/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240306.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, March 6, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 48
Headlines
1248 HOLDINGS: Faces U.S. Anti-Completion Class Action Suit
310 BOWERY: Faces Labor Suit Over Illegal Pay and Tip Practices
ALACRITY SOLUTIONS: Kemps Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ALASKA: Court Junks Bid to Stay Kamkoff Suit
ALORICA INC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
ALORICA INC: Portions of Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Munoz Suit
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Parties Seek to Stay Class Cert Deadlines
AMB MECHANICAL: Ortiz Seeks Damages for Labor Law Violations
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Sept. 13
ASSET SURPLUS: Huey Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Representatives
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in M.D. Fla.
BANKERS LIFE: Faces Kuehni Data Breach Suit in N.D. Ill.
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sidhu Seeks to Amend First Amended Class Action
BELL MOBILITY: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Unlocking Fees
BEYOND FINANCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Bradford Class Suit
BIG BROTHERS: Faces Goebel Data Breach Suit in M.D. Fla.
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Local Lawyers Starts Suit Over Illegal Towing
BNSF RAILWAY: Settles Biometric Privacy Class-Action for $75MM
BOFFO CINEMAS: Faces Martiny Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
BOTTOM'S UP: April 19 Extension to File Class Certification Sought
BRANCH RECONSTRUCTION: Jarquin, Urbina Seek Unpaid Wages
CHINESE GOURMENT: Nelson Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Servers
CHINTU PATEL: Faces Killion Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CITADEL SERVICING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 11
CLEMENS FOOD: Pork Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit Continues
CONTINENTAL AG: Davidov Sues Over Tire Price Monopoly
CONTINENTAL AG: Link Seeks Damages for Breaches of Antitrust Laws
CRYSTAL BAY: Class Settlement in Mendoza Suit Wins Initial OK
EIDP INC: Faces Multiple Suits Over NY Water Contamination Issue
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Bids High Court to Hear Tax Valuation Class Suit
HANOVER INSURANCE: Court Rules Policy Exclusions Bar BIPA Suit
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rejoice Coffee Seeks to Seal Confidential Docs
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Seeks March 14 Hearing for Summary Judgment Bid
HONEYWELL INT'L: Plaintiffs Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Bid
ILLINOIS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Carter Class Suit
INFINITY CAPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Chargeback Fees
J-M MANUFACTURING: Bid to Continue Class Cert Hearing OK'd
JEFF RUBY: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
JONES LANG: Serra Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 7
JOSE GARZA: Ramirez Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
JPMORGAN CHASE: Pontons Seek Damages for Deceptive Trade Practices
KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Lawhon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
KIA MOTORS: Class Cert Reply Deadline Continued to March 7
KIA MOTORS: Class Cert. Hearing in Sanchez Amended to May 17
KINNEY COUNTY, TX: Court Tosses Barcenas Suit
LABCORP: Court Certifies Two Classes in Kiosk Accessibility Suit
LIMITLESS CREDIT: Court Denies Thomas Bid for Class Cert.
LOS ANGELES, CA: Seeks Dismissal of Bradshaw TAC
LOVEHONEY LLC: Faces L.D. Suit Over Disclosure of Personal Info
MARS WRIGLEY: Summary Judgment Bid Held in Abeyance
MATTERPORT INC: Bid for Leave to File Amended Complaint Denied
MAU MIAMI: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MCKINSEY & CO: Class Settlement in Santa Cruz Suit Gets Final Nod
META PLATFORM: Unauthorized Voiceprint Collection Suit Continues
MINT URBAN: Court Certifies Suit Over Managed and Charged Fees
MISSOURI HIGHER: Caldiero Sues Over Student Loan Scheme
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Courtemanche Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Seeks to File Class Cert Objections Under Seal
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Antitrust Class Suit in N.D. Ill.
NCAA: Hubbard Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
NEBRASKA BOOK: Amended Case Progression Order Entered in Degroot
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Briefing Adjourned
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Must Produce 2019-20 ASY Bulletin
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Lowery Suit Transferred from D. Nev. to E.D.N.Y.
NOVO NORDISK: Chairs Bid for Class Certification Denied
OKTA INC: Plaintiffs Class Cert Bid Granted
PALO ALTO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Law Violations
PANERA BREAD: Settles Class Suit Over Delivery Fees for $2M
PAPA JOHN'S: Court Vacates Class Cert Schedule in Guerra Suit
PATREON INC: Stark Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
PROLITEC INC: Faces Lewis Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
PURPOSE POINT: Gomez-Echeverria Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply
PVL TRUCKING: Salinas Suit Seeks Delivery Assistants' OT Wages
RETINA GROUP: Court Consolidates Class Suit Over Data Breach
RETURN TO NATURE: Class Action Notices Sent to Class Members
RETURN TO NATURE: Reminds Families of Deadlines to Opt-Out Suit
RIPPLE LABS: Faces New Class Action Over Unregistered XRP Sales
RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Court Grants Bid for Class Certification
SAINT FRANCIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Culver Suit Alleges
SAS INSTITUTE: Faces Enstrom Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
SAS RETAIL: Miranda Sues Over Reset Crew Members' Unpaid Wages
SCOUT ENERGY: TCCF Seeks Class Certification
SHAHROSE ENTERPRISES: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SONY MUSIC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Copyright Violations
SONY MUSIC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Termination Rights
STANLEY BLACK: Defends Class Suit Appeal Over Vacuum Cleaners
TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement in Lee Gets Initial Nod
TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to April 26
TRUMAN MEARS: Erskine Loses Bid for Class Certification
USAA GENERAL: Initial Pretrial Conference Order Entered
VITAL FARMS: Plaintiffs File Unredacted Version of Class Cert Bid
WALGREEN CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 12
WALMART INC: Settles Class Suit Over Weighted Groceries for $45M
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Pinnacle Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
[*] Appeals Court Denies Data Breach Class Action Certification
[*] Tire-Makers Faces U.S. Class Action Suit Over Price Fixing
[*] U.S. Class Action Law Firms Propose New Trial Procedure
[] 8th Annual Class Action Conference in May, Register Today!
*********
1248 HOLDINGS: Faces U.S. Anti-Completion Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wealth Briefing Asia reports that a group of asset and wealth
management companies including Mariner Wealth and American Century
Investments broke antitrust law by conspiring to restrict employee
recruitment and hiring, investment industry workers claim in a
proposed lawsuit, Reuters reported yesterday.
Two former employees of TortoiseEcofin Investments, which is also a
defendant, filed the class action lawsuit, on Friday in Kansas
federal court, claiming that the companies depressed wages by
entering into "no-poach" agreements not to hire from one another,
the report said.
The lawsuit also named Montage Investments and the family-owned
private investment company 1248 Holdings LLC, formerly known as
Bicknell Family Holding Company, as defendants.
"This antitrust action concerns the rights of employees to free and
fair markets," the lawsuit said.
The news service report said that representatives from 1248
Holdings, Mariner Wealth and TortoiseEcofin either had no immediate
comment or did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A
lawyer for Montage declined to comment.
The case is Jakob Tobler and Michelle McNitt v. 1248 Holdings LLC
et al, US District Court for the District of Kansas, the report
added. [GN]
310 BOWERY: Faces Labor Suit Over Illegal Pay and Tip Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
GINA MARIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
310 BOWERY GROUP, LLC, d/b/a 310 BOWERY BAR and EPSTEIN’S BAR,
LLC d/b/a 82 STANTON BAR, and RICHARD AURIGEMMA, Case No.
1:24-cv-01340 (S.D.N.Y., February 22. 2024) accuses the Defendants
of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff has been a server for 310 Bowery Bar from March 2022
until the present and was a server at 82 Stanton Bar from May 2023
until December 2023. The Plaintiff is among employees scheduled to
work at both locations in a given week for an extended period of
time. Throughout her employment, Defendants paid Plaintiff pursuant
to the New York tip credit but she was not given proper written
notice of the tip credit. As a result, the Plaintiff received an
hourly cash wage that was less than the full New York minimum wage.
Additionally, Plaintiff and other service employees were forced to
share their tips with parties who are not entitled to their tips.
After complaining about Defendants' illegal tipping practices,
Plaintiff's working hours per week were significantly reduced by
Defendants without providing any legitimate reason for the
reduction. Such actions are in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL,
says the suit.
310 Bowery Group, LLC is a New York food and beverage company that
owns and operates the 310 Bowery Bar in downtown Manhattan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
ALACRITY SOLUTIONS: Kemps Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY KEMPS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
ALACRITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00336-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., February 22, 2024) seeks
unpaid wages and damages over Defendant’s alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Kemps was initially employed by Cross Country Adjusting
LLC as "claims adjusters". The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
failed to pay her and similarly situated employees overtime
compensation during one or more workweeks in which they worked
beyond 40 hours. Because they were misclassified as independent
contractors, Plaintiff and other claims adjusters were only paid
day rates according to the number of days they worked, regardless
of the number of hours they worked each week, in violation of the
FLSA.
Based in Fishers, IN, Alacrity Solutions provides full-service
handling of residential, commercial, automotive, flood and other
insurance claims. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com
- and –
Matthew Gunter, Esq.
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 236-0946
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com
rmorgan@forthepeople.com
ALASKA: Court Junks Bid to Stay Kamkoff Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELLA KAMKOFF, et al., v.
HEIDI HEDBERG, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the
Alaska Department of Health, Case No. 3:23-cv-00044-SLG (D.
Alaska), the Hon. Judge Sharon L. Gleason entered an order denying
the Defendant's amended motion for stay.
The Defendant shall file a response to the portion of the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification concerning the proposed
Language Access Class at Docket 7-21 within 14 days of the date of
this order.
In light of the age of the motion, its application of Alaska law,
and the subsequent changes by DPA, the Court finds that the pending
Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be denied without
prejudice to Plaintiffs’ filing of a renewed motion for
preliminary injunctive relief applying the federal standard for
preliminary injunctive relief and articulating the relief now
sought in light of the current status of the SNAP program in
Alaska.
This case is about the State of Alaska's administration of the
federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
("SNAP"), which was established by the Food Stamp Act of 1964.
The Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of themselves and "three
proposed classes of similarly situated low-income Alaskans," which
consist of
(1) an "Untimely Eligibility Class," "comprised of all Alaska
residents who since January 20, 2021 have applied, are
applying, or will apply for SNAP benefits through an
initial
application or an application for recertification and did
or
will not receive an eligibility determination within the
legally required timeframes";
2) a "Right to File Class," "comprised of all Alaska residents
who since January 20, 2021, were or will be denied the
right
to file a SNAP application the first time they contact the
agency"; and
3) a "Language Access Class," "comprised of all Alaska
residents
with limited English proficiency who since January 20,
2021,
did or will not receive application materials or vital
eligibility documents in their primary language and/or
access
to oral interpretation services, as required by the SNAP
Act."
Alaska Department of Health promotes the health, well-being, and
self-sufficiency of Alaskans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OlbAjl at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALORICA INC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON MUNOZ, CINDY
PANIAGUA, and MELISSA OLSEN, individually and as a representative
of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of
the ALORICA 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN, v. ALORICA, INC., ALORICA
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE, and DOES 1 through 50 Case No.
8:22-cv-01856-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs submit an
application for leave to file documents under seal.
This Application pertains to the following items:
-- Exhibits 1-5 to the Sealed Declaration of Christina A. Humphrey
in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification As set
forth
in the Sealed Declaration of Christina A. Humphrey accompanying
this Application, the materials described above which
Plaintiffs
seek to file under seal contain and/or reflect information or
materials that Defendant ALORICA, INC. has designated
CONFIDENTIAL.
On Feb. 2, 2024, the Plaintiffs' counsel emailed the Defendant's
counsel to meet and confer pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2
regarding the exhibits filed under seal.
According to the rule, the Plaintiffs' Counsel should have met and
conferred on Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2023, with defense counsel. The
Defendant's counsel indicated that additional time is needed to
confer with her client regarding the exhibits under seal. The
Plaintiffs' Counsel apologizes to the Court for any inconvenience
and will abide by local rule moving forward. For the foregoing
reasons, the Plaintiffs have filed this Application.
Alorica is a global leader in customer experience solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cBfChk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
1117 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 618-2924
Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com
rob@chumphreylaw.com
- and -
Renee P. Ortega, Esq.
James A. Clark, Esq.
TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
11335 Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105
Gold River, CA 95670
Telephone: (916) 361-6009
Facsimile: (916) 361-6019
E-mail: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com
renee.parras@towerlegalgroup.com
ALORICA INC: Portions of Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Munoz Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON MUNOZ, CINDY
PANIAGUA, and MELISSA OLSEN, individually and as a representative
of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of
the ALORICA 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN, v. ALORICA, INC., ALORICA
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE, and DOES 1 through 50, Case No.
8:22-cv-01856-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' application to file
portions of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under
seal.
Document Sealing Status
Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs' Sealing Declaration Sealed
Exhibit 2 to Plaintiffs' Sealing Declaration Sealed
Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs' Sealing Declaration Sealed
Exhibit 4 to Plaintiffs' Sealing Declaration Sealed
Exhibit 5 to Plaintiffs' Sealing Declaration Sealed
Alorica is a global leader in customer experience solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DmrWPg at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Parties Seek to Stay Class Cert Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTEFANY MARTINEZ, v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00502-BAH (D. Md.), the
Parties file joint motion to stay deadlines pending the resolution
of the motion for class certification and motion for summary
judgment:
-- Requests for admission: March 5, 2024
-- Notice of Intent to File a Pretrial March 27, 2024
Dispositive Motion
Amazon.com provides e-commerce services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lakFXI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Markovits, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Telephone: (301) 220-2200
Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
E-mail: bmarkovitz@jgllaw.com
- and -
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Rd Ste 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
Facsimile: (214) 884-2492
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kaiser H. Chowdhry, Esq.
Michael E. Kenneally, Esq.
Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
Joseph A. Nuccio, Esq.
Needhy Shah, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 739-3000
Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
E-mail: kaiser.chowdhry@morganlewis.com
michael.kenneally@morganlewis.com
richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com
joseph.nuccio@morganlewis.com
needhy.shah@morganlewis.com
AMB MECHANICAL: Ortiz Seeks Damages for Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL ORTIZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. A M B MECHANICAL, INC., and AARON
MATHIS BRACH, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-01328-DLI-MMH
(E.D.N.Y., February 22, 2024) seeks damages and other redress for
Defendants’ alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants as a plumber from February
2007 to the present. The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his
employment, Defendants have willfully failed to pay him overtime
wages as required by the FLSA, the NYLL, and the NYCRR. The
Defendants also failed to furnish Plaintiff with any wage statement
on each payday.
Based in Brooklyn, NY, AMB Mechanical, Inc. provides plumbing
services to clients throughout New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Yuezhu Liu, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Sept. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IGLESIAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-09108-JSW (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order approving
stipulation to modify scheduling order as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
Deadline to File Motion for Apr. 22, 2024 Sept. 13,
2024
Class Certification
Deadline to Oppose Motion June 21, 2024 Nov. 20,
2024
for Class Certification
Deadline to File Reply on Aug. 15, 2024 Jan. 15,
2025
Motion for Class
Certification
Deadline to Complete May 24, 2024 Oct. 14,
2024
Deposition of Plaintiff's
Experts Regarding Class
Certification
Deadline to Complete July 26, 2024 Dec. 20,
2024
Depositions of Defendant's
Experts Regarding Class
Arizona is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails,
and energy drinks.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zs3seH at no extra
charge.[CC]
ASSET SURPLUS: Huey Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Representatives
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HUEY, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. ASSET SURPLUS REALLOCATION, LLC d/b/a SURGISHOP,
NICHOLAS DERIAN, ALAN GARCIA, CASSIO BARBOSA, AND ARTHUR BORGES,
Case No. 8:24-cv-00471 (M.D. Fla., February 20, 2024) seeks unpaid
wages and damages over Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a sales representative
from July 2021 to November 2022. Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees were improperly classified by Defendants as exempt from
the FLSA's overtime requirements. As a result, Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees were not paid overtime compensation
despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek.
Asset Surplus is a distributor of surgical supplies with its
principal place of business located in Hillsborough, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. Schuette, Esq.
Warren Astbury, Esq.
CANTRELL ASTBURY KRANZ, P.A.
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (877) 858-6868
E-mail: mschuette@caklegal.com
wastbury@caklegal.com
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on January 16, 2024, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida against Automatic Data Processing,
Inc. (ADP), and American Century Investments Services, Inc. (ACI)
(collectively, Defendants). The Complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, including Section 11, 12(a)(2), 15(a),
15(c), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, N.J.S.A.
49:3-52 and 49:3-56, Florida Deceptive and unfair Trade Practices
Act (FDUTPA), Fla. Stat. 501.201, et seq., Fla. Stat. 517.311, and
Fla. Stat. 517.12., including allegations that Defendants engaged
in a course of business which operated as a fraud upon the
purchasers of ADP's Simple IRAs, during the Class Period, which is
January 16, 2021 through January 16, 2024.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all investors who
purchased ADP's Simple IRAs, during the Class Period. You may move
the Court no later than Monday, April 29, 2024, to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you
must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).
If you want to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Contacts
Tiffany Peintner
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
The Village, OK 73120
Phone: +1 405-235-1560
Email to: trp@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]
BANKERS LIFE: Faces Kuehni Data Breach Suit in N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA KUEHNI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
1:24-cv-01487 (N.D. Ill., February 22, 2024) accuses the Defendant
of violating the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Upon collecting personal identifying information from its
customers, Defendant promised to provide confidentiality and
adequate security for the data. However, on or about January 26,
2024, Defendant informed its current and former customers via an
untitled letter of a data breach arising from a "SIM swapping"
incident. The breach was discovered on November 29, 2023, with
Defendant confirming that customers' PII may have been compromised.
However, Defendant did not provide the critical facts regarding the
data breach, resulting in concrete injuries for the affected
customers. The Defendant is accused of multiple violations,
including breaches of the FTC Act, negligence, and breach of
implied contract, says the suit.
Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Bankers Live and Casualty provides
life insurance, long-term care insurance, supplemental health
insurance, and other products and services to its customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sidhu Seeks to Amend First Amended Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIYA SIDHU, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-01603-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
leave to amend her First Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and to file Proposed Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC").
The Plaintiff primarily seeks leave to amend her complaint to be
substituted out as the class representative and to add two new
class representatives: Travette Copeland and Lila Chu.
The Proposed Second Amended Complaint otherwise only:
(i) removes the claims dismissed by the Court in the Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Motion to Dismiss
the
First Amended Complaint, and
(ii) fixes several typos. Thus, the Proposed SAC makes no
substantive changes other than to the Plaintiff-specific
allegations. Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.
does not consent to the relief requested in this Motion.
The Defendant has stonewalled all discovery in this case (and even
threatened Rule 11 sanctions) on the ground that Plaintiff Priya
Sidhu has not yet, at this early stage, obtained documentation
showing she incurred out-of-pocket expenses as a result of
purchasing Mirena IUD and/or having it inserted.
Bayer manufactures, markets and/or distributes more than 23 drugs
in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Lynng at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
BELL MOBILITY: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Unlocking Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel J. Rowe of CTV News reports that a law firm in Montreal is
suing the biggest cell phone companies in Canada, alleging they
ripped customers off with an "abusive" fee to unlock phones.
"For years, Canadian wireless providers such as Bell Mobility,
Fido, Rogers, Telus, Virgin Mobile, and Videotron have been
generating hundreds of millions of dollars, charging consumers $50
plus tax to unlock their phones," the lawsuit launched by LPC
Avocats reads. "It turns out that these providers intentionally
order their devices locked when they could have easily ordered them
unlocked and thus avoid imposing the fee on consumers."
Lawyer Joey Zukran and the lawfirm Renno Vathilakis are leading the
case, which was authorized by a Superior Court of Quebec judge on
February 26, 2024.
Zukran explained that the lead plaintiff in the case came forward
after she was charged $50 to unlock her phone so she could use
another SIM card before travelling to the Philippines to avoid
being charged hefty roaming fees. The lawsuit alleges that the
companies generated around $110 million for a service that cost
them nothing.
"This is clearly a case where the consumers were gouged big time by
the telcos by way of these unlocking fees of $50, for something
that costs nothing," said Zukran. "At a certain point, this is
abusive, and that's what the case is about. The court authorized
the class action on the basis of an abusive fee or an abusive
amount being charged to consumers."
Zukran said most consumers won't think twice before paying the fee,
rather than fighting with a major telecommunication company.
"The problem isn't consumer contracts, at least under Quebec law,
even if the consumer accepts a specific provision or a specific
clause or a specific fee. If it turns out that it's abusive, or
legionary, or unconscionable, which is clearly the case here and
our view, then the courts do have the power to either annul the fee
completely or reduce it to what it would have been in a fair
market," he said.
"In this case, we believe we strongly believe that the hard cost is
zero."
Anyone who was charged a fee to unlock their phone between Aug. 17,
2014 and Dec. 1, 2017 can sign onto the case. The class-action
seeks to fully reimburse customers who paid unlocking fees.
None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been tested in court.
[GN]
BEYOND FINANCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Bradford Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RADLEY BRADFORD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BEYOND FINANCE, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01904-LL-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered scheduling order setting
discovery deadlines and
class certification motion deadline:
1. Any motion to join other parties, amend the pleadings, or
file
additional pleadings shall be filed by March 8, 2024.
2. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class
discovery
must be completed by May 20, 2024. "Completed" means that all
discovery requests governed by Rules 30-36 of the Federal
Rules
of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45,
must
be propounded sufficiently in advance of the discovery
cut-off
date so that they may be completed by that date, taking into
account the time permitted in the Rules for service, notice,
and
responses.
3. The Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification by
July
1, 2024.
Beyond Finance provides financial services to help individuals
overcome debt.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WbSMJh at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIG BROTHERS: Faces Goebel Data Breach Suit in M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
ANGELEANA GOEBEL, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. 8:24-cv-00463 (M.D. Fla., February
22, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Federal Trade
Commission Act.
The Plaintiff and class members are current and former participants
in Defendant's programs who have been required to provide sensitive
and confidential personally identifiable information to Defendant
so it could perform the services it provides. The Defendant gave
assurances that the PII collected from program participants would
be kept safe and secure and that any PII that is no longer needed
would be deleted, says the suit.
On November 22, 2023, Defendant notified Plaintiff and class
members via an untitled letter about a "security incident" that
occurred on or about March 28, 2023, during which their PII had
been compromised. The letter did not include some key details,
including the root cause of the data breach, the date that
Defendant detected the breach, and the remedial measures undertaken
by Defendant to prevent similar incidents from happening again. The
Plaintiff accuses Defendant of failing to properly secure and
safeguard the PII of its program participants, in violation of the
FTC Act. The Plaintiff and class members sustained actual injuries
and damages arising from Defendant's violations, the suit asserts.
Based in Tampa, FL, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America Corporation
is a foreign not-for-profit corporation that offers the nation’s
largest donor and volunteer-supported mentoring network. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Local Lawyers Starts Suit Over Illegal Towing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Ruppert, writing for WBRC, reports that local lawyers are
bringing a class action lawsuit against a Birmingham parking
business.
The suit accuses the Parking Enforcement Systems of illegal towing
and over-charging for parking and towing services.
Michael Parrish and David Holcombe say their client Terry White's
vehicle was towed after PES say he inaccurately entered his
vehicle's tag in the park mobile app. They stress situations like
this are far from uncommon.
"The complaints against Parking Enforcement Systems and predatory
towing have gone back for well over a decade," says Alabama Car
Lawyers Attorney Michael Parrish.
Parrish says one of the goals of the lawsuit is to force parking
and towing companies to comply with the city's new parking
ordinance.
"I think the only way to stop this process is to hold them
accountable," says Parrish.
Terry White's lawyers argue that stories like this are impacting
people's opinions of the Birmingham.
"Everybody that lives in Birmingham, that visits Birmingham, the
last thing on your mind should be 'is the towing the biggest deal.'
You should be out enjoying your night and that is why we are here
trying to help those people who have been wronged," says Alabama
Car Lawyers Attorney David Holcombe.
The Alabama Car Lawyers are not looking to represent just White but
all who feel they are victims of predatory and illegal parking and
towing practices.
"Individually, it is very hard for someone to file a lawsuit over
one hundred and sixty six dollars but together if we hear the
stories from everyone in the community we can all shed light on
this and stop this practice," says Parrish.
I reached out to Parking Enforcement System requesting a comment
but have not yet heard back. [GN]
BNSF RAILWAY: Settles Biometric Privacy Class-Action for $75MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that freight rail
giant BNSF has agreed to pay $75 million to resolve a class action
accusing it of violating an Illinois state law that restricts the
collection of biometric information such as fingerprints and eye
scans.
Attorneys for a class of 46,500 truck drivers disclosed the
proposed deal, opens new tab in a filing in Chicago federal court,
where the claims against BNSF were tested last year in the
first-ever trial under the stringent Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.
BNSF, owned by billionaire Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway
(BRKa.N), opens new tab, operates one of the country's largest
freight rail networks.
The lawsuit alleged Fort Worth, Texas-based BNSF unlawfully
collected fingerprint scans without consent from thousands of
drivers using automated gate systems at the company's four
facilities in Illinois.
The drivers' attorneys said the settlement will bring "closure and
valuable cash compensation to what has been contentious and costly
litigation."
Representatives for BNSF and the plaintiffs did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.
The deal requires a judge's approval. BNSF did not admit any
liability.
BNSF lost a jury trial over its liability in the case last year,
and a U.S. district judge said the company owed $228 million in
damages for violating the Illinois biometric law.
But the court in June overturned the award and said a jury should
determine damages.
he Illinois state biometric law poses myriad compliance hurdles for
companies, and many have faced litigation. In 2020, Facebook said
it would pay $650 million to resolve class action allegations that
it violated the Illinois law.
The plaintiffs' attorneys in the BNSF case said they would seek up
to 35%, or $26.2 million, for legal fees from the settlement fund.
The case is Rogers v. BNSF Railway Company, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:19-cv-03083.
For plaintiffs: Jon Loevy of Loevy & Loevy; and Myles McGuire and
David Gerbie of McGuire Law
For BNSF: Bethany Biesenthal and Michael Gray of Jones Day [GN]
BOFFO CINEMAS: Faces Martiny Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
SARAH WHISPER MARTINY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BOFFO CINEMAS, LLC, BOFFO CINEMAS BEVERLY
HILLS, LLC, BOFFO CINEMAS LA JOLLA, LLC, BOFFO CINEMAS POINT LOMA,
LLC, BOFFO CINEMAS SCRIPPS, LLC, THE LOT BISHOP RANCH, LLC, THE LOT
DEL MAR, LLC, THE LOT FASHION ISLAND, LLC, THE LOT WATERMARK, LLC,
BOFFO GROWTH, LLC, BOFFO F&B, LLC, BOFFO PROMOTE, LLC, BOFFO
INVESTORS, LLC, BOFFO MANAGER, LLC, ADOLFO FASTLICHT, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00008262-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Sup., San Diego Cty., February 22, 2024) seeks damages over
Defendants’ alleged multiple violations of the California Labor
Code.
Plaintiff Martiny was employed as a non-exempt employee by
Defendants in California, working as a server from about June 15,
2022 to the present. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of committing labor breaches,
including minimum wage violations, failure to pay overtime wages,
meal period/rest period violations, failure to provide wage
statements, unlawful wage deductions, and untimely payment of
wages.
Boffo Cinemas is a California limited liability company that
operates entertainment venues throughout Southern California,
including movie theaters and restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
David X. Lin, Esq.
FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
3160 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 693-7727
Facsimile: (619) 350-6855
E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com
lauren@ferrarovega.com
david@ferrarovega.com
BOTTOM'S UP: April 19 Extension to File Class Certification Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA McKENZIE, and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), v. BOTTOM'S UP
BEVERAGE OF FLORIDA, LLC, and JULIANN PETTICREW, Case No.
2:23-cv-14403-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order allowing her up to and including April 19, 2024 to
file for Class Certification and states as follows:
-- The Plaintiff filed her class action Complaint on Dec. 16,
2023,
and effected service on the Defendants on Dec. 18, 2023.
-- The Defendants filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses on
Jan. 9, 2024.
-- The Defendants responses to Plaintiff's initial discovery
requests are not due until Feb. 14, 2024.
-- The Plaintiff is in the process of coordinating the Defendants
30(b)(6) deposition at a date shortly after Defendants
discovery
responses are due.
-- On Jan. 23, 2024, the Court entered its Scheduling Order.
Among
other things, the Court designated Feb. 19, 2024, as the
deadline
for Plaintiff to file for Class Certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GkY9Fy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 822-3446
Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com
BRANCH RECONSTRUCTION: Jarquin, Urbina Seek Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
MARBIN JARQUIN, JUAN URBINA and other similarly situated
individuals v. BRANCH RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, and TIMOTHY BUTLER, Case
No. 8:24-cv-00477 (M.D. Fla., February 22, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as construction workers for
several months in 2023 and typically worked approximately an
average of 40 to 60 hours per week. They allege that Defendant
willfully and intentionally refused to pay them minimum and
overtime wages as required by the FLSA. They seek to recover
damages for unpaid minimum and overtime pay.
Headquartered in Hillsborough County, FL, Branch Reconstruction,
LLC is a Florida limited liability company engaged in the
construction business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 482-1475
E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com
CHINESE GOURMENT: Nelson Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Servers
--------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN TAMAAIGA NELSON, as an individual and on behalf of all
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chinese Gourment Group,
Inc., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24STCV04383 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 22, 2024) seeks relief against Chinese Gourment Group,
Inc. for its failure to pay all wages due in violation of the
California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders, and Code of Regulations.
Plaintiff Tamaaiga works for Defendant as a cashier, server and
kitchen helper starting from June 17, 2023. The Plaintiff was
intentionally offered additional remuneration in the form of cash
bonuses in order not to compensate him at the proper overtime and
sick pay rate. The Defendant did not want to include those bonuses
in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime
rate of pay and sick pay, the suit alleges.
Chinese Gourment Group, Inc. owns and operates Chinese restaurants
in the US. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lilit Tunyan, Esq.
Artur Tunyan, Esq.
TUNYAN LAW, APC
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 285
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (323) 410-5050
E-mail: ltunyan@tunyanlaw. com
atunyan@tunyanlaw. com
CHINTU PATEL: Faces Killion Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Killion, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CHINTU PATEL and SUBIN 28, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00337-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., February 22, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was an employee at a Subway operated by Defendant
Subin. He was paid on an hourly basis and routinely worked over 40
hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid
time and a half his regular rate for any time worked over 40 hours
in a given workweek, in violation of the FLSA.
Headquartered in Greenwood, IN, Chintu Patel manages Subin and
other limited liability companies which operate Subway restaurants.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
WELDY LAW
11268 Governors Lane
Fishers, IN 46037
Telephone: (317) 842-6600
Facsimile: (317) 842-6933
E-mail: rweldy@weldylegal.com
CITADEL SERVICING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Falon Ballard and Matthew
Ballard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Citadel Servicing Corporation, a/k/a Acra Lending; and
DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:22-cv-01679-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order continuing the deadline
for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification by nine weeks,
to April 11, 2024.
The Plaintiffs Falon Ballard and Matthew Ballard and numerous other
California borrowers had home loans serviced by the defendant
Citadel, and as of March 2021, sub-serviced by Citadel's agent,
ServiceMac, LLC.
As a result of financial hardships due to the COVID-19 pandemic
Citadel agreed to provide Plaintiffs and these other borrowers
payment "accommodations" in the form of payment deferments,
forbearances, and repayment plan agreements.
Despite these accommodations, Citadel reported the borrowers as
past due on payments that were covered by the accommodation in
violation of the California Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Civil
Code section 1785.25(a) ("CCRAA"), and the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
As a result of Citadel's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs filed a
class action complaint seeking to certify the following two
classes:
-- Credit Reporting Class:
"All persons in California who received a payment
"accommodation"
from Citadel as defined by the CARES Act, were current before
the
accommodation, and whose accounts were reported as delinquent or
past due as a result of the non-payments subject to the
accommodation, during the relevant statute of limitations
period.
-- Debt Collection Class:
"All persons in California who received a payment
"accommodation"
from Citadel as that term is defined by the CARES Act, were
current
before the accommodation, and received a past due debt
collection
notice as a result of the non-payments subject to the
accommodation, during the relevant statute of limitations
period."
Citadel provides non-prime loans for residential properties on both
an owner occupied and non-owner occupied basis.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I75mK2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Raymond Y. Kim, Esq.
RAY KIM LAW, APC
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (833) 729-5529
Facsimile: (833) 972-9546
E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com
CLEMENS FOOD: Pork Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit Continues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Jones, writing for 9News, reports that at VERIFY, we
fact-check class-action settlement notices so our readers know
whether the email they receive is legitimate or fraudulent.
VERIFY reader John recently forwarded us a notice appearing to
provide information about a pork-related class action lawsuit.
The email was labeled as a "Court-Approved Legal Notice" about Pork
antitrust litigation. The subheading read: "If you purchased any
Pork product in the United States from June 28, 2014, through June
30, 2018, a class action lawsuit may affect your rights."
John asked us if the email and lawsuit are legitimate.
THE QUESTION
Is the pork product price-fixing class action lawsuit real?
THE SOURCES
Court documents for "In re Pork Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District
Court, District of Minnesota, No. 18-01776"
www.overchargedforpork.com
Hagens Berman, co-lead counsel representing plaintiffs in the suit
THE ANSWER
This is true.
Yes, the pork product price-fixing class action lawsuit is real and
still ongoing and dates back to 2018.
WHAT WE FOUND
A class action lawsuit was filed in 2018 alleging major pork
producers, working with a data analysis firm, conspired to fix pork
prices for nearly a decade. The email notice that John asked us
about is informing people of their rights to opt out of this
class-action suit.
Since the lawsuit is ongoing, it remains unclear whether or not
there will be a settlement payout, or when the payout could be
made.
The lawsuit alleges that since at least 2009, data analysis company
Agri Stats compiled detailed reports to pork producers that
included profits, costs, prices and slaughter information. The
information provided by Agri Stats allowed pork producers to
monitor industry production and "control supply and price."
Anyone who purchased certain pork products from 2014 through 2018
from a retailer or wholesaler is eligible to be a member of the
class-action suit, court records say.
Here are the pork products, whether fresh or frozen, listed in the
suit:
-- Raw pork bacon
-- Bellies
-- Loins
-- Shoulder
-- Ribs
-- Pork chops
People that purchased the pork between June 28, 2014 to June 30,
2018, in the following states: Arizona, California, Florida,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia and Washington D.C., are
eligible to be part of the suit, the claim website says.
Anyone who purchased eligible pork products between June 28, 2015
and June 30, 2018 in Kansas, Tennessee and South Carolina can also
participate in the class action.
In order to receive a potential settlement amount in the future,
you have to complete a claim form. To file a claim, you can fill
out a form online here or download a claim form to submit via mail.
Documentation isn’t currently required but could be asked for at
a later date. According to an August 2023 court order regarding
distribution of settlement funds, only "qualified claimants" can
receive a settlement. Ineligible claims will be denied.
The suit was filed against the following pork producers:
-- Clemens Food Group, LLC
-- Hormel Foods Corporation
-- Indiana Packers Corporation
-- JBS USA Food Company
-- Seaboard Foods, LLC
-- Smithfield Foods, Inc
-- Triumph Foods, LLC
-- Tyson Foods, Inc.
JBS and Smithfield already settled in the suit, according to court
records and documents published by Hagens Berman, co-lead counsel
representing plaintiffs in the suit. JBS was ordered to pay $20
million and Smithfield was ordered to pay $75 million. A portion of
those funds may eventually be used to pay eligible people.
If you do not want to remain a member of the suit, meaning you do
not want to be legally bound by the terms of any potential
settlements or judgments, or if you choose to take legal action on
your own, you would need to formally opt out of the suit. [GN]
CONTINENTAL AG: Davidov Sues Over Tire Price Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------
SUSAN DAVIDOV; and ROBERT FURST, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONTINENTAL
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE
GENERALE DES ETABLISSEMENTS; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN
TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE
LLC; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; and DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01367 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2024)
alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in an unlawful agreement, as some of the largest tire
manufacturers in the US and the world, to artificially increase and
fix the prices of new replacement tires for passenger cars, vans,
trucks and buses ("Tires") sold in the US. Defendants coordinated
price increases, including through public communications.
The Defendants' unlawful agreement to fix prices of Tires is
supported by, among other things: (i) Defendants' sudden and
dramatic parallel price increases, which absent a conspiracy to fix
prices, ran contrary to their economic interests; (ii) Dawn raids
of the Defendants, (iii) the high level of market concentration in
the Tire market; (iv) significant barriers to entry, (v) lack of
economic substitutes for Tires, (vi) standardization of Tires with
a high degree of interchangeability; and (vii) the myriad
opportunities that employees of the Defendants had to conspire with
one another to fix prices of Tires, coupled with their motivation
to achieve such an unlawful end, says the suit.
Continental AG manufactures tires, automotive parts, and industrial
products. The Company produces passenger cars, trucks, commercial
vehicles, bicycle tires, braking systems, shock absorbers, hoses,
drive belts, conveyor belting, transmission products, and sealing
systems. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Radice, Esq.
April D. Lambert, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
Email: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
alambert@radicelawfirm.com
CONTINENTAL AG: Link Seeks Damages for Breaches of Antitrust Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVE LINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL TIRE THE
AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GÉNÉRALE DES ÉTABLISSEMENTS; MICHELIN
NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC; NOKIAN
TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY;
PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION;
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; AND DOES 1-100, Case No.
6:24-cv-00913-JDA (D.S.C., February 23, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act and South
Carolina's antitrust laws.
The Plaintiff brings this class action over Defendants' alleged
involvement in price fixing. Defendants allegedly conspired to
collectively increase the price of tires for their own benefit, in
violation of antitrust laws.
The Plaintiff is among persons who purchased replacement tires from
Defendants directly or indirectly from January 1, 2020 until the
time that the adverse effects of Defendants' anticompetitive
conduct ceased. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages,
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
Headquartered in Hannover, Germany, Continental AG is a German
multinational automotive parts manufacturing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
MCGOWAN, HOOD, FELDER, & PHILLIPS, LLC
10 Shem Drive, Suite 300
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 388-7202
Facsimile: (843) 388-3194
E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com
- and –
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Ave., Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
CRYSTAL BAY: Class Settlement in Mendoza Suit Wins Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO MENDOZA, SOPHIA
MENDOZA, and HUEY NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CRYSTAL BAY CASINO, LLC., Case No.
3:23-cv-00092-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Miranda M. Du
entered a preliminary approval of the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
1. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only
The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class
defined
as follows:
"All individuals that received notice from Crystal Bay in or
around February 2023, of a data security incident involving
their Personal Information Specifically excluded from the
Settlement Class are any judge presiding over this matter and
any members of their first-degree relatives, judicial staff,
Crystal Bay's officers, directors, and members, and persons
who
timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement
Class.
2. Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel
The Court finds that Plaintiffs will likely satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as
the
Class Representatives.
Additionally, the Court finds that Thiago M. Coelho of
Wilshire
Law Firm and David Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman PLLC will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule
23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant
to
Rule 23(g)(1).
3. Preliminary Settlement Approval
The Court finds the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate
to warrant providing notice of the Settlement to the
Settlement
Class and accordingly is preliminarily approved.
4. A final approval hearing shall be held on Aug. 5, 2024 at
Bruce
R. Thompson Federal Courthouse, 400 South Virginia St., Reno,
Nevada 89501, courtroom 5.
The court appoints Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as the
Claims Administrator, with responsibility for class notice and
settlement administration.
Crystal Bay offers gaming, entertainment, banquet events, lodging,
food and dining services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TqadIu at no extra
charge.[CC]
EIDP INC: Faces Multiple Suits Over NY Water Contamination Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
EIDP, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 8, 2024, that it is a defendant in about 45
lawsuits, including a putative class action, brought by persons who
live in and around Hoosick Falls, New York.
These lawsuits assert claims for medical monitoring, property
damage and personal injury based on alleged toxic substances
release from manufacturing facilities owned and operated by
co-defendants in Hoosick Falls.
The lawsuits allege that EIDP and others supplied materials used at
these facilities resulting in PFOA air and water contamination. A
court approved settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and
the other co-defendants regarding the Baker Class Action case. In
September 2022, the class certification of the Baker Class Action
was granted, with the court certifying three separate classes
consisting of a private well property damage class, a medical
monitoring class and a nuisance class. With the settlement of
approximately 30 of the personal injury lawsuits, an accrual was
established for this matter as of December 31, 2023.
EIDP, Inc., formerly known as DuPont de Nemours, Inc., commonly
shortened to DuPont, is a multinational chemical company.
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Bids High Court to Hear Tax Valuation Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Tzul of Bloomberg Law reports that taxpayers accusing
Fulton County and multiple encompassed cities of using an illegal
method to assess property taxes aren't eligible for class
certification, the government told the Georgia Supreme Court in a
petition for review.
Atlanta, joining Fulton County, asked the high court to grant
certiorari and review a January appeals court's opinion that said
the taxpayers qualified for class certification because they
satisfied statutory criteria under Georgia law. But in doing so,
the Georgia Court of Appeals "crafted an unprecedented and
unsustainable standard for class certification and contradicted
this Court's longstanding mandate that property owners are not
entitled." [GN]
HANOVER INSURANCE: Court Rules Policy Exclusions Bar BIPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Dilworth of Business Insurance reports that a federal judge
in Illinois on February 27 sided with a Hanover Insurance Group
unit in finding two exclusions in a policy relieve it from
defending a condiment maker against a suit alleging violations of
the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The federal judge in Citizens Insurance Co. of America v. Mullins
Food Products Inc. et al., granted Citizens' request to reconsider
a July 31 ruling denying the insurer's summary judgment motion.
The judge concluded policy exclusions in a policy issued to
Broadview, Illinois-based Mullins Food Products could be
interpreted to include alleged violations of BIPA.
One exclusion related to the recording and distribution of material
or information in violation of law and the other to the access or
disclosure of confidential or personal information.
In reconsidering the earlier ruling, the judge was persuaded by the
Illinois Court of Appeals' December 2023 decision in Nat'l Fire
Ins. Co. of Hartford & Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Visual Pak Co. Inc. In
that case, a panel found that language in exclusions identical to
those in Mullins' policy from Citizens could include alleged
violations of BIPA.
Citizens sued Mullins and Ricardo Galan in 2022, seeking a court's
determination that it is not obligated to cover a proposed class
action filed by Mr. Galan in February 2018.
Mr. Galan said in his state court lawsuit that he worked at Mullins
from August 2016 until July 2019 and was required to use biometric
identifiers, such as fingerprints and handprints, to track time.
According to Mr. Galan, Mullins allegedly disseminated that
information in violation of BIPA.
The parties and their representatives did not respond to requests
for comment. [GN]
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Rejoice Coffee Seeks to Seal Confidential Docs
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REJOICE! COFFEE COMPANY,
LLC, a California limited liability company, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; SENTINEL INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., a Connecticut corporation; Case No.
3:20-cv-06789-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff files an
administrative motion to consider whether material designated as
Confidential Hartford and Sentinel should be sealed pursuant to
Civil Local Rule 79-5 and pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated
Protective Order entered in this case on July 8, 2022.
Hartford is a United States-based investment and insurance
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jvSAkK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Rottinghaus, Esq.
Fredrick A. Hagen, Esq.
Gordon A. Walters, Esq.
BERDING & WEIL LLP
2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 838-2090
Facsimile: (925) 820-5592
E-mail: drottinghaus@berdingweil.com
fhagen@berdingweil.com
gwalters@berdingweil.com
- and -
David M. Birka-White, Esq.
Laura A. Carrier, Esq.
BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
178 E. Prospect Avenue
Danville, CA 94526
Telephone: (925) 362-9999
Facsimile: (925) 362-9970
E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com
lcarrier@birka-white.com
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Seeks March 14 Hearing for Summary Judgment Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
California limited liability company, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES
GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY,
LIMITED, a Connecticut corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-06789-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order
granting administrative motion to hear their Motion for Summary
Judgment on March 14, 2024.
The Court is already scheduled to hear two motions in this case
that same day: The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and
Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Peter A. Scourtis,
submitted in conjunction with Defendants' opposition to class
certification.
Hartford is a United States-based investment and insurance
company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=one0vF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
Ryan M. Chabot, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 230-8800
Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
E-mail: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com
ryan.chabot@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
One Market Plaza
Spear Tower, Suite 3900
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 365-6700
Facsimile: (415) 365-6699
E-mail: aanscombe@steptoe.com
HONEYWELL INT'L: Plaintiffs Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER STEWARD, CLYDE
SCHMIDT, JOAN SCHMIDT, TIM BECK, CHARLA BECK, RANDY LANGFORD,
BRENDA LANGFORD, TODD FAULKNER, KIM FAULKNER, Illinois residents,
on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly
situated, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. a Delaware corporation,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Allied-Signal, Inc.
Case No. 3:18-cv-01124-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order granting them leave to file an amended motion for
class certification and memorandum in support.
Honeywell provides aerospace products and services, control,
sensing and security technologies.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vQT0l0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
kyle@lcllp.com
- and -
James F. Clayborne, Jr., Esq.
CLAYBORNE, SABO AND WAGNER LLP
525 W. Main Street, Suite 105
Belleville, IL 62220
Telephone: (618) 239-0187
Facsimile: (618) 416-7556
E-mail: jclayborne@cswlawllp.com
- and -
Richard Kruger, Esq.
Paul Henry, Esq.
KRUGER, HENRY AND HUNTER, LLC
110 W. Fifth Street
Metropolis, IL 62960
Telephone: (618) 524-9302
Facsimile: (618) 524-9305
E-mail: khh@khhlaw.com
phenry@khhlaw.com
- and -
Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
Victor Cobb, Esq.
COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC
1525 Religious Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 399-0009
E-mail: cbrustowicz@clfnola.com
vcobb@clfnola.com
- and -
Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
Stephen H. Wussow, Esq.
THOMPSON BARNEY
2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
Charleston, WV 25311
Telephone: (304) 343-4401
Facsimile: (304) 343-4405
E-mail: kwthompsonwv@thompsonbarneylaw.com
drbarneywv@gmail.com
swussow@thompsonbarneylaw.com
- and -
Ron A. Austin, Esq.
Catherine Hilton, Esq.
RON AUSTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
920 Fourth Street
Gretna, LA 70053
Telephone: (504) 227-8100
Facsimile: (504) 227-8122
E-mail: raustin@ronaustinlaw.com
chilton@ronaustinlaw.com
ILLINOIS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Carter Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carter v. Illinois State
Police Department, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01089-SLD-JEH (C.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order
as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
llinois State Police is a multifaceted police agency which
specializes in enforcing the laws, and protecting the public.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qruJwD at no extra
charge.[CC]
INFINITY CAPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Chargeback Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit accuses Infinity Capital, LLC and its sponsor bank
of assessing excessive "monthly chargeback violation" fees in
breach of their merchant contract terms.
The 19-page breach-of-contract lawsuit was filed by an online
business that contracted with the defendants for payment processing
services in January 2023. The suit alleges Esquire Bank and
Infinity Capital -- which does business as Choice Merchant
Solutions -- breached the plaintiff's merchant agreement by
charging the business "monthly chargeback violation" or "enhanced
chargeback" fees that were improperly disclosed and in excess of
the amount allowed pursuant to the contract terms.
In order to offer payment processing services, Choice Merchant
Solutions and Esquire Bank -- a member bank of major credit and
debit card brands -- must comply with certain rules about fee
disclosures in customer agreements. For instance, a merchant
contract must include a "separate or distinct fee disclosure" that
clearly breaks down the methodology by which each charge is
calculated, the complaint explains.
The filing contends that although the plaintiff's merchant
agreement includes a requisite fee schedule that lists a $25 fee
per chargeback -- which occurs when a cardholder or bank disputes a
transaction and requests a reversal of the charge -- the list of
fees does not mention any other chargeback-related fees, let alone
a "monthly chargeback violation" or "enhanced chargeback" fee.
The term "monthly chargeback violation," despite its absence from
the fee schedule, is defined later in the contract's terms and
conditions as a fee that will be assessed when "more than five
Chargebacks have been processed in [a] month and … the
Transaction Chargeback Ratio for that month is equal to or greater
than 1%," the lawsuit explains.
A table is provided in the agreement to calculate the precise fee
that will be assessed upon the occurrence of such a violation, the
suit says. The table plainly shows that when a merchant commits a
“monthly chargeback violation," as it is defined under contract,
the company will be assessed a fee of up to $100, the case
contends.
However, the plaintiff's April 2023 monthly billing statement
reveals that Choice and Esquire Bank assessed chargeback violation
fees "far in excess of the amount authorized in the agreement," the
complaint alleges.
The plaintiff claims that based on the table provided in the
contract, the total number of chargebacks, and the transaction
chargeback ratio in April 2023, the company should have been
assessed only a $50 fee. Instead, the monthly billing statement
shows a hefty "enhanced chargeback" fee of $4,000, the filing
relays.
The case contests that the "enhanced chargeback" fee assessed by
Choice and Esquire Bank clearly exceeds the maximum charge allowed
under the terms of the merchant agreement.
The lawsuit looks to represent any businesses or entities that have
entered into the Choice merchant agreement with Choice Merchant
Solutions and Esquire Bank in the United States and which were
subsequently assessed "monthly chargeback violation" or "enhanced
chargeback" fees by the defendants in any amount and/or in an
amount calculated by assessing the fees set forth in the chart in
section 15 of the contract on a per chargeback basis, rather than
on a monthly basis. [GN]
J-M MANUFACTURING: Bid to Continue Class Cert Hearing OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMBRIDGE LANE, LLC, v.
J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. dba J-M PIPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-06638-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
George H. Wu entered an order granting joint stipulation to
continuance of hearing on motion for class certification.
J-M is a manufacturer of grain handling equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7hsI37 at no extra
charge.[CC]
JEFF RUBY: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney King, writing for FOX19, reports that Jeff Ruby Culinary
Entertainment is calling a lawsuit filed against the company in
federal court untrue, in a statement to FOX19 NOW.
The lawsuit, filed in district court on behalf of Johnathan Lamb in
Cincinnati, listed seven Jeff Ruby establishments in the
complaint.
The suit alleged Jeff Ruby Culinary Entertainment violated minimum
wage and overtime laws, unlawfully retained tips and unjustly
enriched back-of-house employees.
"Defendants paid plaintiff and other tip credit employees an hourly
wage below the applicable federal and state minimum wages," the
complaint said. "Defendants took a portion of the tips earned by
(the plaintiffs) and other tip credit employees to share those tips
with back-of-house employees who did not earn the tips and who did
not interact with customers."
In a statement to FOX19 NOW, CEO Brittany Ruby said the allegations
came from a "former disgruntled employee" and the company planned
to defend itself in court.
"Our family-owned business is passionately dedicated to our
employees," Ruby said. "They are not only our greatest asset - they
are our family. Our purpose statement is to, 'Transform the
hospitality industry by improving lives through our culture of
caring.' We have and always will stand up for justice and truth."
A statement from one of the law firms suing on behalf of Johnathan
Lamb accused the company of violating their rights.
"Unfortunately, servers and bar tenders' wage rights are often
violated by their employers," attorney David Garrison said. "While
the labor market may be booming, too many employers skimp on their
responsibility to pay their employees according to the law."
Jeff Ruby Culinary Entertainment has three locations in Cincinnati
- The Precinct, Carlo and Johnny by Jeff Ruby, and Jeff Ruby's
Steakhouse. [GN]
JONES LANG: Serra Must File Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 7
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN SERRA, v. JONES LANG
LASALLE AMERICAS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05408-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order on class
certification schedule:
Initial Disclosures: Feb. 7, 2024
Motion for Class Certification: Nov. 7, 2024
Opposition to Class Certification: Dec. 12, 2024
Reply ISO Class Certification: Jan. 16, 2025
Class Certification Hearing: Feb. 6, 2025
JLL is a property consultancy company specializing in property
services and investment management.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L7Yyvb at no extra
charge.[CC]
JOSE GARZA: Ramirez Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fund Texas Choice et al.,
v. Jose Garza, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00859-RP (W.D. Tex.), the
Defendant Starr County District Attorney Gocha Allen Ramirez files
an unopposed motion for a 14 days extension of time to file a
response to the Plaintiffs amended motion for certification of the
Defendant Class and Appointment of Class Representatives and class
counsel.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VXQZ5Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cynthia Contreras Gutierrez, Esq.
CONTRERAS GUTIERREZ AND ASSOCIATES
1302 S. 10th Avenue
Edinburg, TX 78539
Telephone: (956) 683-0057
Facsimile: (956) 683-0059
E-mail: cynthia@ccglaw.net
JPMORGAN CHASE: Pontons Seek Damages for Deceptive Trade Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD PONTON, SR., Individually, RONALD PONTON, dba MEXICO MOVING
COMPANY, and TOMIKA PONTON, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A, Case No. 2:24-cv-00248 (W.D. Wash., February 22, 2024) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs are suing Defendants for their alleged unfair and
deceptive practices in the area of bank account garnishments.
Defendants have allegedly charged Plaintiff and class members legal
processing fees, overdraft fees, and/or insufficient funds fees
from the garnishment. The Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants
have used false, deceptive, or misleading statements in their
deposit agreements with Plaintiffs and other members of the class,
in violation of the DTPA and the UDTPA. The Plaintiffs further seek
damages and relief for gross negligence, willful misconduct, and
breach of contract.
JPMorgan Chase is an American multinational financial institution
with its principal office located at 277 Park Avenue, New York, NY.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina L. Henry, Esq.
SEATTLE CONSUMER JUSTICE
10728 16th Avenue SW
Seattle, WA 98146
Telephone: (206) 330-0595
Facsimile: (206) 400-7609
E-mail: chenry@hdm-legal.com
- and –
Venus Springs, Esq.
SPRINGS LAW FIRM PLLC
228 Park Ave S, Ste 54205
New York, NY 10003-1502
Telephone: (704) 241-9995
E-mail: vsprings@springslawfirm.com
KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Lawhon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM LAWHON, on behalf of himself and the putative Class Members,
Plaintiff v. KEHE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-00378 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.
This action stems from Defendant's policies and practices of: (1)
failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Class Members minimum wage
for all hours worked; (2) failing to pay Plaintiff and putative
Class Members overtime wages; (3) failing to provide or make
available to Plaintiff and putative Class Members the meal periods
to which they are entitled by law, and failing to pay premium
compensation payment for non-compliant meal breaks; (4) failing to
authorize and permit rest periods, and failing to pay premium
compensation payment for non-compliant rest periods; (5) failing to
provide Plaintiff and putative Class Members with accurate,
itemized wage statements; (6) failing to provide required employee
records; (7) failing to keep requisite payroll records; (8) failing
to timely pay all wages upon separation from employment; and (9)
engaging in unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an Order Selector in
Chino, California from approximately August 2023, until November
2023.
KeHe Distributors, Inc. is an employee-owned distribution company
headquartered in Naperville, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Eugene Zinovyev, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
ezinovyev@schneiderwallace.com
KIA MOTORS: Class Cert Reply Deadline Continued to March 7
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANDERY SANCHEZ, LOUISE
KNUDSON, ANDREA REIHERODOM, AMBER WITT, MARK TRESTON, MARGARET
RITZLER, HANK HERBER, LINDA WILBUR, THOMAS ROCCO, JERRY DUBOSE,
APRIL FISHER, AND TEWANA NELSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-01604-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L.
Staton entered an order granting stipulation to continue class
certification and related deadlines:
Date Deadline
March 7, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class
certification reply, 702 oppositions and any
affirmative 702 motions challenging Kia
experts.
April 4, 2024 Deadline for Kia to file its 702 replies,
and
702 oppositions.
May 2, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their 702
replies.
May 16, 2024 or Class certification and 702 motions hearing.
Kia operates as an automobile dealer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Sbp9K at no extra
charge.[CC]
KIA MOTORS: Class Cert. Hearing in Sanchez Amended to May 17
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANDERY SANCHEZ, LOUISE
KNUDSON, ANDREA REIHERODOM, AMBER WITT, MARK TRESTON, MARGARET
RITZLER, HANK HERBER, LINDA WILBUR, THOMAS ROCCO, JERRY DUBOSE,
APRIL FISHER, AND TEWANA NELSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., Case No.
8:20-cv-01604-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L.
Staton entered an amended order granting stipulation to continue
class certification and related deadlines:
Date Deadline
March 7, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class
certification reply, 702 oppositions and any
affirmative 702 motions challenging Kia
experts.
April 4, 2024 Deadline for Kia to file its 702 replies,
and
702 oppositions.
May 2, 2024 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their 702
replies.
May 17, 2024 at Class certification and 702 motions hearing.
Kia operates as an automobile dealer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l82Pct at no extra
charge.[CC]
KINNEY COUNTY, TX: Court Tosses Barcenas Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERASTO BARCENAS, MELVIN
AMADOR RODAS, IVAN RUANO NAVA, NOLIS LEYVA-GONZALEZ, JOSE CARLOS
GOMEZ-COLORADO, JOSE LUIS DOMINGUEZ-ROJAS, MELVIN AMAYA ZELAYA,
JESUS CURIPOMA, OSCAR SERRANO MARTINEZ, CHRISTIAN IVAN
RUIZ-RODRIGUEZ, ISRAEL BAYLON ARELLANO, JOSE LOPEZ LOZANO, MIGUEL
LOPEZ LOZANO, FRANCISCO VILLALPANDO RAMOS, and CESAR GALINDO
ESCOTO, v. STEVEN C. MCCRAW, GREG ABBOTT, BRYAN COLLIER, BRAD COE,
and KINNEY COUNTY, TEXAS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00397-RP (W.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman entered an order dismissing without
prejudice the Plaintiffs’ claims.
The Plaintiffs have already amended their complaint three times,
and the Court has already dismissed their claims without prejudice
once. In their Revised Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs have
failed to fix the deficiencies in their complaint that the Court
previously noted. Accordingly, the Court finds that further
amendment would be futile.
The Court said, "Because Plaintiffs' requests for declaratory
judgment are moot and because they fail to sufficiently plead that
Defendants have violated their constitutional rights, the Court
finds that it must dismiss this case. While Plaintiffs' Revised
Third Amended Complaint certainly provided the Court with
concerning statistics regarding the rollout of OLS, Plaintiffs have
not provided the Court with facts regarding how the individual or
supervisory powers and actions of Defendants have deprived
Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights."
The Plaintiffs are all male individuals who were arrested without
warrants for criminal trespass in Kinney County, Texas in 2021 or
2022, as part of the State of Texas's immigration initiative known
as Operation Lone Star ("OLS"), which was launched by Defendant
Abbott in March 2021.
The Plaintiffs allege that Abbott's actions and OLS policies, along
with the actions and policies of the other Defendants, violated
several of their constitutional rights.
Rather than processing them through the normal state jail system,
Plaintiffs and other individuals arrested under OLS for criminal
trespass are "channeled into a separate criminal system that is
designed by OLS only for migrants."
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0QO2Dr at no extra
charge.[CC]
LABCORP: Court Certifies Two Classes in Kiosk Accessibility Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Launey and Ashley Jenkins, writing for Seyfarth, reports
that on February 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit approved a federal trial court's certification of two
classes of plaintiffs to proceed against LabCorp regarding the
alleged inaccessibility of self-service check-in kiosks at
LabCorp's facilities. In the lawsuit, filed in the Central District
of California in January of 2020, the named plaintiff who is blind
claimed that he was denied effective communication and equal access
to LabCorp's services because the kiosks cannot be used without
sight. The plaintiff claimed that unlike sighted customers, he had
to wait for a staff member to notice him and assist him with
check-in, forcing him to wait longer to get into the patient queue,
and was not able to access other kiosk features like the ability to
privately alter account information.
On the appeal of the class certification grant, LabCorp argued that
the named plaintiff and other class members did not have standing
to pursue their claims because they were not injured by the kiosks'
inaccessibility. The Court disagreed, holding that the named
plaintiff could not use the inaccessible kiosk and had to wait for
an employee to notice him and check him in. Based on these facts,
the Court concluded that the named plaintiff "was denied effective
communication and, by extension, the full and equal enjoyment of
LabCorp's services."
The Court also rejected LabCorp's argument that the commonality
requirement for class certification was not met because the
standing of each class member to pursue the Unruh Act damages claim
requires an "individualized inquiry" into whether each class member
has demonstrated "difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment." The
Court disagreed with this argument, finding that this standard only
applies to the standing inquiry for construction-related Unruh Act
claims, not for effective communication claims. The Court
accordingly found the class commonality requirement satisfied
because "all class members maintain that their injury resulted from
the inaccessibility of a LabCorp kiosk." The Court found the other
Unruh Act damages class requirements of predominance, typicality,
manageability, and superiority also satisfied.
As for the ADA injunctive relief class, the Court rejected
LabCorp's argument that no single injunction could provide relief
to all class members because not all blind people prefer the same
accommodations. The Court found that the class members were injured
by the "complete inaccessibility of LabCorp kiosks for blind
individuals", not by LabCorp's failure to meet their preferences.
The Court adopted the district court's reasoning that the entire
class's injuries could be addressed by making the kiosks
accessible, even if some class members may prefer not to use the
kiosks.
The two classes certified are:
(1) a California class seeking damages under California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act, and
(2) a nationwide class seeking injunctive relief under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and
Affordable Care Act. The case will now proceed back in the district
court on the merits of the claims.
Given the recent proliferation of self-service equipment in public
accommodations, this case serves as an important reminder that
before entering into contracts for such equipment, businesses must
consider whether the equipment is accessible to users with
disabilities and, if not, whether there will be employees in the
area to provide prompt assistance. And while some courts have held
that prompt employee assistance can be provided at inaccessible
self-service equipment to comply with the ADA, providing accessible
self-service equipment mitigates risk of litigation. [GN]
LIMITLESS CREDIT: Court Denies Thomas Bid for Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN THOMAS, v.
LIMITLESS CREDIT REPAIR, LLC, Case No. 9:23-cv-80798-DMM (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order
granting motion for default final judgment as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied.
2. The Plaintiff's Motion for Default Final Judgment is
granted.
3. The Defendant Limitless is liable in damages to the named
Plaintiff in the amount of $427.00.
4. As a result of the Order, the trial of this matter,
previously
scheduled for the two-week period beginning Feb. 12, 2024, is
canceled.
On May 19, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his complaint alleging that
Limitless violated multiple provisions of the Credit Repair
Organizations Act.
In the Complaint, the Plaintiff also alleged that a putative class
of
people similar to Plaintiff was harmed by the wrongdoing of
Limitless, and that group of people should be certified as a class
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
On June 22, 2023, Limitless was served with the Complaint. On July
12, 2023, Austin Charbonneau, owner of Limitless, attempted to
represent Limitless without counsel, and he filed an Affidavit in
response to the Plaintiff's Complaint.
Limitless is a credit repair company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TEALSy at no extra
charge.[CC]
LOS ANGELES, CA: Seeks Dismissal of Bradshaw TAC
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS BRADSHAW,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity; JAMES CLARK, in his
individual and official capacity; THOMAS PETERS, in his individual
and official capacity; THE LANDSKRONER LAW FIRM, LTD. dba
LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC, a limited liability company; JACK
LANDSKRONER, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J LIBMAN APC, a
California Professional Corporation; MICHAEL J. LIBMAN, an
individual; KIESEL LAW LLP, a California limited liability
partnership; PAUL KIESEL, an individual; PARADIS LAW GROUP PLLC, a
New York Professional Service Limited Liability Company; PAUL
PARADIS, an individual, Case No. 2:19-cv-06661-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order dismissing with
prejudice, and without leave to amend, the Third Amended Complaint
("TAC") filed against her in this action.
Ms. Annaguey brings this motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6). The only claim asserted against Ms.
Annaguey in the TAC is the first claim for alleged violation of 42
U.S.C. section 1983 concerning conduct that allegedly occurred in
connection with a state court action captioned Jones v. City of Los
Angeles, Case BC577267 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. Cty.).
Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SH0Rn6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert B. Owens, Esq.
Linda Gach Ray, Esq.
OWENS & GACH RAY
269 South Beverly Drive, 1074
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 553-6611
Facsimile: (310) 553-2179
E-mail: rowens@ogrlaw.com
lgachray@ogrlaw.com
LOVEHONEY LLC: Faces L.D. Suit Over Disclosure of Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
L.D., individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOVEHONEY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-at-00167 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2024) is a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff all California residents against
the Defendant for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act and invasion of privacy under California's Constitution.
This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California
residents who have accessed and used www.lovehoney.com, a website
Defendant owns and operates. Through its website, Defendant markets
and sells sex toys, lingerie, bondage equipment, and lubricants.
Unbeknownst to consumers, however, Defendant collects various
information when they visit its Website, including personally
identifiable information as well as other sensitive personal
information, including information about their sexual life, sexual
preferences, and sexual orientation.
The Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with Facebook to
intercept such sensitive and confidential communications sent and
received by Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant's conduct,
as alleged herein, demonstrates a wholesale disregard for consumer
privacy rights. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and
equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions, the suit
says.
Lovehoney LLC owns and operates www.lovehoney.com, which sells
adult toys across the U.S. with its principal place of business in
Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
- and -
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com
MARS WRIGLEY: Summary Judgment Bid Held in Abeyance
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christine Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04422-AT
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order holding
in abeyance the Defendant's request to move for summary judgment,
pending its decision on the motion to dismiss.
Likewise, the Court holds in abeyance the Plaintiff's request to
move for class certification.
Mars Wrigley is a manufacturer of chocolate, chewing gum, mints,
and fruity confections.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DfNG8t at no extra
charge.[CC]
MATTERPORT INC: Bid for Leave to File Amended Complaint Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN LYNCH, on behalf of
himself and all other person similarly situated, v. MATTERPORT,
INC, a Delaware corporation; RJ PITTMAN, DAVE GAUSEBECK, MATT BELL,
CARLOS KOKRON, PETER HERBERT, JASON KIKORIAN, and MIKE GUSTAFSON,
Case No. 3:22-cv-03704-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William
Alsup entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for leave to
file third amended complaint and administrative motion to file
under seal.
-- The Plaintiff's administrative motion to seal has also been
denied.
-- The Plaintiff's motion does not specifically identify the
information in the document that warrants sealing; in fact,
counsel for plaintiff's declaration states that he has no
personal
knowledge as to why the report as been designated as
confidential.
Nor has counsel for defense provided a reason for why the report
warrants sealing. Thus, the requested sealing is wildly overbroad,
not narrowly tailored, and is deniable on that ground alone.
In this putative class action, the plaintiff seeks leave to file a
third amended complaint. The Plaintiff's administrative motion to
seal has also been denied.
Importantly, Matterport also developed the Matterport Service
Partner (MSP) program. This program incentivized 3D camera
purchases by helping purchasers start their own businesses selling
3D scans captured with these cameras. While enrollment in the
program itself was free, eligibility for enrollment was premised on
owning a Matterport camera and having a subscription for Matterport
software and cloud storage.
Shawn Lynch alleged that Matterport's marketing of its free MSP
program was deceptive. After making financial investments to be
eligible for (and then enrolling in) the MSP program, he saw few of
the benefits that had incentivized him to join.
Matterport is a spatial data company that develops 3D data
platform.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wt2h0z at no extra
charge.[CC]
MAU MIAMI: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
JORGE RODRIGUEZ and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. MAU MIAMI LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20693-KMW
(S.D. Fla., February 2, 2024) seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed by the Defendant as cook from
August 6, 2023, until his wrongful termination on October 16, 2023.
Throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked approximately 43 hours
per week, but MAU MIAMI failed to compensate him at 1.5 times his
hourly rate for all overtime worked. In addition, he was not paid
for 4 weeks of his employment, says the suit.
Mau Miami LLC owns and operates a Mediterranean restaurant in
Midtown Miami. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 482-1475
Email: julisse@legalopinionusa.com
MCKINSEY & CO: Class Settlement in Santa Cruz Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTA CRUZ COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA POPE COUNTY, ILLINOIS; and THE VILLAGE OF EDDYVILLE,
ILLINOIS, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons
Similarly Situated, v. MCKINSEY & CO., INC. (McKinsey & Co., Inc.
National Prescription Opiate Consultant Litigation), Case No.
3:21-md-02996-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles R. Breyer
entered an order that:
1. The Court dismisses the Action and all claims contained, as
well
as all of the Released Claims, with prejudice as to the
Parties,
including the Class.
2. Only those entities that timely submitted valid requests to
opt
out of the Settlement Class are not bound by this Order and
are
not entitled to any recovery from the Settlement.
3. The Court grants class certification for settlement purposes
only.
4. The Court confirms Class Members shall be required to use the
settlement funds exclusively for approved uses designed to
abate
the opioid epidemic set forth in Exhibit E ("List of Opioid
Remediation Uses") of the prior MDL 2804 settlements
5. The Court confirms the appointment of PSC -- Political
Subdivision Committee members, appointed by the Court in
Pretrial Order No. 2, as Settlement Class Counsel.
6. The Court confirms the appointment of Settlement Class
Representatives listed as Plaintiffs in the Amended Master
Class
Action Complaint (Subdivision).
7. The Court confirms the appointment of Epiq as Notice
Administrator.
8. The Court confirms the appointment of BrownGreer as Claims
Administrator.
9. The Court grants Class Counsel's proposed Plan of
Allocation.
10. The Court Grants class counsel's request for attorneys' fees
and costs and awards class counsel $ 31,050,000 in attorneys' fees
and costs, to be allocated by lead counsel among the PSC firms
performing common benefit work pursuant to terms of Pretrial Orders
Nos. 3 and 9.
The "Class" or "Settlement Class" means any:
(1) General Purpose Government (including, but not limited to, a
municipality, county, county subdivision, city, town,
township,
parish, village, borough, gore, or any other entity that
provides municipal-type government);
(2) Special District within a State; and
(3) any other subdivision, subdivision official (acting in an
official capacity on behalf of the subdivision), or
sub-entity
of or located within a State (whether political,
geographical
or otherwise, whether functioning or non-functioning,
regardless of population overlap, and including, but not
limited to, nonfunctioning governmental units and public
institutions).
The foregoing shall specifically include, but not be limited to,
the litigating subdivisions listed in Schedule A attached to the
Settlement Agreement, and as amended.
The terms "General Purpose Government" and "Special District" shall
correspond to the "basic types of local governments" recognized by
the U.S. Census Bureau and match the 2017 list of Governmental
Units.
The General-Purpose Governments are county, municipal, and township
governments. "Fire District," "Health District," "Hospital
District," and "Library District" shall to a State's Subdivisions
or to a Subdivision "in," "of," or "within" a State include
Subdivisions
located within the State even if they are not formally or legally a
sub-entity of the State; provided, however, that a "Health
District" that includes any of the following words or phrases in
its name
shall not be considered a Subdivision: mosquito, pest, insect,
spray, vector, animal, air quality, air pollution, clean air,
coastal water, tuberculosis, and sanitary.
Excluded from the Class are any sub-entity of Indiana, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and all school districts.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SfAgm3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aelish M. Baig, Esq.
Taeva C. Shefler, Esq.
Hadiya K. Deshmukh, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: aelishb@rgrdlaw.com
tshefler@rgrdlaw.com
hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com
META PLATFORM: Unauthorized Voiceprint Collection Suit Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gennaro of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge is allowing class privacy claims to continue against Meta
from a class of Illinois consumers who say Meta took their
voiceprints without permission in violation of an Illinois
biometric privacy law.
The named plaintiff Natalie Delgado is an Illinois citizen who says
that Meta took her voiceprint -- a digital representation of a
person's unique voice characteristics -- without complying with the
requirements of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Delgado claims that Meta uses the audio input into Facebook or
Messenger to create encoded data of the speaker's voice, and that
that data is then processed with an acoustical model that is then
trained and further refined using the voice of a particular speaker
such that the acoustical model can be used to recognize that user
by voice.
Meta moved to dismiss the case, arguing that California law, not
Illinois law, applied because the terms of service Delgado agreed
to when she used Meta's products contain a California choice-of-law
clause.
U.S. Senior District Judge Susan Illston found in her 16-page
opinion that Illinois had a materially greater interest in the
outcome of the case than California, so Illinois law applies.
Illston cited 2015's In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy
Litigation as precedent for using Illinois law, writing that many
courts across the country have cited the case when applying
Illinois law rather than the state law provided for in various
technology companies’ user agreements when choice-of-law
conflicts arise.
The plaintiffs in that case claimed that Facebook used facial
recognition technology to extract and store users' biometric
identifiers without their written consent in violation of the
biometric privacy act. The case ended in a $650 million settlement
in 2021.
"If California law is applied, the Illinois policy of protecting
its citizens' privacy interests in their biometric data, especially
in the context of dealing with "major national corporations" like
Facebook, would be written out of existence," Illston wrote.
"Illinois will suffer a complete negation of its biometric privacy
protections for its citizens if California law is applied. In
contrast, California law and policy will suffer little, if anything
at all, if BIPA is applied."
Illston wrote that Meta had failed to address the act in any cases
it cited.
"Defendant instead relies on various cases analyzing consumer
protection laws. But those cases provide little guidance to this
court regarding BIPA's application," she wrote.
Even if BIPA applies, Meta had argued that Delgado has not
plausibly alleged that Meta collected her voiceprint as opposed to
her voice recording, or that the company has profited off of the
use of her biometrics or failed to store and protect the data
properly. Meta claims that a voiceprint is "something more" than a
voice recording under the act, and Delgado must prove that Meta
actually used the voiceprint.
Illston wrote that Meta's arguments amounted to a heightened
pleading standard, which wasn't appropriate at this stage of the
case.
"The court disagrees with defendant that plaintiffs must
specifically allege that defendant, in fact, 'used' their biometric
data to determine their identities. Instead, plaintiffs must allege
that defendant's collection of their biometric data made defendant
capable of determining their identities," Illston wrote.
Illston did toss class claims that Meta does not properly protect
private data once collected and leaves the data open to
cyber-attacks, however, because the class has not put forward any
evidence that ties to how Meta stores their biometric information,
ill-gotten or otherwise, violating a section of the act that
requires companies protect biometric information from disclosure
"The complaint provides no allegations regarding how Meta stores
biometric data or how its practices fail to comply with the
reasonable standard of care. Without more, the fact that a company
has been and may again be subject to cyber-attacks does not make it
plausible that the company has violated an industry-wide standard
of care for purposes of Section 15(e) of BIPA," Illston wrote.
Delgado first sued in federal court in California in August 2023 on
behalf of herself and a putative class consisting of all natural
persons in Illinois from whom Meta created, collected, captured,
received, obtained or stored digital voice data, voice
characteristics and/or a voice profile. Delgado, on behalf of the
proposed class, seeks statutory damages under the act, an
injunction and attorneys' fees and costs. [GN]
MINT URBAN: Court Certifies Suit Over Managed and Charged Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catie Cheshire of Westword reports that after more than three years
of waiting, tenants of the Mint Urban Infinity apartments in Denver
have received class certification for their lawsuit alleging that
the property was improperly managed and charged fees for unprovided
services.
"I felt like I got the wind knocked out of me," says Brandon Smith,
one of the named members of the class action lawsuit, which could
encompass thousands of people. "I was just overwhelmed with relief
and joy."
According to Smith, he and his neighbors began organizing a lawsuit
when conditions at their multi-building, 561-unit apartment complex
at 1225 South Bellaire Street and 1253 South Birch Street got so
bad that they couldn't afford not to act.
"I was catfished by a bad landlord, and their false advertising
roped me in, and the place turned out to be a slum," says Smith,
who moved out of Mint Urban in 2022. "There was black mold,
cockroaches. There were no doors on the exteriors of the buildings
or security, so they were all broken. We had unhoused people
sleeping in our laundry rooms, strangers walking around and
checking doors to see who left their apartment door unlocked."
Nearly all the elevators in the complex were broken, and the air
conditioning and heating systems regularly went out, resulting in
uninhabitable temperatures, according to residents. Smith says the
property manager at the time, Cardinal Group Management, didn't
take action to fix any of the issues.
"They were gaslighting us, telling us that these were isolated
incidents, until we started talking to one another," he says. "The
Warranty of Habitability in its entirety was used as toilet paper
by our landlord."
The Colorado Warranty of Habitability law requires landlords to
maintain minimum living standards and complete repairs to items
that impact health and safety. Residents in the lawsuit argue that
Cardinal did neither, and they're demanding a refund. They filed
their original legal complaint naming Cardinal and Mint Urban
property owners Glendale Properties I and II in September 2021.
Mint residents argued that the property's poor state created a
breach of the Warranty of Habitability for everyone who lived there
at the time, and that certain fees included in the standard lease
violated Colorado law. The lawsuit seeks damages and refunds for
overpayment during months that residents lived in uninhabitable
conditions, as well as certain fees charged by property management
and other costs incurred over the course of the lawsuit. If the
former Mint residents' case is successful, a jury will determine
the specific amount in damages owed.
The plaintiffs are represented by Jason Legg, of Justice for the
People Legal Center, and Steven Woodrow, who is also a member of
the Colorado House of Representatives.
Around ten months after an April 2023 hearing in Denver District
Court to determine if the lawsuit was eligible for class action,
Judge Martin Egelhoff ruled on February 22 that there are two sets
of people who fit the bill: anyone who lived at Mint Urban from
September 2018 to June 30, 2022, and anyone who lived there during
that time period and was charged an administrative fee on or after
August 2, 2019. That fee was assessed to all tenants and was meant
to cover the costs of addressing maintenance during the lease
period.
"The deficiencies as alleged affected not only individual units but
common areas throughout the property, and occurred over an extended
period of time," Egelhoff writes in his decision.
Therefore, Egelhoff continues, the class would be large enough that
litigating each case individually would be impractical. Egelhoff
added that because the claims are small, tenants likely wouldn't
have the motivation to take on the expense of individual lawsuits,
so class action is the best path forward.
The lawsuit had also petitioned for a third class of plaintiffs who
claim they were charged illegal move-out fees by Mint Urban, but
Egelhoff denied that request because he didn't believe there were
enough people in that category to warrant its inclusion. Still, the
plaintiffs' attorneys were pleased with the outcome.
"We're very, very happy the court agreed," Legg says of the two
classes that got certified. "Now we'll be able to do something:
take them to trial. A ruling there, if we prevail, would mean that
a whole community would get justice."
Because there are 561 units and the case spans almost four years,
thousands of people could get compensation should the jury agree
with Smith and his former neighbors. But Cardinal Group doesn't
expect the jury to see it that way.
"Cardinal cares deeply about creating communities where residents
thrive," the company says through a spokesperson. "This lawsuit
erroneously challenges our dedication to that mission, so we will
continue to defend ourselves vigorously in court against these
allegations. Of course, we plan to request leave to appeal the
recent class certification decisions. We believe that the facts in
this case will speak for themselves, and we will allow the Denver
District Court to decide this case, rather than the court of public
opinion." [GN]
MISSOURI HIGHER: Caldiero Sues Over Student Loan Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE CALDIERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY;
KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION D/B/A LAUREL ROAD; and PENNSYLVANIA
HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY D/B/A FEDLOAN SERVICING,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00315-JKM (M.D. Pa., Feb. 22, 2024)
alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
operating and conspiring in the operation of a RICO enterprise to
defraud student borrowers eligible for the federal Public Student
Loan Forgiveness program by steering them into costly private-loan
refinancings which would never be eligible for benefits of federal,
as opposed to private, student loan obligations.
The Plaintiff, without her knowledge or consent, was misled by the
Defendants into refinancing her federal loan into a private student
loan, resulting in her losing the benefits of the federal programs,
and incurring tens of thousands of dollars in unnecessary,
additional debt, says the suit.
MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY owns and services student
loans established by the Higher Education Act under the Federal
Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). Loans authorized under FFELP
include Subsidized and Unsubsidized Stafford, Parent Loans for
Undergraduate Students (PLUS), Supplemental Loans for Students
(SLS), and Consolidation loans. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
John J. Grogan, Esq.
David A. Nagdeman, Esq.
LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, P.C.
1717 Arch St., Ste 4020
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 320-5660
Email: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com
jgrogan@langergrogan.com
dnagdeman@langergrogan.com
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Courtemanche Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON COURTEMANCHE; BRETT FORESMAN; JUAN RIOS; and DENNIS WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.; and COLONEL JOHN E. MAWN,
JR., Interim Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, in
his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-40030 (D.
Mass., Feb. 22, 2024) seek equitable relief specifically a
declaration that the Plaintiffs' arrest, detention, imprisonment,
the deprivation of their monies, labor associated with their
community service, and seizure of their property violates
constitutional due process, and injunctive relief.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants used
intercepting devices to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid
another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of wire or
oral communications between themselves and Plaintiffs, in violation
of Massachusetts and federal law. The Defendants failed to obtain
warrants as required by law.
The Defendants willfully procured themselves to commit
interceptions or to attempt to commit interceptions of wire or oral
communications between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs, in
violation of Massachusetts and federal law, says the suit.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. is a data communications and
telecommunications equipment provider. The Company develops data
capture, wireless, infrastructure, bar code scanning, two-way
radios, and wireless broadband networks. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher R. Batinsey, Esq.
BATINSEY LEGAL P.C.
344 Main St Suite 14
Fitchburg, MA 01420
Telephone: (617) 682-0254
Email: cbatinsey@batinseylegal.com
- and -
James O'Connor, Jr., Esq.
NICKLESS, PHILLIPS AND O'CONNOR, P.C.
780 Main St PO Box 2101
Fitchburg, MA 01420
Telephone: (978) 342-4590
Email: joconnor@npolegal.com
- and -
Christopher J. Walton, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. WALTON
56 Elm St
Fitchburg, MA 01420
Telephone: (978) 342-9100
Email: attycjw@aol.com
MOUNTAIN LAUREL: Seeks to File Class Cert Objections Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR COSTELLO,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
MOUNTAIN LAUREL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00035-TAV-CRW
(E.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
granting motion for leave to file under seal its objections to the
Magistrate's report and recommendation on the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and objections to the Magistrate's order on
Defendant's Daubert motions.
Mountain Laurel specializes in underwriting motor vehicle insurance
policies for Progressive.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=32rj13 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Allison Hill White, Esq.
Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
mbrigman@kslaw.com
awhite@kslaw.com
jbarrett@kslaw.com
- and -
Taylor A. Williams, Esq.
PAINE, TARWATER, & BICKERS, LLP
900 South Gay Street, Suite 2200
Knoxville, TN 37902-1821
Telephone: (865) 525-0880
E-mail: taw@painetarwater.com
Counsel for Non-Parties J.D. Power and Mitchell International, Inc:
Scott Schutte, Esq.
Staci M. Holthus, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60606
E-mail: Scott.schutte@morganlewis.com
Staci.holthus@morganlewis.com
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Faces Antitrust Class Suit in N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit called Moehrl et al. v. National Association
of Realtors, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01610 ("Moehrl v. NAR" or
"Moehrl") is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Court"). The lawsuit alleges
the existence of an anticompetitive agreement that resulted in home
sellers paying inflated commissions to real estate brokers or
agents in violation of antitrust law. Defendants deny the
allegations and the Court has not decided whether Defendants did
anything wrong.
Who is included in the Litigation Damages Class?
Plaintiffs are a class of home sellers certified by the Court. To
be part of the "Litigation Damages Class" in the ongoing Moehrl
lawsuit, you need to have (1) sold a home between March 6, 2015 and
December 31, 2020; (2) used a real estate agent or broker
affiliated with a Corporate Defendant to sell the home; (3) paid a
commission to your agent or broker; and (4) listed the home for
sale on what is referred to as a "Covered Multiple Listing
Service." ("Covered MLS")
Defendants include The National Association of Realtors ("NAR") and
several large real estate brokerage firms referred to here as
"Corporate Defendants." The Corporate Defendants are Keller
Williams; RE/MAX; Anywhere Real Estate f/k/a Realogy (which is
affiliated with brands including Better Homes and Gardens, Century
21, Coldwell Banker, Corcoran, ERA Real Estate, and Sotheby's)
(collectively "Anywhere"); and HomeServices of America and certain
of its subsidiaries (which are together affiliated with brands
including Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices, BHHS, Ebby Halliday,
Edina Realty, First Weber, Kentwood, Long & Foster, Lovejoy,
Midwest Preferred, Preferred Carolinas, Real Living, RLRE, and Roy
H. Long Realty) (collectively, "HomeServices").
The Covered MLSs and jurisdictions are:
-- Bright MLS (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia)
-- Carolina/Canopy MLS (North Carolina, South Carolina)
-- Triangle MLS (North Carolina)
-- Stellar MLS (Florida)
-- Miami MLS (Florida)
-- Florida Gulf Coast MLS (Florida)
-- Realcomp II (Michigan)
-- Metro MLS (Wisconsin)
-- Northstar MLS (Minnesota, Wisconsin)
-- Yes MLS/MLS Now (Ohio, West Virginia)
-- Columbus Realtors MLS (Ohio)
-- Wasatch Front MLS/Utah Real Estate (Utah)
-- REcolorado/Metrolist (Colorado)
-- Pikes Peak MLS (Colorado)
-- GLVAR MLS (Nevada)
-- SABOR (Texas)
-- ACTRIS/ABOR (Texas)
-- HAR MLS (Texas)
-- NTREIS (Texas)
-- ARMLS (Arizona)
Have there been any Settlements?
Plaintiffs have entered into proposed Nationwide Settlements for
$208.5 million and other benefits with three of the Defendants --
Anywhere, RE/MAX, and Keller Williams (the "Settling Defendants").
If finally approved, the settlements will resolve claims against
Anywhere, RE/MAX, and Keller Williams raised in this lawsuit as
well as in at least two other lawsuits: Burnett, et al. v. National
Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 19-CV-00332-SRB (Western
District of Missouri); and Nosalek v. MLS Property Information
Network, Inc. ("MLS PIN"), et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-12244-PBS
(District of Massachusetts). The Moehrl v. NAR case will proceed in
federal court in Illinois against any Defendants who do not settle.
Additional settlements may be reached with other Defendants. See
www.RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com for information about
further developments in this litigation, including information
about any additional settlements.
Who is included in the Settlement Class?
The Settlement Class is broader than the Moehrl Litigation Damages
Class. It includes home sellers who are members of the Moehrl
Litigation Damages Class, as well as many other home sellers. You
may be eligible to benefit from the Nationwide Settlements, if you:
(1) sold a home during the "Eligible Date Range";
(2) listed the home that was sold on a multiple listing
service ("MLS") anywhere in the United States; and
(3) paid a commission to any real estate brokerage in
connection with the sale of the home. The Settlement Agreements
include a Release of Claims. Notice regarding the Nationwide
Settlements and the claims being released is being provided
separately. Additional information, including the "Eligible Date
Range" is available at: www.RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com.
What are your rights and options?
You may have rights under both the ongoing Moehrl lawsuit and the
Nationwide Settlements.
Moehrl Lawsuit -- Litigation Damages Class:
There is no money available now in the ongoing Moehrl lawsuit
against the Non-Settling Defendants, and no guarantee there will
be. However, your legal rights are affected, and you have a choice
to make now.
Nationwide Settlements -- Settlement Class:
Your legal rights are also affected under the proposed Settlements
with RE/MAX, Anywhere, and Keller Williams, and you have a choice
to make now.
To get a payment in the Settlements, you must submit a claim by May
9, 2025. For further information about the proposed Settlements and
where to submit a claim, go to
www.RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com.
Rights and Options:
-- Do Nothing. (Stay in the Moehrl lawsuit. Await the outcome.
Give up certain rights.)
-- Ask to be Excluded from the Settlements and the Moehrl
Litigation Damages Class.
-- Ask to be Excluded from the Settlements -- But Not the Moehrl
Litigation Damages Class.
-- Ask to be Excluded from the Moehrl Litigation Damages Class --
But Not the Settlements.
To learn more about your rights, options, and benefits, go to
www.RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com/Moehrl (Moehrl lawsuit) and
www.RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com (Nationwide Settlements).
To exclude yourself (opt out) of the Moehrl Litigation Damages
Class, you must send an "Exclusion Request" in the form of a letter
sent by mail, including (a) your name and address, and (b) a
statement that you want to be excluded from the Litigation Damages
Class certified in Moehrl et al. v. National Association of
Realtors, et al. You may also get an Exclusion Request form at
www.RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com/Moehrl. To be accepted, your
Exclusion Request letter must be postmarked by April 13, 2024, and
addressed to:
Moehrl et al. v. The National Association of Realtors et al.
c/o JND Legal Administration -- Exclusion Dpt.
PO Box 91486
Seattle, WA 98111
To object to or exclude yourself (opt-out) from one or both of the
settlements with Settling Defendants, you must do so by April 13,
2024. The deadline to submit a claim for a payment in the
Nationwide Settlements is May 9, 2025. To learn more about the
Nationwide Settlements, how to file a claim, and rights you would
be releasing, go to www.RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com.
The Trial.
As long as the Moehrl case isn't resolved by a settlement or
otherwise, Plaintiffs will have to prove their claims at a trial to
recover from any Defendants who do not have approved settlements.
The Court appointed the law firms Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. to
represent members of the Moehrl Litigation Classes as Class
Counsel. You do not need to attend the trial. Class Counsel will
present the case for Plaintiffs and the Litigation Classes, and
lawyers for the Defendants will present on their behalf. You or
your own lawyer are welcome to come at your own expense.
How do I get more information?
This notice is only a summary. To learn more, visit
www.RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com/Moehrl, call 888‑995-0207,
email info@RealEstateCommissionLitigation.com, or write to Moehrl
v. National Association of Realtors, c/o JND Legal Administration,
PO Box 91479, Seattle, WA 98111. [GN]
NCAA: Hubbard Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUBA HUBBARD and KEIRA
MCCARRELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; ATLANTIC
COAST CONFERENCE; THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC.; THE BIG 12
CONFERENCE, INC.; PAC-12 CONFERENCE; and SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01593-CW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting administrative motion to provisionally
file under seal pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11, 79-5 and the
Stipulation and Order Regarding Administrative Motions to Seal
entered by the Court on Jan. 29, 2024.
The Plaintiffs have attempted to file their class certification
documents using the ECF Event for "Documents e-Filed Under Seal" by
linking to the Order.
However, the Order does not appear to have been designated in the
ECF system as an order granting a motion to seal.
Therefore, the ECF system prevents Plaintiffs from linking to the
Order and using the ECF Event for "Documents e-Filed Under Seal."
Pursuant to the Order, the Plaintiffs are concurrently filing under
seal either portions of or in their entirety the following
documents:
1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;
2. Declaration of Steve W. Berman in Support of Plaintiffs'
Motion
for Class Certification and Appointment of Hagens Berman
Sobol
Shapiro LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel; and
3. Expert Class Certification Report of Daniel A. Rascher.
National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates
student athletics among about 1100 schools in the United States,
and one in Canada.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h6z2TH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Emilee N. Sisco, Esq.
Stephanie A. Verdoia, Esq.
Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
emilees@hbsslaw.com
stephaniev@hbsslaw.com
bens@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
David L. Greenspan, Esq.
Adam I. Dale, Esq.
Jeanifer E. Parsigian, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-4193
Telephone: (212) 294-4698
Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
E-mail: jkessler@winston.com
dgreenspan@winston.com
aidale@winston.com
jparsigian@winston.com
NEBRASKA BOOK: Amended Case Progression Order Entered in Degroot
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DEGROOT, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; and STEVEN
SHOWALTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;
v. NEBRASKA BOOK COMPANY, INC., NEBRASKA BOOK HOLDINGS, INC.,
CONCISE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, and AB LENDING SPV I LLC, d/b/a
Mountain Ridge Capital; Case No. 4:23-cv-03041-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.),
the Hon. Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an amended case
progression order as follows:
1) The status conference set on March 20, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. is
cancelled. The status conference to discuss case progression
and
the parties' interest in settlement is rescheduled before the
undersigned magistrate Judge on May 29, 2024, at 10:30 a.m.
by
telephone.
2) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to
depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is
extended
to June 4, 2024.
3) Motion to Certify a Class Action.
a. Any motion to certify this case as a class action shall be
filed by June 18, 2024, in the absence of which any claim
in
the pleadings that this is a class action shall be deemed
abandoned, and the case shall proceed, for purposes of
Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23, as if a motion for class certification had
been filed and denied by the Court.
b. The Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs'
class
certification motion by July 2, 2024.
c. The Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of motion
for
class cert. by Aug. 6, 2024.
4) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for
summary judgment is Aug. 6, 2024.
5) The deadlines for expert witness identification and
disclosure,
and the filing of Daubert motions remain stayed.
6) The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and
agreements recited in their Rule 26(f) planning report that
are
not inconsistent with this order.
7) All requests for changes of deadlines or settings established
herein shall be directed to the undersigned magistrate judge.
Such requests will not be considered absent a showing of due
diligence in the timely progression of this case and the
recent
development of circumstances, unanticipated prior to the
filing
of the motion, which require that additional time be allowed.
Nebraska Book is a systems developer, a solutions provider and even
a textbook distributor.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XFP55Y at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Briefing Adjourned
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Doe v. New York
University, Case No. 1:23-cv-10515 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Dec 1, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Vernon S Broderick entered an order that briefing on
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is adjourned pending
the Court's decision on Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Education.
NYU is a research university and is a member of the selective
Association of American Universities.[CC]
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Must Produce 2019-20 ASY Bulletin
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY E. HALL-LANDERS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEW
YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order as follows:
1. The Defendant shall promptly search for and produce for the
2019-2020 academic school year (i) the "bulletin" or
analogous
document for Defendant's schools in its New York City campus
and
(ii) any university-wide welcome mailers or analogous
communications to Defendant's students.
2. The Plaintiff shall provide Defendant with additional
information regarding the pages of the Defendant's website
that
Plaintiff reviewed, to allow Defendant to search for and
produce the archived pages through the Wayback Machine.
3. The Defendant shall promptly ascertain and advise Plaintiff
whether Defendant's schools other than the Tisch School of
the
Arts maintain separate codes of conduct, and if so, produce
such
codes of conduct.
4. The Defendant shall identify for Plaintiff all social media
platforms Defendant utilized for the 2019-2020 academic
school
year.
NYU is a research university and is a member of the selective
Association of American Universities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SUXr19 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Lowery Suit Transferred from D. Nev. to E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RATIEK LOWERY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. and
PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-01857, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 16, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:24-cv-00733-RPK-LGD to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants for their
failure to secure and safeguard his and approximately 3.9 million
other individuals' personally identifying information and personal
health information, including names, Social Security numbers, dates
of birth, addresses, medical record numbers, encounter numbers,
medical information, and dates/times of service.
Northwell Health, Inc. is the largest health system in New York.
Perry Johnson & Associates is a third-party vendor of health
information technology solutions used by Northwell.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan R. Ring, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (725) 235-9750
E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
NOVO NORDISK: Chairs Bid for Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAIRES et al v. NOVO
NORDISK INC. et al. (INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION), Case No.
2:17-cv-00699-BRM-RLS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti
entered an order:
-- Denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and
-- Granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Daubert
Motion.
The action arises out of the Plaintiffs' challenge to the
Defendants' allegedly unfair and unconscionable pricing scheme for
their analog insulin products.
The Plaintiffs are analog insulin consumers who filed the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint ("TAC") on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, i.e.:
"All individual persons in the United States and its
territories
who paid any portion of the purchase price for a prescription of
Apidra, Basaglar, Fiasp, Humalog, Lantus, Levemir, Novolog,
Tresiba, and/or Toujeo at a price calculated by reference to a
list
price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), or WAC (Wholesale
Acquisition
Price) for purposes other than resale."
The Defendants are manufacturers who manufacture and sell
prescription medications, including analog insulin products.
Accordingly, the Court finds predominance is defeated as to
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Novo Nordisk and Sanofi Texas Classes,
Proposed Kansas Classes, and Proposed Utah Classes, making class
certification for these classes under Rule 23(b)(3) unsuitable.
The Defendants are manufacturers who manufacture and sell
prescription medications, including analog insulin products.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GsvuCs at no extra
charge.[CC]
OKTA INC: Plaintiffs Class Cert Bid Granted
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Okta, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:22-cv-02990-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston
entered an order that:
(1) The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is granted;
(2) The Class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
(3) Plaintiffs are appointed as Class Representatives; and
(4) Labaton Sucharow LLP is appointed as Class Counsel.
Okta is an American identity and access management company based in
San Francisco.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZhxgFk at no extra
charge.[CC]
PALO ALTO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:PANW) common stock between August
18, 2023 and February 20, 2024. Palo Alto Networks is a
multinational cybersecurity company that offers an enterprise
cybersecurity platform for network security, cloud security, and
various cloud-delivered security.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: According to the complaint, during the class
period, defendants failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company's consolidation and platformization
initiatives were not driving increased market share to a
significant degree;
(2) the Company would need to ramp up platformization and free
product offerings to entice customers to adopt more of their
platforms;
(3) the Company's high growth in billings was not sustainable;
and
(4) new AI offerings were not facilitating greater
platformization and consolidation.
On February 20, 2024, Palo Alto announced its financial results for
the second quarter of 2024 and lowered its third quarter and
full-year billings and revenue guidance, with expected billings
growth between 2-4% and total revenue growth between 13-15%. In an
earnings call on the same day, defendant Arora explained that "our
guidance is a consequence of us driving a shift in our strategy in
wanting to accelerate both our platformization and consolidation
and activating our AI leadership." Defendant Arora also revealed
that U.S. federal government deals for several large projects did
not close and resulted in "a significant shortfall in our U.S.
federal government business" that is expected to continue into the
third and fourth quarters of 2024. Defendant Arora further claimed,
"[t]he situation started off towards the end of Q1 were worsened in
Q2." On this news, the price of Palo Alto Networks common stock
declined by $104.12 per share, or approximately 28%, from $366.09
per share on February 20, 2024 to close at $261.97 on February 21,
2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as
lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court
by April 26, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
PANERA BREAD: Settles Class Suit Over Delivery Fees for $2M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Lagatta of USA TODAY reports that if you've ordered food from
Panera Bread that was delivered to your door, you may be owed some
money.
Panera Bread has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a class action
lawsuit accusing the bakery-cafe chain of misleading customers
about prices and fees for delivery orders. But before you go
looking to submit a claim, only those customers who ordered food
for delivery between Oct. 1, 2020 and Aug. 31, 2021 are eligible
for some settlement funds, according to Kroll Settlement
Administration, which was appointed to oversee the settlement.
Under the settlement terms, customers can receive vouchers or an
electronic cash payment. Panera, meanwhile, agreed to resolve the
case under the condition that the company would not have to admit
to any wrongdoing.
Panera did not immediately respond on February 27, 2024 morning to
a message left by USA TODAY seeking comment.
Here's what to know about the lawsuit against Panera, and how you
can submit a settlement claim.
What is the lawsuit against Panera about?
The plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit said they paid more than
expected for delivery orders from Panera, accusing the sandwich and
soup restaurant of misleading customers about both the cost of
delivery fees and menu prices.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that Panera would promise to
provide either free or low-cost deliveries with a $1 or flat rate
to customers who ordered through the company's mobile app or
website. Instead, customers accused Panera of then loading on
hidden fees, according to a lawsuit filed last year in Illinois.
Panera is alleged to have marked up food prices for delivery orders
by 5% to 7%, the plaintiffs wrote. For example, a customer who
ordered a sandwich through the mobile app may have been charged an
extra $1 for delivery than if they were to pick it up in the store,
the lawsuit states.
This extra fee was only displayed on the app or website after a
customer chose delivery or pickup, the lawsuit alleged.
"This secret menu price markup was specifically designed to cover
the costs of delivering food and profit on that delivery,"
according to the lawsuit. "It was, in short, exclusively a charge
for using Panera's delivery service and was, therefore, a delivery
charge."
Chick-fil-A recently agreed to settle a similar class-action
lawsuit alleging that the fast-food chain charged inflated prices
for delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. The company agreed to
pay $4.4 million to settle the lawsuit, which was filed in Georgia
in October 2023 and accused Chick-fil-A of hiking up its menu
prices by 30% for delivery orders.
How can I file a claim for settlement money?
Those customers who believe they qualify for Panera's settlement
money can file a claim online here by the deadline of June 10.
You'll need to provide proof of purchase to verify your claim,
which can be the phone number that placed the order and an email
notice if you received one.
Eligible customers can receive either two vouchers valued at $9.50
each for a free menu item at Panera, or an electronic payment of up
to $12 via PayPal, according to the settlement website.
Separate litigation against Panera concerns its energy drinks
Panera Bread has also found itself at the center of multiple
lawsuits since late last year regarding its line of highly
caffeinated Charged Lemonade drinks.
Two lawsuits, filed in October and December of last year, allege
the drink's caffeine contents caused the cardiac arrests that
killed two separate people, while a third filed this year alleges
the beverage caused permanent heart issues.
The drinks are still available for purchase on Panera's menu with
the addition of product warnings. A judge recently denied Panera's
request to dismiss one of the suits, signaling that these cases may
take some time to resolve. [GN]
PAPA JOHN'S: Court Vacates Class Cert Schedule in Guerra Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDDIE GUERRA and COLIN
JACKSON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01933-LB (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order that:
1) All class certification-related deadlines set forth in the
Case-
Management and Pretrial Order are vacated.
2) If the case is not resolved through mediation, the Parties
will
submit a new class certification schedule as part of the
joint
case management conference submitted in advance of the Feb.
29,
2024 case management conference.
Papa John's is an American pizza restaurant chain.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vIJa2j at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric A. Grover, Esq.
Rachael G. Jung, Esq.
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 543-1305
Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
rjung@kellergrover.com
- and -
Scot Bernstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
Folsom, CA 95630
Telephone: (916) 447-0100
Facsimile: (916) 933-5533
E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
Sean Patterson, Esq.
Meghan C. Killiam, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
444 W Lake St Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60606
PATREON INC: Stark Seeks More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAYDEN STARK, JUDD
OOSTYEN, ISAAC BELENKIY, VALERIE BURTON, LAURA GOODFIELD and
DENOVIAS MACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PATREON, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a 90-day
extension of their deadline to file their motion for class
certification.
The Court issued its Order allowing the amendment on Jan. 26, 2024,
which would make Feb. 9 the deadline to respond to Patreon's
discovery and Feb. 26 the last day for plaintiff depositions.
Although the new Plaintiffs are prepared to satisfy these
obligations, these dates leave little time for the parties to meet
and confer or produce documents sufficiently in advance of their
depositions.
In addition, Patreon has not indicated when it will produce
documents pertaining to the new Plaintiffs.
On April 14, 2023, the Court entered a pretrial schedule requiring
Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification by March
15, 2024.
Since that time, the Plaintiffs have engaged in ongoing, extensive
efforts to obtain discovery from Defendant Patreon.
As a result, the Plaintiffs bring this administrative motion for a
90-day extension of their deadline to file their motion for class
certification.
The Court also set deadlines for the following case events:
-- Discovery Cut-Off: July 10, 2024
-- Expert Disclosure: Aug. 24, 2024
-- Expert Rebuttal: Sept. 9, 2024
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Oct. 14, 2024
Patreon develops application software.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Q1WSb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Simon Grille, Esq.
Reid Gaa, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
sgrille@girardsharp.com
rgaa@girardsharp.com
PROLITEC INC: Faces Lewis Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROLITEC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-002269 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Feb. 18,
2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief and
damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant made text message sales calls
that promoted Aera home scenting technology and violated the Caller
ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller
identification services a telephone number that was not capable of
receiving telephone calls.
Prolitec, Inc. is a technology-enabled air care services
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
PURPOSE POINT: Gomez-Echeverria Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS GOMEZ-ECHEVERRIA, et
al., v. PURPOSE POINT HARVESTING LLC, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00314-JMB-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Defendants asks the Court
to enter an order granting request leave to file class cert
Sur-Reply.
Purpose Point is a farm labor contracting company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=omht7o at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Teresa Hendricks, Esq.
Benjamin O'Hearn, Esq.
Molly Spaak, Esq.
MIGRANT LEGAL AID
1104 Fuller Ave. NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-1371
Telephone: (616) 454-5055
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
600 28th St. SW
Wyoming, MI 49509
Telephone: (616) 257-6807
E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com
PVL TRUCKING: Salinas Suit Seeks Delivery Assistants' OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS GARCIA SALINAS, and all others similarly situated v. PVO
TRUCKING, INC., a Florida corporation, and PASTOR V. ORTEZ, an
individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-20702 (S.D. Fla., February 22, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a delivery assistant
for approximately five years, from 2019 to January 17, 2024.
Throughout his employment with the company, he was never paid any
overtime premium for hours worked over 40 hours in each work week.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern,
practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA.
Based in Miami, FL, PVO Trucking, Inc. provides freight
transportation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
melanie@nklegal.com
RETINA GROUP: Court Consolidates Class Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law reports that the Retina Group of
Washington PLLC was targeted in seven suits related to a 2023 data
breach, which have now been consolidated into one class action by a
federal court.
"[C]onsolidation of the related actions and appointing interim
co-lead counsel will promote judicial efficiency and order case
management while avoiding unnecessary cost and delay," Judge
Theodore D. Chuang said for the US District Court for the District
of Maryland.
The personal information collected by RGW, and disclosed during the
breach, included social security and driver's license numbers,
medical records, names, home and email addresses, and telephone
numbers. [GN]
RETURN TO NATURE: Class Action Notices Sent to Class Members
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vitatoe, writing for KKTV, reports that months after a class
action lawsuit against the Return to Nature funeral home was filed,
notices are going out to get as many people impacted involved as
possible.
It was filed at the end of October, the same month nearly 200
bodies were found in the Penrose building for the Return to Nature
Funeral Home. Last month, that lawsuit was certified in Fremont
County, and on Tuesday, a hearing was held for the notices that
will go out to families.
The lawsuit was filed by Andrew Swan from Leventhal Lewis Kuhn
Taylor Swan PC on behalf of a man named Richard Law, who had a
loved one found in Return to Nature. The lawsuit, being class
action, also represents all family members in similar positions.
Swan said he has been in contact with more than a hundred people,
so far. But Crystina Page, whose son was among the nearly 200
bodies found, said there are many more family members waiting for
answers.
"I'm super encouraged to see how the class action moves forward for
the 1,148 rather than just the 190," Page said, referring to the
1,148 family members known so far to have been directly impacted by
the 190 bodies found.
Per their last update, CBI confirmed there are still bodies left
unidentified. This means there are still families waiting for
answers who cannot take advantage of compensation for mental health
resources or do not know if they are even involved in the massive
investigation.
"This uncertainty has to be devastating for the people who haven't
yet received confirmation one way or the other," said Swan.
But Page and other family members impacted said the financial
aspect of the lawsuit is the least of their concerns.
"There's no amount of money that can undo what they have done,"
Page said. "But to know they'll be held accountable is the
important part there for me."
It's that aspect that Swan said is paramount for his suit.
"There's certainly the symbolic aspect, and of course, we are
hoping to make members of the Class whole," Swan said.
He said he has not heard back from Jon or Carie Hallford or their
lawyers. With Jon Hallford being out of jail on bond, 11 News did
reach out to the public defender's office to reach his lawyer, but
as of writing this article, they have not responded.
Family members have until March 29 to opt in or out of the lawsuit.
[GN]
RETURN TO NATURE: Reminds Families of Deadlines to Opt-Out Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quinn Ritzdorf, writing for KRDO, reports that when Richard Law
found out his father, Roger, was one of the 189 bodies found
improperly stored inside the Return to Nature Funeral Home in
Penrose, Colorado, he decided to sue the owners and allow other
families to join in.
Immediate family members of Return to Nature victims are already
included in the class action lawsuit against the Hallfords at no
legal cost. In court, it was stated any individuals who wanted to
opt out of the case must do so by Mar. 29.
Roger Law was a man of many lives. He was a marine, a professional
baseball player with the Baltimore Orioles, and the owner of a
local shoe business.
"He was a real jokester, prankster," Richard said of his father.
"He had so many friends, loved to play cards and go to CC hockey
games."
In 2020, Roger was diagnosed with COVID-19. A week later he died.
He was supposed to be cremated by Return to Nature Funeral Home,
but Richard eventually learned that didn't happen. Like many other
families, he was given fake ashes of concrete mix and his father's
death certificate listed the name of a crematory that never
cremated his body.
"What you do with the remains, with their body, is like the last
act of care," Richard said. "It's the last tangible, practical act
of care that we get to provide for our loved ones."
That last act of love was never completed. In October, Roger was
identified as one of the 189 bodies improperly stored inside an
abandoned funeral home in Penrose.
"This last act of love and care and these people take these bodies
and they dispose of them like a bag of garbage," Richard said.
When Richard found out what happened he filed a lawsuit on October
30 against the owners, Jon and Carie Hallford, and decided to allow
other families of victims to join. The lawsuit is now a class
action and includes immediate family members of victims identified
in Penrose.
"I'm not looking to get rich off of this at all," Richard said.
"This is more about me sticking up for my dad's good name. That's
what this is about and anybody else that wants to do the same is
welcome to join in."
There is no guarantee plaintiffs in this lawsuit will see any
financial gain. In fact, Richard said he doesn't think he will see
any and he said he's okay with that. KRDO13 Investigates has
extensively reported about the Hallford's financial troubles,
including a number of other civil lawsuits trying to get unpaid
money from the Hallfords.
"I don't know if anything will come of this financially," Richard
said. "That's not the point. The point is I wanted to stick up for
my dad. The last word on Roger Law won't be that he was dumped in
an empty building like a bag of garbage somewhere."
KRDO13 Investigates asked Richard what he wanted the last word on
his father to be.
"He was a good man," Richard said. "A community man, a family man."
[GN]
RIPPLE LABS: Faces New Class Action Over Unregistered XRP Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luc Jose A., writing for cointribune, reports that the crypto firm
Ripple has not yet ended its legal battle with the SEC when another
lawsuit could involve it. Ripple is accused by individuals and
companies of having "illegally" sold them XRP. Here is concretely
what is at stake in the context of what appears to be a class
action lawsuit.
What the crypto firm Ripple is accused of?
Ripple, the crypto company behind XRP, faces a significant legal
challenge. It's a class action lawsuit introduced in California. A
legal action that accuses the company of having violated the
securities laws through unregistered sales of its native crypto.
This legal procedure is carried out on behalf of two distinct
groups. Specifically, the Federal Securities Claims and the
California State Securities Claims Class. Together, they comprise
individuals and legal entities that purchased XRP between July 3,
2017, and June 30, 2023.
Furthermore, the legal action targets not only Ripple. It also
targets Bradley Garlinghouse, its CEO, and XRP II, LLC, its
subsidiary. All are accused of having sold XRP without the
necessary registration, thus contravening federal and Californian
securities regulations.
For now, there is no certainty that this complaint, although filed,
will evolve into a trial. However, what is known is that investors
and concerned parties have until April 5 to decide to withdraw from
the class action. They would thus retain the possibility of
pursuing an independent lawsuit against Ripple.
A Challenging Legal Environment for Ripple Already?
This new lawsuit against Ripple does not come out of nowhere.
Indeed, it is linked with the ongoing legal battle of the company
against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The two actions seem to be related by the reason for which they
were initiated. Namely, that Ripple conducted an unregistered
securities offering via the sale of XRP crypto. Of course, the firm
does not see it that way.
Ripple's defense has always been based around a fundamental
distinction. The one stating that XRP should not be classified as a
security, but rather as a digital currency used for international
transactions.
This nuance is crucial, particularly for regulatory implications.
It's important to know that for Ripple, classifying XRP as a
security would result in subjecting the crypto to strict regulatory
requirements. This is the very essence of the legal war it has been
waging against the SEC since 2020. [GN]
RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Court Grants Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY BUSH, v.
RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-03268-LB (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order granting motion for class
certification.
This is a consumer-products mislabeling case. On behalf of a
putative class of California consumers, the plaintiff challenges
defendant Rust-Oleum's labeling of its "Krud Kutter" cleaning
products as "non-toxic" and "Earth friendly," contending that the
products in fact can cause harm to humans, animals, and the
environment, in violation of California consumer-protection laws.
The plaintiff now moves for class certification under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23. The proposed class is defined as
"all residents of California who, within four years prior to the
filing of [the] Complaint, purchased the Products."
The court grants the motion.
The operative complaint has five claims:
(1) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices under
the
Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section
17200–08;
(2) deceptive advertising under the False Advertising Law (FAL),
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17500;
(3) deceptive practices under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code section 1750–84;
(4) breach of express warranties; and (5) unjust enrichment.
Rust-Oleum is a manufacturer of protective paints and coatings for
home and industrial use.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WAXGwA at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAINT FRANCIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Culver Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIERNEY CULVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAINT FRANCIS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00078-MTS (N.D. Okla., Feb. 22, 2024)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Culver was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
Saint Francis Health System, Inc. of Oklahoma operates as a
non-profit health care organization. The Hospital offers
cardiology, pediatrics, oncology, emergency care, orthopedic
surgery, rehabilitation, pain management, behavioral health,
cardiovascular medicine, transplant, and digestive health
services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hugh M. Robert, Esq.
SHERWOOD & ROBERT
Bank of America Center
15 W. 6th Street, Suite 2112
Tulsa, OK 74119
Telephone: (918) 592-1144
Facsimile: (918) 576-6907
Email: hugh@smr-law.com
SAS INSTITUTE: Faces Enstrom Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
BETSY ENSTROM, JOHN STANA and RANDALL WAGNER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAS INSTITUTE INC., THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SAS INSTITUTE INC., THE RETIREMENT COMMITTEE
OF SAS INSTITUTE INC. and JOHN DOES 1- 30, Case No. 5:24-cv-00105-D
(E.D.N.C., February 22, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiffs are among the participants and beneficiaries of the
SAS Retirement Plan of which Defendants act as "fiduciaries". They
allege that Defendants failed to objectively and adequately review
the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis,
with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent in
terms of performance. The Defendants' alleged mismanagement of the
Plan is in violation of ERISA, and Plaintiffs are seeking damages,
attorneys' fees, and other equitable relief to redress Defendants'
illegal practices and enforce the provisions of ERISA.
Headquartered in Cary, NC, SAS Institute is an American
multinational developer of analytics and artificial intelligence
software.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Szymankiewicz, Esq.
MATHESON & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
127 West Hargett Street, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 335-5291
Facsimile: (919) 516-0686
E-mail: john@mathesonlawoffice.com
- and –
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
- and –
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
SAS RETAIL: Miranda Sues Over Reset Crew Members' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees, Plaintiff v. SAS RETAIL SERVICES, LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 24STCV03946 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2024)
arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in
violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment
records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to
provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to pay
split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses, and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
reset crew member from June 1, 2023 until September 8, 2023.
SAS Retail Services, LLC is a Limited Liability Company that
operates as a service to optimize merchandising for customers,
their brands, and individual stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Christina N. Mirzaie, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
christina@hbklawyers.com
SCOUT ENERGY: TCCF Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE COOPER-CLARK
FOUNDATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No.
5:22-cv-04048-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff file motion for
class certification.
The Plaintiff contends that it satisfies each element of Rule 23
and thus requests that the Court enter an order certifying the
Class.
The Plaintiff alleges that Scout underpays royalty on gas produced
from Kansas wells in which Plaintiff and the Class members own
royalty interests by deducting the costs of services necessary to
make the gas a marketable product under Kansas law.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a Class of similarly situated
royalty owners under Rule 23(b)(3), defined as:
"All persons who are royalty owners: (a) in Kansas wells where
Scout Energy Management, LLC was the operator and Scout Energy
Group V, LP, Scout Energy Partners V-A, LP, or Scout Energy
Partners Co-Invest V-A, LP was a working interest owner; and (b)
who were paid royalties for gas or its constituents produced
from
the wells dedicated under the Gas Processing Agreements, dated
Oct.
31, 2019, by and between SEG V Plantco, LLC and Scout Energy
Group
V, LP, from Dec. 1, 2019, to the date Class Notice is given."
Excluded from the Class are: Defendants, their affiliates, and
employees, officers, and directors; agencies, departments, or
instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State
of
Kansas; any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4)
or
Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1702(2); Any NYSE or
NASDAQ listed company (and its subsidiaries) engaged in oil and
gas
exploration, gathering, processing, or marketing; and royalty
owners whose leases expressly authorize the deduction of the
costs
to gather, compress, dehydrate, treat, or process the gas or
otherwise make the gas or its constituents marketable products.
Scout is a private energy investment manager and an upstream oil
and gas operator.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2cWcEd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
Brandon C. Landt, Esq.
Hammons P. Hepner, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 W. 75th St.
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901- 0505
Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
sgoodger@midwest-law.com
blandt@midwest-law.com
hhepner@midwest-law.com
SHAHROSE ENTERPRISES: Martinez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yury Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Saleem Farahshah, Shahrose Enterprises, LLC
and Farahshah International, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-00571 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 16, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' failure to pay the
overtime premium required by law allows them to gain an unfair
advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment
practices. The Defendants never paid Plaintiff an overtime premium
for any of the hours she worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead,
Defendants paid her the same hourly rate for all the hours she
works, says the suit.
Plaintiff Martinez worked for the Defendants in their dry-cleaning
businesses for various periods of time from 2012 until February 9,
2024. The Plaintiff's duties included assisting customers who were
dropping off and picking up clothes from the cleaners, tagging the
clothes, running the cash register and cleaning the premises.
Shahrose Enterprises is a Texas limited liability company which
engages in dry-cleaning business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
SONY MUSIC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Copyright Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Strauss of Pitchfork reports that in 2019, a group of
musicians -- led by David Johansen of New York Dolls, John Lyon,
and Paul Collins -- filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony Music
Entertainment, seeking control of their master recordings. The
parties have now reached a settlement agreement, court documents
obtained by Pitchfork show. The terms of the settlement have not
yet been made public.
When contacted by Pitchfork, an attorney for Sony Music
Entertainment, Roy W. Arnold, offered no comment. Attorneys for the
musicians have not responded to Pitchfork's request for comment.
The musicians based their original complaint on a section of the
Copyright Act of 1976 that offers artists the opportunity to
terminate grants of copyright ownership 35 years after a
recording's initial release. In the complaint, the musicians
alleged that Sony Music Entertainment was engaging in copyright
infringement by refusing "to allow any recording artist to take
over control of the sound recordings or enter into an agreement
with a different label for the exploitation of recordings, after
the effective date of termination." [GN]
SONY MUSIC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Termination Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Donahue of Billboard reports that Sony Music has reached a
settlement to resolve a lawsuit filed by New York Dolls singer
David Johansen and other artists in an effort to regain control of
their masters, finally ending years of closely-watched class-action
litigation against major record labels over copyright law's
termination right.
The tentative agreement, announced in court papers last week, will
resolve a case in which artists claimed Sony had unfairly rejected
their efforts to invoke termination - a federal law that's supposed
to let authors take back control of their works decades after they
sold them away.
The exact terms of the settlement, which attorneys for Sony called
"an agreement in principle to settle all claims in this case," were
not disclosed. Neither side immediately returned request for
comment on the agreement.
Johansen, along with fellow artists John Lyon and Paul Collins,
filed the case against Sony in 2019, claiming the company had
essentially refused to approve any termination requests from its
recording artists. The case, filed as a proposed class action that
aimed to represent hundreds of others in a similar situation, was
lodged the same day as a closely-related case against Universal
Music Group.
Taken together, the two lawsuits represented a sweeping critique of
how the two music giants were allegedly approaching termination
rights, which were created in the 1970s as a means of helping
correct the imbalance of power between large entertainment
companies and individual creators. In the case of the music
business, if a musician sold away the rights to a song that later
became a smash hit, termination theoretically allows them to get
those lucrative copyrights back decades later — between 35 and 56
years later, depending on when the song was sold.
According to the lawsuits against Sony and UMG, the music companies
had imposed an across-the-board rule that sound recordings
(separate from the underlying musical compositions) were
effectively never subject to the termination. The labels allegedly
argued that most recordings were "works for hire," in which the
company simply hires artists to contribute to them; if true, that
would mean the label was the legal author, and performers had no
rights to win back in the first place.
But the lawsuits were dealt a serious blow last year, when a
federal judge ruled that the UMG case could not proceed as a class
action. Though he noted that the artists "raise issues of fairness
in copyright law that undoubtedly extended beyond their own
grievances," the judge said that each of the individual musician's
circumstances were different, meaning each would need to file their
own case against UMG.
That ruling did not decide the merits of the case, but it presented
a severe logistical hurdle. Such lawsuits are extremely expensive,
and artists typically lack the same kind of legal resources as the
major labels who have allegedly denied their termination requests.
A class action would have allowed the artists to pool their
resources and secure a sweeping decision with only a single set of
legal costs.
Following that ruling -- and the judge's subsequent rejection of
the artists efforts to quickly appeal it -- the two sides began
moving toward a settlement. "Missing You" singer John Waite, one of
the artists who filed the case against UMG, settled out in May; the
remaining defendants in that case reached a settlement with UMG in
December.
The UMG ruling was not directly binding on the lawsuit against
Sony, which was being handled by a different judge in the same
federal district court. But the two cases were filed by the same
lawyers and were largely identical, meaning the UMG ruling
certainly did not bode well for the Sony case's chances to be
approved as a class action.
Before last week, the Sony case had long been paused while the two
sides worked on a settlement. In February 23, 2024's motion
announcing such an agreement, Sony asked to extend that pause until
May, allowing them time to finalize the settlement in writing and
submit it to the judge. The request was approved on February 26,
2024, putting the case on track to be closed out this spring.
Attorneys for Sony and the plaintiffs both did not return requests
for comment on February 28, 2024. [GN]
STANLEY BLACK: Defends Class Suit Appeal Over Vacuum Cleaners
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nika Schoonover, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the industrial tools and household hardware company Stanley Black &
Decker defended its Craftsman-brand vacuum cleaners in front of the
Second Circuit as a class of consumers sought to revive claims that
the company exaggerated its products' horsepower.
William Montgomery and Donald Wood Jr., the named plaintiffs in the
class action, say they were misled by labeling and packaging that
stated the vacuums could produce 5.0 and 5.5 peak horsepower,
respectively, when outlet voltage standards made that impossible.
"Defendant's vacuums are physically incapable of producing anywhere
near the stated horsepower under any circumstances, given the
amount of electricity delivered by the standard 120-volt outlet for
which the vacuums are designed," the consumers say in their brief.
On the vacuum's label, where "peak horsepower" is denoted, an
adjacent dagger symbol points to fine print on the bottom of the
packaging. There, a disclaimer clarifies that the term denotes not
the "operational horsepower of a wet-dry vacuum but rather the
horsepower output of a motor, including the motor's inertial
contribution, achieved in laboratory testing."
"A picture really is worth a thousand words," Neal Deckant, an
attorney representing the consumers, said during oral arguments.
He argued that a reasonable consumer wouldn't think to look at the
disclaimer before buying the vacuum under a false assumption. "A
consumer in a busy retail setting, who sees that . . . would not
then look at the smaller fine print," Deckant said.
Black & Decker says the average consumer wouldn't be purchasing a
vacuum cleaner in a rush, as they might with more ordinary
products. "A reasonable reader would follow the dagger and review
the clarifying information on the front of the box, rather than
merely relying on the consumer's own assumptions about a term with
an ambiguous meaning," the company said in its brief.
A federal judge sided with Black & Decker, pointing to the dagger
when it dismissed the consumers' claims, finding "no reasonable
consumer would have been misled by the vacuum labeling or
packaging."
On appeal, U.S. Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi, a Bill Clinton
appointee, asked where to draw the line between ambitious marketing
and customer confusion.
"How much do we look at the statement exaggeration? That is my
question," Calabresi said during oral arguments.
Black & Decker attorney John Cerreta reiterated that "peak
horsepower" is an industry term that simply describes the highest
level of horsepower the vacuum was able to achieve in a laboratory
setting -- though he conceded that the regular three-prong outlets
in most American households can't support that level of power and
would blow a fuse if attempted.
"It's a long-time consumer comparison term used in the industry,
and it is accurate, and it is the horsepower the motor achieves in
the laboratory," Cerreta said.
On behalf of the plaintiffs, Deckant emphasized that a consumer is
not considering how a product performs in the laboratory compared
to at home.
"The consumer is thinking about, what's it going to do for me,
they're not going to think about a laboratory…these are
advertised to be used in regular homes by real people," Deckant
said.
Judge Calabresi pressed that point, too, asking why include the
peak lab performance horsepower at all, if it can't be achieved at
home. "I don't care at all what happens in the laboratory," he
said.
Calabresi was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes, a Bill
Clinton appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier, a Barack
Obama appointee. [GN]
TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement in Lee Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jae Lee, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, v. Taro Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-03834-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Cathy Seibel entered an order granting preliminary approval of
class action settlement.
"All former and current employees of Taro (at the time of Data
Incident) who reside in the United States and whose Private
Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data
Incident."
Taro is an Israeli research-based pharmaceutical manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BiTfmb at no extra
charge.[CC]
TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to April 26
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rhonn Mitchell, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Toyota of Dallas,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01278-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C.
Godbey entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave
to alter class certification scheduling order.
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification April 26, 2024
Defendant's Designation of Expert Witnesses June 21, 2024
Plaintiff's Designation of Rebuttal Experts July 19, 2024
Close of Class Certification Discovery Aug. 12, 2024
Defendant's Service of its Response to Aug. 26, 2024
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiff's Service of his Reply to Sept. 26, 2024
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification
Submission Date Oct. 11, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AwSr6t at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRUMAN MEARS: Erskine Loses Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN ERSKINE, et al, V.
TRUMAN MEARS, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00381-GBW (D. Del.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Plaintiff Erskine's motion
for class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DHY2or at no extra
charge.[CC]
USAA GENERAL: Initial Pretrial Conference Order Entered
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH G. CHILDRESS, et.
al, v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY CO., Case No. 3:23-cv-00322-TMR-CHG
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Rose entered a preliminary
pretrial conference order:
Settlement demand by Plaintiff(s) on Defendant March 30,
2024
to be made by:
Cut-off date for motions to amend the pleadings March 20,
2024
and to add parties:
Cut-off date for filing motion to certify class: N/A
Date by which parties must identify lay witnesses June 30,
2024
and provide a synopsis of their testimony:
Dates to reveal the identity of expert witnesses
and to provide a copy of the expert's report
[Rule 26(a)(2)(B)] or the subject matter and
summary of facts and opinions for experts not
required to prepare reports [Rule 26(a)(2)(c)]
are:
Plaintiff Primary Expert Designations: June 12,
2024
Defendant Primary Expert Designations July 14,
2024
Plaintiff Rebuttal Expert Designations: July 26,
2024
Defendant Rebuttal Expert Designations: July 26,
2024
USAA offers property and casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dFAwJP at no extra
charge.[CC]
VITAL FARMS: Plaintiffs File Unredacted Version of Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS USLER, ET AL., v.
VITAL FARMS, INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-00447-RP (W.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiffs file an unredacted version of their Motion for Class
Certification, originally filed on Dec. 1, 2023, along with
partially unredacted exhibits in accordance with the Court's Jan.
26, 2024 Order and after conferring with counsel for Vital Farms.
Vital is a Certified B Corporation that offers a range of ethically
produced foods nationwide.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6BS096 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas A. Daniels, Esq.
John F. Luman III, Esq.
Heath A. Novosad, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC
6363 Woodway, Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
Facsimile: (713) 917-0026
E-mail: doug.daniels@dtlawyers.com
luman@dtlawyers.com
heath@dtlawyers.com
- and -
Jesse Z. Weiss, Esq.
Ryan Shelton, Esq.
EDMUNDSON SHELTON WEISS PLLC
317 Grace Lane, Suite 210
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 596-3058
Facsimile: (512) 532-6637
E-mail: jesse@eswpllc.com
ryan@eswpllc.com
- and -
Richard L. Stone, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. STONE,
PLLC
11 East 44th Street, Suite 1900
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (561) 358-4800
E-mail: rstoneesq@rstoneesq.com
WALGREEN CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 12
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bargetto v. Walgreen Co.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-02639 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 29, 2022), the Hon.
Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order extending the motion for
class certification deadline until March 12, 2024.
-- The opposition is due: April 9, 2024
-- The reply is due: April 30, 2024
-- The hearing is continued to: June 11, 2024
If the parties require additional time, they may file a motion or
stipulation requesting it. The case management conference currently
scheduled for March 28, 2024 is maintained.
The hearing is continued to June 11, 2024.
Walgreen provides online medical products.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Contract Product
Liability.[CC]
WALMART INC: Settles Class Suit Over Weighted Groceries for $45M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Al-Arshani of USA TODAY reports that Walmart customers who
purchased certain weighted groceries or bagged fruit may qualify to
be included in a $45 million settlement after a class action
lawsuit claimed the retailer charged customers more than it should
have for those products.
Verify reported that customers recently received an email notice
about the recall. According to a class action lawsuit filed in
October 2022, Walmart overcharged customers who purchased
sold-by-weight groceries.
The lawsuit claims Walmart falsely inflated product weight,
mislabeled the weight of bagged produce, and overcharged for
clearance items.
Customers who purchased eligible weighted groceries from Walmart
between Oct. 19, 2018 and Jan. 19, 2024, qualify to be included in
the settlement. The settlement however has not been fully approved
and a final approval hearing has been scheduled for June 12, 2024.
Customers have until June 5, 2024, to submit a claim to be included
in the settlement.
Anyone who wishes to be excluded from the settlement has until May
22, 2024, to opt-out.
Walmart settlement: Who is eligible to submit a claim?
Those who purchased an eligible product and have a receipt "will be
entitled to receive 2% of the total cost of the substantiated
Weighted Goods and Bagged Citrus Purchased, capped at five hundred
dollars ($500.00)," according to the settlement's website.
Anyone who doesn't have a receipt could still submit a claim for a
payment between $10 and $25, depending on how many products they
attest to purchasing. [GN]
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Pinnacle Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PINNACLE WASTE SERVICES,
LLC, et al., v. WASTE CONNECTIONS US, INC., et al., Case No.
7:21-cv-02600-JDA (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, denying certification of the proposed classes in the
Plaintiffs second amended complaint.
Waste Connections is a North American integrated waste services
company that provides waste collection, transfer, disposal and
recycling services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 2, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wd3AnH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
H. Sam Mabry, III, Esq.
Jonathan D. Klett, Esq.
HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A.
One North Main Street, 2nd Floor
Greenville, SC 29602
Telephone: (864) 240-3200
Facsimile: (864) 240-3300
E-mail: smabry@hsblawfirm.com
jklett@hsblawfirm.com
- and -
Eric L. Klein, Esq.
James B. Slaughter, Esq.
Nessa Horewitch, Esq.
Casey Clausen, Esq.
BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C.
1900 N St., NW Suite 100
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 789-6000
Facsimile: (202) 789-6190
E-mail: eklein@bdlaw.com
jslaughter@bdlaw.com
ncoppinger@bdlaw.com
cclausen@bdlaw.com
[*] Appeals Court Denies Data Breach Class Action Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neil S. Rabinovitch, Kelly Osaka, and Chloe Snider, writing for
Dentons, report that a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for
Ontario upholding a decision denying certification of a data breach
class action continues the trend of proposed privacy actions
failing to cross the preliminary certification hurdle.
Background
In Del Giudice v. Thompson, 2024 ONCA 70, the Court of Appeal
upheld the motion judge's decision striking out the claim without
leave to amend and dismissing the certification motion against the
defendant financial institution and defendant online wholesaler. In
this case, an employee of one of the online wholesale, which
provided services to the financial institution, allegedly hacked
into a database containing personal and financial information
collected by the financial institution from credit card applicants
and stored in a cloud server. The alleged data breach impacted over
106 million people, including 6 million Canadians. The plaintiffs
commenced a proposed class action against the former employee, the
financial institution and the online wholesaler.
The Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, which pleaded 19 (yes, 19)
cause of actions, was struck by the motion judge without leave to
amend on that basis that:
(1) it "egregiously" contravened the rules of pleading;
(2) it failed to plead any viable causes of action against the
Defendants; and
(3) the amendments to the statement of claim made after the
carriage motion transformed a proposed data breach class proceeding
into a CA$240 billion action for data misappropriation and misuse.
Court of Appeal
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the motion judge erred in the
following:
-- Relying on unsworn documents in determining whether there was a
reasonable cause of action;
-- Determining that the pleadings did not support any reasonable
cause of action; and
-- Striking out 78 paragraphs of the statement of claim without
leave to amend.
Reliance on unsworn documents
The appellants argued that the motion judge erred in relying on
unsworn statements because the defendants' document brief contained
four documents, including a privacy policy and credit card
agreement, that the defendants argued were incorporated by
reference into the claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the
appellants' argument, relying on established case law that a
document incorporated by reference in a pleading is not evidence
(it is part of the pleading) and that a judge considering an
incorporated document is not making findings of fact in relying
upon such documents as part of its assessment of the pleading. A
claim is deemed to include any document to which it refers and
forms an integral part of a plaintiff's claim.
The appellants also argued that the documents were not incorporated
by reference because they were not "central enough to the claim to
form an essential element or an integral part of the claim" since
the documents referred to contracts and the plaintiffs had pleaded
breach of contract in the alternative. The Court of Appeal
disagreed. Whether the documents were integral to the claim is
assessed objectively and not according to the plaintiffs'
intentions. Theories of liability pleaded in the alternative (such
as the plaintiffs' alternative claim for breach of contract) are
relevant to the analysis.
2. Pleadings did not disclose a viable cause of action
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the pleadings did not
disclose a viable cause of action. The 19 causes of action were
grouped into two categories: data misuse and data breach.
Data misuse
Just after the motion judge's ruling, the Court of Appeal released
a trilogy of judgments in Owsianik v. Equifax Canada Co., 2022 ONCA
813, Obodo v. Trans Union of Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 814 and Winder
v. Marriott International, Inc., 2022 ONCA 815. This trilogy
established that a hack by a third party does not constitute
intrusion upon seclusion by the database operator. The Court of
Appeal relied on the trilogy in this case, finding that any
allegation of improper retention, mistakes in safeguarding
information or the misuse of that information did not satisfy the
key element of intrusion upon seclusion; that the conduct is of a
highly offensive nature, causing distress, humiliation, or anguish
to a reasonable person. Even if the parties could succeed in
arguing that there was a lack of consent on the aggregation and
sale of financial information, this was not highly offensive.
The appellants relied on several other torts including
misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of confidence. The Court of Appeal held that they were
not viable causes of action based on the facts alleged.
ii. Data breach
The court also found that there was no viable claim in negligence.
Most of the class members only suffered the risk of future loss
from the risk of future identity theft and fraud. The court held
that there is no right to be free from the prospect of damage, only
a right not to suffer damage that results from exposure to
unreasonable risk. Further, feelings of upset, disgust, anxiety,
agitation or mere psychological upset that do not cause a serious
and prolonged injury and that do not rise above the ordinary
annoyances, anxieties and fears that people routinely experience as
compensable harm are not recognized compensable harms.
The court rejected the appellants' assertion that it was required
to accept as true the pleading that 6 million class members had
suffered pecuniary loss from identity theft and fraud, repeating
that on a pleadings motion, "a motion judge is not required to
accept as true bald pleadings that are patently ridiculous in their
scope and not supported by material facts."
The court also rejected the claim for pure economic loss. There was
insufficient proximity under the branch of negligent performance of
a service, as the appellants alleged. The appellants' pleadings
failed to provide facts supporting the allegation that the
defendants performed a service for their data; they only alleged
that it offered the plaintiffs credit services.
The appellants attempted to rely on statutory causes of action from
various privacy statutes. The court also found that these did not
disclose viable causes of action. First, only the Privacy Act
provided a civil cause of action, which required the defendant to
"wilfully . . . violate the privacy of another" to establish
liability. The appellants failed to plead that the respondents were
wilful and instead relied on the failure to safeguard data
recklessly or negligently.
3. Striking out the claims without leave to amend
The court deferred to the motion judge's decision not to grant
leave to amend and dismissed the appeal. The motion judge's
decision to strike out a pleading under r. 25.11 without leave to
amend is discretionary and should not be interfered with on appeal
unless the motion judge erred in principle, misapprehended, failed
to take account of material evidence, or reached an unreasonable
conclusion. None of those grounds applied. The appellants were
given ample opportunity to advance a viable claim and could not.
Key takeaways
This decision limits the claims available in data breach cases
where a data collector or database operator has been the subject of
breach by another person and has not itself intentionally misused
the information collected (say, for example, for its own marketing
purposes). Organizations that collect or hold data and fail to
prevent hackers are generally not intruders for the purpose of the
tort of intrusion upon seclusion. A breach of confidence may only
be alleged if the data collected is used for unauthorized purposes,
not simply that an unauthorized person accessed it through a data
breach.
There are challenges in claiming negligence in privacy breaches
where there is no known fraud or identity theft. Parties must show
compensable harm from real damages as opposed to the risk of future
harm -- and also plead such harm in a specific way at the clam
stage.
Where a document is referenced in a claim, it can form part of the
record on a pleadings motion. Documents referenced in a pleading do
not need to be proven through sworn statements as they form part of
the pleadings. [GN]
[*] Tire-Makers Faces U.S. Class Action Suit Over Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Ferrise, writing for cleveland.com, reports that a lawsuit
accuses the world's top tire-makers of colluding to boost prices
after suffering losses during the coronavirus pandemic.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Akron, alleges Akron-based
Goodyear Tires, Michelin, Continental, Bridgestone, Nokian and
Pirelli conspired to increase tire prices some 21% since 2021.
It comes after January raids of some of the companies by the
European Commission, which said it was investigating price-fixing
among the top replacement-tire sellers.
Since the raids, several similar lawsuits have been filed in
federal courts across the U.S.
The Cleveland lawsuit seeks class-action status, meaning a judge
can determine whether others can join the litigation. Two law
firms, Korein Tillery P.C. of California and Lowey Dannenberg of
New York, brought the suit on behalf of Ohio resident John Bengel.
Messages left for the six tire companies were not immediately
returned.
The companies are accused in the lawsuit of conspiring over the
course of several years and cited the rapid increase in tire prices
that the companies independently announced almost simultaneously
over the last three years.
Prices "dramatically" increased since 2021 at rate 70% higher than
inflation and during a time rubber prices fell, the lawsuit said.
The companies increased the prices after they took a hit during the
COVID-19 pandemic, when sales dropped during widespread lockdowns
and prices for raw materials increased, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit says the replacement tire industry in 2022 did some $61
billion in sales. Goodyear, Michelin and Bridgestone make up near
two-thirds of the industry. [GN]
[*] U.S. Class Action Law Firms Propose New Trial Procedure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Larson, writing for Stoll Berne, reports that a group of U.S.
Plaintiff's law firms have requested a modernization of civil
trials rules amidst the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. They want to
encourage live-streamed testimony from witnesses who are not able
to appear in court, with the end goal of improving efficiency
throughout the trial process.
The proposal, made by 12 class action law firms, does not aim to
end live, in person trial testimony, it rather suggests that it
would clear up confusion over subpoena authority to allow for
witnesses outside of a 100-mile radius of trial to appear by live
streaming. They also argue that this method is preferred to
pre-recorded depositions. The topic was addressed to the federal
judiciary's top rulemaking committee. [GN]
[] 8th Annual Class Action Conference in May, Register Today!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference.
Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action
industry for this one-day event.
CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club on Monday,
May 6, 2024. To register, visit
https://www.classactionconference.com/
For sponsorship or speakership opportunities, please contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***