/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240312.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 12, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 52 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Achs Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Drinking Wells ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Faille Consolidated Class Suit Stayed AEROSPACE DYNAMICS: Mayfield Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ALBERTSON'S LLC: Seeks to Continue Class Status Hearing AMAZON WEB: Mayhall Allowed Leave to File First Amended Complaint APPLE INC: Court Urged to Skip Review in Antitrust Class Action ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON: Court Certifies Child Abuse Class Suit AYVAZ PIZZA: Court Narrows Claims in Savannah Suit BC PHILLY: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BIG LOTS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Durant Due Feb. 21, 2025 BTW CONSTRUCTION: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Over Beef-Based Soup False Ads CAPITAL ONE: Port Alleges Deceptive Savings Account Interest Rate CAPITAL VISION: Filing of Confidential Exhibits Under Seal Sought CENTRAL STATES: Court OK's Diller Intervenors' 2nd Bid to Intervene CHATTEM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gonzalez Due Dec. 20 CHSPSC LLC: Casella Suit Transferred From M.D. Tenn. to S.D. Fla. CITADEL SERVICING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to April 11 CLARIVATE PLC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pennsylvania CLEVELAND, OH: Buckeye Files Class Suit for Tax Refund Interest CNO FINANCIAL: Kuehni Sues Over Private Data Breach COMMUNITY HEALTH: Labrooy FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Tenn. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Sharp FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Tenn. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Underwood Privacy Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. CONTINENTAL AG: Spadafino Sues Over Price Fixing of Tires E.I. DU PONT: Class Settlement in Camden Suit Gets Final Nod EQUIFAX INFO: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Wabe Suit FAMILY DOLLAR: Morrison Sues Over Negligent Storage of OTC Drugs GANNETT CO: Bradley Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification GANNON UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement in Engel Gets Initial Nod GATX CORPORATION: Sued Over Train Derailment Mishap HORMEL FOODS: Payne Files ERISA Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty HOSPITALITY GOALS: Neuhoff Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages JBS CARRIERS: Faces Class Action Suit Over BIPA Violations in Ill. KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Nell Sues Over Lack of Data Security Practices LABORATORY CORP OF AMERICA: Settlement in Williams for Court OK LAGUNA COOKIE: De La Cruz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: Faces Khaitan Suit Over Breach of Contract MAJOR LEAGUE: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Henry Says NEW YORK: C.K. Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes NORTH CAROLINA: Court Tosses Decertification Bid in Hodge NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Jail Lockdowns OFFLINE INC: Gonzales Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Breaches PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Berber Extended to April 19 PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gay Extended to April 19 PALO ALTO: Faces Schlaegel Securities Fraud Class Suit QUEST HEALTH: Faces Shi Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls RANGE RESOURCES: Allowed Leave to File Docs Under Seal in Rupert SANDOZ US: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Suit With Direct Purchasers SHAW BAKERS: Faces Sanchez Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MI: Lindke Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ULTA SALON: Settlement in Kabasele Suit Wins Final Nod UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Emergency Landing Mishaps VECTOR GROUP: Tobacco Hazards Suits, Settlement Payments Ongoing VETERANS GUARDIAN: Court Vacates Class Certification Bid Deadline VINTAGE STOCK: Court Narrows Claims in Thompson Suit WAKEFERN FOOD: Court Narrows Claims in Feldman Suit WELLNOW URGENT: Tambroni and Lattimore Sue Over Data Breach WESCOM CENTRAL: Tellez Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations WILMINGTON TRUST: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Deadlines YANKEE CANDLE: Settles $1.2M Class Action Over Time Clock Rounding ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Biles Breach Suit Transferred to D. Md. [*] Class Suit Dismissals Up Under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act [*] Securities Class Actions Settlement Amounts Reach Record High [] 8th Annual Class Action Conference in May, Register Today! ********* 3M COMPANY: Achs Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Drinking Wells ------------------------------------------------------------ SHAWN ACHS; CHAD PURDON; LEAH PURDON; ROGER BAILEY; MARY LOU KREUSCH; KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN; ERIC HEYNE; NANCY WEISNER; MIKEL HAYS; PAMELA HAYS; JANET HAMILTON; HEATHER HOKE; JASON HOKE; DOUGLAS FINK; CATHERINE HAUSER; JAMES CARTER; DANIEL CALLAHAN; BENJAMIN JONES; and CHRISTY JONES, v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.), E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, The Chemours Company, The Chemours Company FC, LLC, DuPont de Nemours, Inc., Corteva, Inc., Chemguard, Inc., Tyco Fire Products LP, (individually and as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company), Kidde PLC, Inc., Chubb Fire, Ltd., UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., Carrier Global Corporation, Raytheon Technologies Corporation (f/k/a United Technologies Corporation), National Foam, Inc., Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, Arkema, Inc., BASF Corporation, ChemDesign Products, Inc., Clariant Corporation, Chemicals Incorporated, Nation Ford Chemical Company, AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc., AGC, Inc. (f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.), Deepwater Chemicals, Inc., Dynax Corporation, Archroma Management, LLC, Archroma U.S., Inc., and John Doe Defendants 1-49, Case No. 2024 CV 01177 (Ct. Com. Pl., Montgomery Cty., February 26, 2024), seeks damages and relief over Defendants' use of toxic chemicals in their products which resulted in the contamination of Plaintiffs' properties. The Plaintiffs are individuals who own real property and reside close to the Dayton International Airport in Ohio. Defendants manufactured aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a fire-fighting foam used at the airport. AFFFs contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) including, but not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and/or perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). Private drinking wells on Plaintiffs' properties are contaminated with PFOA and PFOS which are both known to be hazardous to human health and the environment. The Plaintiffs argue that the contamination was mainly due to the use of AFFF and this has resulted in a significantly increased risk of disease for plaintiffs and their families. The Plaintiffs further allege the Defendants of unlawful acts, including public nuisance, private nuisance, products liability-design defect, products liability-failure to warn, trespass, negligence, gross negligence, civil conspiracy, and violation of Ohio's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. 3M Company manufactured fluorosurfactant products containing PFOA, PFOS, and/or their precursor chemicals. Headquartered at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota, the company is authorized to conduct business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dale Seif, Jr., Esq. MCNAMEE LAW GROUP, LLC 2625 Commons Boulevard Beavercreek, OH 45431 Telephone: (937) 427-1367 Facsimile: (937) 427-1369 E-mail: dseif@mcnameelaw.com - and – Robert R. Miller, Esq. OTHS, HEISER, MILLER, WAIGAND & CLAGG, LLC 78 Broadway Jackson, OH 45640 Telephone: (740) 384-2111 Facsimile: (740) 288-0702 E-mail: rmiller@ohlaw - and – Andrew Cvitanovic, Esq. COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR, LLC 8397 Highway 23, Suite 100 Belle Chasse, LA 70037 Telephone: (504) 394-9000 Facsimile: (504) 394-9110 E-mail: andrewcvitanovic@cossichlaw.com - and – Brett Land, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Ave. Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 523-6206 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: bland@baronbudd.com ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Faille Consolidated Class Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- AdaptHealth Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2024, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stayed the Faille consolidated class suit pending private mediation outcome. On October 24, 2023, Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a purported class action complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, and certain underwriters in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Allegheny County Complaint"). The Allegheny County Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between August 4, 2020 and February 27, 2023. The Allegheny County Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material information regarding the Company's organic growth in its diabetes business. The Allegheny County Complaint seeks unspecified damages. On January 23, 2024, the court entered an order appointing Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, and City of Tallahassee Pension Plan as Lead Plaintiffs. On February 6, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation outlining proposed deadlines for Lead Plaintiffs to identify an operative complaint or file an amended or consolidated complaint and for defendants to respond to the operative complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Allegheny County Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. AdaptHealth Corp. and subsidiaries provides home medical equipment, medical supplies and related services. AEROSPACE DYNAMICS: Mayfield Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- KALEB MAYFIELD an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AEROSPACE DYNAMICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation; PRECISION CASTPARTS, CORP., an Oregon corporation; EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation dba EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT PROFESSIONALS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV04741 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., February 26, 2024) seeks civil penalties over the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt hourly machinist at one of Defendants' facilities in Valencia, California. He typically worked long hours, generally 60 hours per week, five to six shifts per week. During the course of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, he was not properly paid for all work performed and for all overtime hours rendered. The Defendants violated several other provisions of the California Labor Code, including failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to reimburse necessary business expenses, failing to produce requested employment records, and failing to provide suitable seating. The Plaintiff seeks penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Headquartered in Lake Oswego, OR, Aerospace Dynamics International, Inc manufactures and distributes machined parts and assemblies for the aerospace industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. Tania Fonseca, Esq. D. LAW, INC. 880 E Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: emil@d.law.com d.yeremian@d.law.com a.lindsay@d.law.com t.fonseca@d.law.com ALBERTSON'S LLC: Seeks to Continue Class Status Hearing ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher Sherman, Peter Ruiz, Richard Ancheta, and Michael Raziano on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Albertson's LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-06377-ODW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants file ex parte application to continue class certification hearing and briefing schedule and compel the Plaintiffs' appearances at deposition. The Plaintiffs' opposing papers, if any, must be filed not later than 24 hours following service. If the Plaintiffs do not intend to oppose this ex parte application, they must inform the Courtroom Deputy Clerk by email Sheila_english@cacd.uscourts.gov. As set forth in detail in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, a short continuance of the April 8, 2024, class-certification hearing is needed to allow the Defendant to conduct targeted discovery on issues related to class certification by taking the depositions of the four named Plaintiffs, which will assist this Court in conducting its "rigorous analysis" of the issues under Rule 23. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). Accordingly, basic principles of judicial economy, efficiency, and due process militate strongly in favor of granting the sought-after relief. The Defendant requests that this Court order the following schedule for briefing and discovery on the class-certification issues: Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification due April 10, 2024; Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification due April 24, 2024; Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on May 8, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. Albertsons operates a chain of grocery stores. A copy of the Defendants' ex parte application dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xfj0Lb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq. Sydney Wilberton, Esq. Nicolas Jupillat, Esq. ILG LEGAL OFFICE, P.C. 156 South Spruce Avenue, Suite 206A South San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone: (415) 580-2574 E-mail: silg@ilglegal.com swilberton@ilglegal.com njupillat@ilglegal.com - and - Edward E. Alon, Esq. Jonathan A. Alon, Esq. ALON LLP 6303 Owensmouth Ave., 10th Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 858-0050 E-mail: edwardalon@alonllp.com jalon@alonllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Ray E. Boggess, Esq. Jonathan A. Arjonilla, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 E-mail: jkb@paynefears.com reb@paynefears.com jaa@paynefears.com AMAZON WEB: Mayhall Allowed Leave to File First Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN MAYHALL, on behalf of her Minor Child, D.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01473-TL-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Michelle L. Peterson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to seal, granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file first amended class action complaint, and granting the parties' stipulated motion. The Clerk is directed to maintain: -- Plaintiff's "Motion for Leave to File First Amended Class Action Complaint;" -- Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, attached at Exhibit 1, and -- The "Declaration of Kevin P. Green in Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint" under seal. -- The Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint under seal, accompanied by a publicly filed redacted version, by February 16, 2024. The Court entered an order that the current Order Setting Trial Date and Pretrial Schedule be amended as follows: Event Date Motion for Class Certification 75 days after resolution of Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss Response to Motion for Class Certification 45 days after filing of motion Reports of expert witnesses under Oct. 4, 2024 FRCP 26(a)(2) due All motions related to discovery must be Oct. 4, 2024 filed by this date and noted for consideration no later than the third Friday thereafter (see LCR 7(d)) Rebuttal expert disclosures under Nov. 15, 2024 FRCP 26(a)(2) due Settlement Conference, if mediation Jan. 13, 2025 has been requested by the parties per LCR 39.1, held no later than The Court says that thge Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause under Rule 16 to allow for the filing of the amended complaint based on the significant third-party discovery conducted since the Plaintiff's last complaint submission relating to the biometric identifiers and/or biometric information used to create NBA 2K custom players at issue in this litigation. Amazon Web provides on-demand cloud computing platforms and APIs. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UERvCB at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Court Urged to Skip Review in Antitrust Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that in the latest case to pose the question of precisely how rigorous trial courts must be in certifying gargantuan class actions, Apple consumers on told, opens new tab a federal appeals court that there's no need to double-check the decision allowing tens of millions of iPhone and iPad users to bring classwide antitrust claims. Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tabasked, opens new tab the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February to grant rare mid-case, or interlocutory, review of the Feb. 2 class certification ruling, opens new tab by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of Oakland, California, in a long-running case alleging that Apple monopolized the market for iPhone apps by banning purchases outside its App Store. As my Reuters colleague Jonathan Stempel reported, Rogers had previously refused in 2022 to certify the class because of concerns that plaintiffs' economic model swept in millions of consumers -- nearly 20% of the originally proposed class -- who did not actually overpay for apps. But the judge held in her decision last month that plaintiffs' lawyers adequately addressed the issue of uninjured class members by limiting the class to account holders who spent at least $10 on apps or in-app purchases. Apple told the 9th Circuit in its Feb. 16 petition for interlocutory review that even with the narrowed class definition, plaintiffs' own expert found that the class would still contain "at least 10 million uninjured Apple App Store accounts." The 9th Circuit, as you may recall, has refused to set a specific limit on the number or percentage of uninjured class members in a certified class. But when the en banc appeals court considered that question a couple of years ago in antitrust class actions against tuna fish suppliers, the 9th Circuit told trial judges, opens new tab that before they certify a class, they must carefully weigh whether individual questions about class membership will predominate over classwide issues. Apple contended that Rogers wasn't sufficiently rigorous. Its specific criticisms -- including skepticism about the "crude and ineffective" $10 minimum for class membership -- are particular to this case, but Apple lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher told the 9th Circuit that the judge's ruling shows why the appeals court needs to offer more guidance on class certification standards. "This court should make clear that certification cannot be premised on a model that flouts real-world evidence and foundational tenets of economics," Apple said, "particularly where the model itself has not been proven capable of screening out uninjured members." In their new brief opposing Apple's petition, plaintiffs' lawyers from Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz and Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick argued that in evaluating their class certification motion, Rogers did just what the 9th Circuit demanded in the tuna decision, exhaustively analyzing Apple's criticism of their classwide damages model before determining that the model could reliably show the impact of Apple's allegedly monopolistic conduct across the class. The 9th Circuit only recently clarified the rules for class certification in the tuna case, the Apple plaintiffs said. Rogers "faithfully applied" those rules, they argued, so there's no reason for the appeals court to take the extraordinary step of delving into the specifics of Rogers' analysis. Plaintiffs' lawyer Mark Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein said in an email that the opposition brief "clearly lays out why [Apple's] petition is without merit." Neither an Apple spokesperson nor Apple counsel Ted Boutrous of Gibson Dunn responded to my query. Apple seems to be hoping that the 9th Circuit is still hankering to refine its class certification rules after losing a chance to revisit them in an antitrust case accusing Alphabet (GOOGL.O), opens new tab subsidiary Google of monopolizing the Android app market via its Google Play Store. In February 2023, the appeals court granted Google's petition to review a class certification ruling by U.S. District Judge James Donato of San Francisco. Google, like Apple, argued, opens new tab that the trial judge failed to grapple with both the problem of uninjured class members and real-world data undercutting plaintiffs' economic models. After the 9th Circuit agreed to hear Google's case, the appellate docket was swamped with amicus briefs from business-friendly groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, that viewed the appeal as an opportunity to tighten class certification standards. The Google plaintiffs, like the plaintiffs in the Apple case, insisted, opens new tab that the trial judge applied requisite rigor when he evaluated their economic model and concluded that it was adequate to establish classwide injury, regardless of whether some class members suffered no actual harm. The 9th Circuit was scheduled to hear oral arguments last September but the appeal was withdrawn when Donato decided in August to decertify the Google Play class. Apple told the 9th Circuit in its Feb. 16 petition that its case "presents the same important issues this court was poised to address" in Google's appeal. The Apple plaintiffs countered in their new opposition brief that any perceived problems with class certification in the Google case are irrelevant because their economic model relies on different (and better) methodology. Regardless of what happens at the 9th Circuit, there's a chance that the U.S. Supreme Court will revisit class certification requirements in an appeal brought by Visa (V.N), opens new tab and Mastercard (MA.N), opens new tab. As I told you in January, the credit card companies' have petitioned for Supreme Court review of decisions certifying three classes to proceed with $9 billion in antitrust claims over ATM fees. Visa and Mastercard, like Apple and Google, told the justices that too many lower courts are not rigorously policing classes to be sure that classwide issues predominate over individual questions about class members' injuries (or lack thereof). They're calling on the Supreme Court to clear up "rampant confusion" on class certification standards. Plaintiffs' lawyers in those cases told me that the credit card defendants are really carping about the fact-specific outcome, not the process that resulted in class certification. Like the Apple and Google plaintiffs, they said there's no need to tinker with class action precedent. Their Supreme Court brief opposing review is due next week. [GN] ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON: Court Certifies Child Abuse Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracee Wilkins, writing for nbcwashington.com, reports that a Prince George's County Circuit Court judge ruled a class action lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Washington can proceed, dismissing a challenge brought by the church to the Maryland law underpinning the case. Attorneys for the archdiocese filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds the state's Child Victims Act -- a 2023 law that allows child abuse survivors to file civil claims regardless of when the abuse happened -- is unconstitutional. In court, the attorneys argued the Archdiocese is protected from civil lawsuits because of a 2017 Maryland law they say granted them "vested rights" to be free from liability as non-perpetrator defendants. But attorneys for the three men who brought the class action lawsuit say the Maryland legislature was within its right to amend earlier laws when it passed the Child Victims Act last year. In their filing, the men -- whose names are not disclosed -- describe the alleged abuse they endured as children by priests and people employed by the archdiocese. The News4 I-Team previously interviewed one of the men, identified in court filings under the alias "Richard Roe," who said he was assaulted by an unnamed priest at St. Jerome Parish in Hyattsville in the 1960s. In the complaint, Roe alleges that around age 10, he was lured to the priest's bedroom and molested. "I couldn't tell nobody. My mother was a devout Catholic. Who was she going to believe? Who was anybody going to believe?" Roe told the I-Team last December. Prince George's County Associate Judge Robin D. Gill Bright sided with the plaintiffs. Attorneys for the archdiocese declined comment with News4, but in a statement, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese said the church intends to appeal the decision. Several said they expect the Maryland Supreme Court will ultimately hear the challenge to the law. Attorney Jonathan Schochor, who represents the plaintiffs, hailed ruling as a victory for survivors state-wide. "It's a great day for survivors of sexual abuse in Maryland, because they've been waiting decades" to bring such claims, he said. Several survivors who spent years pushing for the enactment of the Child Victims Act attended hearing, including Teresa Lancaster and Jean Hargadon Wehner, who have blamed the Archdiocese of Baltimore for abuse they say they endured as children in its schools. The Baltimore archdiocese filed for bankruptcy just days before the Child Victims Act took effect last October. Lancaster said the latest challenge to the law was "frustrating" and "exhausting." Hargadon Wehner noted the point was to bring relief to survivors who may not be ready to face their abuse -- or their abusers -- until later in life. "As a survivor who started remembering years after the abuse . . . I can attest to how long it took for me to be able to talk about it, to bring it to anyone. There should be no statute of limitations for this crime," she said. In a statement, a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Washington said: "The important constitutional principles presented in this case are not unique to The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington and are at issue in the cases filed against public entities, private schools, and secular and religious organizations across the state." The statement continued that, regardless of the outcome of its pending appeal, the Archdiocese of Washington remains committed to its "longstanding efforts to bring healing to survivors through pastoral care and other forms of assistance that are available apart from the legal process." [GN] AYVAZ PIZZA: Court Narrows Claims in Savannah Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALESHA SAVANNAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AYVAZ PIZZA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00933-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Victoria Marie Calvert entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint and to strike the Plaintiff's Class allegations. The Plaintiff's class allegations are allowed to move forward, but those allegations are limited to the ten Ayvazowned Pizza Hut locations with known accessibility issues. Any outstanding issues related to standing will be determined at the class certification stage. Furthermore, the parties are directed to file their Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan. Because there are no factual, non-conclusory allegations to support Ms. Savannah's assertion that all 352 Ayvaz-owned Pizza Hut restaurants have a centralized policy of not maintaining the parking lots or exterior areas, Ayvaz is entitled to a partial dismissal. Accordingly, the scope of Ms. Savannah's class allegations must be limited to the ten Ayvaz-owned Pizza Hut locations with known accessibility problems. The Plaintiff Savannah filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against the Defendant. The Complaint asserts violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ayvaz owns, leases, and/or operates hundreds of Pizza Hut restaurants in the states of Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LrwFGN at no extra charge.[CC] BC PHILLY: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------ ROBERT SMITH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BC PHILLY INC., BC PHILLY U INC., and BC KOP INC. d/b/a BONCHON, Defendants, Case No. 240202926 (Pa. Com. Pl., February 26, 2024) seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Smith worked for BC Philly U Inc. and jointly with Defendants on or until September 21, 2021. Allegedly, the Defendants did not accurately record all time that Plaintiff spent working for Defendants. In addition, Defendants failed to pay overtime at time and a half the employee's regular rate as required by the FLSA for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the Plaintiff. BC Philly Inc. owns and operates restaurants that sell chicken in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com BIG LOTS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Durant Due Feb. 21, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEGGY DURANT, v. BIG LOTS, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00561-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory A. Presnell entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure Feb. 21, 2025 Defendant's Expert Disclosure May 2, 2025 Class Discovery Deadline May 16, 2025 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Feb. 21, 2025 Certification Defendant's Response May 2, 2025 Plaintiff's Rebuttal May 16, 2025 The Court will issue a subsequent Case Management and Scheduling Order once the class certification issue is resolved. Big Lots is principally engaged in operating discount retail stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BGxysM at no extra charge.[CC] BTW CONSTRUCTION: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ EDDIE GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BTW CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-20745 (S.D. Fla., February 26, 2024), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Superintendent at construction projects between June 2021 and September 2023. During that period, Plaintiff regularly worked more than forth (40) hours per week while performing non-exempt tasks under his position as Superintendent. However, Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as exempt from the FLSA's overtime compensation requirements. As a result, Defendant failed to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees time and one-half wages for all overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has continued to violate FLSA's overtime provisions up to the present. BTW Construction Group owns and operates a construction services business with its corporate office located at 123 SW North River Drive, Miami, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Class Action Over Beef-Based Soup False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Styf, writing for Top Class Action, reports that Campbell Soup Co. is facing a class action lawsuit over the content of its soup. Why: The class action alleges that Campbell's Beef with Country Vegetables is misbranded as being a beef-based soup because it has more carrot and potatoes than beef. Where: The Campbell Soup class action was filed in federal court in Central Islip, New York. A new Campbell Soup class action claims the company's Beef with Country Vegetables chunky soup is misbranded because beef is not the predominant ingredient. While beef is listed as the main ingredient with a font double the size of other words on the front of the label, the ingredients list on the back of the soup actually shows carrots and potatoes listed first, the Campbell Soup class action lawsuit says. The Federal Meat Inspection Act prevents companies from advertising a product as beef when it is not primarily composed of beef, the lawsuit says. The plaintiff also argues Campbell even misrepresents the vegetables advertised in the Beef and Country Vegetables chunky soup. The vegetables, the lawsuit says, are not prepared in the country, "understood by consumers as referring to pastoral areas." Other brands properly label their beef-and-vegetable soups, Campbell Soup beef lawsuit says Progresso's Beef and Vegetable soup and Walmart's Great Value Beef with Vegetable soup contain more beef than vegetables, as reflected in the names, the class action lawsuit says. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has similar regulations with foods appearing in the order of predominance related to the amount included. The Campbell Beef with Country Vegetables soup is sold at a price premium at or around $2.26 for 18.8 ounces of soup because consumers believe its main ingredient is beef, the plaintiff claims. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of New York residents. The class action lawsuit makes claims for monetary damages, attorney's fees and expenses, and further relief the court believes is proper. A New Jersey federal judge dismissed a 2022 class action lawsuit that alleged some of Plum PBC and Campbell Soup Co.'s baby food products contain dangerous levels of heavy metals. Have you purchased Campbell's Beef with Country Vegetables soup? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan and Associates PC. The Campbell Soup class action lawsuit is Barrera v. Campbell Soup Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-01523, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Central Islip. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Port Alleges Deceptive Savings Account Interest Rate ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD PORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01006 (D.N.J., February 21, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of the clause of good faith and fair dealing imputed into every contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In 2012, Capital One began offering customers a high-yield savings account it marketed as its "360 Savings" account. Capital One promised an interest rate for the 360 Savings account many times the rate offered by conventional savings accounts. Many customers, attracted by the rate, opened a 360 Savings account. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the NJCFA by engaging in deceptive trade practices: a) affirmatively representing that Defendant would offer a competitive interest rate on the 360 Savings account when the truly competitive interest rate was offered on the 360 Performance Savings account; and b) omitting and concealing the difference in interest rates between the 360 Savings account and the 360 Performance Savings account. Plaintiff Port first acquired his savings account at Capital One when Capital One purchased ING in 2012 and converted his ING savings account to a Capital One 360 Savings account. Capital One is a national bank with its headquarters and principal place of business located in McLean, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley K. King, Esq. Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq. Christopher E. Stiner, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com CAPITAL VISION: Filing of Confidential Exhibits Under Seal Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY ALICE CLARK, CHRISTOPHER COULTER, AARON PEREZ, KEVIN NELSON, and PHILLIP ROSCHER on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL VISION SERVICES, LLC d/b/a MYEYEDR, Case No. 1:22-cv-10236-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to permit them to file Confidential Exhibits under seal in support of their motion for partial summary judgment and motion for class certification, pursuant to Rule 7.2 of the local rules, and that the subject Exhibits remain under seal during the pendency of the instant action. The Plaintiffs further request that the Clerk of the Court destroy the sealed document at the conclusion of the instant action. The conclusion of the instant action shall take place upon the entry of a final judgment, inclusive of any appeals or petitions for review. -- The parties executed a Stipulated Protective Order, which was entered by the Court on Sept. 2, 2022. Pursuant to the Protective Order, a party seeking to file any discovery material designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" must: "(a) file a motion for leave to file the information under seal pursuant to Local Rule 7.2 prior to submitting such material to the court, or (b) seek and obtain the producing party's consent to file such information without such protections." -- The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion for Class Certification on this date. The Plaintiffs have cited to and seek to submit as Exhibits to these motions the following discovery material which were designated as Confidential in discovery by the Defendant: a. GM In Training Agenda MED003766-90 b. General Manager in Training Guide MED003728-65 c. General Manager in Training Guide MED002324-61 d. General Manager in Training Guide MED003690-3727 e. General Manager Job Summary and Expectations MED003166-83 f. District Manager Quarterly Office Audit MED002426-30 g. Excerpt from MED144845 for Salaried Unpaid Time Off Designations (containing names and employee numbers for various MED employees). The existence of trade secrets in documents or confidential business information is sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access. -- The documents identified above in Paragraph 2 contain confidential business information relating to Defendant which the disclosure of may be harmful to Defendant's business. Capital Vision provides optometric and retail optical services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=beXqzf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sam J. Smith, Esq. Loren B. Donnell, Esq. BURR & SMITH LLP 9800 4th Street North, Suite 200 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Telephone: (813) 253-2010 E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar Jones, Esq. Alan L. Quiles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com cjones@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK, PC. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617)607-3261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com CENTRAL STATES: Court OK's Diller Intervenors' 2nd Bid to Intervene ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID MELCHER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CENTRAL STATES ENTERPRISES, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00409-HAB-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Susan Collins entered an order: -- Denying as moot the Diller Intervenors' first motion to intervene; -- Granting the second motion to intervene filed by the Diller Intervenors; and -- Granting the motion to intervene filed by the Schwartz Intervenors. The Diller Intervenors and Schwartz Intervenors are afforded to and including February 15, 2024, to file their intervenor complaint. In sum, the Court finds that the Intervenors have a common question of law or fact with the main action, and that intervention would promote judicial economy. On that account, the Intervenors will be permitted to intervene under Rule 24(b). The Defendant Central States Enterprises timely filed a response on September 18, 2023, and the Defendant Larry Shepherd joined in that response on that same day. The Diller Intervenors filed their proposed complaint on October 31, 2023. The Defendant CSE filed a revised response on November 7, 2023, which the Defendant Shepherd joined that same day. The Diller Intervenors filed a reply on September 25, 2023, making the matter ripe for adjudication. The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendants on Nov. 2, 2021, alleging several violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), a violation of the Uniform Commercial Code, and a state law unjust enrichment claim, stemming from the Plaintiff's contracts with Defendants. Central States provides agricultural products and services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IJERlH at no extra charge.[CC] CHATTEM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gonzalez Due Dec. 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK GONZALEZ, et al., v. CHATTEM, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00102-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order setting the following deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: Event Deadline Deadline to file Motion to Amend the Mar. 14, 2024 Pleadings and/or Join New Parties Motion for Class Certification, including Dec. 20, 2024 any expert reports upon which Plaintiffs rely in the motion Deadline to complete depositions and Jan. 21, 2025 document productions for Plaintiffs' experts re: Class Certification Opposition to Class Certification, including Feb. 5, 2025 any counter expert reports upon which Defendant relies in its motion Deadline to complete depositions and Mar. 7, 2025 document productions for Defendant's experts re: Class Certification Reply in Support of Class Certification, Mar. 24, 2025 including any rebuttal expert reports upon which Plaintiffs rely in the motion Hearing on Class Certification Motion April 24, 2025 Chattem is a producer and marketer of over-the-counter healthcare products, toiletries, dietary supplements, topical analgesics, and medicated skin care products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=382gGO at no extra charge.[CC] CHSPSC LLC: Casella Suit Transferred From M.D. Tenn. to S.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MATTHEW CASELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHSPSC, LLC Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00396, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 21, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20663 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Defendant breached its implied contracts with Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard and protect their personal health information/personally identifiable information and financial information and by failing to provide timely and accurate notice to them that their PHI/PII and financial information was compromised as a result of a data breach. CHSPSC, LLC is a healthcare management company that operates dozens of hospitals throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seamus T. Kelly, Esq. MUSIC CITY LAW, PLLC 1033 Demonbreun St Ste 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 200-0682 E-mail: seamus@musiccityfirm.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 737 Bainbridge St #155 Philadelphia, PA 19147 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com CITADEL SERVICING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to April 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Falon Ballard et al., v. Citadel Servicing Corporation aka Acra Lending et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01679-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' ex parte application to continue deadline to file class certification motion, and denying as moot the Defendant's ex parte application for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application To Continue Deadline to File Class Certification Motion. The parties oppose each other's respective Applications. The court finds these matters appropriate for resolution without oral argument. Based on the relief sought in the Plaintiffs' Application, the state of the record, and the applicable law, the court modifies the operative scheduling order as follows: Event Date Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on Sept. 26, 2024 Motions in Limine Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Sept. 14, 2023 Pleadings /Add Parties Deadline for Plaintiff's Class Apr. 11, 2024 Certification Motion Deadline for Defendants' Opposition to May 9, 2024 Class Certification Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply to Opposition May 23, 2024 Hearing on Class Certification Motion June 6, 2024 Expert Discovery Cut-Off Mar. 29, 2024 Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference July 2, 2024 Citadel provides non-prime loans for residential properties on both an owner occupied and non-owner occupied basis. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QfVIBL at no extra charge.[CC] CLARIVATE PLC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------ Clarivate PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania. In a separate, but related litigation, on June 7, 2022, a class action was filed in Pennsylvania state court in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933, based on substantially similar allegations, with respect to alleged misstatements and omissions in the offering documents for two issuances of Clarivate ordinary shares in June and September 2021. The Company moved to stay this proceeding on August 19, 2022, and filed its preliminary objections to the state court complaint on October 21, 2022, which remains pending. After granting a partial stay on January 4, 2023, the court denied a further stay of the proceedings on April 17, 2023. Clarivate does not believe that the claims alleged in the complaints have merit and will vigorously defend against them. Clarivate PLC is a provider of proprietary and comprehensive information, analytics, professional services and workflow solutions that enable users across government and academic institutions, life science and healthcare companies, corporations and law firms to power the entire innovation lifecycle, from cultivating curiosity to protecting the world's critical intellectual property assets. Clarivate has three reportable segments namely Academia & Government, Intellectual Property, and Life Sciences & Healthcare. It is a public limited company organized under the laws of Jersey, Channel Islands, pursuant to the definitive agreement entered into on May 13, 2019 to effect a merger between Camelot Holdings (Jersey) Limited and Churchill Capital Corp, a Delaware corporation. CLEVELAND, OH: Buckeye Files Class Suit for Tax Refund Interest --------------------------------------------------------------- The Buckeye Institute filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Kate Wos of Strongsville, David Steffes of North Royalton, and all nonresidents of Cleveland who filed a municipal income tax return with the city and received their refund more than 90 days after filing their return. Wos v. Cleveland, filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, calls on the court to order the city of Cleveland to follow its own city ordinances and pay Ms. Wos, Mr. Steffes, and anyone else affected the interest Cleveland owes them because the city failed to issue their tax refund within 90 days. "Citizens should not be forced to go to court to get the city to follow its own laws," said Jay R. Carson, senior litigator at The Buckeye Institute. "Cleveland city ordinances are clear: refunds not issued within 90 days are subject to interest. Cleveland officials know this, and the city owes The Buckeye Institute's clients -- and countless other taxpayers -- for delayed tax refunds." Cleveland's city ordinances state that when the city owes a tax refund, the refund is subject to interest at a rate of the federal funds rate of nearly five percent plus an additional five percent if the refund is not paid within 90 days after the taxpayer files their return. On March 12, 2023 -- after the passage of Ohio House Bill 110, which allowed Ohioans to seek municipal income tax refunds for 2021 and 2022 -- Kate Wos filed her 2021 municipal tax return with Cleveland. As with countless other taxpayers, Ms. Wos then waited and waited and waited. After a more than six-month delay, Ms. Wos finally received her refund on September 21, 2023. However, the refund did not include the interest for the delay and failed to refund her for her paid vacation days. Similarly, Mr. Steffes filed his municipal tax return with Cleveland for 2021, seeking a refund for the time during the pandemic that his employer, Stantec, closed its Cleveland office and ordered all employees to work from home. Initially, the city declined to issue Mr. Steffes' refund, and their obstruction became so ridiculous as to demand that Mr. Steffes provide some form of verified statement from someone who was actually working in his employer's Cleveland office in 2021 to confirm that Mr. Steffes was not working out of the Cleveland office. Such verification was, of course, impossible since no one was working out of Stantec's Cleveland office. Finally, in late 2023, Mr. Steffes received his refund, but as with Ms. Wos, the refund did not include the interest for the delay and failed to refund Mr. Steffes for his paid vacation days. [GN] CNO FINANCIAL: Kuehni Sues Over Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- BARBARA KUEHNI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CNO FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. and BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00360-MPB-MJD (S.D. Ind., February 26, 2024) accuses the Defendants of failing to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information (PII) of their customers, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. This class action arises from a data breach that occurred at Defendant Bankers Life on November 29, 2023 during which Plaintiff and class members' PII were compromised. Defendants notified the affected customers of the data breach on or about January 26, 2024. However, the notice did not include crucial details, such as the root cause of the breach and whether remedial measures were undertaken to prevent similar incidents from happening again. The Plaintiff alleges that the data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff and class members seek damages and all other relief for Defendants' alleged violations. CNO Financial Group provides insurance and financial services and is the parent company of Defendant Bankers Life. Its principal place of business is located in Carmel, IN. [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 COMMUNITY HEALTH: Labrooy FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JENNIFER LABROOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. and METRO KNOXVILLE HMA, LLC d/b/a NORTH KNOXVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00128, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on February 21, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00086 to the proceeding. This is a collective action to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and a class action pursuant to the laws of Tennessee, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, to recover unpaid straight-time wages and other applicable penalties. Community Health Systems, Inc. is a Tennessee-based unified health care system operating the North Knoxville Medical Center facility under the assumed name of Tennova Healthcare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Michael Josephson, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com - and - Clif Clifton Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Blayne Fisher, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com - and - Nicholas Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC PO Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 - and - Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC PO Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 E-mail: mel@yezbaklaw.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Sharp FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Tenn. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JENNIFER SHARP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. and CAMPBELL COUNTY HMA, LLC d/b/a LAFOLLETTE MEDICAL CENTER Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00126, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on February 21, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00084 to the proceeding. The suit is a collective action to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action pursuant to the laws of Tennessee, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, to recover unpaid straight-time wages and other applicable penalties. Community Health Systems, Inc. is a unified health care system operating the LaFollette Medical Center under the assumed name of Tennova Healthcare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com whogg@mybackwages.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Blayne E. Fisher, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 819 N. Shoreline Blvd., 6th Floor Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com blayne@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com - and - Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Underwood Privacy Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BRANTON UNDERWOOD, K.U. (minor) through Branton Underwood, next friend, O.B. (minor) through Zariah Brown, next friend, and O.E.B. (minor) through Zariah Brown, next friend, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. and CHSPSC, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00565, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 21, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20668-RAR to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek to hold CHS responsible for the injuries CHS inflicted on Plaintiffs and nearly a million similarly situated persons due to CHS' impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused the personal information of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals between January 28, 2023 and January 30, 2023. Community Health Systems, Inc. is a provider of general hospital healthcare services in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq. Marcio William Valladares, Esq. Ra O. Amen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 275-9295 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com mvalladares@forthepeople.com ramen@forthepeople.com - and - R. Burke Keaty, II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN NASHVILLE, PLLC 810 Broadway Suite 105 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 928-9901 E-mail: bkeaty@forthepeople.com CONTINENTAL AG: Spadafino Sues Over Price Fixing of Tires --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SPADAFINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff 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, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01452 (S.D.N.Y., February 26, 2024) accuses the Defendants of conspiring to artificially increase, maintain, and fix the prices of new/replacement tires for passenger cars, vans, trucks, and buses sold in the United States, from January 1, 2020 until the present. Among other things, the Defendants' unlawful agreement is evident in their sudden and dramatic parallel price increases for replacement tires and their standardization of replacement tires with a high degree of interchangeability. In addition, the Defendants had numerous opportunities to meet and conspire under the guise of legitimate business contacts and to perform acts necessary for the operation and furtherance of the conspiracy. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief pursuant to the Clayton Act and damages pursuant to the antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws of the states. Headquartered in Hannover, Germany, Continental Aktiengesellschaft manufactures tires in Europe, the United States, and China for sale in the United States and elsewhere. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com rvandermeulen@dicellolevitt.com jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com E.I. DU PONT: Class Settlement in Camden Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Camden, et al., v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, et al. (AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION), Case No. 2:23-cv-03230-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard M. Gergel entered an order granting Class Counsel's motion for final approval of class settlement and final certification. The Court finds that the Interrelated Guidance is not "substantive" in nature such that accepting said guidance "contradict[s]" the Court's preliminarily approval findings. The Interrelated Guidance instead confirmed what it appears wholesalers and retailers already understood to be true—that the Settlement Agreement applied to them. The Court rejects the contention that there was not enough time for interrelated systems to meaningfully evaluate the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement was filed on the docket on July 10, 2023 and the Notice Plan began on September 5, 2023. The opt-out deadline was December 4, 2023, giving parties 91 days between the beginning of the notice period and the opt-out deadline to decide whether to accept the Settlement Agreement. Wholesalers were clearly aware of the Settlement Agreement as they contacted Class Counsel in early October regarding it. Thus, the Court rejects the argument that Wholesalers did not have enough time to evaluate the Settlement Agreement. On August 8, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement reached between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The Court conducted a Fairness Hearing on Dec. 14, 2023, regarding the proposed Settlement Agreement. -- Summary of Settlement Agreement The Defendants have agreed to pay or cause to be paid the Settlement Amount of one billion one hundred eighty-five million dollars ($1,185,000.00) in exchange for receiving releases, covenants not to sue, and dismissals from Settlement Class Members as provided for in the Settlement Agreement. The preliminarily approved Settlement Class consists of: (a) All Public Water Systems in the United States of America that draw or otherwise collect from any Water Source that, on or before the Settlement Date, was tested or otherwise analyzed for PFAS and found to contain any PFAS at any level; and (b) All Public Water Systems in the United States of America that, as of the Settlement Date, are (i) subject to the monitoring rules set forth in UCMR 5 (i.e., "large" systems serving more than 10,000 people and "small" systems serving between 3,300 and 10,000 people), or (ii) required under applicable state or federal law to test or otherwise analyze any of their Water Sources or the water they provide for PFAS before the UCMR 5 Deadline. As identified in the PAO, the following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (a) Any Public Water System that is located in Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, Cumberland, New Hanover, Pender, or Robeson counties in North Carolina; provided, however, that any such system otherwise falling within clauses (a) or (b) of Paragraph 3 of this Order will be included within the Settlement Class if it so requests. (b) Any Public Water System that is owned and operated by a State government and cannot sue or be sued in its own name, which systems within clauses (a) and (b)(i) of Paragraph 3 of this Order are listed in Exhibit I to the Settlement Agreement. (c) Any Public Water System that is owned and operated by the federal government and cannot sue or be sued in its own name, which systems within clauses (a) and (b)(i) of Paragraph 3 of this Order are listed in Exhibit J to the Settlement Agreement. (d) Any privately owned well or surface water system that is not owned by, used by, or otherwise part of, and does not draw water from, a Public Water System within the Settlement Class DuPont is an American multinational chemical company. A copy of the Court's order and opinion dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1m24DQ at no extra charge.[CC] EQUIFAX INFO: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Wabe Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDEN WABE, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-00123-TPB-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Tom Barber entered a fast-track scheduling order: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Court finds it necessary to implement a schedule tailored to meet the particular circumstances of this case, which was brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Instead, the parties shall comply with the following schedule: -- No later than April 23, 2024, the parties shall serve upon each other but not file with the Court copies of the following: A. Plaintiff All documents in Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control that relate to the consumer report, adverse employment action, and/or disputed information at issue in this action, along with all documents and/or communications, whether sent or received, between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the alleged violation. B. Defendant All documents in Defendant's possession, custody, or control that relate to the consumer report, adverse employment action, and/or disputed information at issue in this action, along with all documents and/or communications, whether sent or received, between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the alleged violation. -- On or before May 8, 2024, the Plaintiff is directed to file an Answers to the Court's Interrogatories. Thereafter, by May 23, 2024, the Defendant is directed to file Answers to the Court's Interrogatories. Those Interrogatories are attached to this Order. -- This action is referred to mediation and shall be conducted as outlined in this Order and Chapter Four of the Local Rules. The Court appoints E. Lamar Battles, Esq., as mediator. -- Scheduling Mediation: The parties must mediate no later than June 24, 2024. However, the parties are not permitted to mediate until the information exchange outlined in this Order, including answers to interrogatories, has been completed. -- Designation and Responsibility of Lead Counsel: Branden Wabe, Pro Se, must consult both the mediator and other counsel to coordinate the day and time of the mediation. No later than March 7, 2024, Mr. Wabe must file a notice of mediation that states the agreed day and time of mediation. Equifax provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0eaKth at no extra charge.[CC] FAMILY DOLLAR: Morrison Sues Over Negligent Storage of OTC Drugs ---------------------------------------------------------------- GREGG MORRISON and KENNETH JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC., DOLLAR TREE, INC., DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., FAMILY DOLLAR, INC., and FAMILY DOLLAR SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20673 (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act, and Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, Family Dollar has engaged in an unlawful conduct by unlawfully distributing and selling tens of millions of dollars of adulterated OTC drugs and medical devices to low- and fixed-income consumers, including Plaintiffs, despite having notice and knowledge that these products could not lawfully be sold, were unsafe for human use or ingestion, and were defective. As alleged herein, these products did not meet safety, strength, quality, purity, and effectiveness requirements because they were stored in extreme temperatures that are outside of labeled temperature requirements. Despite the scrutiny and the Food and Drug Administration's warnings, Family Dollar's failures to control temperatures in its facilities has continued unabated. Since at least May 1, 2022, Family Dollar has knowingly routinely, and unlawfully sold adulterated products that were unsafe for human use or ingestion because they were sold outside of labeled temperature requirements, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring claims related to the distribution and sale of the adulterated products under state laws for economic damages and equitable relief based on Family Dollar's unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practice. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is an American variety store chain.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq. Manuel A. Arteaga-Gomez, Esq. William P. Mulligan, Esq. Ryan J. Yaffa, Esq. Aimee A. Ferrer, Esq. GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 442-8666 Facsimile: (305) 285-1668 E-mail: szg@grossmanroth.com aag@grossmanroth.com wpm@grossmanroth.com rjy@grossmanroth.com aag@grossmanroth.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Jerrod C. Patterson HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com jerrodp@hbsslaw.com - and - Gerald M. Abdalla, Jr., Esq. ABDALLA LAW, PLLC 602 Steed Road, Suite 200 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 278-6055 E-mail: jerry@abdalla-law.com GANNETT CO: Bradley Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BRADLEY, STEPHEN CRANE, NOAH HILES, BARBARA AUGSDORFER, AND LOGAN BARRY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GANNETT CO. INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01100-RDA-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 23. The Plaintiffs submit the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certification, and the Affirmation of Adam T. Sanderson executed February 8, 2024, together with Exhibits A-I. Gannett is an American mass media holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fi7amX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bernard J. DiMuro, Esq. DIMUROGINSBERG, P.C. 1001 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 510 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 684-4333 E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com - and - J. Nelson Thomas, Esq. Adam T. Sanderson, Esq. THOMAS & SOLOMON PLLC 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Telephone: (585) 272-0540 E-mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com asanderson@theemploymentattorneys.com GANNON UNIVERSITY: Class Settlement in Engel Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ENGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. GANNON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00244-SPB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Susan Paradise Baxter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to preliminarily approve class action settlement, certify the Class, appoint class counsel, approve proposed class notice, and schedule a final approval hearing. The Court finds that, subject to the Final Approval Hearing, the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, within the range of possible approval, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members set forth below. For purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Court preliminarily finds and determines that the Action may proceed as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: All graduate and undergraduate students enrolled at Gannon who paid tuition and/or the mandatory fees to attend in-person class(es) during the Spring 2020 semester at Gannon but had their class(es) moved to online learning. Excluded from the Settlement Class is: (i) any person who withdrew from Gannon on or before March 16, 2020; (ii) any person enrolled solely in a program for the Spring 2020 semester that was originally delivered as an online program without regard to any changes in modality resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic; (iii) any person who properly executes and files a timely opt-out request to be excluded from the Settlement Class; and (iv) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded person. the Court preliminarily appoints the Named Plaintiff Andrew Engel as Settlement Class Representative. The Court preliminarily appoints Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter, LLP and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Class Representatives with respect to the Settlement. The Court preliminarily authorizes Class Counsel to enter into the Settlement on behalf of the Settlement Class Representatives and the Settlement Class, and to bind them all to the duties and obligations contained therein, subject to final approval by the Court of the Settlement. The Court appoints the firm of A.B. Data Ltd. to administer the Notice procedure and distribute the Net Settlement Fund, under the supervision of Class Counsel. Within 14 days after the entry of this Order, Gannon shall produce to the Settlement Administrator a list from the University Registrar's records that includes the names and last known email and postal addresses, to the extent available, belonging to all Potential Settlement Class Members. Gannon University is a private Catholic university in Erie, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WF4S9E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 - and - Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 The Defendant is represented by: Jamie R. Schumacher, Esq. Nathan P. Venesky, Esq. MACDONALD ILLIG JONES & BRITTON LLP 100 State St., Suite 700 Erie, PA 16507 GATX CORPORATION: Sued Over Train Derailment Mishap --------------------------------------------------- GATX Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2024, that on December 8, 2023, the company and three other defendants were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit originally filed in federal court in Pennsylvania against Norfolk Southern by Pennsylvania school districts and school children. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages for personal injury and property damage for the Pennsylvania plaintiffs allegedly related to the Norfolk Southern Train Derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. GATX Corporation is a leading global railcar lessor, owning fleets in North America, Europe, and India. In addition, through GATX Engine Leasing, its wholly owned aircraft spare engine leasing business, and joint ventures with Rolls-Royce plc. HORMEL FOODS: Payne Files ERISA Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Payne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hormel Foods Corp.; the Board of Directors of Hormel Foods Corp.; and John Does 1-40, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-00545-SRN-DTS (D. Minn., February 21, 2024) is a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the fiduciaries of the Hormel Foods Corporation Tax Deferred Investment Plan A and the Hormel Foods Corporation Joint Earnings Profit Sharing Trust (collectively the Plans) for breach of fiduciary duty. The Plans are defined-contribution retirement benefit plans. ERISA requires fiduciaries to prudently manage assets in such plans. Among other duties, such fiduciaries must regularly monitor plan assets and determine whether the investments are prudent and appropriate for the plan, and remove or replace those that are imprudent due to excess cost or substandard performance. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by selecting and/or maintaining certain stable-value investments with lower crediting rates when similar or identical investments with higher crediting rates were available. The Defendants further breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by selecting and/or maintaining higher-cost share classes for certain mutual funds in the Plans when lower-cost share classes were available, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a participant in the Plans. He brings this action on behalf of the Plans and on behalf of similarly situated participants to seek redress for Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty. Hormel Foods Corp. is an American food processing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn J. Wanta, Esq. Scott A. Moriarity, Esq. Katherine E. Rollins, Esq. WANTA THOME PLC 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 252-3570 E-mail: sjwanta@wantathome.com samoriarity@wantathome.com kerollins@wantathome.com HOSPITALITY GOALS: Neuhoff Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- MARY NEUHOFF, ALEXA LEWIS, HEATHER PAWLUS and BRYANT ASHFORD, Plaintiffs v. HOSPITALITY GOALS LLC aka JADE STEAK AND SUSHI and ZDENKO ZOVKIC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00324-DCN (N.D. Ohio, February 21, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Revised Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as bartenders, servers, and pantry chefs within the last two years. They assert that the Defendants paid them the tipped minimum wage, instead of the full minimum wage, in excess of a continuous 30 minutes or 20% of the hours worked for the week. The further allege that Defendants did not pay any overtime wages to them although they frequently worked more than 40 hours per week. Hospitality Goals LLC is a restaurant company doing business in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephan I. Voudris, Esq. VOUDRIS LAW LLC 8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8 Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 Telephone: (440) 543-0670 Facsimile: (440) 543-0721 E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com JBS CARRIERS: Faces Class Action Suit Over BIPA Violations in Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Roberto Costales, writing for Cook County Record, reports that JBS Carriers, a trucking company specializing in transporting animal protein, has been accused of allegedly improperly using biometric cameras to monitor its drivers while on the job. The class action lawsuit was filed by Leon Benford on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals. The plaintiffs claim that JBS Carriers violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to inform them about the collection and storage of their biometric data. The complaint alleges that JBS Carriers did not notify its workers where their biometrics were being stored, how long they would be kept, or what might happen to this valuable information. The lawsuit further accuses the company of not obtaining written consent from its workers to collect and store their biometric data and not maintaining a publicly available disclosure of how the biometric data will be handled and destroyed. The case was filed March 1 in Cook County Circuit Court. Plaintiffs are seeking damages of $1,000-$5,000 per alleged violation, as allowed under BIPA. The lawsuit and its demands follow a pattern set by thousands of similar class actions filed against Illinois employers in the past eight years under the BIPA law. Those lawsuits have resulted in a litany of multi-million dollar settlements, and hundreds of millions of dollars in collective attorney fees paid to class action lawyers who file the suits, thanks in large part to a series of Illinois Supreme Court decisions which have interpreted the law in ways that have left most employers largely defenseless against such legal claims. Notably, the state high court has declared plaintiffs don't need to prove they were actually harmed by the biometric scans, and the court has defined "individual violations" as each time someone's biometrics are scanned over a span of five years before the filing of a lawsuit. When multiplied across entire workforces, such potential damage awards could be "annihilative," some judges have observed. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Roberto Luis Costales and William H. Beaumont, of the firm of Beaumont Costales, of Chicago. [GN] KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Nell Sues Over Lack of Data Security Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Nell and Thomas Stephenson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Keenan & Associates, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01409 (C.D. Cal., February 21, 2024) is a class action arising from the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices. The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The private information compromised in the data breach included Plaintiffs' and Class Members' full names, dates of birth, passport numbers, driver's license numbers, and Social Security numbers and medical and health insurance information, which is protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, says the suit. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, the suit asserts. Keenan & Associates provides insurance solutions for schools, colleges, and healthcare organizations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com LABORATORY CORP OF AMERICA: Settlement in Williams for Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2024, that the Williams labor class suit final settlement is for approval of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On October 5, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Williams v. LabCorp Employer Services, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that certain non-exempt California-based employees were not properly compensated for work and overtime hours, not properly paid meal and rest break premiums, not reimbursed for certain business-related expenses, not properly paid for driving or wait times, and received inaccurate wage statements. The Plaintiff also asserts claims for unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code. On November 4, 2020, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On June 24, 2021, the District Court remanded the case to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on the grounds that potential damages did not meet the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), jurisdictional threshold. The parties entered into a settlement agreement dated September 9, 2022. On December 13, 2023, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement funds have been transferred to a claims administrator for processing. Once the claims administration is completed, the parties will seek final settlement approval from the Court. Laboratory Corp is a provider of clinical laboratory services and end-to-end drug development support. LAGUNA COOKIE: De La Cruz Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- OXENI JUAREZ DE LA CRUZ, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAGUNA COOKIE COMPANY INC., a California corporation; D.F. STAUFFER BISCUIT CO., INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 30-2024-01381818-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Sup., Orange Cty., February 26, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee at Defendants' commercial bakery in Santa Ana, California. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly and intentionally, as a matter of uniform policy and practice, committed multiple Labor Code violations, including failing to grant meal and rest periods to Plaintiff and class members, failing to provide accurate and complete wage statements, and failing to timely pay employees all final wages due to them upon separation from employment. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees seek unpaid wages and penalties under the California Business and Professions Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. Cookie Company, Inc. is a producer and supplier of bakery products based in Santa Ana, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Sung, Esq. Tiffany L. Luu, Esq. JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C. 3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1815 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 922-2000 Facsimile: (323) 922-2000 E-mail: william@justiceforworkers.com tluu@justiceforworkers.com LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: Faces Khaitan Suit Over Breach of Contract -------------------------------------------------------------- ZOE KHAITAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LEHIGH UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:24-cv-00831-JFL (E.D. Pa., February 26, 2024) accuses the Defendant of breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff was an undergraduate student enrolled at Defendant for the Spring 2020 semester which was scheduled to run from approximately January 13, 2020 to May 13, 2020. The Plaintiff paid tuition and fees for Defendant's in-person education and services. Beginning approximately March 2020, in accordance with federal rules, classes were transitioned to a remote set-up for the rest of the semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff was forced to take her classes remotely and prevented from utilizing various on-campus services for which she paid. Defendant refused to provide a prorated refund of tuition fees tied to its on-campus education and services. The Plaintiff alleges that such an act constitutes unjust enrichment and a breach of contract with the affected students. The Plaintiff seeks damages and all other forms of monetary relief for Defendant's alleged unlawful acts. Lehigh University is a private university offering 100 undergraduate programs and over 40 master's, doctoral, and professional programs. Its principal campus is located in the city of Bethlehem, Northampton, County, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com - and – Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Anthony Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com MAJOR LEAGUE: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Henry Says ------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN HENRY, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P., Case No. 1:24-cv-01446 (S.D.N.Y., February 26, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. This case arises from Defendant's alleged practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc. or Facebook, sensitive data, including personally identifiable information and personal viewing information belonging to the digital subscribers of Defendant's video streaming service, MLB.tv. Such information was disclosed to Facebook without proper consent from the subscribers, which violates the VPPA, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, Major League Baseball Advanced Media is a limited partnership of the club owners of Major League Baseball. It owns and operates the MLBtv.com website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and – Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue Aventura, FL 33180 E-mail: adam@edelsberglaw.com scott@edelsberglaw.com NEW YORK: C.K. Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.K. through his next friend P.K.; C.W. through her next friend P.W.; C.X. through her next friend P.X.; C.Y. through his next friend P.Y., for themselves and those similarly situated, v. James V. McDonald, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; Ann Marie T. Sullivan, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health, Case No. 2:22-cv-01791-NJC-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties request that the Court entered an order certifying the classes; extending the litigation deadlines for a three-month period; and issuing a litigation stay until April 30, 2024. To the extent settlement negotiations appear fruitful but, due to the complexity of the issues a settlement agreement has not been finalized within the next three months, the Parties may jointly request a further extension of proposed deadlines and the stay in order to provide sufficient time to finalize a settlement. However, without the consent of both Parties to continue the stay and approval by the Court, the stay will expire by April 30, 2024, and the Parties will proceed with litigation activity with the classes already certified as requested in this Joint Motion. The Plaintiffs commenced this litigation on March 31, 2022 and filed an Amended Complaint on Oct. 31, 2022. The Plaintiffs allege that they are Medicaid-eligible children with mental health conditions who require intensive home and community-based mental health services in order to correct or ameliorate their conditions while remaining safely at home and in their communities. They filed suit on behalf of themselves and two classes of similarly situated children against the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health ("DOH"), and the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health ("OMH") in their official capacities. New York State Department of Health oversees sites and programs devoted to diagnoses, treatment and research for public health problems. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5LkqUu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harry Frischer, Esq. Daniele Gerard, Esq. CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 88 Pine Street, Suite 800 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 E-mail: hfrischer@childrensrights.org dgerard@childrensrights.org - and - Brandy L. L. Tomlinson, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK 279 Troy Road, Ste 9 Rensselaer, NY 12144 E-mail: (518) 432-7861 E-mail: Brandy.Tomlinson@drny.org - and - Steven Holinstat, Esq. Jacob Wonn, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036-8299 Telephone: (212) 969-3183 E-mail: sholinstat@proskauer.com jwonn@proskauer.com - and - Kimberly Lewis, Esq. Jane Perkins, Esq. NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM 3701 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (310) 204-6010 E-mail: lewis@healthlaw.org perkins@healthlaw.or The Defendants are represented by: Adam Sansolo, Esq. Yuval Rubinstein, Esq. Rebecca Culley, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 416-8733 E-mail: adam.sansolo@ag.ny.gov yuval.rubinstein@ag.ny.gov rebecca.culley@ag.ny.gov NORTH CAROLINA: Court Tosses Decertification Bid in Hodge --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW HODGE, et al., v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00478-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying Defendant's motion for collective decertification. The Plaintiffs define the collective as "all current and former non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of North Carolina Department of Adult Correction (DAC) who worked as security personnel in a correctional institution at any time during the Relevant Time Period." The Plaintiffs define the proposed class as "all current and former non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of DAC who worked as security personnel in a correctional institution in the State of North Carolina at any time during the Relevant Time Period." The "Relevant Time Period" is "three years before the date of filing of the Complaint through the present day." The parties shall submit a proposed schedule no later than March 18, 2024. Accordingly, DAC defenses do not support decertification. As for fairness and procedural impact, DAC reiterates its concern that the Plaintiffs' claims require "substantial individualized determinations" resulting in numerous "mini-trials. The Plaintiffs brought a collective action under the FLSA seeking unpaid overtime wages for pre- and post-shift activities the Plaintiffs performed beyond their 171-hour tours of duty. The Plaintiffs also seek to certify a class asserting breach of contract for DAC' s alleged failure to compensate proposed class members for pre- and post-shift activities performed during gap hours. On Oct. 28, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class and collective action complaint against the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction alleging failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and breach of contract. On September 2, 2020, the parties stipulated and moved for conditional collective certification under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and Local Civil Rule 7.1 [D.E. 36]. On September 8, 2020, the court granted the motion to conditionally certify the collective action [D.E. 37]. The Plaintiffs were or are non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of DAC working as corrections officers at DAC facilities across North Carolina. From 2016 to June 20, 2019, DAC employed the Plaintiff Hodge as a Corrections Officer I. Hodge worked at Rutherford Correctional Center, Swannanoa Correctional Center for Women, and Alexander Correctional Institution. The North Carolina Department of Public Safety is an umbrella agency that carries out many of the state's law enforcement, emergency response and homeland security functions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4fB71S at no extra charge.[CC] NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Jail Lockdowns ----------------------------------------------------------- Lyndsay Armstrong, writing for globalnews.ca, reports that two law firms have applied for a class-action lawsuit against the Nova Scotia government over the province's alleged unlawful use of lockdowns in jails. The lawsuit by non-profit legal firm PATH and personal injury lawyers Valent Legal follows a Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruling on Jan. 12 that said it is illegal to confine inmates in their jail cells because of staffing shortages. Filed with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, the class-action application says the province's "inhumane" use of lockdowns has caused long-term harm against inmates. "Conditions for prisoners at Nova Scotia's correctional facilities are deplorable," the lawsuit says, but the "staffing-related lockdowns and the severe, continuing damage they cause to prisoners in the correctional facilities form the basis of this (legal) action." The representative plaintiff is James Williams, who has been incarcerated at Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Dartmouth, N.S., since September 2020. He alleges he has spent about 75 per cent of his time in jail under lockdown because the facility doesn't have enough staff to properly guard inmates. As a result of the time he has spent confined in his cell, he has had to repeatedly cancel visits with his family, which he says has affected his mental health. The lawsuit has yet to be certified as a class action, and a court date has not been set. None of the allegations have been tested in court. Justice Minister Brad Johns said the department is reviewing the lawsuit and could not comment on it at this time. The Jan. 12 Supreme Court of Nova Scotia decision by Justice Peter Rosinski found that Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility inmates Durrell Diggs and Ryan Wilband experienced "ongoing material deprivation" of their liberty while incarcerated last fall. The judge says Diggs was detained at the jail for 51 days -- 38 of them confined to his cell for 22 hours per day; eight days he was confined for 21 hours. The court document says that under full staffing at the jail, inmates should be safely out of their cells for up to 12 hours a day. The family of Richard Murray, who took his own life earlier this year in the Dartmouth jail, also known as Burnside, provided letters to The Canadian Press he had written to his wife, telling her he was spending days on end in his cell because of staff shortages. Mary Hendsbee said last month her husband had become desperate and depressed because of the constant lockdowns. Murray was found dead in his cell on Jan. 15. The provincial Department of Justice says an independent death review is underway. A spokesperson for the Justice Department said in February that 14 new staff members had been hired at Burnside, and that 25 other new hires were going through eight weeks of training to qualify as officers. [GN] OFFLINE INC: Gonzales Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------- GONZALEZ, DANIEL, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OFFLINE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV04666 (Cal. Sup. Los Angeles Cty., February 26, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating California Private Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other current or former non-exempt employees of Defendants in California that suffered at least one or more of the Labor Code violations allegedly committed by Defendants, including failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to maintain accurate records, and failing to provide compliant meal and rest periods. Plaintiff is seeking PAGA penalties for the said violations. Offline, Inc. is engaged in the clothing industry with its principal place of business located at 2931 S. Alameda, Los Angeles, CA 90058. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake R. Jones, Esq. BLAKE JONES LAW, PC 355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2450 #2052 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (323) 576-3221 E-mail: blake@blakejones.law PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Berber Extended to April 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL BERBER, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act; v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-03446-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for administrative relief seeking revisions to the Court's scheduling order pursuant to Local Rule 7-11 (as modified). The Court grants the Plaintiffs request and orders as follows: -- Plaintiffs' February 23, 2024 deadline to file their motion for class certification ("MCC") is continued to Friday, April 19, 2024. -- Defendant's April 12, 2024 deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Friday, June 7, 2024. -- Plaintiffs' May 17, 2024 deadline to file their reply to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Friday, July 12, 2024. -- The MCC hearing is continued to Thursday, August 15, 2024. Pacific Steel is an independent reinforcing steel fabricator and placer. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dJO4oR at no extra charge.[CC] PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gay Extended to April 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON GAY, individually, and on behalf of the general public similarly situated; ISRAEL BERBER, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees similarly situated; v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-08442-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for administrative relief seeking revisions to the Court's scheduling order pursuant to Local Rule 7-11 (as modified). The Court grants the Plaintiffs request and orders as follows: -- Plaintiffs' February 23, 2024 deadline to file their motion for class certification ("MCC") is continued to Friday, April 19, 2024. -- Defendant's April 12, 2024 deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Friday, June 7, 2024. -- Plaintiffs' May 17, 2024 deadline to file their reply to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Friday, July 12, 2024. -- The MCC hearing is continued to Thursday, August 15, 2024. Pacific Steel is an independent reinforcing steel fabricator and placer. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3NaIw8 at no extra charge.[CC] PALO ALTO: Faces Schlaegel Securities Fraud Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ MARTIN SCHLAEGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PALO ALTO NETWORKS INC., NIKESH ARORA, DIPAK GOLECHHA and LEE KLARICH, Case No. 5:24-cv-01156 (N.D. Cal., February 26, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the federal securities laws. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Palo Alto Networks common stock from August 18, 2023 through February 20, 2024. The Plaintiff alleges Defendants of making false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts about the company's consolidation and platformization initiatives, financial results, growth, and prospects, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Palo Alto Networks is a multinational cybersecurity company offering an enterprise cybersecurity platform for network security, cloud security, and various cloud-delivered security. It is headquartered in Santa Clara, CA. [BN]. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 400 Concar Drive San Mateo CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 781-0025 E-mail: jake@blockleviton.com - and – Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Sarah E. Delaney, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (314) 241-2029 E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com sarah@blockleviton.com QUEST HEALTH: Faces Shi Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------- JEFF BOYU SHI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. QUEST HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-60321-AHS (S.D. Fla., February 26, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. This action arises from "robocalls" made by Defendant to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. Defendant allegedly routinely uses an artificial pre-recorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places to wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers, which is prohibited under the TCPA. The Defendant placed calls with a prerecorded voice to Plaintiff's number on several occasions intending to reach someone other than, and unknown to, Plaintiff. Despite a request from Plaintiff for his number to be removed from Defendant's contacts, the calls did not stop. Other individuals have complained about receiving pre-recorded voice calls from Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Headquartered in Florida, Quest Health Solutions, LLC is a limited liability company that provides glucose monitoring devices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com RANGE RESOURCES: Allowed Leave to File Docs Under Seal in Rupert ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUPERT, et al., v. RANGE RESOURCES -- APPALACHIA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01281 (W.D. Pa., Filed Sept. 24, 2021), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting Range's unopposed motion for leave to file documents under seal in response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court directed not to electronically file the sealed version of the document until the redacted version of the document is electronically filed using the Redacted Document event, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The Order authorizing the filing of certain materials under seal is provisional in that it may be vacated or modified, in whole or in part, at any time for good cause shown upon the motion of any party (or any other person with a recognized interest as to such matters), or by the Court upon its own motion. The nature of suit states diversity-contract dispute. Range Resources is a natural gas exploration and production company.[CC] SANDOZ US: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Suit With Direct Purchasers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Levy, writing for drugstorenews.com, reports that Sandoz U.S. and its subsidiary Fougera Pharmaceuticals -- both indirect subsidiaries of Sandoz Group AG -- have entered into a settlement agreement with the class of direct purchaser plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation entitled In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This agreement, which contains no admission of wrongdoing by Sandoz U.S., resolves all of the damages claims of the direct purchaser class, which is the only class of plaintiffs that purchased directly from Sandoz U.S. and brought their claims under federal law. Under the terms of the agreement, Sandoz U.S. will pay $265 million in exchange for a full release of all claims asserted against it in the direct purchaser class action by the settlement class members. The full amount of the payment will be included in the company's 2023 financial results. "As a new public company, this settlement underscores the Sandoz commitment to integrity and sound governance, and is an encouraging step toward putting allegations of legacy conduct behind us," the company stated. Beyond the payment, settlement terms include: -- A broad release of claims that covers alleged conduct between 2009 and 2019 as well as all medicines at issue in the direct purchaser class claims. -- Class members have the right to opt out of the settlement, which could result in the settlement amount being reduced on a pro rata basis by up to 12%, or $31.8 million, based on the aggregate dollar sales of the generic pharmaceutical products at issue. Sandoz U.S. also has the option to terminate the settlement if opt-outs reach a certain pre-determined threshold. The settlement is subject to Court approval, as is required for class settlements under U.S. law. If the Court preliminarily approves the settlement, class members will be notified of the settlement and given an opportunity to opt out of the class, object to the settlement and file a claim to receive a settlement payment. Following approval of this settlement, the multidistrict litigation, which was disclosed in the Aug. 18, 2023 Listing Prospectus, will have two remaining plaintiff classes, but they concern indirect and downstream purchases and damages claims under state law. Sandoz U.S. continues to defend itself vigorously in those cases, and has raised a number of defenses, including whether downstream purchasers were actually damaged due to the alleged conduct, the company said. [GN] SHAW BAKERS: Faces Sanchez Wage and Hour Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- JAROL SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SHAW BAKERS LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV065408 (Cal. Sup., Alameda Cty., February 26, 2024) alleges the Defendants of multiple violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt Sanitation Worker from approximately October 2, 2023 to approximately December 2023. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in an ongoing systematic scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, committing multiple Labor Code violations, including, among others, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest periods, failure to pay minimum wage, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Headquartered in South San Francisco, CA, Shaw Bakers LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of fresh and frozen artisan breads as well as a range of sweet and savory pastries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Priscilla Gamino, Esq. Brendan J. Burton, Esq. Onyebuchi Okeke, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 23 7 California Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 E-mail: priscilla@protectionlawgroup.com brendan@protectionlawgroup.com buchi@protectionlawgroup.com ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MI: Lindke Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN LINDKE; MICHAEL SCHULTZ; and all those similarly situated, v. MAT KING, in his official and personal capacities; TIMOTHY DONNELLON, in his official and personal capacities; COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR; TRACY DECAUSSIN, in her official and personal capacities; and THOMAS BLISS, in his official and personal capacities, Case No. 2:22-cv-11767-MFL-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs request that the Court entered an certifying the class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They also request that undersigned counsel be appointed class counsel under Rule 23(a)(4) and (g). The class action lawsuit seeks damages related to the denial of liberty and freedom of individuals, by unlawful overdetainment, when the Defendants failed to respect "good time" credits of those serving sentences of criminal contempt -- including things like missing court dates or failing to timely pay court costs -- within the St. Clair County Jail. Those convicted for criminal contempt are required to serve their confinement in the local jail. Michigan's "Good-Time-Credit" statute unambiguously reduces the length of confinement time by "1 day for each 6 days of the sentence" for a prisoner when his or her "record shows that there are no violations of the rules and regulations" while confined. The Defendants allegedly denied hundreds of class members their timely freedom from confinement as required by state law. The facts of this case are not overly complicated. The Plaintiff Schultz was issued a 25-day sentence for criminal contempt on August 11, 2021. With the required good-time-credit he was entitled under Michigan law (which he never had taken from him, Id., ¶5), it was mandated that the actual time of confinement was actually to be only 20 days. This is because for every six days, he received a one-day credit off his sentence. He should have been released on Aug. 30, 2021. Yet by the Defendants' policies and actions, he was confined and detained in the St. Clair County jail for the full 25 days or until September 4, 2021. The following class definition is proposed: "All individuals confined to the St Clair County jail for criminal contempt for a period in excess of what is permitted by Michigan law due the failure to respect "good time" credit pursuant to M.C.L. section 51.282(1) from April 22, 20193 to January 10, 2022." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8XzVO4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com - and - Matthew E. Gronda, Esq. GRONDA PLC 4800 Fashion Sq Blvd, Ste 200 Saginaw, MI 48604 Telephone: (989) 233-1639 E-mail: matt@matthewgronda.com ULTA SALON: Settlement in Kabasele Suit Wins Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORCAS-COTHY KABASELE, KATIA ARRELLANO, ANGEL GONZALEZ, MINDY MIRANDA, SARYNA DE JESUS, TATIANA BRENAL, FLOR CRUZ, JULISSA PEREZ, ELISSA PADILLA, IAN LAMAR, CLAUDIA BENITEZ, BRITTNEY HUGHES, GEORGE MADDOX, VICTORIA HENKES, ALLEXANDRA TAN, DANIELLE QUAID, JERRICA LABIAN, RYAN GUFFEY, KIERSTEN WONG, BRITTANI HERENA, JANET SANCHEZ, BRITTANY SOMMERS, CHEYENNE LOPEZ, TALIA CASTENEDA, NOHELY LLAMAS, RHONDA PRICKETT, and DEBBIE HARRISON, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01639-WBS-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William B. Shubb entered an order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement and motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement payments. The Court further ordered that: (1) Solely for the purpose of this settlement, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the court certifies the following class: "All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for defendant Ulta within California between October 12, 2019 and Nov. 8, 2022." (2) The court appoints Angel Gonzalez, Mindy Miranda, Saryna De Jesus, Tatiana Brenal, Flor Cruz, Julissa Perez, Elissa Padilla, Ian Lamar, Claudia Benitez, Brittney Hughes, George Maddox, Victoria Henkes, Allexandra Tan, Danielle Quaid, Jerrica Labian, Ryan Guffey, Kiersten Wong, Brittani Herena, Janet Sanchez, Brittany Sommers, Cheyenne Lopez, Talia Casteneda, Nohely Llamas, Rhonda Prickett, Debbie Harrison, and Katia Arellano as class representatives and finds that they meet the requirements of Rule 23. (3) The court appoints the law firms of Mayall Hurley, P.C., SW Employment Law Group, APC, and Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP, as class counsel and finds that they meet the requirements of Rule 23. (4) The settlement agreement's plan for class notice satisfies the requirements of due process and Rule 23. (5) The Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to fees in the amount of $500,000, and litigation costs in the amount of $20,000. (6) Simpluris, Inc. is entitled to administration costs in the amount of $65,000. (7) Plaintiffs Katia Arellano and Angel Gonzalez are entitled to incentive awards in the amount of $5,000, and plaintiffs Mindy Miranda, Saryna De Jesus, Tatiana Brenal, Flor Cruz, Julissa Perez, Elissa Padilla, Ian Lamar, Claudia Benitez, Brittney Hughes, George Maddox, Victoria Henkes, Allexandra Tan, Danielle Quaid, Jerrica Labian, Ryan Guffey, Kiersten Wong, Brittani Herena, Janet Sanchez, Brittany Sommers, Cheyenne Lopez, Talia Casteneda, Nohely Llamas, Rhonda Prickett, and Debbie Harrison are entitled to incentive awards in the amount of $500. (8) $37,500 from the gross settlement amount shall be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency in satisfaction of defendant's alleged penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Ulta sells cosmetics, fragrance, skin, and hair care products, and provides salon services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N3jKBS at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Suit Over Emergency Landing Mishaps ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Zambrano, writing for Fort Myers News-Press, reports that Cape Coral law firm announced a class action lawsuit against United Airlines and The Boeing Company after a cancellation the day an Alaska Airlines flight had to make an emergency landing -- on behalf of a Fort Myers man on another flight. "Our client, Alexander Eaton, along with countless other passengers, have suffered undue travel disruption, stress, opportunity loss, inconvenience, and damages, due to this egregious oversight by United Airlines and The Boeing Company," said Bill Berke, the leading attorney at Berke Law Firm, in a press release. Eaton is seeking relief in damages that exceed $50,000. "Through this class action lawsuit, we seek not only to recover damages for those affected but also to ensure such negligence is never repeated in the aviation industry." Here's what we know: About Berke Law Firm Berke Law Firm, P.A., is a Cape Coral-based law firm that provides end-to-end legal services for Social Security disability claims and personal injuries. What happened? During a flight on Jan. 5, 2024, passengers on a Boeing 737-9 Max aircraft, operated by Alaska Airlines from Oregon to California, encountered a horrifying event when the door plug of the aircraft blew out. The incident depressurized the cabin and exposed passengers to open air thousands of feet above the ground, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. This led to an emergency landing. Eaton's flight to Idaho on Jan. 18 was canceled as his flight was on a Boeing 737-9 Max, which had all been grounded with no communication until the last minute, according to Berke. Fallout from emergency landing An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board found a neglect of safety protocols on the part of Boeing Company. According to the press release, the Boeing Company issued a statement acknowledging their mistake in failing to install the four necessary bolts before delivering the aircraft to Alaska Airlines on Jan. 9, 2024. "This admission has led to increased scrutiny over Boeing's manufacturing and quality assurance practices," the press release states. [GN] VECTOR GROUP: Tobacco Hazards Suits, Settlement Payments Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2024, that as of December 31, 2023, 14 Engle progeny cases (Engle, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al) remain pending in state court. Engle was a massive class action lawsuit initially filed in 1994 by a Miami Beach pediatrician named Howard Engle for injuries suffered because of the health effects of smoking. In May 1994, said case was filed as a class action against Liggett and others in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The class consisted of all Florida residents who, by November 21, 1996, "have suffered, presently suffer or have died from diseases and medical conditions caused by their addiction to cigarette smoking." A trial was held and the jury returned a verdict adverse to the defendants (approximately $145,000,000 in punitive damages, including $790,000 against Liggett). Following an appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, the Florida Supreme Court in July 2006 decertified the class on a prospective basis and affirmed the appellate court's reversal of the punitive damages award. Former class members had until January 2008 to file individual lawsuits. As a result, Liggett and Vector, and other cigarette manufacturers, were sued in thousands of Engle progeny cases in both federal and state courts in Florida. Since 2009, judgments have been entered against Liggett and other cigarette manufacturers in Engle progeny cases. A number of the judgments were affirmed on appeal and satisfied by the defendants. Many were overturned on appeal. As of December 31, 2023, 25 Engle progeny cases where Liggett was a defendant at trial resulted in verdicts. There have been 16 verdicts returned in favor of the plaintiffs and nine in favor of Liggett. In five of the cases, punitive damages were awarded against Liggett. Several of the adverse verdicts were overturned on appeal and new trials were ordered. In certain cases, the judgments were entered jointly and severally with other defendants and Liggett faces the risk that one or more co-defendants decline or otherwise fail to participate in the bonding required for an appeal or to pay their proportionate or jury-allocated share of a judgment. In October 2013, the company entered into a settlement with approximately 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs and their counsel. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Liggett agreed to pay a total of $110,000, with $61,600 paid in an initial lump sum and the balance to be paid in installments over 14 years starting in February 2015. The company's future payments will be approximately $4,000 per annum through 2028, including an annual cost of living increase that began in 2021. In exchange, the claims of these plaintiffs were dismissed with prejudice against the company. Vector Group Ltd. is a diversified holding company with two major businesses: discount tobacco (Liggett Group) and real estate investments (New Valley). VETERANS GUARDIAN: Court Vacates Class Certification Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC BEARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge L. Patrick Auld entered an order granting the Plaintiff's consent motion to vacate local Rule 23.1(b) class certification motion deadline. The Court will set the deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification at the time the Court enters a scheduling order in this matter. Veterans Guardian is a pre-filing consulting firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xJgWfC at no extra charge.[CC] VINTAGE STOCK: Court Narrows Claims in Thompson Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEILA THOMPSON and DENNIS THOMPSON, v. VINTAGE STOCK, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00042-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Clark entered an order granting Vintage Stock's motion to dismiss Count Two and granting in part its motion to Strike. The Court dismisses count two for lack of standing and strikes from the complaint, class definitions C, D, and E from paragraph 25; D, E, and F from paragraph 46; and those in paragraph 62. Vintage Stock presents no support for the proposition that striking some alternative class allegations constitutes a complete denial of class certification. Further, Vintage Stock can show that only some alternative class definitions are fail-safe classes, not that all are. It therefore presents no valid claim for why the Court should strike all class definitions. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to strike in part, striking class definitions C, D, and E from paragraph 25; D, E, and F from paragraph 46; and those in paragraph 62. Alleging that Vintage Stock sent dozens of unauthorized advertisements to their cell phone via text message, Sheila and Dennis Thompson brought this suit under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Missouri do-not-call-list statute. The Thompsons also propose a nationwide class of individuals who similarly received unauthorized text-message advertisements from Vintage Stock. Vintage Stock moves to dismiss one of the Thompsons' three counts for failure to state a claim and moves to dismiss or strike their class allegations entirely. The Thompsons allege that Vintage Stock "regularly sent text message [sic] to thousands of people per month advertising its goods or products, without the consent required by the [TCPA]" and the "Missouri No-Call List. Each count contains a proposed nationwide class. In count one, the Thompsons propose a nationwide class defined in the alternative as: A. All persons, who have registered their telephone number on the Federal Do Not-Call List, who were sent by Defendant or on the Defendant's behalf, on or after December 18, 2018, text messages advertising Defendant’s business, goods, or wares; B. All persons, who have an American telephone number, who have Registered their telephone number on the Federal Do-Not-Call List, who were sent by the Defendant or on the Defendant's behalf, on or after December 18, 2018, text messages advertising the Defendant's business, goods, or wares; C. All persons, who have an American telephone number, who have Registered their telephone number on the Federal Do-Not-Call List, who did not sign a statement that the Defendant could telephone them, who were sent by Defendant or on the Defendant's behalf, on or after December 18, 2018, text messages advertising the Defendant's business, goods, or wares; D. All persons, who have an American telephone number, who have Registered their telephone number on the Federal Do-Not-Call List, who did not sign a statement that Defendant could telephone them, and who have not purchased any goods from the Defendant more than 18 months before the text message from the Defendant, who were sent by Defendant or on the Defendant's behalf, on or after December 18, 2018, text messages advertising the Defendant's business, goods, or wares; or E. All persons, who have an American telephone number, who have Registered their telephone number on the Federal Do-Not-Call List, who did not sign a statement that the Defendant could telephone them, and who have not purchased any goods from the Defendant more than 18 months before the text message from the Defendant, and who have not inquired or applied of the Defendant about any of the Defendant's goods within three months of the text message, who were sent by the Defendant or on the Defendant's behalf, on or after December 4, 2018, text messages advertising the Defendant's business, goods, or wares. In Count Two, the Thompsons include largely identical proposed alternative class definitions as count one, adding as an additional alternative definition: "all persons who received a telephone solicitation call from the Defendant after December 4, 2018." In Count Three, the Thompsons propose a class defined as: Every Missouri resident who, listed the telephone number texted on the Missouri No_Call [sic] list, who on or after December 4, 2020, received more than one text message advertising the Defendant's business, goods, or wares, within any 12 month period. In the next paragraph the Thompsons (presumably in the alternative) propose a nationwide class defined as: All persons within the United States who listed the telephone number which was texted, who within the two years prior to the filing of this Class-Action Petition, received more than one telephone solicitation within any twelve-month period by or on behalf of Defendant, in violation of [Section 407.1098]. Vintage Stock is an American entertainment retailer. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KJ81dd at no extra charge.[CC] WAKEFERN FOOD: Court Narrows Claims in Feldman Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA FELDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WAKEFERN FOOD CORPORATION, Case No. 7:22-cv-06089-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip Halpern entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court grants the motion to dismiss with respect to the: (i) Second Claim for Relief: state consumer fraud acts in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware; (ii) Third Claim for Relief: breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose, and the MMWA; (iii) Fourth Claim for Relief: fraud; and (iv) Fifth Claim for Relief: unjust enrichment. The Court denies the motion to dismiss with respect to the: (i) First Claim for Relief: violations of GBL sections 349 and 350; and (ii) Second Claim for relief: violations of state consumer fraud acts in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiff's first claim for relief for violations of GBL sections 349 and 350 based on alleged misrepresentations regarding the predominance of nonwhole grain flour. The Plaintiff brings claims as a putative class action on behalf of "the Consumer Fraud MultiState Class," which she defines as "[a]ll persons in the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Delaware and Connecticut who purchased the Product during the statutes of limitations for each cause of action alleged." The Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, and sells "Graham Crackers" under the "Bowl & Basket" brand. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2NbS2d at no extra charge.[CC] WELLNOW URGENT: Tambroni and Lattimore Sue Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- GENEVIEVE TAMBRONI, and JOHN LATTIMORE, as parent for minor children S.L. and V.L., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLNOW URGENT CARE, P.C., ADMI CORP d/b/a/ TAG – THE ASPEN GROUP, and PHYSICIANS IMMEDIATE CARE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01595 (N.D. Ill.,February 26, 2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiffs' and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. The complaint alleges that Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as April 25, 2023; however, they did not begin informing victims of the data breach until February 2024 and failed to inform victims when or for how long the data breach occurred. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, WellNow Urgent Care, P.C. operates various urgent care facilities. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com WESCOM CENTRAL: Tellez Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL TELLEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESCOM CENTRAL CREDIT UNION, a California nonprofit, credit union and general cooperative corporation; and Does 1, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV04658 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 26, 2024) seeks to recover civil penalties for Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Daniel Tellez worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately May 13, 2019 to December 30, 2022, in Pasadena, CA, which is in Los Angeles County, California. Allegedly, the Defendants failed pay straight time, minimum, and/or overtime wages for all hours worked. Wescom Central Credit Union a California nonprofit, credit union and general cooperative corporation and the owner and operator of an industry, business, and/or facility licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. Vanessa M. Ruggles, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 1635 Pontius Avenue, Floor 2 Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361 Telephone: (424) 320-6420 Facsimile: (424) 320-6454 E-mail: Emil@d.law Gregg@d.law Vanessa@d.law WILMINGTON TRUST: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLOW HENRY, on behalf of the BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., BRIAN C. SASS, and E. STOCKTON CROFT IV, Case No. 1:19-cv-01925-JLH (D. Del.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending class certification deadlines in the scheduling order. -- 1. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is extended from February 14, 2024 to 30 days following the Court's decision on the motion to amend; -- 2. The deadline for the Defendants to file their response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is extended from March 13, 2024 to 30 days following the date the Plaintiff files a motion for class certification; -- 3. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a reply to the motion for class certification is extended from March 27, 2024 to 15 days following the date the Defendants file their last response; and -- 4. All other case deadlines in the Scheduling Order (D.I. 62) remain the same. Wilmington operates as a full-service bank. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 8, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=apuIKS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Felice, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 2961 Centerville Road, Suite 302 Wilmington, DE 19808 Telephone: (302) 504-6333 E-mail: dfelice@baileyglasser.com The Defendant is represented by: Albert H. Manwaring, IV, Esq. Kirsten A. Zeberkiewicz, Esq. MORRIS JAMES LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-6800 E-mail: amanwaring@morrisjames.com kzeberkiewicz@morrisjames.com - and - Kevin J. Connors, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY, P.C. 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 600 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 552-4302 E-mail: KJConnors@MDWCG.com YANKEE CANDLE: Settles $1.2M Class Action Over Time Clock Rounding ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Larabee, writing for Greenfield Recorder, reports that more than 2,400 current and former Yankee Candle employees are eligible to split $1.2 million from a class action lawsuit brought forward by an employee alleging the company failed to pay workers for "thousands of hours of work" due to its time rounding policy when workers clocked in for their shifts. A joint settlement was approved on Feb. 27 in Hampden County Superior Court between Yankee Candle and Jassen Laplant, who brought the case on behalf of other employees alleging violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, according to court documents. The case revolved around Laplant's claim that a portion of thousands of employees' work went unpaid, as the company rounded workers' time entries to the nearest 15-minute mark, but prohibited them from clocking in more than seven minutes before the start of their shift, while also penalizing them if they clocked in after the start of their shift. "For example, an employee who clocked in to work between 6:53 a.m. and 6:59 a.m. would have their clock-in time rounded to 7:00 a.m., thus resulting in a time clock rounding benefit to the employer," attorney Raymond Dinsmore, who represented Laplant and the employee class, explained in the initial complaint. "However, an employee who clocked in at 6:52 a.m. would have their time clock entry rounded down to 6:45 a.m., resulting an a rounding gain for the employee. "These policies ensured that the vast majority of rounded time clock entries benefited Yankee," he wrote. The suit was initially filed in March 2023, when Dinsmore said the company was "able to derive a significant amount of free labor from its employees." Dinsmore declined to comment on the settlement when reached this week. In the settlement's stipulations, Yankee Candle "denies all of the allegations made by [the] plaintiff in the litigation." An email sent to the attorney representing Yankee Candle was not returned. Laplant also was awarded a $10,000 bonus as a service award for his work in bringing the case forward. Massachusetts wage laws allow employers to round clock-in and clock-out times to the nearest "five minutes, one-tenth, or quarter of an hour provided that this manner of computing working time averages out over a reasonable period of time so that an employee is fully compensated for all the time he or she actually worked," according to the Department of Labor Standards. Dinsmore argued Yankee Candle's "practice ensured that the working times of [the] plaintiff and the other class members did not 'average out over a reasonable period of time so that [the employees] are compensated for all the time [they] worked.'" As part of the settlement, 2,465 non-exempt employees who worked for Yankee Candle in Massachusetts from Nov. 29, 2019 through April 30, 2023 are eligible for a cut of approximately $800,000, as $400,000 of the $1.2 million agreement is set aside for attorney's fees. Payments, to be paid within 60 days after all rights to appeal or review are exhausted, will be on a "pro rata basis based upon the number of weeks worked during the class period." [GN] ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Biles Breach Suit Transferred to D. Md. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JACQUELINE BILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and DOLLAR TREE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01139, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on February 21, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of Maryland assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00511-BAH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and individuals in the United States whose personal information was exposed as a result of a data breach Defendants learned about on August 8, 2023, and first publicly acknowledged on November 23, 2023. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other class members, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violations of the Florida consumer protection law, and for declaratory and injunctive relief. Zeroed-In Technologies, LLC operates a cloud-based HR analytics business that helps collect, analyze, and visualize workface data.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 1 West Las Olas Blvd. Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Kenneth L Chernof, Esq. ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: ken.chernof@arnoldporter.com [*] Class Suit Dismissals Up Under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act ------------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that following recent rulings in prominent cases such as Union des consommateurs v. Air Canada (Air Canada), Fortin v. Mazda Canada Inc. (Mazda) and Martel v. Kia Canada Inc., the Superior Court of Quebec (QSC) dismissed yet another class action based on alleged violations of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act (QPCA), thus underscoring a growing trend. In Lussier v. Expedia Inc. (Expedia), the QSC dismissed a class action against Expedia Inc. and other online hotel booking platforms (Defendants), adding to the trend of authorized class actions being dismissed on the merits, absent an infringement by the defendants or evidence of prejudice suffered by consumers. In Expedia, the plaintiff alleged that after booking a hotel reservation using the Defendants' online platform, the hotel charged hidden fees, commonly referred to as "hotel fees" or "resort fees" (Hotel Fees), once the plaintiff arrived on-site. The plaintiff claimed that the Defendants failed to disclose the Hotel Fees when the reservation was booked online. The plaintiff alleged that by not disclosing such fees, the Defendants had breached subsection 224(c) of the QPCA, which prohibits merchants from charging a higher price for goods or services than that advertised. The plaintiff claimed reimbursement of the Hotel Fees and punitive damages totalling C$15 million on behalf of the class members. The QSC dismissed the plaintiff's claims in their entirety on the following grounds. First, the QSC noted that, early in the reservation process, the Defendants clearly and repeatedly stated on their reservation platform that Hotel Fees would be added to the base rate and were to be paid on-site. The QSC determined that these warnings were sufficient to alert consumers of the existence of Hotel Fees. The QSC added that consumers had a responsibility, in turn, to make an effort to understand their obligations, and in this case, the plaintiff had admitted to not having read the hotel reservation contract. The QSC stated it is unable to support consumers who do not read their contractual obligations and held that no prohibited practice under the QPCA had occurred. Second, the QSC was of the view that even if it had found there to be a prohibited practice, the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had suffered any prejudice. Echoing the teachings of the Quebec Court of Appeal in Mazda, the QSC stated that the mere fact that a prohibited practice had taken place does not exempt the plaintiff from quantifying the prejudice he suffered if he seeks any of the remedies provided for in section 272 of the QPCA. Furthermore, the granting of such a remedy is at the discretion of the court. The QSC determined that the plaintiff had suffered no prejudice, on the grounds that the Defendants had repeatedly warned consumers of the existence of the Hotel Fees and had made no financial gain from such fees, and that the plaintiff had fully benefited from the hotel services he had purchased. These grounds parallel those of the decision rendered in Air Canada, the very first class action based on subsection 224(c) of the QCPA to be decided on the merits. For more information, please see our November 2022 Blakes Bulletin: Higher-Than-Advertised Prices: Where's the Injury? Third, the QSC refused to award punitive damages to class members. Since the practice of charging Hotel Fees had been developed by hotels without the Defendants' knowledge, one could not conclude that the Defendants had been lax, passive, or ignorant. On the contrary, given that the Defendants had ensured that consumers were fully informed of the existence of Hotel Fees, the QSC found that the Defendants' conduct had been satisfactory and proactive. While Expedia will likely not prevent other class actions from being launched pursuant to subsection 224(c) of the QCPA, it does highlight the difficulties faced by consumers who undertake such actions. So far, the courts hearing these cases have not been convinced of the existence of a prohibited practice or prejudice suffered by the plaintiffs, particularly where price warnings have been issued to consumers and where consumers benefited from goods or services purchased from the merchant. [GN] [*] Securities Class Actions Settlement Amounts Reach Record High ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Dilworth, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the average amount for settling securities class actions in 2023 was the highest in over a decade, Cornerstone Research said in a report. The New York-based economic consultancy said the average settlement for a securities class action last year was $47.3 million, a 25% increase from 2022. While the number of settlements for securities class actions dropped from 105 in 2022 to 83 last year, the total amount of the settlements for both years totaled nearly $4 billion. Nine "mega settlements," ranging from $102.5 million to $1 billion, accounted for 52% of 2023's total settlements amount. The number of mega settlements -- those totaling $100 million or more -- was the highest since 2016. The report said one factor contributing to the increased amount for settling class securities class actions is the median age of the publicly traded company being sued. The median age of the companies that settled a securities class action in 2023 was 16 years, whereas companies that settled cases from 2014 to 2022 had a median age of 11 years. The report said the size of defendant companies in securities class actions could grow as a result of bank failures in 2023 and the rising number of settled cases involving financial companies.[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 ***