.
Eifert's order follows a class action lawsuit that grants the
plaintiffs' Requests for Production of documents from Child
Protective Services requested in November.
According to the plaintiffs' Request for Production, those
documents include "all documents and communications regarding the
adoptive children of Donald Ray Lantz and Jeanne Kay Whitefeather
discovered in Sissonville, West Virginia, including any documents
and communications regarding any investigation into allegations of
abuse and neglect".
On January 7, 2024, the state objected to that request calling
those documents "not relevant to the subject matters" since the
Sissonville kids were not part of the class-action litigation going
on to describe the request as "overbroad, unduly burdensome, and
not proportional to the need of the case because it would require
defendants to spend dozens of staff and/or contractor hours to
search servers, emails and paper files to locate ‘all documents
and communications'.
Plaintiffs allege in the case that the Department of Health and
Human Services caseworkers, who are responsible for the welfare of
children in West Virginia are understaffed and overworked,
resulting in systemic failures including slow or nonexistent
responses to reports of abuse and neglect, as well as appropriate
follow-up.
In the ruling, Eifert said the information regarding the children
found in Sissonville is relevant to show the DHHR's general
response to allegations of abuse and neglect as well as to
establish the caseworkers' staffing and workload.
Eifert's order requires CPS to provide the plaintiffs with the
relevant information by February 26.
According to the Kanawha County Circuit Clerk's office, both
Whitefeather and Lantz were released on $200,000 cash-only bonds
last week. Their case is pending indictment from the grand jury.
[GN]
WESTERN WORLD: Master Roof Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Master Roof, Inc., and others similarly
situated v. WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 23-A-07958-8
was removed from the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
Dec. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-05978-ELR.
The Plaintiff alleges Western World issued Plaintiff a Commercial
Lines Policy. She further claims she was charged a Total Advance
Premium of $1,820. The Plaintiff alleges that the audit premium
Policy provision "omits any reference to the manner and methodology
for actual calculation of the audited premium" and that Plaintiff
was not provided with "any notice, disclosure, or other information
as to the manner and methodology for any change or adjustment to
the premium for the Policy."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel F. Diffley, Esq.
Melissa G. Quintana, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 W. Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Phone: 404-881-7000
Fax: 404-881-7777
- and -
Alexander Lorenzo, Esq.
Adam Kaiser, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016-1387
Phone: 212-210-9400
Fax: 212-210-9444
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Refrigerators
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit alleges certain Whirlpool-, Maytag-,
KitchenAid- and Kenmore-brand refrigerators are equipped with
defective wiring that can break or fray quickly through ordinary
use, often right after the expiration of a fridge's one-year
warranty.
The 60-page lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation claims the
apparently brittle wires, which run through the freezer door in the
fridges at issue and control the ice maker and dispenser, water
dispenser and door-mounted control panel, are meant to "flex" when
the door is opened and closed. However, a "defect in the materials
used" for the wiring can cause them to break or fray, which can
render some fridge functions useless and create an electrocution or
fire hazard, the case says.
According to the complaint, Whirlpool has known of the refrigerator
wiring defect for "at least a decade," and hundreds, if not
thousands, of consumers have complained directly to the company
about the problem.
"For years Whirlpool has continued to sell these defective Class
Refrigerators [listed below] to the public without disclosing the
Defect, which manifests after just a few years under ordinary use
as a result of simply opening and closing the refrigerator doors,"
the proposed class action lawsuit alleges.
Despite the seemingly widespread nature of the Whirlpool fridge
wiring defect, the problem is "irreparable," the lawsuit says, as
technicians have supposedly acknowledged that the only way to fix
the issue and restore functionality is to replace the entire
freezer door, typically with one that suffers from "the same
defective wiring." Compounding matters is that replacement freezer
doors, which can sell for more than $1,200 a piece, are often
unavailable or on a months-long backorder, the complaint adds.
"As a result, most consumers are forced to purchase an entirely new
refrigerator," the case states.
Per the lawsuit, the Whirlpool-, Maytag-, KitchenAid- and
Kenmore-brand refrigerators equipped with defective wiring include,
but are not limited to, those with the following model numbers:
106.51133213;
106.51783412;
10651769511;
10651773510;
GSC25C4EYY03;
GSF26C4EXY03;
JSC23C9EEM00;
KRFC704FPS;
KRFF577KPS;
KRMF706ESS;
KRSC500ESS00;
KRSF705HPS01;
MFI2570FEZ;
MSS25C4MGZ;
MSC21C6MFZ;
WMH31017HZ;
WRS335SDHM03;
WRS511CIH6101;
WRS526SIAE;
WRS555SIHB03;
WRS555SIHZ03;
WRS571CIHZ02;
WRS57109638;
WRS571C1H201;
WRS571C1HZOO;
WRS571CHZ;
WRS571CID;
WRS571CIDB;
WRS571CIDM;
WRS571CIH;
WRS571CIHV;
WRS571CIHWO1;
WRS571CIHZ01;
WRS576FIDW01;
WRS576CIDW00;
WRS586FIEM04;
WRS586FLDB00;
WRS973CIHZ00;
WRS588FIHB;
WRS588FIHV;
WRS588FIHZ;
WRS588FIHW;
WRS588FIHZ;
WRS688FIHV;
WRS965CIAE;
WRS970CIHZ;
WRS975SIDM;
WRS97CIDE;
WRSA71CIHZ;
WRSA88FIHN;
WRSA88FIHZ;
WSF26C2EXY02;
WSF26C2EXB01;
WSF26C2EXF01; and
WSF26C3EXF01.
As the case tells it, Whirlpool has touted the affected
refrigerators as having key functions such as an ice maker and
dispenser and a water dispenser. The apparent wiring defect can
cause these functions to fail "within just a few years," despite
the fact that a refrigerator should last for at least one or two
decades, the suit relays.
Crucially, it is these fridge functions that form the "basis of the
bargain" between Whirlpool and consumers, the lawsuit shares.
"Plaintiff and consumers relied on Whirlpool's misrepresentations
regarding the ice maker/dispenser, water dispenser, and control
panel," the case reads. "Because of the Defect, consumers are
deprived of the benefit of basic features that were part of the
basis of their bargain."
According to the complaint, broken wires pose a significant safety
risk given that an exposed live wire can contribute to
electrocution or a fire. These risks are heightened in the case of
the refrigerators at issue given the presence of water, which, when
in contact with a live wire, can cause a short circuit, shocks or a
fire, the filing states.
Despite its knowledge of the safety risks and effects on the
functionality of the fridges, Whirlpool has not warned the public
about the wiring problem and continues to sell refrigerators
equipped with faulty wiring, the suit alleges. The case highlights
that consumers cannot discover the wiring defect until it manifests
given that the wires are concealed "inside conduit or insulating
material, hidden behind panels, and concealed within the freezer
door."
The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who
purchased one or more of the Whirlpool-, Maytag-, KitchenAid- and
Kenmore-brand refrigerators with model numbers listed on this page
that had the alleged wiring defect.
Costa et al v. Whirlpool Corporation
FILED: FEBRUARY 12, 2024 Case No. 1:24-CV-00188 [GN]
WINDHAM MOUNTAIN: Mermelstein Sues Over Improper Fee Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE MERMELSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WINDHAM MOUNTAIN CLUB PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00191-DNH-DJS
(N.D.N.Y., February 7, 2024) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff seeking relief individually, and on behalf of all other
first-time ski lift ticket purchasers, for Defendant alleged unfair
conduct in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs
Law.
Allegedly, the Defendant failed to disclose the total cost of its
tickets, including the Defendant's $5.00 Axess Media Only fee,
throughout the online ticket purchase process in violation of the
New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.
Headquartered in Windham, NY, Windham Mountain Club Property
Owners' Association, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-governmental
organization that owns and operates Windham Mountain and the ski
lift there. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Matthew Girardi, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
- and -
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com
WINE ART AND LIQUOR: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wine Art And Liquor,
Inc. The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Wine Art And Liquor, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-00697 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wine Art And Liquor, Inc. -- https://wineartnyc.com/ -- offers art
and wine together.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
[*] District Court Dismisses FDCPA Suit for Lack of Standing
------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that on January 31, the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York dismissed an FDCPA class action
lawsuit for lack of standing. According to the order, plaintiff
alleged numerous violations of the FDCPA related to two debt
collection letters sent to the plaintiff and his girlfriend. In
September 2023, a debt collector (defendant) reportedly sent two
letters to the plaintiff which allegedly did not contain the
requisite information mandated by the FDCPA for communication with
consumers, including validation and itemization details. One of the
letters purportedly demanded payment by September 29, falling
within the 30-day validation period. Additionally, plaintiff
asserted that one of the letters was addressed to his girlfriend
who bore no responsibility for the debt. Plaintiff claimed two
concrete injuries: (i) the letters allegedly strained his
relationship with his girlfriend, causing emotional distress; and
(ii) due to the omission of critical information in the letters,
plaintiff felt confused and uncertain about how to effectively
respond.
In considering the plaintiff's claims, the court discussed the
elements required to state a claim for publicity given to private
life and examines a specific case where such a claim was rejected
by the court. It highlights that for such a claim to succeed, the
matter publicized must be highly offensive to a reasonable person
and not of legitimate public concern. Additionally, mere
communication of private information to a single person typically
does not constitute publicity, unless it has the potential to
become public knowledge. Although Congress explicitly prohibits
debt collectors from sharing consumer financial information with
third parties, the court noted that it "does not automatically
transform every arguable invasion of privacy into an actionable,
concrete injury.” Therefore, the plaintiff's injury, as pleaded,
was deemed insufficiently concrete for standing purposes. Regarding
the second alleged injury, the court argued that confusion alone
does not suffice as a concrete injury for standing purposes, and
courts have determined that mere confusion or frustration does not
qualify as an injury. Additionally, the court compared the case to
other cases where plaintiffs had alleged confusion yet had also
demonstrated further injuries. [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
[*] U.S. Class-Action Decisions for 4Q 2023 Discussed
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron Van Nostrand, Kara E. Angeletti, Layal Bishara, Angela C.
Bunnell, Andrea N. Chidyllo, Quinn Ford, Gregory Franklin, Sean C.
O'Bryan, Tyler L. Salway, and Brian D. Straw, writing to National
Law Review, cover the Class Action Litigation Newsletter for the
4th Quarter of 2023.
This GT Newsletter summarizes recent class-action decisions from
across the United States.
Highlights from this issue include:
-- Second Circuit reverses denial of motion to compel arbitration
based on uncluttered user interface providing "reasonably
conspicuous notice."
-- Second Circuit decertifies long-running securities fraud class
action finding link between corrective disclosures and the alleged
misrepresentations insufficient.
-- Third Circuit finds plaintiff has standing to pursue FDCPA
claim but remands for determination whether individualized inquiry
needed to ascertain if individual class members had standing
predominates over common issues.
-- Fifth Circuit vacates class certification in breach of contract
case because plaintiffs failed to show class wide injury.
-- Sixth Circuit vacates order certifying issue-classes in design
defect case for deficient analysis of Rule 23's commonality
requirement.
-- Seventh Circuit remands insurance policyholder class action to
state court based on CAFA's internal affairs and home-state
exceptions.
-- Eleventh Circuit holds that 2018 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(2) does not displace Bennett factor analysis to determine
whether a proposed settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate."
-- Eleventh Circuit (en banc) rules that receipt of an unwanted
text message causes a concrete injury and can establish standing
for a class representative bringing TCPA claim.
First Circuit
DiCroce v. McNeil Nutritionals LLC, 82 F.4th 35 (1st Cir. 2023)
Consumer's state-law claims based on federal labeling law dismissed
as preempted by Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Plaintiff Kristin DiCroce appealed from the district court's
dismissal of her complaint for allegedly misleading labeling and
marketing of Lactaid supplements. The district court held that
DiCroce's false advertising and deceptive trade practices claims
both failed because "no reasonable consumer could find Lactaid's
product labels deceptive, nor has DiCroce identified a
misrepresentation of fact." The First Circuit did not address the
claims substantively and instead affirmed the dismissal on grounds
that the state law claims were preempted by federal law.
Specifically, DiCroce's legal action hinged on her assumption that
Lactaid's labels violated the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FDCA) labeling requirements and therefore were misleading to
consumers. However, only the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may
enforce the FDCA; there is no private right of action. The FDCA
preempts any state-law claim that exists "solely by virtue" of an
FDCA infraction. Unless a plaintiff pleads that conduct (1)
violates FDCA labeling requirements and (2) would also violate
chapter 93A even if the FDCA did not exist, the claim is preempted.
DiCroce did not contend that Lactaid did not perform as promised,
nor did she provide any basis, independent of federal labeling
laws, from which the court could conclude that a consumer would be
misled by Lactaid's label. In fact, DiCroce's complaint
acknowledged that Lactaid's disclaimer statements were "literally
true," arguing only that the labels are nevertheless misleading
because they violate the FDCA. The First Circuit concluded that
when Congress enacted the FDCA, it tasked the FDA, not private
citizens, with addressing such alleged violations.
Alves v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, No. 22-11820, 2023 WL
4706585 (D. Mass. July 24, 2023)
Operation of an interactive website is not sufficient to
demonstrate defendant availed itself of minimum contacts necessary
to warrant personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action against Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company alleging the company's use of Session Replay Code
technology on its website violated Massachusetts privacy laws.
Goodyear moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in
Massachusetts. Plaintiff argued the court had personal jurisdiction
over Goodyear because through Goodyear's website the injury
occurred in and was felt in Massachusetts. Specifically, plaintiff
alleged defendant knew that its practices would directly result in
collection of information from Massachusetts citizens while those
citizens browsed www.goodyear.com. Nevertheless, plaintiff claimed,
defendant chose to avail itself of the business opportunities of
marketing and selling its goods and services in Massachusetts and
collecting real-time data from website visit sessions Massachusetts
citizens initiated while in Massachusetts. The court found
Goodyear's intentional activities, including the operation of
www.goodyear.com, the licensing and procurement of Session Replay
Code technology, and the gathering and use of user data,
undisputedly all took place outside Massachusetts. Indeed, the only
intentional contact between Goodyear and Massachusetts that is
relevant to the claims at issue was the accessibility of
www.goodyear.com in Massachusetts.
The district court reasoned that the proper question was not where
plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the
defendant's intentional conduct connected it to the forum. The
court held that the facts alleged in the complaint did not
establish a sufficiently strong relationship between Goodyear's
intentional activities in Massachusetts and the dispute to warrant
exercise of personal jurisdiction. The operation of an interactive
website did not show that the defendant formed a contact with
Massachusetts. The court concluded that without defendant creating
a sufficient connection with the forum state itself, personal
jurisdiction was not proper.
John Doe v. Atrius Health, Inc., C.A. No. 22-12196, 2023 WL 6961905
(D. Mass. Oct. 20, 2023)
Private entity that voluntarily participates in federal incentive
programs for financial gain does not fall within ambit of
federal-officer removal statute.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action against non-governmental
health care provider Atrius Health alleging systematic violation of
patients' state-law privacy rights. The complaint alleged that
Atrius Health's websites used a visitor tracking tool, allowing
that information to be processed and shared with third party
advertisers. Atrius Health removed the action to federal court
under 28 U.S.C. Sec 1442(a)(1), the federal-officer removal
statute. Plaintiffs moved to remand, contending that federal
subject
The removing party "bears the burden under Sec 1442(a)(1) to
establish:
(1) that it was acting under a federal officer's authority;
(2) that the charged conduct was carried out for or relating
to the asserted official authority; and
(3) that it will assert a colorable federal defense to the
suit."
Atrius contended its alleged use of the computer code was to comply
with regulations that assist the government with enhancing patient
engagement and supporting the creation of infrastructure to promote
adoption of nationwide interoperable health-information technology.
The court found that argument insufficient to support
federal-officer removal, because a private firm's compliance (or
noncompliance) with federal laws, rules, and regulations does not
by itself fall within the scope of the statutory phrase "acting
under" a federal official.
Second Circuit
Edmundson v. Klarna, Inc., 85 F.4th 695 (2d Cir. 2023)
Second Circuit reverses denial of motion to compel arbitration
where uncluttered user interface, spatially coupled with the
mechanism and language for manifesting assent, provides reasonably
conspicuous notice of arbitration terms.
Defendant Klarna, Inc. provides a "buy now, pay later" service that
allows shoppers to buy a product and pay for it over time without
incurring interest or fees. Shortly after plaintiff used Klarna to
pay for online purchases, Klarna automatically deducted partial
payments from plaintiff's checking account. Because plaintiff's
account lacked sufficient funds, plaintiff incurred overdraft fees
that were assessed by the third party financial institution
associated with her bank account (not Klarna). Plaintiff brought a
putative class action alleging that Klarna misrepresents and
conceals the risk of bank overdraft fees, asserting claims for
common law fraud and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act. The district court denied Klarna's motion to compel
arbitration, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded with
instructions to grant Klarna's motion.
In discussing the formation of a web-based contract -- and whether
a "reasonably prudent" user will be on inquiry notice of
arbitration terms if they are presented in a "clear and conspicuous
way" -- the Second Circuit reiterated its prior statements in Meyer
v. Uber Techs, Inc., 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017) about how a
"reasonably prudent" internet or smartphone user is "not a complete
stranger to computers or smartphones, having some familiarity with
how to navigate to a website or download an app," and knows what a
hyperlink looks like and that it links "to another webpage where
additional information will be found." The Second Circuit also
reiterated the importance of a company's interface presentation,
noting that "when terms are linked on an 'uncluttered' interface
and temporally and 'spatially coupled with the mechanism for
manifesting assent,'" and no scrolling is required, that is
sufficient to qualify as reasonably conspicuous notice as a matter
of law. The Second Circuit also reiterated that an explicit
reference to the words "I agree" is not necessary for a user to
manifest assent, and that various other factors are to be
considered, including whether the interface clearly warned the user
that taking a specific action would constitute assent (e.g.,
creating an account and agreeing to be bound to the linked terms)
and the timing and location of being presented with the terms.
The Second Circuit concluded that Klarna provided "reasonably
conspicuous notice" of its arbitration terms and that plaintiff
manifested assent thereto. First, the court found "reasonably
conspicuous notice" of the terms because, among other things, (1)
Klarna's widget interface is "uncluttered"; (2) the only link
provided is to Klarna's terms, and the user is presented with only
one button to click -- "Confirm and continue" -- so the content is
"visible at once, and the user does not need to scroll beyond what
is immediately visible to find notice" of the terms; (3) even
though the hyperlink to the terms is in a smaller font, it is "set
apart from surrounding information by being underlined and in a
color that stands in sharp contrast to the color of the interfaces'
backgrounds" and is therefore sufficiently conspicuous in light of
the interface as a whole; (4) the timing of the presentation of the
terms of service -- namely, at purchase or enrollment -- would
indicate to a "reasonably prudent user" that "the terms presented
on the interface govern the user's future relationship with
Klarna"; and (5) the interface contained language that "signal[ed]
to users that they will be agreeing to Klarna's terms through their
conduct" by proceeding further. As for the user's manifestation of
assent by selecting "Confirm and continue," the Second Circuit
ruled that plaintiff could not avoid notice of the terms, which
were hyperlinked, as the statement in which the hyperlink was
embedded was placed directly above the button she herself had to
click. The Second Circuit also added that there is no requirement
for the company to explicitly advise the user of what the act of
clicking to proceed means, and that the interface itself need only
make clear to the reasonable user "that a specific 'click'
signifies assent."
Ark. Teacher Retirement Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., 77 F.4th
74 (2d Cir. 2023)
Second Circuit decertifies securities fraud class, finding link
between "corrective disclosures and the alleged misrepresentations"
insufficient.
In this longstanding putative class action, Goldman Sachs
shareholders alleged that from 2006-2010 the company made
misstatements in public filings about its conflict-of-interest
policies. Although these statements were generic, plaintiffs
alleged they artificially inflated the company stock price.
Plaintiffs further alleged that when the existence of certain
company conflicts came to light, that inflation purportedly
dissipated, causing them to suffer losses. Whether class
certification was appropriate has been a question on appeal for
years and was the subject of a 2021 Supreme Court decision. See
December 2020 and June 2021 GT Alerts.
Following the Supreme Court's vacatur of class certification and
remand for further proceedings, the district court again certified
the class, finding the company failed to rebut the Basic
presumption invoked by plaintiffs and thus failed to sufficiently
show that an alleged misstatement did not affect the stock price
(i.e., that it had no "price impact"). On appeal once again, the
Second Circuit found the district court abused its discretion by
certifying the shareholder class and reversed and remanded for
decertification.
The Second Circuit concluded that the district court's price impact
analysis was based on an erroneous application of the "inflation
maintenance" theory and the district court erroneously applied a
"truthful substitute" inquiry. In particular, the court found that
there was an insufficient link between the corrective disclosures
and the alleged misrepresentations, and the defense did demonstrate
that the misrepresentations did not impact Goldman's stock price --
thereby rebutting the Basic presumption of reliance.
For future cases, the decision includes a section at the end
captioned "Guidance moving forward" that explains how a "searching
price impact analysis must be conducted" in instances where there
is a "considerable gap" in front-end-back-end genericness, the
corrective disclosure does not directly refer to the alleged
misstatements, and the plaintiffs claim the company's generic
risk-disclosure is misleading by omission. In these instances,
"case law bearing on materiality can help guide courts in
considering, as a factual matter, the generic nature of the alleged
misrepresentation." The Second Circuit goes on to note that "courts
should consider other indirect evidence of price impact, directed
at either the inflation maintaining nature of the generic
misstatement, or the price-dropping capacity of an equally generic
corrective disclosure.
Aleksanian v. Uber Techs. Inc., No. 22-98-cv, 2023 WL 7537627 (2d
Cir. Nov. 14, 2023)
Second Circuit permits limited discovery into arbitrability,
finding it could not determine whether FAA exemption for workers
engaged in interstate commerce applied based solely on pleading.
Uber rideshare drivers filed a putative class action alleging that
Uber breached its contracts with the drivers by unlawfully
deducting certain amounts from their earnings. Uber moved to compel
arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreements contained in the
Software License Agreement the drivers accepted when they agreed to
download the driver version of the Uber App and drive for Uber. The
drivers opposed the motion, arguing they were exempt from the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by being part of a class of workers
engaged in interstate commerce. The district court granted Uber's
motion to compel arbitration and declined the drivers' request for
limited discovery to rebut the statistics and data Uber relied upon
in its motion. The drivers moved for reconsideration under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e); that motion was denied, and they appealed.
The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, finding it could not
determine whether the FAA exemption applied based solely on the
complaint and incorporated documents because the pleading said
"little about whether the class of transportation workers . . . are
engaged in interstate commerce or sufficiently related work." In
ruling that plaintiffs should have been permitted the limited
discovery they had requested to determine if the FAA exemption
applied, the Second Circuit noted it may include information
related to "Uber's policies regarding interstate trips; the
potential penalties and costs of declining interstate trips; Uber's
revenue from interstate trips; the average number of interstate
trips Uber drivers take over various time periods . . . ; the
median number of interstate trips for Uber drivers over various
time periods; what percentage of Uber drivers take interstate trips
over various time periods; how often Uber drivers decline
interstate trips; and any other relevant information."
Third Circuit
Huber v. Simon's Agency, Inc., 84 F.4th 132 (3d Cir. 2023)
Third Circuit finds plaintiff has standing to pursue FDCPA claim
but remands for further fact-finding on predominance inquiry.
In a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case, the district
court agreed with plaintiff that the debt collection letters were
"misleading and deceptive" in violation of the FDCPA, held that
plaintiff had standing under the informational injury doctrine
because she suffered concrete financial harm as a result of the
letter, and certified a class of people who received the letters.
The Third Circuit agreed that plaintiff had standing, but not under
the informational standing doctrine. The panel found that doctrine
only applies if plaintiff failed to receive all information
required by the statute. The informational standing doctrine does
not apply to misleading or confusing communications, even if, as in
this case, plaintiff suffered concrete financial harm from the
confusion.
The panel, however, found plaintiff had standing on a different
basis: the financial harm plaintiff sustained bore a "close
relationship" to the harm associated with the tort of fraudulent
misrepresentation. Because plaintiff had standing, she could act as
class representative for the putative class regardless of whether
other putative class members had standing.
Nevertheless, the Third Circuit remanded the case to the district
court for further fact-finding to determine whether the
individualized inquiry needed to ascertain whether individual class
members had standing predominated over issues common to the class.
It was not sufficient for the district court to assume that
financial harm was an "inevitable consequence" to every class
member.
Fifth Circuit
Sampson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 83 F.4th 414 (5th Cir. 2023)
Fifth Circuit vacates class certification order because plaintiffs
failed to show class-wide injury.
Insureds brought a class action against USAA for miscalculating the
actual cash value (ACV) of totaled vehicles by using the CCC One
Market Valuation Report (CCC) rather than the National Automobile
Dealers Association (NADA) guidebook. Plaintiffs claimed breach of
contract and violation of good faith, alleging that CCC was not a
recognized valuation source and estimated a lower total-loss ACV
than NADA would have provided. The district court certified a Rule
23(b)(3) class of insureds. USAA appealed the certification order
under Rule 23(f).
The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's certification order,
finding plaintiffs had not shown their breach of contract claims
could be proven on a class-wide basis, and so they had not shown
that common issues of law and fact predominated. To prove a breach
of contract claim, a plaintiff must show damages or injury, which
meant that plaintiffs here could only certify the class if they
could show injury on a class wide basis. But NADA was only one
source to determine actual cash value, and other methodologies were
legitimate alternatives. The Fifth Circuit explained that
plaintiffs had not shown that NADA was "the measure" of ACV.
Although the district court had wide discretion to choose an
imperfect estimative damages model at certification, the district
court's discretion did not extend to the context of liability.
Even if the plaintiffs could show that using CCC was unlawful, they
could not establish underpayment with class-wide proof. Some class
members may have been underpaid using CCC compared with NADA, while
some may not have been. The Fifth Circuit held that the choice of
NADA as a class-wide liability model was arbitrary, and thus
vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for
further proceedings.
In re Jefferson Parish, 81 F.4th 403 (5th Circ. 2023)
Mandamus relief under All Writs Act could not be used to prevent
individual trials pending determination of class certification in
parallel class litigation.
A landfill owner and operators were sued both in a putative class
action and also in a 500-plaintiff mass action. Both lawsuits
alleged the landfill's noxious gases and odors made the plaintiffs
ill, decreased their quality of life, and caused the loss of
enjoyment and use of their property. Defendants objected to the
district court's scheduling of a trial for a small group of
plaintiffs from the mass action before a determination of class
certification in the class action.
Defendants sought mandamus relief from the Fifth Circuit through
the All Writs Act to stop the mass action trial and to order the
district court to rule on class certification before allowing any
proceedings in the mass action case. Defendants argued that, under
Rule 23, the filing of a putative class action bars any potential
class members from reaching the merits of their own separate suits
until class certification proceedings conclude in the putative
class action.
Applying its three-prong test for mandamus relief, the Fifth
Circuit rejected defendants' petition. First, the court examined
whether there is a "clear and indisputable" right to the writ and
concluded there was not. Defendants' novel legal theory -- that
Rule 23 applies to parallel litigation related to a putative class
action -- did not present a clear right to relief. Second, the
Fifth Circuit looked at whether there were "no other adequate means
to attain the relief" requested. This prong likewise weighed
against mandamus relief, as defendants failed to show that any harm
or prejudice could not be corrected on appeal. And third, the court
considered whether exercising discretion to issue the writ would be
"appropriate under the circumstances." The court concluded
defendants had not shown the circumstances were so unique as to
warrant extraordinary relief.
The Fifth Circuit emphasized that mandamus relief should be
reserved for the rare case of usurpation of judicial power or clear
abuse of discretion, not for testing novel legal theories. The
court explained that defendants' theory "is not merely new; it is
also wrong." The court recognized that Rule 23 does not cause the
filing of putative class action to universally estop all separate
but related actions from proceeding to the merits until the
class-certification process concludes.
Sixth Circuit
In re Ford Motor Co., 86 F.4th 723 (6th Cir. 2023)
Class certification order vacated for deficient analysis of Rule
23's commonality requirement.
Consumers sued Ford Motor Company, alleging a design defect in the
brake cylinders of 2013 to 2018 F 150 pickups. Plaintiffs moved to
certify injunction and damages classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and
(b)(3), or issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4). The district court
denied certification for the injunction and damages classes but
certified statewide issue classes over (1) whether the brakes were
defective; (2) whether Ford had pre-sale knowledge of the defect;
and (3) whether information about the defect would be material to a
reasonable buyer.
On appeal under Rule 23(f), the Sixth Circuit determined the
district court's analysis was "insufficiently rigorous" in deciding
whether plaintiffs had satisfied Rule 23(a)'s commonality
requirement. Finding the district court's reasoning "cursory," the
court of appeals explained that it was unclear whether the three
certified issues could be answered "in one stroke." To that end,
the Sixth Circuit determined that the district court had also
ignored Ford's arguments and evidence that the case lacked common
issues of law and fact, and instead abused its discretion by
applying a "surface-level approach." The court of appeals noted
that the district court had not considered several of Ford's
arguments that evidence of design changes and knowledge prevented
certification of these issues. The court of appeals was careful to
avoid any ruling on the merits but noted that the arguments had to
be considered. The Sixth Circuit thus vacated the class
certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Seventh Circuit
Sudholt v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 83 F.4th 621 (7th Cir.
2023)
Class action remanded to state court based on Class Action Fairness
Act exceptions.
Plaintiff-insurance policyholders filed a class action in state
court alleging defendants accumulated and retained excess surplus
of over $3.5 billion and failed to supply the corresponding
policies at cost. Plaintiffs attributed this failure to the
company's officers and directors, whom they claimed violated
fiduciary duties and sought to improperly enrich themselves.
Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiffs
moved to remand based on several exceptions under CAFA. The
district court denied plaintiffs' motion, and plaintiffs sought and
were granted an interlocutory appeal.
Reversing and remanding to state court, the Seventh Circuit held
that the case belongs in state court under two CAFA exceptions: the
internal-affairs exception and the home-state controversy
exception. The Seventh Circuit observed that the internal-affairs
exception aims to exclude jurisdiction over claims that "concern
the governance of a corporate enterprise," which primarily are
resolved under state law. Because each of plaintiffs' four claims
related to corporate mismanagement, all of which were grounded
squarely in Illinois law applicable to officers and directors of a
mutual insurance company, the internal-affairs exception to CAFA
applied and required remand. The Seventh Circuit also held that the
home-state exception provided an independent basis for remand. This
exception applies where two-thirds or more of the proposed
plaintiff classes, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the
state where the action was filed. Here, the singular defendant of
the 46 named officers and directors whose citizenship created
minimal diversity was not considered a "primary defendant" in the
overall litigation, and his diverse citizenship could not justify
federal jurisdiction under CAFA.
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation: End User Consumer
Plaintiff Class v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 80 F.4th 797 (7th Cir.
2023)
Fee award vacated because district court abused its discretion by
failing to adequately consider evidence of bids with declining fee
structures and fee awards from the Ninth Circuit.
Several class action lawsuits alleged price fixing in the broiler
chicken market. This appeal arose from the $181 million settlement
of one class of end users. The district court considered (1) the
actual agreements between the parties and fee agreements in the
market for legal services, (2) the risk of nonpayment at the outset
of the case and class counsel's performance, and (3) fee awards in
comparable cases. The Seventh Circuit agreed this was the
appropriate methodology for determining the fee award and, as a
result, reviewed the district court's opinion for abuse of
discretion.
The Seventh Circuit found the district court abused its discretion
in ruling that bids with declining fee structures should
categorically be given little weight in assessing fees. In
particular, the bids in this case -- to which the district court
gave little weight -- were made by co-class counsel in pursuit of
appointment and represented the price of co-class counsel's legal
services in an antitrust class action case. The Seventh Circuit
also held that the district court abused its discretion by
excluding fee awards to class counsel in cases within the Ninth
Circuit under a megafund rule because class counsel continued to
bid for appointment in the Ninth Circuit, suggesting that the fee
awards granted by the Ninth Circuit fall within what class counsel
considers an economically reasonable fee award.
Finally, the Seventh Circuit found that the district court abused
its discretion by failing to provide a rationale for not permitting
discovery from the experts who opined on the appropriateness of
class counsel's fee award.
Sherwood v. Marchiori, 76 F.4th 688 (7th Cir. 2023)
Seventh Circuit affirms dismissal of claims where mandamus action
provided meaningful redress for plaintiffs' injuries.
Plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging equal
protection and procedural due process violations under the
Fourteenth Amendment against the Illinois Department of Employment
Security (IDES) arising from its conduct during the pandemic in
spring 2020. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of plaintiffs' equal protection claims, holding that the
Ex parte Young doctrine does not apply when there is no continuing
conduct that violates federal law.
The Seventh Circuit found that, based on plaintiffs' allegations,
plaintiffs were eligible for benefits when they applied and that
plaintiffs would still have a property interest in those benefits
today. As a result, plaintiffs did have standing to assert a
procedural due process claim. Unlike the equal protection claim,
the procedural due process claim concerned an ongoing wrong, as
plaintiffs never had a chance to tell their side of the story --
that is to say, plaintiffs did not receive any post-deprivation
hearing that complied with due process requirements.
Nonetheless, the Seventh Circuit dismissed plaintiffs' procedural
due process claim for failure to state a claim on the ground that
an adequate post-deprivation state process existed that they could
have pursued instead of coming to federal court. The court held
that plaintiffs could have brought a mandamus action under Illinois
law to require IDES to provide them with a determination of their
eligibility for unemployment benefits, and plaintiffs did not
allege they lacked the means to file a mandamus action on their own
behalf. Plaintiffs argued that a mandamus action is an inadequate
remedy because many applicants for unemployment benefits will be
unable to afford counsel to file a mandamus action on an individual
basis. The Seventh Circuit noted that until class certification is
granted the court can only consider the claims of the named
plaintiffs in making its ruling.
Hansen v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 18 C 244, 2023 WL 6291629 (N.D.
Ill. Sept. 25, 2023)
Court denies class certification because plaintiffs' motion failed
to identify an actionable common question.
Plaintiffs brought a class action against defendant Country Mutual
Insurance Co. asserting claims for breach of contract and
unreasonable and vexatious practices in violation of the Illinois
Insurance Code. While the court noted that the class easily met the
numerosity threshold, it could not identify a common question that
would resolve an issue central to each of the putative class
members' claims in one stroke.
Plaintiffs identified four questions they argued defined the whole
class. The court conducted a question by-question analysis and
determined that none of the questions would resolve any question
relating to liability on a class-wide basis. Plaintiffs' first
question related to defendant's alleged use of superficial
inspections, but the court noted that plaintiffs failed to identify
any evidence or authority supporting the assertion that the use of
visual inspections would be unreasonable or illegal. Plaintiffs'
second question related to the allegation that defendant tells its
adjusters to reject contractor proposals and to rely on internal
estimates, but the court found that plaintiffs cited no evidence
that the alleged conduct was common to the class -- instead relying
solely on their own declaration -- and that plaintiffs had not
shown the alleged conduct would violate Illinois law. Plaintiffs'
third question related to the underpayment of claims, but
plaintiffs' evidence suggested that this occurred in less than half
the claims and, as a result, was not a question capable of
class-wide resolution. Plaintiffs' fourth question related to
defendants' alleged practice of over-depreciating personal property
values for contents claims, but because many putative class members
only submitted structure claims the court held that this question
necessarily failed to establish commonality while further noting
that plaintiffs had failed to establish that the uniform use of an
"average" condition when estimating depreciation resulted in a
breach of contract.
Because plaintiffs failed to establish a common question, the court
did not analyze typicality or adequacy. The court did note that the
predominance standard under Rule 23(b)(3) was harder to satisfy
than the commonality standard and that plaintiffs' motion for class
certification failed on those grounds as well.
Finally, the court noted that plaintiffs did not present evidence
of a class-wide injury. The presence of a high number of uninjured
class members would prompt serious predominance concerns and could
be a further reason not to grant a motion for class certification.
Mellowitz v. Ball State University, 221 N.E.3d 1214 (Sup. Ct. Ind.
2023)
Indiana Supreme Court rejects class certification of student's
pandemic-related claim for tuition and fee refunds, upholding
constitutionality of Indiana statute.
The student-plaintiff filed a class action against the
defendant-university, claiming breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, seeking refunds of tuition and fees after the
university switched to remote instruction in spring 2020 due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. After plaintiff filed suit, the General
Assembly, as approved by Indiana's governor, passed a law
prohibiting class action lawsuits against postsecondary educational
institutions for contract or unjust enrichment claims to recover
losses stemming from COVID-19. The law was retroactive to March
2020. Accordingly, the trial court rejected plaintiff's class
claims. Plaintiff appealed, asserting that the new law was
unconstitutional, and the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed. The
university appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court, which vacated the
Court of Appeals' opinion and affirmed the trial court.
The Indiana Supreme Court held that the law was not
unconstitutional. First, the law did not violate the separation of
powers clause because the law is limited in scope, applying only to
a narrow category of cases for a specific period of time. Because
of this limited scope, the law "predominantly furthers a public
policy objective -- reducing postsecondary educational
institutions' litigation exposure for their emergency response to
the pandemic[.]" The Indiana Supreme Court also rejected
plaintiff's argument that the law violated his property rights
because plaintiff has no constitutional right to sue on behalf of
others, and the law does not prohibit plaintiff from pursuing
relief for his own individual claims. Finally, and also because the
law did not limit plaintiff's individual claims, the Indiana
Supreme Court held that the law did not relieve the university of
any of its contractual obligations.
Eighth Circuit
Burnett v. Nat'l Assn. of Realtors, 75 F.4th 975 (8th Cir. 2023)
Eighth Circuit rejects application of arbitration clause to unnamed
class members.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against a group of
realtors, alleging enforcement of anticompetitive rules they
claimed result in damages. Through their real estate transactions,
certain class members were parties to listing agreements with
wholly owned subsidiaries of one of the defendant-realtors
(HomeServices). These listing agreements included similar versions
of arbitration clauses that, per the agreements' language, required
"the parties to [the] Contract" or the "Agreement" to arbitrate any
dispute between them. After nearly a year of litigating the case,
HomeServices moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims
based on the arbitration clauses in the listing agreements. The
district court denied the motion, noting the subsidiaries–not
HomeServices–were parties to the agreements and thus the
arbitration clauses did not apply. HomeServices appealed to the
Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the district court, further holding
that if any such right to arbitrate did exist, HomeServices had
waived that right by litigating the case "in federal court for
close to a year." Following this appeal, the district court granted
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
After the certification decision, HomeServices filed a second
motion to compel arbitration, this time with respect to the unnamed
class members. Once again, the district court denied the motion,
holding that HomeServices had "ample opportunity" to raise this
defense prior to class certification. Further, even if HomeServices
had not waived its right to this defense, HomeServices was still
prohibited from enforcing the listing agreements. Because
HomeServices' relationship with the subsidiaries was not
"sufficiently close" and the listing agreements were not "so
intertwined" with plaintiffs' claims, HomeServices could not step
into the subsidiaries' shoes as a party to those agreements.
HomeServices also appealed this decision.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Holding that even if HomeServices had
not waived this defense against the unnamed class members, the
court determined that HomeServices could not enforce the listing
agreements. The court first determined that, because the agreements
were limited to the subsidiaries and the unnamed class
members–not HomeServices–the provision allowing an arbitrator
to resolve disputes of arbitrability between "the parties" did not
apply. Thus, the district court properly determined how the
arbitration clauses applied to HomeServices in this case. After
confirming the district court's authority to interpret the listing
agreements, the Eighth Circuit held that HomeServices could not
enforce the arbitration clauses. The agreements narrowly defined
who the parties were, and HomeServices conceded it was not a party
to the agreements and was not listed anywhere in them, let alone as
a third-party beneficiary. The court was not convinced by
HomeServices' estoppel-based arguments that, given its close
relationship to the subsidiaries and the parties' conduct, failure
to enforce the arbitration clauses would "eviscerate" the
agreement.
Hennessey v. Gap, Inc., 86 F.4th 823 (8th Cir. 2023)
In putative class action asserting claims under the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and for unjust enrichment,
plaintiff failed to adequately allege an ascertainable loss or that
it would be inequitable for defendants to retain money plaintiff
paid for products purchased.
Plaintiff brought a class action against defendants The Gap, Inc.
and Old Navy, LLC asserting the products she purchased at discount
prices were deceptively advertised, as defendants had not sold a
substantial quantity of these products at the advertised "regular"
prices. Plaintiff brought claims under the MMPA and for unjust
enrichment, based her damages on the common-law benefit of the
bargain rule under which she argued she should be entitled to
recover the difference between the actual value of the shirt she
purchased and the represented "regular" price of the shirt.
The Eighth Circuit held that the benefit of the bargain rule is
based not on the difference between the actual value of the product
purchased and the represented price but rather on a difference in
quality between the product as represented and the product
received. Plaintiff did not allege the product she received was
different in quality than the product as advertised and, as a
result, she failed to allege an ascertainable loss as required to
assert a claim under the MMPA. Plaintiff's allegations, on
information and belief, that the actual fair market value of some
of the products she purchased was less than the sale price she paid
could support an MMPA claim, but allegations on information and
belief are generally insufficient to plead a claim under Rule 9(b).
Plaintiff was required to plead with particularity facts showing
both the value of the products as represented and the actual value
of the products as received. Because she failed to do so, her MMPA
claim was properly dismissed.
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims similarly failed because she
received the products she intended to purchase at the price she
intended to pay. Moreover, the Eighth Circuit held that each of
plaintiff's purchases was an express contract (memorialized by the
receipt) and that the existence of an express contract precludes a
claim of unjust enrichment.
The Eighth Circuit also affirmed the district court's decision to
dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, noting plaintiff
failed to file a motion for leave to amend between her filing of
the initial complaint and either the defendants' motion to dismiss
or the district court's order on the motion to dismiss. The Eighth
Circuit held that the district court is not required to invite a
motion for leave to amend if the plaintiff never filed one.
Moreover, plaintiff had not properly preserved the issue of whether
dismissal with prejudice was appropriate, as she raised it for the
first time on appeal rather than on a post-judgment motion to
vacate under Rule 60(b).
Brown v. GoJet Airlines, LLC, 677 S.W.3d 514 (Mo. 2023)
The Missouri Supreme Court vacated a circuit court order denying
GoJet's motion to compel arbitration and remanded, requiring
arbitration of the putative class action filed on behalf of GoJet
employees under the Missouri Uniform Arbitration Act (MUAA).
Plaintiff filed a putative class action on behalf of GoJet
employees, alleging GoJet breached its bonus agreement by failing
to issue bonuses to him and to other employees. GoJet moved to
compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the
MUAA. The circuit court denied the motion, holding that the FAA
exempts from its application workers engaged in interstate commerce
and that the arbitration agreement did not include the statutory
notice provision required under Section 435.460 of the MUAA.
As an initial matter, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to
consider plaintiff's argument that GoJet had failed to establish
the existence of an arbitration agreement, as plaintiff failed to
raise that argument before the circuit court and proceeded as if
the agreement existed. Moreover, because plaintiff qualifies as a
worker engaged in interstate commerce, he is excluded from
application of the FAA. The Missouri Supreme Court, however, held
that all arbitration agreements in Missouri, unless they are
contracts of insurance or adhesion, are subject to MUAA Section
435.350 so long as the matter is not preempted by the FAA. And
nothing in the MUAA states that it only applies if the parties
agree the MUAA applies to their arbitration agreement.
Having determined that an arbitration agreement existed and that
the MUAA applied, the Missouri Supreme Court considered de novo
whether the motion to compel arbitration should have been granted.
Because the arbitration agreement delegates threshold issues of
arbitrability to the arbitrator, the Missouri Supreme Court held
that the arbitrator must decide any challenges to the
enforceability of the arbitration agreement -- including
plaintiff's challenge regarding the statutory notice provision
under Section 435.460 of the MUAA.
Ninth Circuit
Madeira v. Converse, Inc., No. 22-55161, 2023 US App Lexis 21393
(9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2023)
Legality of employer rounding policy undetermined pending
California Supreme Court's review of Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc.
Plaintiff filed a class action against Converse for various wage
and hour claims. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification and granted Converse's motion for summary
judgment, and plaintiff appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's denial of the motion for class certification as to
one subclass for failure to establish predominance, but reversed as
to the other subclass, the "rounding subclass." In reversing, the
court of appeal held that the district court erred in relying on
See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 210 Cal. App. 4th 889, 907
(2012) for the proposition that an employer's rounding policy is
legal if it is "fair and neutral on its face and it is used in such
a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure
to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have
actually worked." The court found that since the district court's
ruling, the California Court of Appeal questioned See's' holding in
Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 84 Cal. App. 5th 638 (2022), which
held that "if an employer . . . can capture and has captured the
exact amount of time an employee has worked during a shift, the
employer must pay the employee for 'all the time' worked." The Camp
court prompted the California Supreme Court to grant review to
decide the validity of the See's rounding holding. The Ninth
Circuit thus remanded, ordering the district court to delay its
ruling pending the California Supreme Court's ruling in Camp.
Separately, the court reversed the district court's grant of
Converse's motion for summary judgment as to the rounding claim,
which was based on the theory that Converse did not have notice of
the rounding claim because it was not alleged in plaintiff's
complaint. The court held that because Converse had notice of the
rounding claim through plaintiff's class certification motion, and
because discovery did not close until a year later, allowing
Converse to take discovery on the theory and oppose it on the
merits in opposition to class certification, Converse was on
sufficient notice and was not prejudiced.
Scheibe v. Livwell Prods., LLC, No. 23-cv-216-MMA (BLM), 2023 WL
4414580 (S.D. Cal. July 7, 2023)
Claim based on use of term "malic acid" preempted by federal law,
but claims based on use of term "nothing artificial" despite use of
malic acid in product adequately plead.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action against the manufacturer
of Keto K1000 powder, a dietary supplement. Plaintiff alleged that
defendant's labeling claims were false and violated California and
Maryland false advertising laws because the front labels stated
that the products contained "nothing artificial" or that they
contained "clean ingredients" while they actually contained "DL
malic acid, a synthetic substance derived from petrochemicals."
Plaintiff also claimed that using the term "malic acid" instead of
"DL malic acid" violated state and federal law. The court ruled
that plaintiff's claim regarding the use of the term "malic acid"
was preempted because it was used in accordance with federal law.
Regarding the false advertising claims concerning the use of the
term "nothing artificial" even though the product at issue
contained malic acid, the court found plaintiff adequately alleged
the "who, what, when, where and how" of the alleged deception under
Rule 9(b). The court also found that plaintiff adequately alleged
reliance because he alleged he relied on the statement "nothing
artificial" in making his purchasing decision, not the ingredient
list or the words "malic acid" specifically. However, the court
granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims for
equitable relief because he did not allege he was likely to
purchase the product at issue in future.
Garcia v. Build.com, Inc., No. 22-cv-01985-DMS-KSC, 2023 WL 4535531
(S.D. Cal. July 13, 2023)
Court rules plaintiff has standing to sue under CIPA for alleged
surreptitious recording of online chat conversations, but defendant
cannot be liable under CIPA section 631 because one cannot
eavesdrop on a conversation to which it is a party.
Plaintiff brought individual and putative class claims based on
alleged violations of two provisions of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act (CIPA) -- Penal Code section 631 and 632.7 -- based on
the allegation that defendant Build.com, an online home improvement
retailer, secretly recorded a chat with plaintiff on defendant's
website, which allows customers to ask questions about Build.com's
products and services. In granting defendant's motion to dismiss,
the district court recognized a split of authority in federal
courts in California on the issue of whether plaintiffs bringing
similar CIPA claims based on interactions with a website's chat
feature have demonstrated standing. The court sided with the cases
holding that plaintiff had standing at this stage because she
alleged that defendant secretly intercepted and recorded
plaintiff's chat messages without informing her and without her
consent, and thus sufficiently alleged injury-in-fact necessary to
have standing to sue, even though plaintiff did not allege that she
disclosed any confidential information. However, on the merits, the
court held that defendant could not be liable under section 631 of
CIPA, which prohibits eavesdropping on conversations, because a
defendant cannot eavesdrop on a conversation to which it is a
party. The court also held that defendant could not be liable under
section 632.7 of CIPA, which prohibits intercepting telephone
conversations, because that statute does not apply to online
chats.
Zimmerman v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-07609-HSG, 2023 WL
4564552 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2023)
Plaintiff failed to state claims relating to products she did not
purchase from defendant that were materially different from
products she did buy.
Plaintiff brought individual and putative class claims based on the
allegation that she purchased L'Oreal Infallible Fresh Wear 24HR
Foundation, believing that front label statements that the product
provides "Up to 24HR Breathable Texture," "Up to 24H Fresh Wear,"
and "Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 25" led her to believe that the
foundation provided 24 hours of sunscreen protection when it
allegedly only lasted two hours. Plaintiff also challenged labels
on products she did not purchase. Defendant moved to dismiss in
part on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing to sue based on
products she did not purchase. The district court noted there is no
controlling authority on this issue in the Ninth Circuit, but the
majority of district courts have held a plaintiff may have standing
to assert claims for unnamed class members based on products he or
she did not purchase so long as the products and alleged
misrepresentations are substantially similar. The court found the
two identified products plaintiff did not purchase were not
substantially similar because the allegedly misleading statements
on their packaging were materially different. Thus, resolution of
plaintiff's claims would not be identical across the purchased and
unpurchased products. The court denied defendant's motion regarding
injunctive relief, however, because plaintiff alleged she would
likely purchase products in the future if they were not mislabeled.
And the court held that plaintiff's claims were not preempted by
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act because the FDCA does not
require manufacturers to include any durational statement on front
labels of sunscreen products.
Mikulsky v. Noom, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00285-H-MSB, 2023 WL 4567096
(S.D. Cal. July 17, 2023)
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims
because she did not allege injury in fact required under Article
III to have standing to sue.
Plaintiff brought individual and putative class claims for
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and
invasion of privacy -- intrusion upon seclusion based on the
allegation that defendant used session replay code to record, save,
and replay a website visitor's interactions with its website, and
send such code to various third parties. The district court held
that plaintiff's conclusory allegation that she disclosed "personal
information" did not allow the court to determine whether plaintiff
had a protectible privacy interest in that information, and thus
the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's
claims because she did not allege injury in fact required under
Article III to have standing to sue. The district court also held
that plaintiff did not adequately allege specific jurisdiction over
defendant because she did not allege that defendant's use of replay
code targeted any Californians specifically, and because she did
not allege that any portion of defendant's website targeted users
in California.
Moreno v. Vi-Jon, LLC, No. 20cv1446 JM (BGS), 2023 WL 4611823 (S.D.
Cal. July 18, 2023)
Consumers who believed defendant's hand sanitizer was capable of
killing 99.9% of germs "in general and without limitation" were
misled because of their own unreasonable assumptions.
Plaintiff brought individual and putative class claims under the
UCL, FAL, and CLRA and for breach of warranty based on the
allegation that defendant's representations on packaging for its
hand sanitizer that its products "kill[] 99.99% of germs" or
"kill[] more than 99% of germs" were false and misleading. An
asterisk on the front panel led to a statement on the back panel
that the products are "[e]ffective at eliminating more than 99.9%
of many common harmful germs and bacteria in as little as 15
seconds." (Emphasis added). Plaintiff alleged that reasonable
consumers would understand these representations to mean that the
products "kill all or almost all of the germs on their hands," or
more specifically, that the product "completely kills 99.9% of the
germs on their hands." In dismissing plaintiff's claims without
leave to amend after several rounds of pleading, the district court
held that plaintiff's allegations failed the reasonable consumer
test because it is "not necessary for a reasonable consumer to have
any specialized knowledge of pathogenic diseases to understand that
hand sanitizers are not designed to kill 99.9% of every conceivable
variety of germs that could be found on an individual's hands." The
court also found that the asterisks on the front label of the
products at issue led to clear statements on the back label that
the products were effective at eliminating "common" germs and
bacteria, not all germs and bacteria. The court found as a matter
of law that plaintiff and any other consumers who believed
defendant was selling a product capable of killing 99.9% of germs
"in general and without limitation" were not deceived because of
defendant's advertising but misled because of their own
unreasonable assumptions.
Bryan v. Del Monte Foods, Inc., No. 23-cv-00865-MMC, 2023 WL
4758452 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2023)
Plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief once aware of
true facts regarding alleged false advertising, but stated claims
under California's UCL and FAL despite living in Oregon because
advertising purportedly emanated from California.
Plaintiff filed individual and putative class claims for violation
of the UCL, FAL, Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), and
other state consumer protection statutes based on the allegation
that defendant's packaging for its "Mango Chunks and Peach Chunks"
contained the phrase "fruit naturals" on the front, with a bolded
emphasis on the phrase "naturals," when the products allegedly
contained synthetic ingredients including citric acid, potassium
sorbate, sodium benzoate, and methylcellulose gum. Defendant moved
to dismiss all claims.
With respect to the claim for injunctive relief, the court agreed
with defendant that plaintiff lacked standing because she could not
be deceived by the allegedly misleading labeling again because she
had learned information during litigation that enabled her to
evaluate product claims and make appropriate purchasing decisions
going forward. The court also held that plaintiff had no standing
to assert claims under non-Oregon consumer protection statutes
except California's, because she did not allege she made any
purchases in or interacted with those states. Regarding her claims
under the UCL and FAL, however, the court held that because
defendant had its principal place of business in California, and
plaintiff's claim was based on alleged misrepresentations
disseminating from California, plaintiff had standing to allege
claims under those statutes. The court also held plaintiff had
standing to allege claims concerning other "Fruit Naturals"
products she did not buy herself because they were allegedly
similarly deceptively marketed. On the merits, the court rejected
defendant's argument that all syrups contain artificial
ingredients. And the court rejected defendant's argument that the
ingredient list's inclusion of synthetic ingredients on the back of
the product packaging required dismissal because "[r]easonable
consumers are not 'expected to look beyond misleading
representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from
the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box.'"
Swartz v. Coca-Cola Company, No. 21-cv-04643-JD, 2023 WL 4828680
(N.D. Cal. July 27, 2023)
Statements that bottles are "100% recyclable" were not actionable
where possible for products to be recycled, most consumers had
access to recycling facilities, and the inability to recycle was
due in part to factors beyond defendants' control.
Plaintiffs filed individual, organizational, and putative class
claims against defendants based on the allegation that defendants
misled consumers about the recyclability of their beverage bottles
by labeling them "100% recyclable." Defendants moved to dismiss
based on standing and plausibility. The district court held that
the individual plaintiffs had standing because they alleged they
paid a premium for the products at issue based on the "100%
recyclable" representation, and had standing to seek injunctive
relief because they alleged they would purchase defendants'
products in the future if the representations regarding
recyclability were accurate. The court also found the Sierra Club
had standing to sue because it alleged it was within the domain of
the organization to "protect the planet" and educate consumers
about the consequences of purchasing single-use plastic. With
regard to plausibility, however, the court held that plaintiffs
failed to state a claim because California's recycling facilities
are available to consumers or communities where the bottles are
sold, which is the pertinent question under California's Green
Guides. The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the
"100%" language defendants used was misleading because it
supposedly communicated to consumers that the entirety of the
products, including minor components, could be recycled. The court
found that nothing in plaintiffs' complaint demonstrated it was
impossible to recycle the caps or labels or any other component,
which is again the pertinent question under the Green Guides, and
noted that the complaint acknowledged that economic, processing and
contamination issues are the reasons such items are sometimes not
ultimately converted into recyclable materials. The court also
noted that the consumer deception alleged in the complaint is tied
to forces and circumstances well beyond defendants' control, such
as changes in waste importation policy in China and the economics
of the recycling business.
Peterson v. Glad Prods. Co., No. 23-cv-00491-TSH, 2023 WL 4600404
(N.D. Cal. July 17, 2023)
Reasonable consumers are not required to engage in exhaustive
research before purchasing items to have standing to seek
injunctive relief relating to false advertising.
Plaintiff filed individual and class claims against defendant
manufacturer of a line of GLAD brand trash bags which included the
brand name "RECYCLING" with blue "recycling" arrows and the words
"DESIGNED FOR MUNICIPAL USE" and "PLEASE CHECK YOUR LOCAL
FACILITIES" on the front of the packaging. Plaintiff alleged those
statements were false and misleading because the bags were, in
reality, not accepted for use in recycling programs in virtually
any municipality in California. Plaintiff alleged claims under the
UCL, FAL, CLRA, and various common-law claims. Defendant moved to
dismiss for lack of standing to seek injunctive relief, arguing
plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief when his complaint
demonstrates he can readily determine, on his own, whether the bags
are accepted at his local recycling facility. The district court
rejected this argument and denied the motion to dismiss, noting
that while courts have found that the threat of future harm is not
sufficiently imminent where a plaintiff could easily discover
whether a previous misrepresentation has been cured without first
buying the product at issue, courts have rejected the notion that
reasonable consumers engage in exhaustive research before
purchasing items or that the reasonable consumer standard should
require purchasers to do so.
Henry So v. HP, Inc., No. 22-cv-02327, 2023 WL 4596778 (N.D. Cal.
July 17, 2023)
Court declines to take judicial notice of product packaging in
connection with a motion to dismiss, even where statements on
packaging contradicted plaintiff's allegations, but agrees to take
judicial notice of websites, including archived versions on the
Wayback Machine.
Plaintiff filed individual and putative class claims against
defendant-manufacturer of computer printers, alleging that
defendant periodically pushed out firmware updates to its printers
that prevented consumers from using third-party cartridges, and
that the firmware also caused the printer to display a false error
message stating there was a "supply problem, cartridge
communication error, or cartridge problem." Plaintiff also alleged
that defendant installed technology in its printers that collects
data about the consumer's printing habits and transmits it back to
defendant without the consumer's knowledge and consent. Among other
claims, plaintiff alleged claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.
Granting defendant's motion to dismiss in part and denying it in
part, the district court held it could not take judicial notice of
and consider the printer's packaging that was not included in the
operative complaint on a motion to dismiss, even if statements on
the packaging contradicted plaintiff's allegations. In contrast,
the court held it could take judicial notice of statements on
websites, including archived versions from the Wayback Machine.
After doing so in connection with defendant's motion, the court
found that plaintiff did not state a claim based on affirmative
misrepresentations because the error messages were not false in
that the printer did have a supply problem because third-party
cartridges did not in fact work. However, the court held that
plaintiff did state a claim based on omissions based on the
allegation that defendant failed to disclose an alleged defect
central to the printer's function -- namely, that the printer would
stop working until defendant's cartridges were used.
Schippell v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., No. EDCV 23-410 JGB,
2023 WL 6178485 (SHKx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2023)
Plaintiff not required to allege awareness of representations made
on "adult" products as compared to "baby" versions of products to
seek injunctive relief on false advertising claims; however,
plaintiff failed to allege facts to support Article III standing
based on her contention that she paid a premium for "baby" products
over "adult" equivalents.
Plaintiff filed individual and putative class claims against
defendant-manufacturer of VEENO brand "Baby" products. Plaintiff
alleged claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, as well as common-law
claims, based on the contention that defendant marketed and sold
the baby products with labeling, packaging, and advertising that
led consumers to believe they were specially made for babies, or
otherwise uniquely suited for babies, when in fact they were not.
In deciding whether plaintiff had standing to seek injunctive
relief, the district court found that plaintiff was not required to
scrutinize the packaging of adult versions of the products at issue
to reason that a comparable product for non-babies likely exists,
and to rely to her detriment on the representations made on the
baby products themselves, from which she could reasonably infer
that the baby products are specially formulated for babies.
However, the court found that plaintiff failed to allege facts
showing she suffered actual injury sufficient to have Article III
standing, because the only allegations in her complaint regarding
her "price premium" theory were conclusory, and she never
identified the price she paid for the "baby" products or the
comparable prices for the "adult" versions of those products, and
failed to provide nonconclusory allegations to demonstrate that the
"baby" versions retailed for a higher price. Because the court
granted defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, the
court went on to address the substance of plaintiff's claims,
finding that plaintiff stated claims because while the "baby"
products may well be suited for use by babies by virtue of their
ingredients, many of those same characteristics make them just as
suitable for adults, which is why defendant sells the exact same
product as an "adult" version for less money. And the court found
that defendant failed to disclose that the "baby" and "adult"
products were identical.
Perez v. MEC Holding Co., No. 5:23-cv-00279-SSS-KKx, 2023 WL
4865538 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2023)
The factors set forth in Diaz v. Tr. Territory of Pac. Islands
remain applicable to precertification settlements and do not
abrogate Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
Plaintiff brought a putative class action against MEC Holding
Company. The parties settled the case and requested dismissal via a
joint stipulation of dismissal before the class had been certified.
In the joint stipulation, the parties contended that the 2003
amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) abrogated and/or alleviated the
need for the requirements in Diaz v. Tr. Territory of Pac. Islands,
876 F.2d 1401, 1408 (9th Cir. 1989). The court noted the differing
views of several courts on the issue and acknowledged that some
courts have held that Diaz is inapplicable to precertification
settlements. However, the court found that "unless and until" the
Ninth Circuit holds that Rule 23(e) has abrogated Diaz, the court
will apply the Diaz factors in its review of precertification
settlements and dismissals "to ensure that the interests of the
class members. . . are protected." The court held that the Diaz
factors were important to determine (1) whether "the class members
are [] being harmed by the settlement of an individual initially
acting as the class's representative," (2) "whether other class
members have paused or abandoned their own pursuits of litigation
due to their reliance on the potential class action," and (3)
whether "the settlement is fair and does not abandon the interests
of the class for the sake of the individual's own personal
interests."
Keller v. Chegg, Inc., No. 22-cv-06986-JD, 2023 WL 5279649 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 15, 2023)
Arbitration agreement valid even though plaintiff was a minor at
the time he agreed to terms of use containing arbitration provision
because minority is only a defense to contract enforcement, not
contract formation.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action against Chegg, an online
platform that provides educational products to students. Chegg
moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in
Chegg's terms of use (TOU). Plaintiff argued he did not consent to
arbitration because, among other reasons, he was a minor at the
time he signed up for Chegg and accepted the TOU. The court held
that because California law considers minority a defense to
contract enforcement, and not contract formation, it was not a
viable defense to formation of an arbitration agreement. The court
subsequently granted Chegg's motion to compel arbitration.
Chavez Valdez v. Field Asset Servs., Inc., No. 23-CV-1085 W (KSC),
2023 WL 286937 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023)
Court does not retain subject matter jurisdiction over unnamed
class member's individual claims after class is decertified.
Plaintiff was a class member in a putative class action in the
Northern District of California entitled Bowerman v. Field Asset
Servs., Inc., et al. The district court in Bowerman granted class
certification, but the Ninth Circuit later decertified the class on
appeal. After the class was decertified, plaintiff Valdez filed an
individual lawsuit in California state court. Defendants attempted
to remove it to federal court, citing CAFA as the basis for subject
matter jurisdiction. Although plaintiff's lawsuit did not meet the
requirements for CAFA jurisdiction because plaintiff's action was
not a class action, defendants argued that the district court
retained jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims at issue in the
Bowerman action. Defendants cited cases in which a district court
retained jurisdiction over a named plaintiff's individual claims
post-decertification, but the court held that these cases were
inapposite as they only applied to named plaintiffs, not other
class members. Thus, the court held it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and remanded the action to state court.
Pittmon v. CACI International, Inc., No. CV 21-02044-CJC, 2023 WL
8168834 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2023)
Court denies motion to strike PAGA claims without prejudice to
refiling, pending California Supreme Court review of inherent
authority to strike unmanageable claims.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, among the largest background
investigation firms in the world, improperly required investigator
employees to work unpaid hours and without required breaks.
Plaintiffs brought claims under FLSA, PAGA, and California's
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Defendants filed
multiple challenges to the claims, including a motion to strike or
dismiss the representative PAGA claims under Rules 12(f) and
12(b)(6) and the court's inherent authority to manage litigation.
Defendants argued that, under plaintiffs' theory of liability,
which involved numerous, complex claims, evidence as to the
experience of each investigator would be required, rendering trial
unmanageable. The court agreed that mini-trials would be necessary,
but noted that the law as to the applicability of inherent
authority in the PAGA context is unsettled. Some courts have found
the exercise of inherent authority to strike unmanageable PAGA
clams to be appropriate, but the court of appeal in Estrada v.
Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. found that "[a]llowing dismissal of
unmanageable PAGA claims would effectively graft a class action
requirement onto PAGA claims." The California Supreme Court has
granted review of Estrada. The court therefore denied defendants'
motion to strike, but without prejudice to re-filing after the
decision in Estrada.
Baggs v. Matco Tools Corp., et al., 5:23-cv-00852-SSS-SPx, 2023
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190237 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2023)
District Court requires named plaintiff settling individual claim
to submit information in satisfaction of Diaz factors.
The named plaintiff in a putative class action filed a notice of
settlement of his individual claim in a proposed class action.
Citing Diaz v. Tr. Territory of Pac. Islands, 876 F. 2d 1401 (9th
Cir. 1989), the court stated that, when reviewing such a notice, it
must ensure that the named plaintiff has fulfilled his fiduciary
duty to the proposed class and, thus, must have sufficient
information to rule out collusion or prejudice. A court would
consider, in particular, if (1) putative class members' potential
knowledge of the pending action through publicity or other sources
has resulted in reliance on the pendency of the action; (2) whether
there would be a lack of time to file another action, given
statutes of limitations; and (3) whether there was any compromise
of the members' interests in favor of named plaintiff's own
interests. Also, the court noted that, under Rule 23(e)(1)(A), the
parties must provide information allowing a determination of
whether notice of the settlement should be provided to the class.
The court acknowledged that, based on a 2003 amendment to Rule
23(e), some courts within the Ninth Circuit have not continued to
apply Diaz. But this court, among others, does. Accordingly, the
court ordered the named plaintiff to submit information in
satisfaction of all of the Diaz factors.
Cung Le v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW, 2023 WL 5085064
(D. Nev. Aug. 9, 2023)
Court certifies 23(b)(3) class of MMA fighters in antitrust case
based on extensive expert testimony and modeling demonstrating
predominance.
Plaintiffs filed claims against defendant under the Sherman
Antitrust Act based on the allegation that defendant's widespread
success and dominance in Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is due to
anticompetitive behavior, including defendant (a) using exclusive
contracts with specific provisions to retain fighters within the
Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC); (b) using its market power in
both the input and output markets to render its fighter contracts
effectively perpetual, and (c) acquiring or driving out rival
promoters. The alleged effect of defendant's conduct was to
establish such overwhelming market dominance that it could pay its
fighters substantially less than they would have been paid in a
competitive market for their services. Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3), the district court granted plaintiffs' motion
to certify a "Bout Class" comprised of one or more live
professional UFC-promoted MMA bouts taking place within a specified
period.
The court and the parties focused primarily on predominance, and
the court found that plaintiffs adequately demonstrated the impact
of the alleged anticompetitive behavior using common evidence
involving common questions of law. Specifically, the court found
that plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence that defendant
maintained monopsony/market power in the relevant input market;
that plaintiffs adequately defined the relevant markets; that
plaintiffs adequately demonstrated market dominance through
extensive expert testimony and statistical modeling; and that
plaintiffs showed significant barriers to entry such that existing
competitors lack the capacity to increase their output in the short
run. The court also found that plaintiffs showed that defendant
maintained its dominant fighter position in the fighter input
market through anticompetitive conduct, that defendant used
exclusionary contracts that effectively negated a fighter's
mobility to competitors and to meaningfully negotiate with
defendant's rivals, and that defendant used coercive tactics
derived from contract clauses. The court found that plaintiffs
showed a common application of this scheme to class members and
common impact/injury through expert testimony and modeling.
The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify an
"Identity Class" comprised of each and every UFC fighter whose
identity was allegedly expropriated or exploited by the UFC in
connection with UFC merchandise or promotional materials, however.
The court found that there was a multiplicity of potential revenue
streams encompassed in the Identity Class, a lack of evidence as to
what funding streams applied to which fighters, and a lack of
evidence creating a measurable connection between the alleged
antitrust conduct of defendant and the purportedly suppressed
compensation for use of fighter's identities.
Quintero v. Apria Healthcare LLC, No. B316463, 2023 CA App Unpub
Lexis 3902 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. July 05, 2023)
Defendant waived right to compel arbitration by opposing class
certification on merits and participating in discovery.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging various wage and
hour claims. Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration 10
months after plaintiff filed suit and shortly after the trial court
certified the class. The trial court denied the motion to compel
arbitration, holding that defendant took actions inconsistent with
arbitration. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the
trial court's holding, finding that defendant only moved to compel
arbitration to secure a litigation advantage, to the prejudice of
plaintiff. Defendant learned of the existence of the arbitration
agreement shortly after plaintiff filed the complaint but did not
include arbitration as an affirmative defense in its answer.
Further, defendant participated in ample discovery, including
taking plaintiff's deposition, during which plaintiff testified
that he signed the arbitration agreement. Even after plaintiff's
deposition, defendant waited months before bringing its motion, and
only brought it after defendant opposed class certification on the
merits and after the trial court's adverse certification ruling.
The court further found that these delays prejudiced plaintiff,
because but for defendant's delay, plaintiff would not have brought
several "substantive and expensive motions."
Tenth Circuit
Confer v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp., 2:23-cv-2028, 2023 WL
4420220 (D. Kan. July 10, 2023)
District court rules that due process principles do not prohibit a
plaintiff from seeking to represent a nationwide class in federal
court, even if the federal court does not have general jurisdiction
over defendant.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action against defendant tool
manufacturer for violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act
based on the allegation that defendant did not include a clear
expiration warning or label on its organic bonded abrasive discs,
so plaintiff could not tell if his discs had expired and were
worthless. Defendant sought to strike plaintiff's class
allegations, arguing that under Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v.
Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255 (2017), the court lacked personal
jurisdiction over claims by putative class members who purchased
the products at issue outside Kansas. The court denied the motion
to strike, declining to follow what it characterized as a minority
rule that the due process concerns in Bristol-Myers applied to
defendants in a class action. Instead, the court embraced "the
majority approach taken by the Sixth and Seventh Circuits" and held
that due process principles do not prohibit a plaintiff from
seeking to represent a nationwide class in federal court, even if
the federal court did not have general jurisdiction over defendant.
The court also held that with respect to specific jurisdiction, the
court would assess minimum contacts, purposeful availment, and
relation to the claim only with respect to the named plaintiffs.
Eleventh Circuit
Ponzio v. Pinon, 87 F.4th 487 (11th Cir. 2023)
2018 Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) does not displace
Bennett factor analysis.
Car owners and lessees brought a class action against Mercedes-Benz
and Daimler in the Northern District of Georgia alleging the red
paint on their cars was defective. The parties reached a settlement
on behalf of themselves and a proposed nationwide class. However,
plaintiffs in a similar action pending in the District of New
Jersey filed a motion to intervene and objected to the proposed
settlement. The district court denied the motion to intervene.
Later, following a hearing, the district court approved the
settlement agreement, and in doing so, rejected the New Jersey
plaintiffs' argument that the settlement agreement failed to
provide benefits to the great majority of class members.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's approval of the
settlement. In doing so, the circuit court analyzed what impact the
2018 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) had on
longstanding Eleventh Circuit precedent. Rule 23(e)(2) requires a
court to conduct a hearing on a proposed settlement and only
approve the settlement if it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate."
Since 1984, the Eleventh Circuit has considered six factors -- the
so-called Bennett factors -- to determine whether a proposed
settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Bennett v. Behring
Corp., 737 F.2d 982, 986 (11th Cir. 1984). In 2018, Rule 23(e)(2)
was amended to include four factors for a court to consider in
determining whether to approve the settlement. The Eleventh Circuit
concluded that the 2018 amendment does not displace the Bennett
factors. Rather, Bennett factors 1, 2, 4, and 6 are relevant to
analyzing the "core concern" codified in Rule 23(e)(2)(C) --
whether "relief provided for the class is adequate" -- and Bennett
factors 3 and 5 are relevant to analyzing the "core concern" stated
in Rule 23(e)(2)(d) -- whether "the proposal treats class members
equitably relative to each other." In affirming the district
court's decision, the Eleventh Circuit specifically discussed each
Bennett factor, not just the "core concerns" enumerated in Rule
23(e)(2).
Drazen v. Pinto, 74 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2023)
Receipt of a single unwanted text message can establish standing
for a class representative.
Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Go-Daddy, alleging
the company embarked on an unlawful telemarketing campaign in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The
parties eventually entered into a settlement agreement in which the
class was defined to include "all persons within the United States
who received a call or text message to his or her cellular phone."
The district court issued a sua sponte order to examine its own
jurisdiction and concluded that under Eleventh Circuit precedent
individuals who received only one text message did not suffer a
concrete injury and, therefore, did not have Article III standing.
On rehearing en banc of the appeal that followed, the Eleventh
Circuit reversed, concluding that "the receipt of an unwanted text
message causes a concrete injury."
In doing so, the en banc panel reversed Eleventh Circuit precedent
in Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019) and held that
receipt of an unwanted text message had a close relationship to the
kind of harm that traditionally has been regarded as providing a
basis for a lawsuit (in this case the tort of intrusion upon
seclusion). Go-Daddy had argued that no such relationship exists
because the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion requires
highly offensive conduct, and that no reasonable person could
consider receipt of a single text message to be highly offensive.
The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. The en banc panel followed the
approach adopted by the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh,
Ninth, and Tenth circuits, which considers only whether the conduct
resembles the type of harm -- and not the severity or degree of
harm -- that can serve as the basis for a lawsuit. Applying this
approach, the court accepted plaintiffs' argument that receipt of
an unwanted text message is the type of harm recognized by the tort
of intrusion upon seclusion and concluded that it constitutes a
concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing.
Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 79 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir.
2023)
Fraud-based causes of action cannot be brought on behalf of a class
where individual plaintiffs are required to prove reliance.
Claiming their Ford Shelby GT350 Mustangs did not live up to
expectations, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Ford,
bringing various state statutory and common law fraud claims. The
district court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification,
choosing to create multiple state-law classes within a single class
action case. Ford appealed, arguing that plaintiffs' proposed
classes did not satisfy Rule 23's predominance prong because
plaintiffs' state fraud-based causes of action meaningfully
differed in terms of (1) whether proof of reliance is necessary and
(2), if it is, how it is established. The Eleventh Circuit agreed,
concluding that Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement will bar
class treatment of claims that require individual plaintiffs to
prove reliance affirmatively. The court also concluded that class
certification may be appropriate in instances where a fraud-based
cause of action requires reliance but allows reliance to be
presumed in certain circumstances.
D.C. Circuit
Nat'l ATM Council, Inc. v. Visa Inc., No. 21-7109, 2023 WL 4743013
(D.C. Cir. July 25, 2023), reh'g denied, 2023 WL 6319404 (D.C. Cir.
Sept. 27, 2023)
Class certification affirmed in over decade-long ATM antitrust fee
dispute against Visa and Mastercard.
Plaintiffs filed this litigation in 2011, alleging Visa and
Mastercard's ATM fee rules violated antitrust laws and caused
unlawful overcharges for access fees at ATM terminals. On July 25,
2023, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's order
certifying three classes of plaintiffs: a class of ATM operators
comprising thousands of businesses and two consumer classes
numbering in the millions. The district court had held that the
plaintiffs' class-wide injury theories were "colorable" and that
further inquiry as to damages was proper on the merits and not at
class certification. Visa and Mastercard challenged the decision as
erroneous and inconsistent with In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation (D.C. Cir. 2019) because the district court
did not determine the presence of uninjured class members in
assessing the predominance requirement for certification. Arguing
that the classes cannot be certified because they are composed of a
significant number of uninjured members, Visa and Mastercard
contended that these questions must be answered at the class
certification stage. They also argued that immediate appeal is
proper because, if the certification decision stands, it could
"sound the death-knell" for the litigation. The D.C. Circuit
granted permission to appeal in October 2021, agreeing that the
"certification decision was, at least, 'questionable' and is
accompanied by a potential 'death-knell,'" citing In re: Rail
Freight.
After examining the parties' arguments on interlocutory appeal,
however, the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit issued a per
curiam opinion affirming the district court's order. The D.C.
Circuit reaffirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, stating
that although it believed the district court's decision did "not
pose an important and unsettled, class action-related legal
question," the circuit was exercising discretionary jurisdiction
because the decision's "statements of law were not entirely clear,
its citations were not current, and its record analysis was notably
terse," in addition to the decision likely sounding the
"death-knell" for the litigation. Nevertheless, the circuit court
found the district court's order did "not rest on an incorrect
legal standard," and that, in context, the district court's comment
that plaintiffs' theories of class-wide injury were "'colorable'"
was used "to denote not merely non-frivolousness, but evidence
'appearing to be true, valid, or right.'" Further, the court of
appeals disagreed with Visa and Mastercard's arguments that the
predominance requirement was not met based on defendants' theories
that classes included uninjured members. Rather, the district court
had acted within its discretion in holding that plaintiffs had
presented sufficient evidence of class-wide injury susceptible to
common proof, including through submission of expert reports. Visa
and Mastercard simply had presented their own different models and
theories in which the classes included uninjured members. That is,
both sides "have a theory that a factfinder could credit as to why
their data selection [or model] is superior." According to the
circuit court this is "precisely the kind of material factual
dispute that is 'better suited for adjudication of plaintiffs'
injury and damages on the merits.'" The circuit court thus held
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that the predominance requirement for class certification was met,
concluding that "[t]he district court was not required at class
certification to make the ultimate determination which of two
dueling experts to accept."
Visa and Mastercard filed a petition for rehearing en banc of the
circuit court's decision which was denied. [GN]
[*] Woodruff Sawyer Sees Uptick in Securities Class Suit Filings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Priya Cherian Huskins, Esq., of Woodruff Sawyer, in an article for
JDSupra, disclosed that despite fewer companies going public in
2023, Woodruff Sawyer saw an unwelcome uptick in class action
lawsuit filings. After a period of relief in securities class
action (SCA) filings -- three years to be exact -- the tide is
officially turning.
The 189 cases filed in 2023 represent a 13% increase from the
previous year. In even worse news, there were $4.4 billion paid out
in settlements last year -- the heftiest sum in 10 years and an
unfortunate illustration of what can be at stake financially for
businesses caught in the crosshairs of securities class action
litigation.
Let's look closer at class action filing trends in 2023, and what
could be ahead for 2024 from Woodruff Sawyer's Databox 2023
Year-End Report.
Securities Class Actions Against New Public Companies
The number of companies going public through an IPO declined in
2023, with only 115 companies making their debut (a 36% drop in
IPOs from the decade's average).
One might have expected class action filings to follow suit. Yet,
that wasn't the case.
Who helped fill in the gap? Companies that had recently gone public
through de-SPAC transactions.
Even as de-SPAC deals plummeted by nearly half in 2023, de-SPACs
were sued more often than IPO companies. Data show that the
five-year average for filings against de-SPACs is 18% versus
filings against traditional IPO companies at 13%.
The de-SPAC merger itself became less of an issue in 2023.
Plaintiffs instead focused on the subsequent performance of the
de-SPACed company.
Securities Class Actions by Market Cap/Industry
Companies valued in the $2 billion or more range represented the
majority of companies targeted by class actions. Specifically,
those in the $2 billion to $10 billion range experienced an 8%
increase in filings.
Technology remained the most-targeted industry for class actions,
with no change in the rate of filings from 2022 to 2023.
However, manufacturing moved up to the second-most vulnerable
sector after technology in 2023, representing 19% of filings.
Emerging Trend: Economic Turbulence and Class Actions
Companies across industries faced class actions as they dealt with
economic concerns that impacted their businesses.
In 2023, liquidity challenges led to bank mergers and acquisitions.
This subsequently prompted eight class action lawsuits, accounting
for 4% of the year's filings.
Other sectors dealing with issues that impacted their revenue
growth -- like inflation, higher interest rates, supply chain
disruptions, and labor shortages -- also experienced class actions
at a rate of 5% of total filings.
Big Settlements
The big news this year is the record-breaking sum of settlements
paid out to the tune of $4.4 billion. In fact, 2023 marks the
highest annual payout in more than 10 years.
Last year, the top 10 settlements all surpassed $100 million, a
first-time occurrence when looking at data from the past decade.
The size and quantity of larger settlements in 2023 contributed to
a 42% increase over 2022 dollars paid out.
Outlook for 2024
As public companies better understand class action filing trends
from 2023, they will be watchful for a range of factors that can
impact world economies and their business, which can lead to more
class actions in 2024.
Things like inflation and interest rates, fiscal deficit concerns,
labor market issues, consumer spending habits, supply chain
bottlenecks/restructuring, housing activity and commercial sector
pressures, rate of economic growth, and geopolitical issues all
contribute to a public company's risk.
Unfortunately, there is also uncertainty when it comes to the fate
of the D&O insurance market, with class actions continuing against
high-worth companies and settlements reaching decade-high totals.
The good news for 2024, however, is that most companies will enjoy
the upsides of a current soft market, as detailed in our Looking
Ahead to 2024: A Guide for D&O Insurance Renewals -- though it's
unclear how much longer prices will decrease. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***