/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240319.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, March 19, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 57
Headlines
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Parties Must File Case Schedule in Loschiavo
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Parties Must File Case Schedule in Thompson Suit
ADVANTA SEEDS: High Court to Rule on Shattercane Class Action
ADVANTAGE SALES: Valenzuela Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Continues to Defend Job Duties-Related Suit
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Oral & Written Discovery in Labor Suit Ongoing
ALLEGHENY WOOD: Beane Sues Over WARN Act Violations
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Placeholder Bid for Conditional Status Sought
APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Business Practices
AQUACO INC: Monter Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Breaches
AUTUMN LAKE: Parties Must File Status Report by April 19
BALFOUR BEATTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marquez et al. Allege
BANK OF AMERICA: May 31 Settlement Claims Submission Deadline Set
BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Bid to Seal Docs in Nelson Class Action
BARCLAYS BANK: Antitrust Suit Dismissed in Federal Court
BARCLAYS BANK: Settles ForEx Row for $17.75M
BARRETT BUSINESS: Continues to Defend Labor Suit in California
BAUSCH HEALTH: Antitrust Suit Remanded to D. Conn.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Faces Consumer Suit in California Court
BINANCE.US: SEC Investigates Custody, Access of Customer Assets
BROCK GROUP: Valentic PMWA Suit Seeks Class Certification
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Goldsmith Sues Over Website's False Discount Ads
C.R. ENGLAND: Lopez Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages
CALVIN KLEIN: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
CAPITAL ONE: Court Dismisses Wright Suit
CENTRAL ADMIXTURE: Naumann Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CIMAREX ENERGY: Settlement in Sagacity Suit Gets Initial Nod
CITIBANK NA: Khuu Files Class Action Suit Over Check "Junk Fees"
CITIBANK NATIONAL: Khuu Balks at Illegal Returned Check Fees
COCA-COLA CO: Fletcher Seeks Damages Over Mislabeled Hard Seltzer
COLOR FACTORY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Charles Due June 3
DAVID DINELLO: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Oleman Case
DEE BROOKHART: Bid for Reconsideration of Class Cert Order Denied
DEE DEE BROOKHART: Dalcollo Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
DISCOVER BANK: Agrees to Settle Lending Discrimination Suit
DOCGO INC: Faces McDonald Shareholder Action Over DGCL Breach
DOLLAR TREE: Jacobo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EAST TEXAS BAPTIST: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELEVANCE HEALTH: Marshall Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ENVY STYLZ BOUTIQUE: Competello Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EXELON CORP: Consolidated Consumer Complaint in IL Court Dismissed
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena Seeks Leave to File Materials Under Seal
FCA US: Faces Consumer Protection Lawsuit Over Defective Vehicles
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Howards Class Suit Trial Still Not Set
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Klopfenstein Post-Trial Bids Pending
FLAT ROCK: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Freeman Says
FLIPPER'S US: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FLOYD INC: Austin Suit Removed to N.D. California
FMC CORP: Continues to Defend Employer-Teamster Local Class Suit
FMC CORP: Continues to Defend Heeg Class Suit in E.D. Penn.
FMC CORP: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Class Suit
FUCHSIA SPA GROUP: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
GATOS SILVER: $21MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 31
GENERAL MILLS: Necaise Sues Over Dangerous Levels of Pesticide
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Exclude Dahm's Opinion Granted in Part
GERBER LIFE: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Identified Filings
GOLDEN CORRAL: Inelus Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
HARBOR UCLA: Bid to Continue Class Cert Briefing Schedule Denied
HARBOR UCLA: Wilcox Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing
HILTON MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Decertify Class in Gonzalez
HISMILE PTY: Ponce Sues Over False and Misleading Sale Advertising
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit Over Use of AI, Violations of CIPA
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Hussein Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
HOUSER LLP: Giannelli Sues Over Private Data Breach
HOUSER LLP: McMillen Seeks Damages for Alleged Data Breach
HUT 8 CORP: Latino Seeks Damages for Breaches of Securities Laws
HY CITE ENTERPRISES: Maldonado Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
IFIT HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to Exclude Untimely Declarations
ILLINOIS WESLEYAN: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INDIVIOR PLC: Consumer Law Group Investigates Suboxone Class Suit
INTERNATIONAL WIND: Burin Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Sept. 2
IROBOT CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Over Amazon Merger
JDC HEALTHCARE: Lee TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
JMG SPECIALTIES: Faces Torres Suit Over Labor Law Violations
KAISER FOUNDATION: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Hearing Aid Coverage
LANTRONIX INC: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set on April 23
LIBERTY HOSPITAL: Cook Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
LIGHT & WONDER INC: Continues to Defend Boorn Class Suit
LIGHT & WONDER INC: Continues to Defend Tonkawa Tribe Class Suit
LYFT INC: Chen Sues Over Misleading Financial Statements
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Alexander Tossed
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Carmichael Tossed
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in ERISA Suit Tossed
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Ewing Suit Tossed
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Jackson Tossed
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT RESOURCE: Montoya Files Suit in D. Arizona
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Gallegos & Drews Sue Over Late Breach Notice
MEDMINDER SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grote Suit Alleges
MERCK SHARP: Bids for Class Cert in Baltimore Suit Due Oct. 27
MERIT ENERGY: GOP "Oklahoma Wells" Suit Seeks Class Certification
MILLER PIPELINE: Amezcua Suit Removed to N.D. California
MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Le Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
MULTI-MAN PUBLISHING: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MZ WALLACE INC: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Kolev Suit
NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend SGERS Class Suit
NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mortgage Discrimination
NEI GENERAL: Court Enters Class Certification Order in Ruiz Suit
NESTLE USA: O'Rourke Seeks Damages for Misbranded Mineral Waters
NESTLE USA: O'Rourke Sues Over Mineral Water False Ads
NEW YORK LIFE: Seeks Permit to File Documents Under Seal
NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Buckley Class Action
NEXION HEALTH AT MARRERO: Devore Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
NKCH BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Jackson Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
NORDSEC LTD: Hanscom Sues Over Deceptive Automatic Renewal Practice
NORTH KANSAS CITY HOSPITAL: H.Z. Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Heitzner Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
NOVAVAX INC: $47MM Class Action Settlement to be Heard on May 23
OHIO: Court Certifies Suit on Pandemic Unemployment Assistance
OKTA INC: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Court OK's Sealing of Class Cert Support Exhibits
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
OLO INC: $9MM Class Action Settlement to be Heard on June 10
OLO INC: To Settle Mariners' Pension Fund Row Over SEC Disclosures
OREGON: Court Junks J.N. Suit
OUTSET MEDICAL: Securities Suit Over Hemodialysis System Dismissed
PACIFIC GAS: Sarfraz-Sattar Suit Removed to E.D. California
PARKING CONCEPTS: Bartholomew Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PBF HOLDING: Piscitelli Class Cert Hearing Set for April 10
PELICIA E. HALL: Bid to Replace Exhibit 24 OK'd in Alexander Suit
PER DIEM LLC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Western Cab Sues Over Oil Price Fixing
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Dotterer Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois
PRATT (LATHROP CORRUGATING): Villa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RADIOLOGY PARTNERS: Underpays Patient Service Reps, Petty Claims
ROBINSON WINE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SCHLAGE LOCK: Bailey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SHIPT INC: Boson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Carrillo Suit Removed to E.D. California
STAPLES CONTRACT: Bruno Suit Removed to C.D. California
STATE FARM: Bid to Dismiss COVID-19 Losses Suit Denied
STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Stepney Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
STPGOODS INC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SUN COUNTRY INC: Smith Sues Over for ERISA Violation
SUSQUEHANNA UNIVERSITY: Gladfelter Sues Over Breach of Contract
T-MOBILE USA: Rendon TCPA Suit Removed to C.D. California
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Crommelin Sues Over Empty Vyvanse Capsules
TAYLOR FARMS RETAIL: Armenta Suit Removed to N.D. California
TESLA INC: Karunatilaka Suit Transferred to C.D. California
U.S. NEWS: Breaches CIPA Over Use of Trackers, Gabrielli Suit Claim
UNITE HERE: Puller-Soto Files Suit in S.D. New York
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Keriazis Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Mackey Sues Over Massive Data Breach
UNIVERSITY OF SIOUX FALLS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNLIMITED CARRIER: Wooten Sues Over Unlawful Wage Practices
UPPER IOWA UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UV SKINZ INC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VAPOR BOSS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Beard Seeks to Vacate Class Cert. Bid Deadline
VIATRIS INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set June 12 in Merger Suit
VM E-COMMERCE INC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WEST VIRGINIA WESLEYAN: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WESTMINSTER UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WWIL PERSONNEL: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY: Herszage-Feldan Files Suit in S.D. New York
YUM YUM: Gamez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
ZEELOOL INC: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
*********
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Parties Must File Case Schedule in Loschiavo
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONNIE LOSCHIAVO, et al.,
v. ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-5069 (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order directing
the parties to file a joint proposed case schedule that will be
applicable to both actions, proposing deadlines for any outstanding
fact discovery, expert discovery, dispositive motions, and motions
for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
On Aug. 2, 2023, the parties in Loschiavo v. Advanced Drainage
Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-5069 (the "Loschiavo Action") filed
a proposed joint case schedule.
Many of the parties' proposed dates were tied to the then
undetermined close of the notice period in the related action
Thompson v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-2771
(the Case: 2:22-cv-02771-MHW-CMV).
On Oct. 17, 2023, the Court granted the parties' Motion for
Approval of the Parties' Proposed Notice and Consent in the
Thompson Action. The notice period in Thompson Action closed as of
Jan. 15, 2024.
Advanced Drainage designs, manufactures, and markets thermoplastic
corrugated pipes and related water management products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y2uysc at no extra
charge.[CC]
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Parties Must File Case Schedule in Thompson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK THOMPSON, et al., v.
ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-2771 (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order directing the
parties to file a joint proposed case schedule that will be
applicable to both actions, proposing deadlines for any outstanding
fact discovery, expert discovery, dispositive motions, and motions
for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
On Aug. 2, 2023, the parties in Loschiavo v. Advanced Drainage
Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-5069 (the "Loschiavo Action") filed
a proposed joint case schedule.
Many of the parties' proposed dates were tied to the then
undetermined close of the notice period in the related action
Thompson v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-2771
(the Case: 2:22-cv-02771-MHW-CMV).
On Oct. 17, 2023, the Court granted the parties' Motion for
Approval
of the Parties' Proposed Notice and Consent in the Thompson Action.
The notice period in Thompson Action closed as of Jan. 15, 2024.
Advanced Drainage designs, manufactures, and markets thermoplastic
corrugated pipes and related water management products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sk8r8C at no extra
charge.[CC]
ADVANTA SEEDS: High Court to Rule on Shattercane Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grain Central reports that a group of sorghum growers is awaiting
the outcome of a class action against seed company Advanta Seeds,
with a High Court of Australia hearing concluding in March.
Law Firm Creevey Horrell Lawyers, on behalf of Darling Downs
growers, Andrew Jenner, trading as Mallonland Pty Ltd, and ME & JL
Nitschke Pty Ltd successfully applied for special leave to appeal
to the High Court in October 2023 after losing an appeal in the
Supreme Court of Queensland.
Both parties are representing a cohort of about 100 sorghum growers
from Queensland and New South Wales who claim they suffered losses
after planting sorghum seeds.
The action relates to a sorghum seed product, MR43, sold by Advanta
Seeds (then Pacific Seeds) between 2010 and 2014.
The appellants claim seed was contaminated with shattercane, which
corrupted the growth of the sorghum crop as well as future crops
grown in the paddock.
The sorghum seed was packaged in bags labelled with the
respondent's terms and conditions of sale, which included a
disclaimer of liability.
Both sides agreed that Advanta knew the seed was contaminated by
shattercane and it was "reasonably foreseeable" that the
shattercane would impact the production potential of the land.
In the Supreme Court of Queensland and the subsequent Court of
Appeals hearing, Advanta has successfully argued that a disclaimer
warning "clearly and prominently marked" 2010/2011 summer season
MR43 sorghum seed told growers of the risks.
The company claimed the warning told growers that it could not
guarantee the purity of the batch, nor take responsibility for any
negligence in the manufacture of the product.
The appellants alleged that Advanta had breached a duty of care by
engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with the
supply of the seed, which resulted in loss or damage.
They argue that Advanta had failed to conduct a grow-out of the
contaminated seed before supplying it to the public, had failed to
undertake scientific testing, and had failed to warn them of the
need to remove the shattercane.
Creevey Horrell Principal Dan Creevey said the appellants "have
been suffering from the impacts of shattercane for a long time and
continue to suffer".
Mr Creevey said the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find
Advanta owed a duty of care to the applicant farmers as end users
of its MR43 seed product, sold to them through distributors.
"We submit Advanta failed to take reasonable care to avoid the risk
that such end users who used the product as intended on their land
for sorghum farming would sustain economic losses by reason of
hidden defects in those goods," Mr Creevey said.
"The Court of Appeal also erred on the question of whether Advanta
owed such a duty of care as manufacturer to the applicant farmers,
in finding the presence of a disclaimer of liability on the product
packaging for the MR43 seed product negated any assumption of
responsibility by Advanta so as to preclude the duty of care on the
part of the manufacturer arising.
"It is our position that disclaimer should not operate to allow
Advanta to avoid responsibility for the contamination."
The original class action against Advanta Seeds was launched in
2017.
According to the plaintiffs, about 28,000ha of land was impacted by
shattercane infestations, causing about $105 million in losses.
[GN]
ADVANTAGE SALES: Valenzuela Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA VALENZUELA, individually and as a representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the ADVANTAGE 401(k)
SAVINGS PLAN v. ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING LLC; THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF ADVANTAGE SALES & MARKETING LLC; THE ADVANTAGE 401(K)
SAVINGS PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; and DOES No. 1-20, whose
names are currently unknown, Case No. 8:24-cv-00460 (C.D. Cal.,
March 4, 2024) accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Advantage Sales & Marketing
and a participant in the Advantage 401(k) Savings Plan which is
maintained by Defendants. She alleges that Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the Plan by causing unreasonable expenses
to be charged to participants and failing to appropriately monitor
the Plan's investments. The Plaintiff and class members allegedly
suffered losses as a result of Defendants' violations.
The Plaintiff and class members seek to recover all losses and
other equitable or remedial relief under ERISA.
Advantage Sales & Marketing is a sales, merchandising, and
marketing company based in Irvine, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: ajberin@millershah.com
- and –
Don Bivens, Esq.
DON BIVENS PLLC
15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (602) 708-1450
E-mail: don@donbivens.com
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Continues to Defend Job Duties-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aerovironment Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending January 27, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the job duties-related class suit
in the Ventura County Superior Court in California.
On January 22, 2024, a former employee filed a class action
complaint against AeroVironment in the Ventura County Superior
Court in California alleging that AeroVironment did not indemnify
and reimburse employees for certain tools and equipment purchased
by such employees needed to discharge their job duties.
The Company is currently evaluating the claims contained in the
complaint and intends to mount a vigorous defense.
Aerovironment, Inc. is into multi-domain robotic systems and
related services based in Virginia.
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Oral & Written Discovery in Labor Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerovironment Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending January 27, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2024, that the oral and written
discovery for a labor class suit is ongoing in the California
Superior Court in Los Angeles, California.
On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint
against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles,
California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor
Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, unreimbursed business
expenses and other recordkeeping matters.
The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged
unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in
unspecified amounts.
The Company filed its answer on December 16, 2021.
Written and oral discovery are ongoing.
Aerovironment, Inc. is into multi-domain robotic systems and
related services based in Virginia.
ALLEGHENY WOOD: Beane Sues Over WARN Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
former Allegheny Wood Products employee has filed a potential class
action lawsuit against the company after it abruptly shut down
February 23.
James Beane is the named plaintiff in the complaint filed March 1
in federal court.
According to the complaint, Beane worked for the company when it
closed.
"Defendant terminated Mr. Beane and all other employees," the
complaint states. "Defendant failed to provide a 60-day WARN Act
notice. There were no 'unforeseen business circumstances' that
required termination of plaintiff and others without notice."
Allegheny Wood Products, which is based in Grant County, had
operations in Bruceton Mills, Cowen, Kingwood, Moorefield,
Petersburg, Princeton and Riverton. Employees reportedly knew there
were issues with the company, but most people expected it to be
sold rather than shut down.
State officials have said the closure meant the loss of about 850
jobs, including contractors.
In the complaint, the potential class accuses the company of
violating the WARN Act and the West Virginia Wage Payment and
Collection Act.
The plaintiffs say the company failed to pay them 60 days of pay
and benefits owed to them under the WARN Act. They also seek civil
penalties for each violation.
In addition to the certification of the class, the plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, civil penalties, liquidated damage, attorney
fees, court costs and other relief.
Beane and the others are being represented by Amanda J. Taylor of
Taylor Hinkle & Taylor in Charleston.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case
number 5:24-cv-00102 [GN]
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Placeholder Bid for Conditional Status Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL DAGLEY,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01681-NYW-MEH (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his
placeholder motion for conditional certification and
court-authorized notice.
American Medical is a private ambulance company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FuaCDl at no extra
charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
CORONAVIRUS REPORTER CORPORATION, CALID INC., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00053-SWS (D. Wyo., March 5,
2024) seeks to redress Defendant Apple Inc.'s anti-competitive
business practices in the Sherman Act relevant market for United
States smartphones, as well as related markets for smartphone apps
and their distribution channels.
According to the complaint, Apple's censorship mechanism functions
primarily by tying app distribution to its iPhone smartphone, using
a digital "notary stamp" to mark each piece of software approved in
the App Store. Apple rejected Coronavirus Reporter on March 6,
2020, knowing apps from large institutions and strategic partners
were in the pipeline but not yet ready. It specifically strategized
to prevent the Coronavirus Reporter app, and all COVID startup
firms, from setting a precedent or amassing a user base, which
could jeopardize its own pipeline and/or the first-mover advantage
of desirable institutional partners of a monopolistic trust, the
suit says.
Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple Inc. is a California
corporation that designs, markets, and sells smartphones (the
iPhone) and computers (the Mac). It owns and operates the App
Store, which serves as the only retail store for iPhone
applications (apps) that execute commerce and information flow over
the national internet. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Keith Mathews, Esq.
AMERICAN WEALTH PROTECTION
1000 Elm Street, Suite 800
Manchester, NH 03105
Telephone: 603-622-8100
E-mail: keith@awplegal.com
- and -
Melissa R. Theriault, Esq.
WOODHOUSE RODEN AMES & BRENNAN, LLC
1912 Capitol Ave. Suite 500
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Telephone: (307) 432-9399
E-mail: melissa@wrablaw.com
AQUACO INC: Monter Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR MONTER, on behalf of himself, and as an "aggrieved employee"
on behalf of other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. AQUACO,
INC. dba COAST TROPICALS, a California corporation; DIANA MOSS, an
individual; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05316 (Cal.
Sup., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
violating the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission
Orders, the Business and Professions Code, and public policy.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Coast Tropicals from in or
around December 2007/January 2008 until on or about August 28, 2023
when the company terminated Plaintiff's employment. The Plaintiff
alleges that throughout his employment tenure, Defendants committed
multiple violations of the Labor Code, including, among others,
failure to pay all wages earned for all hours worked, failure to
provide rest and meal periods, and failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements. Defendants also allegedly violated IWC
Wage Orders and public policy.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated aggrieved employees seek to
recover unpaid wages and damages, as well as civil penalties and
other related relief under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 (PAGA) for the said violations.
Based in Gardena, CA, Aquaco, Inc., dba Coast Tropicals, is a
supplier of aquatic livestock. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
MM LAW, APC
500 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 2000
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 810-7747
Facsimile: (818) 230-9018
E-mail: maralle@mmlawapc.com
AUTUMN LAKE: Parties Must File Status Report by April 19
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hall v. Autumn Lake
Healthcare LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01108 (E.D. Wisc., Filed
Sept. 22, 2021), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order that
by the end of the day on April 19, 2024, the parties must file a
joint report updating the court as to the status of the mediation
and/or a joint report with a proposed schedule for completing class
discovery and filing class certification and decertification
motions.
The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Autumn Lake is a management company that provides non-healthcare
services to licensed healthcare centers.[CC]
BALFOUR BEATTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Marquez et al. Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSARIO MARQUEZ, SAUL FLORES, and DEODORO DE LEON, individually and
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION, LLC and C. J. COAKLEY CO., INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00352 (E.D. Va., March 5, 2024) arises
from the Defendants' failure to pay their employees their legally
mandated wages in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act,
and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
During 2023 and early 2024 Plaintiffs performed construction work
of an apartment building in the National Lading area of Arlington,
VA. Their was terminated on February 12, 2024, after they completed
their work for that day. Throughout their employment with the
Defendants, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated sometimes
worked more than 40 hours in a work week. However, they were not
paid for the time worked beyond 40 hours at the overtime rate, says
the suit.
Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC is a construction company that
does business in Virginia and which is affiliated with Balfour
Beatty PLC, a United Kingdom-based construction and infrastructure
company. Balfour Beatty often refers to itself as "Balfour Beatty
Construction."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
1100 N Glebe Rd, Suite 1010
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (703) 665-9529
E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
1201 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200K
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 559-2411
E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com
BANK OF AMERICA: May 31 Settlement Claims Submission Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If your business accepted Visa and/or Mastercard between
2004 - 2019, you're now eligible to claim your share of a $5.5
billion Settlement.
The Notice tells you about your rights and options in a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York. Judge Margo K. Brodie and Magistrate Judge James
Orenstein are overseeing this class action, which is called In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1720 (MKB) (JO). The Notice also explains the
lawsuit, the proposed settlement, the benefits available,
eligibility for those benefits, and how to get them.
The companies or entities who started this case are called the
"Plaintiffs." The companies they are suing are the "Defendants."
This case has been brought on behalf of merchants. The specific
merchants that filed the case are the Rule 23(b)(3) Class
Plaintiffs and the Court has authorized them to act on behalf of
all merchants in the class described below in connection with the
proposed settlement of this case. The Rule 23(b)(3) Class
Plaintiffs are:
Photos Etc. Corporation DBA ScanMyPhotos.Com; Traditions, Ltd.;
Capital Audio Electronics, Inc.; CHS Inc.; Discount Optics, Inc.;
Leon's Transmission Service, Inc.; Parkway Corporation; and Payless
Inc.
The companies that the plaintiffs have been suing are the
"Defendants." Defendants are:
Network Defendants:
"Visa": Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa International Service Association,
and Visa Inc.; and
"Mastercard": Mastercard International Incorporated and Mastercard
Incorporated; and
Bank Defendants: Bank of America, N.A.; BA Merchant Services LLC
(formerly known as National Processing, Inc.); Bank of America
Corporation; Barclays Bank plc; Barclays Delaware Holdings, LLC
(formerly known as Juniper Financial Corporation); Barclays Bank
Delaware (formerly known as Juniper Bank); Barclays Financial
Corp.; Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.; Capital One F.S.B.; Capital
One Financial Corporation; Chase Bank USA, N.A. (and as successor
to Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. and Bank One, Delaware, N.A.);
Paymentech, LLC (and as successor to Chase Paymentech Solutions,
LLC); JPMorgan Chase & Co. (and as successor to Bank One
Corporation); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (and as successor to
Washington Mutual Bank); Citibank, N.A.; Citigroup Inc.; Citicorp;
Fifth Third Bancorp; First National Bank of Omaha; HSBC Finance
Corporation; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; HSBC North America Holdings Inc.;
HSBC Holdings plc; HSBC Bank plc; The PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc. (and as acquirer of National City Corporation); National City
Corporation; National City Bank of Kentucky; SunTrust Banks, Inc.;
SunTrust Bank; Texas Independent Bancshares, Inc.; and Wells Fargo
& Company (and as successor to Wachovia Corporation).
What is this lawsuit about?
This lawsuit is principally about the interchange fees attributable
to merchants that accepted Visa or Mastercard credit or debit cards
between January 1, 2004 and January 25, 2019, and Visa's and
Mastercard's rules for merchants that have accepted those cards.
The Rule 23(b)(3) Class Plaintiffs claim that:
Visa, and its respective member banks, including the Bank
Defendants, violated the law because they set interchange fees.
Mastercard and its respective member banks, including the Bank
Defendants, violated the law because they set interchange fees.
Visa and its respective member banks, including the Bank
Defendants, violated the law because they imposed and enforced
rules that limited merchants from steering their customers to other
payment methods. Those rules include so-called no-surcharge rules,
no-discounting rules, honor-all-cards rules, and certain other
rules. Doing so insulated them from competitive pressure to lower
the interchange fees.
Mastercard and its respective member banks, including the Bank
Defendants, violated the law because they imposed and enforced
rules that limited merchants from steering their customers to other
payment methods. Those rules include so-called no-surcharge rules,
no-discounting rules, honor-all-cards rules, and certain other
rules. Doing so insulated them from competitive pressure to lower
the interchange fees.
Visa and Mastercard conspired together about some of the business
practices challenged.
Visa and its respective member banks continued in those activities
despite the fact that Visa changed its corporate structure and
became a publicly owned corporation after this case was filed.
Mastercard and its respective member banks continued in those
activities despite the fact that Mastercard changed its corporate
structure and became a publicly owned corporation after this case
was filed.
The Defendants' conduct caused the merchants to pay excessive
interchange fees for accepting Visa and Mastercard cards. But for
Defendants' conduct there would have been no interchange fee or
those fees would have been lower.
The Defendants say they have done nothing wrong. They claim their
business practices are legal, justified, the result of independent
competition and have benefitted merchants and consumers.
Am I part of this settlement?
If you received a Notice in the mail, the Defendants' records show
that you are probably in the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class,
consisting of:
All persons, businesses, and other entities that have accepted any
Visa-Branded Cards and/or Mastercard-Branded Cards in the United
States at any time from January 1, 2004 to January 25, 2019, except
that the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class shall not include (a) the
Dismissed Plaintiffs, (b) the United States government, (c) the
named Defendants in this Action or their directors, officers, or
members of their families, or (d) financial institutions that have
issued Visa-Branded Cards or Mastercard-Branded Cards or acquired
Visa-Branded Card transactions or Mastercard-Branded Card
transactions at any time from January 1, 2004 to January 25, 2019.
The Dismissed Plaintiffs are plaintiffs that previously settled and
dismissed their own lawsuit against a Defendant; those plaintiffs
are listed in Appendix B to the Class Settlement Agreement, which
is available here. The Dismissed Plaintiffs also include entities
related to the plaintiffs listed in Appendix B. If you are
uncertain about whether you may be a Dismissed Plaintiff, you
should call 1-800-625-6440 or view Appendix B here for more
information.
The Settlement Preliminary Approval Date referenced in this class
definition is January 25, 2019.
If you are not sure whether you are part of this settlement,
contact the Class Administrator at:
Call the toll-free number: 1-800-625-6440
Write to: Payment Card Interchange Fee Settlement, P.O. Box 2530,
Portland, OR 97208-2530
Email: info@PaymentCardSettlement.com
How much money will be provided in this settlement?
Under the settlement, Visa, Mastercard and the Bank Defendants have
agreed to provide $5.54 billion to merchants that did not exclude
themselves from the Settlement Class.
Every merchant in the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class that did not
exclude itself from the class by the deadline, and filed a valid
claim ("Authorized Claimant") will be paid from the settlement
fund. The money in this settlement fund will also be used to pay:
The cost of Settlement administration and notice, and applicable
taxes on the settlement fund and any other related tax expenses, as
approved by the Court;
Money awards for Rule 23(b)(3) Class Plaintiffs for their service
on behalf of the class, as approved by the Court; and
Attorneys' fees and expenses, as approved by the Court.
How do I ask for money from this settlement?
You must file a valid claim to get money from this Settlement. The
Court granted Final Approval to the settlement on December 13,
2019. If you did not exclude yourself from the Rule 23(b)(3)
Settlement Class, you will receive a claim form in the mail or by
email. Claim forms are mailing on a rolling basis throughout the
month of December. Please be patient. If you do not receive a claim
form by the middle of January and/or are not sure whether you are
part of this settlement, contact the Class Administrator:
Call the toll-free number: 1-800-625-6440
Write to: Payment Card Interchange Fee Settlement, P.O. Box 2530,
Portland, OR 97208-2530
Email: info@PaymentCardSettlement.com
How much money will I get?
The amount paid from the settlement fund will be based on your
actual or estimated interchange fees attributable to Visa and
Mastercard card transactions (between you and your customers) from
January 1, 2004, through January 25, 2019.
The amount of money each Authorized Claimant will receive from the
settlement fund depends on the money available to pay all claims,
the total dollar value of all valid claims filed, the cost of class
administration and notice, applicable taxes on the settlement fund
and any other related tax expenses, attorneys' fees and expenses,
and money awards to the Rule 23(b)(3) Class Plaintiffs for their
representation of merchants in MDL 1720, which culminated in the
Class Settlement Agreement, all as approved by the Court.
When will I get paid?
No payments are expected to be made until after the end of the
Claims Period on May 31, 2024. Because the pro rata cannot be
determined until all Claims are filed and reviewed and until the
Court approves the final amounts, we do not yet know when payments
will be made. Please be patient.
How do I file a claim?
Claim Forms began mailing to all known Class Members on December 1,
2023, and will continue to be mailed on a rolling basis. Please be
patient.
You can scan the QR code provided on the Claim Form you received
and use the secure website credentials provided on your claim form
to file your claim.
If you file your claim online, it must be submitted by 11:59 pm PST
on May 31, 2024.
Claim forms can also be mailed to:
Payment Card Interchange Fee Settlement
P.O. Box 2530
Portland, OR 97208-2530
Who are the lawyers that represent the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement
Class?
The Court has appointed the lawyers listed below to represent you.
These lawyers are called Rule 23(b)(3) Class Counsel. Many other
lawyers have also worked with Rule 23(b)(3) Class Counsel to
represent you in this case. Because you are a class member, you do
not have to pay any of these lawyers. They will be paid from the
settlement funds.
Designated Rule 23(b)(3) Class Counsel
K. Craig Wildfang
Robins Kaplan LLP
2800 LaSalle Plaza
800 LaSalle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402
H. Laddie Montague, Jr.
Berger Montague PC
1818 Market Street
Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Alexandra S. Bernay
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 West Broadway
Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the
settlement?
The court held a fairness hearing on November 7, 2019, and granted
Final Approval to the settlement on December 13, 2019. The Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed all aspects of the District
Court's final approval order save one.
Why was there a hearing?
The hearing was about whether or not the settlement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable.
The Court considered any objections and listened to class members
who had asked to speak at the hearing.
The Court also granted Final Approval of the Plaintiffs' requests
for attorneys' fees and expenses, service awards, and other costs,
which are now under appeal.
BANK OF AMERICA: Wins Bid to Seal Docs in Nelson Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY NELSON and KAYLEIGH
POTTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly, v. BANK
OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASS'N, Case No. 5:23-cv-00255-JS (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Juan R. Sanchez entered an order, granting
Defendant's motion to seal documents Filed by the Plaintiffs.
-- The Exhibits 15, 17, 18, 19 and 19A to Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class and the discussion of such documents in the
plaintiffs' supporting memorandum to the motion to certify
class
shall remain redacted as filed and shall remain under seal.
Bank of America is a financial institution, serving individuals,
small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r8lH7p at no extra
charge.[CC]
BARCLAYS BANK: Antitrust Suit Dismissed in Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Barclays Bank PLC disclosed in its Form 20-F/A report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that consolidated
putative class action complaints filed in US federal court against
Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other financial institutions under the
Antitrust Act and state common law alleging that the defendants (i)
conspired to manipulate the US Treasury securities market and/or
(ii) conspired to prevent the creation of certain platforms by
boycotting or threatening to boycott such trading platforms was
dismissed.
The court dismissed the consolidated action in March 2021. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint was granted in March 2022. The
plaintiffs appealed this decision, and in February 2024 the
appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
Barclays plc is a British multinational universal bank,
headquartered in London, England. Barclays operates as two
divisions, Barclays UK and Barclays International, supported by a
service company, Barclays Execution Services.
BARCLAYS BANK: Settles ForEx Row for $17.75M
--------------------------------------------
Barclays Bank PLC disclosed in its Form 20-F/A report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that in March 2023, a
2014 putative class action against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC
and BCI in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York was part of a settlement worth $17.75M.
The company was allegedly involved in an exchange-traded
derivatives and members of the Japanese Bankers Association's
Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (Euroyen TIBOR) panel. The
complaint alleges, among other things, manipulation of the Euroyen
TIBOR and Yen London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) rates and
breaches of the CEA and the Antitrust Act.
Barclays plc is a British multinational universal bank,
headquartered in London, England. Barclays operates as two
divisions, Barclays UK and Barclays International, supported by a
service company, Barclays Execution Services.
BARRETT BUSINESS: Continues to Defend Labor Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barrett Business Services Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from a labor class suit in the
California Superior Court, County of Fresno.
On April 5, 2011, several individual plaintiffs filed a wage and
hour class action in the California Superior Court, County of
Fresno, naming as defendants their employer, a Merry Maids
franchisee; BBSI, which was providing PEO services to the
franchisee; and various parties related to the franchisor.
Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that BBSI and the
franchisor were their joint employer with franchisee and therefore
jointly responsible for the alleged wage and hour violations.
The case was subsequently removed to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California, and on January 18,
2019, the District Court certified a class of former non-exempt
employees who resided in California and worked for the franchisee
in certain positions during the period from April 6, 2007 through
January 19, 2019.
On November 30, 2020, the District Court granted BBSI’s motion
for summary judgment to be removed from the case.
Thereafter the plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on June 2, 2022, the Court of
Appeals reversed the order granting summary judgment to BBSI.
The court held that there is a triable issue of fact concerning
whether or not BBSI was a joint-employer under applicable
California law.
BBSI intends to vigorously defend the claim, including continuing
to assert its defense on the ground that it was not a
joint-employer of plaintiffs.
Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a provider of business
management solutions for small and mid-sized companies with a
management platform that integrates a knowledge-based approach
from
the management consulting industry with tools from the human
resource outsourcing industry.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Antitrust Suit Remanded to D. Conn.
--------------------------------------------------
Bausch + Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that on January 31,
2024, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered a Remand Order remanding to the District of Connecticut,
among other cases, State of Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 2:20-03539 (D. CT, C.A. No. 3:20-00802).
The company is a defendant along with its affiliates, Oceanside
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant
Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) and Bausch Health Americas, Inc.
(formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) are defendants in
multidistrict antitrust litigation (MDL) entitled "In re: Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation," pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724,
16 MD-2724).
The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws,
state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege
that the company's subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix,
stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and
customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. The lawsuits,
which have been brought as putative class actions by direct
purchasers, end payers, and indirect resellers, and as direct
actions by direct purchasers, end payers, insurers, hospitals,
pharmacies, States, and various Counties, Cities, and Towns, have
been or will be consolidated into the MDL. There are also
additional, separate complaints which have been consolidated in the
same MDL that do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as
a defendant. There are cases pending in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County against the company and other defendants
related to the multidistrict litigation, but no complaint has been
filed in these cases. The cases have been put in deferred status.
Bausch + Lomb Corporation is a global eye health company that
operates a Vision Care segment, a pharmaceuticals segment and a
surgical segment. Bausch + Lomb is a subsidiary of Bausch Health
Companies Inc. (BHC), with BHC holding, directly or indirectly,
approximately 88.5% of the issued and outstanding common shares of
Bausch + Lomb as of July 28, 2023.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Faces Consumer Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------
Bausch + Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that it is facing a
proposed class action in California state court against Bausch
Health US and Johnson & Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson &
Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting
claims for purported violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in
connection with their sale of talcum powder products that the
plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or the California
Safe Cosmetics Act.
This lawsuit, filed on June 19, 2019, was served on Bausch Health
US in June 2019 and was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, where it is
currently pending. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution. Bausch
Health US filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, which was
granted in April 2020 without prejudice.
In May 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June
2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further,
which was granted. In August 2020, they filed the Fifth Amended
Complaint. On January 22, 2021, the court granted the motion to
dismiss with prejudice. On February 19, 2021, plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July
1, 2021, the appellants/plaintiffs filed their opening brief and
their response briefs were filed October 8, 2021. This matter was
stayed by the Ninth Circuit on December 7, 2021, due to the
preliminary injunction entered by the Bankruptcy Court in the LTL
bankruptcy proceeding. This stay included their reply brief
deadline, which was previously due to be filed on or before
December 2, 2021.
On March 9, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an order extending the
stay through July 29, 2022. On July 29, 2022, Johnson & Johnson
filed a status report in the Gutierrez appeal, outlining the
developments since the last status report and the imposition of the
stay. Johnson & Johnson noted that following a July 26, 2022,
hearing, the Bankruptcy Court left the preliminary injunction in
place, and asked the Ninth Circuit to continue to stay this action
while the bankruptcy preliminary injunction remained in place. On
January 20, 2023, the Ninth Circuit extended the stay until
February 17, 2023.
On February 17, 2023, Johnson & Johnson requested that the court
afford it 60 days – until April 18, 2023, or seven (7) days
following any lifting of the LTL Bankruptcy Court’s preliminary
injunction, whichever comes earliest – to provide an additional
status report about the bankruptcy proceeding and the Third Circuit
dismissal for which the LTL has requested a rehearing. On April 7,
2023, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. filed a status report
regarding the bankruptcy proceeding advising the Court of the
dismissal of the prior bankruptcy proceeding and the filing of the
second bankruptcy proceeding, as well as the preliminary injunction
and stay order, and requesting the stay of the appeal remain in
place until May 10, 2023, which was granted.
Following the entry of a preliminary injunction applicable to this
case, which was extended until August 26, 2023, the Ninth Circuit
extended the stay to June 15, 2023. On June 22, 2023, Johnson &
Johnson/LTL filed a status report requesting the stay be extended
to August 26, 2023, consistent with the extension of the
preliminary injunction by the bankruptcy court. On August 15, 2023,
Johnson & Johnson filed a supplemental status report notifying the
Ninth Circuit that the second bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed
on August 11, 2023 so the stay could be lifted and briefing could
proceed to conclusion and setting of oral argument. On September
13, 2023, the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay. On January 28, 2024,
the Ninth Circuit issued a notice of oral argument setting the
argument for Monday, April 8, 2024.
Bausch + Lomb Corporation is a global eye health company that
operates a Vision Care segment, a pharmaceuticals segment and a
surgical segment. Bausch + Lomb is a subsidiary of Bausch Health
Companies Inc. (BHC), with BHC holding, directly or indirectly,
approximately 88.5% of the issued and outstanding common shares of
Bausch + Lomb as of July 28, 2023.
BINANCE.US: SEC Investigates Custody, Access of Customer Assets
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Attlee, writing for CoinTelegraph, reports that Binance.US
continues to grapple with ongoing legal challenges, particularly in
the United States. The exchange has already had a "near-mortal
blow" after a June 2023 lawsuit from the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), forcing it to terminate over 200
staff as revenues "imploded," according to its chief operating
officer Christopher Blodgett. Now, the SEC alleges the company is
"unable or unwilling" to answer requests for information concerning
the custody of customer assets. The regulator has asked the court
to intervene to speed up the discovery process.
Central to the SEC's investigation is whether employees of the
non-U.S. arm of Binance maintained access to Binance.US customer
assets. The SEC claimed Binance.US has failed to prove that it
didn't have access to private keys or other forms of access to
customer assets. In the report, Binance.US pushed back on the SEC's
allegations, saying it had complied with the regulator's
"exceptionally broad" requests for information and asked the court
to end the expedited discovery process.
Meanwhile, a U.S. appeals court overturned a ruling that dismissed
a class-action lawsuit led by investors against Binance. Chase
Williams filed the lawsuit in April 2020 on behalf of investors in
a similar situation, arguing that Binance allegedly contracted to
sell securities without being registered as a securities exchange
or broker-dealer. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, citing
the investors' claims as untimely according to the relevant statute
of limitations. However, the appeals court agrees with the
plaintiffs' claims that Binance is subject to domestic securities
laws and that their initial filing was timely. [GN]
BROCK GROUP: Valentic PMWA Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN VALENTIC, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE BROCK GROUP,
INC., and BROCK INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01789-WSH
(W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves for class certification of his
claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA").
In support of this motion, Valentic states as follows:
-- Class certification requires a plaintiff to establish the four
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and meet the
requirements
of Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3).
-- As argued in the Memorandum of Law filed in support of this
Motion, and based upon the record evidence submitted
therewith,
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) are fully satisfied,
and the class defined below is suitable for certification
under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
-- Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B), Valentic requests that this
Court
enter an order certifying the following proposed class:
All non-exempt employees presently or formerly employed by
Defendants at the Pennsylvania Petrochemicals Complex, at
any
time during the period from November 3, 2018, through the
present who worked forty hours or more in at least one
work
week.
-- Valentic further requests that this Court appoint him as Class
Representative, and the undersigned attorneys from the law
firms
of Jubelirer Pass & Intrieri, P.C., and Jacobs, Burns, Orlove
&
Hernandez LLP, be appointed Class Counsel for the Putative
Class.
Brock provides customers with solutions for scaffolding, painting,
insulation, shoring, lead and asbestos abatement, fireproofing, and
facilities maintenance.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fpGlF8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven E. Winslow, Esq.
JUBELIRER, PASS & INTRIERI, P.C.
219 Fort Pitt Boulevard
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 281-3850
Facsimile: (412) 281-1985
E-mail: sw@jpilaw.com
- and -
David Huffman-Gottschling, Esq.
Marissa D. Longoria, Esq.
JACOBS, BURNS, ORLOVE & HERNANDEZ LLP
1 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1620
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 327-3443
E-mail: davidhg@jbosh.com
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Goldsmith Sues Over Website's False Discount Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANAN GOLDSMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00491 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's false discount advertising on its website in violation
of the California's False Advertising Law and the California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
On its website, the Defendant lists prices and advertises purported
time-limited discounts from those listed prices. Far from being
time-limited, however, Defendant's discounts are always available
and its purported list prices were not the true regular prices,
says the suit.
Headquartered in Glendale, AZ, Brooklyn Bedding LLC sells and
markets mattresses and bedding products online through the Nolah
brand and website, www.nolahmattress.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
C.R. ENGLAND: Lopez Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
VERMYTTYA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all individuals
similarly situated v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah corporation; and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05294 (Cal. Sup., Los
Angeles Cty., March 4, 2024) seeks civil penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act for Defendants' alleged violations of
the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Orders,
and the California Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff currently works for Defendant C.R. England, Inc. as a
non-exempt driver. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated
multiple provisions of the Labor Code, including failure to pay
reporting time pay, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to compensate all hours worked, failure to pay overtime and
double time compensation, failure to pay minimum wages, and
breaches of occupational safety & health rules.
C.R. England provides trucking and transportation services, with
its headquarters located in Salt Lake City, UT. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Cantor, Esq.
CANTOR LAW
1112 Montana Avenue, Suite C
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Telephone: (310) 393-6620
CALVIN KLEIN: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Calvin Klein, Inc.
The case is styled as Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Calvin Klein, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01725 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Calvin Klein USA -- http://www.calvinklein.us/en-- offers modern,
sophisticated styles for women and men including apparel, handbags,
footwear, underwear, fragrance and home furnishings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
CAPITAL ONE: Court Dismisses Wright Suit
----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY WRIGHT, et al., V.
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00803-PTG-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Patricia Tolliver
Giles entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss
as the Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and dismissing all claims.
The Court finds that as to each statutory claim, the Plaintiffs
fail to plausibly allege any lads that may transform their breach
of contract claims into state consumer protection claims.
Therefore, the Court grants Defendants' Motion as to all state
consumer protection claims (Counts IV through VII).
The Plaintiffs Wright, Wilson, Chakraborty, and Delacruz have
payment card accounts (credit. debit, and prepaid cards) with
Defendants. The SAC asserts several claims:
(1) breach of contract on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the
Proposed Nationwide Class (Count I);
(2) unjust enrichment/quasi-contract on behalf of all
Plaintiffs,
the Proposed Nationwide Class, and all State Classes;
(3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing
on behalf of all Plaintiffs and the Proposed Nationwide
Class
(Count III); and
(4) violations of state consumer protection laws in
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Washington, and New Jersey
(Counts IV, V. VI, and VII.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the action as a class and
designation as class representatives, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief, nominal damages, disgorgement, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs alleges that rather than apply FX rates to
Plaintiffs' foreign transactions that reflect the terms of the
Processors' rules.
The Defendants charge Plaintiffs fictional rates.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants charge
Plaintiffs "fictional" rates selected by the Processors that are
"not from a single moment in time in the wholesale currency
market."
Capital One operates as a bank. The Bank offers checking accounts,
credit and debit cards, loans, and insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oR4CkZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
CENTRAL ADMIXTURE: Naumann Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Admixture
Pharmacy Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joseph
Naumann, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Services,
Inc., Aesculap, Inc., B. Braun Medical Inc., Does 1-50, Inclusive,
Case No. CGC24612758 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 29,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc. --
https://www.capspharmacy.com/ -- is the nation's largest network of
outsourcing admixture pharmacies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-599-8292
Fax: 619-599-8291
Email: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com
- and -
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-255-9047
Fax: 858-404-9203
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
CIMAREX ENERGY: Settlement in Sagacity Suit Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAGACITY, INC.; THE DUNCAN
GROUP, LLC; AND HITCH ENTERPRISES, INC., on behalf of themselves
and a class of similarly situated persons, v. CIMAREX ENERGY CO.;
MAGNUM HUNTER PRODUCTION, INC.; PRIZE ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.;
CIMAREX ENERGY COMPANY OF COLORADO; KEY PRODUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
Case No. 6:17-cv-00101-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gerald
Jackson entered an order granting preliminary approval of class
action Settlement, certifying the class for settlement Purposes,
approving form and manner of notice, and Setting date for final
fairness hearing.
The complaint alleges underpayment of royalties on natural gas,
natural gas liquids, and associated hydrocarbons produced from
wells located in Oklahoma during the Claim Period.
On Feb. 2, 2024, the Parties executed a Settlement Agreement.
The Court finds the Settlement Class should be certified for the
purposes of the Settlement, as the Settlement Class meets all
certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
for a settlement class.
The certified Settlement Class is defined as:
All royalty owners in Oklahoma wells (a) operated and
leased
by Cimarex Energy Co., (b) operated by Cimarex Energy Co.
of Colorado, Inc. and leased by Prize Energy Resources,
Inc.
or Magnum Hunter Production, Inc., and (c) operated or
leased
by Key Production Company, Inc. that have produced gas or
gas constituents (such as residue gas or natural gas
liquids)
from January 1, 2013, to November 30, 2023.
Excluded from the Class are: (1) the Mineral Management Service
(Indian tribes and the United States) and the State and Counties of
Oklahoma; (2) Defendants, their affiliates, and employees, officers
and directors; (3) Any NYSE or NASDAQ listed company (and its
subsidiaries) engaged in oil and gas exploration, gathering,
processing, or marketing; (4) royalty owners who have already filed
and still have pending lawsuits for underpayment of royalties
against Defendants, including: Fortis MineralsII, LLC, Fortis
Sooner Trend, LLC, FMII STM, LLC, Sooner Trend Minerals, LLC, and
Phenom Minerals,
LLC; (5) all royalty owners that expressly authorized in their
leases the deduction of processing costs from royalties; and (6)
all royalty owners to the extent their wells are both subject to
the class action settlement in Chieftain Royalty Co. v. QEP Energy,
No. 5:11-cv-00212-R, and the well was subsequently acquired by
Defendants or any of their affiliates.
In sum, the Court finds all prerequisites and requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)-(b) are satisfied for
purposes of certifying a class for settlement purposes, subject to
the Court’s final consideration at the Final Fairness Hearing
The Court appoints JND Legal Administration to act as settlement
administrator and perform the associated responsibilities set forth
in the Settlement Agreement.
The Court appoints Citibank as the Escrow Agent. The Escrow Agent
is
authorized and directed to act in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement and Escrow Agreement. The Parties and their Counsel shall
not be liable for any act or omission of the Escrow Agent or loss
of funds in the Escrow Account.
Cimarex was a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration,
particularly shale oil and gas drilling.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uUx8wI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Scott B. Goodger
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
The Defendants are represented by:
Nathan K. Davis, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
1200 17th Street, Suite 1900
Denver, CO 80202
- and -
Bradley W. Welsh, Esq.
CROWE & DUNLEVY
222 North Detroit Avenue, Suite 600
Tulsa, OK 74120
CITIBANK NA: Khuu Files Class Action Suit Over Check "Junk Fees"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ellis, writing for Dakota Scout, reports that a California
woman has filed suit in South Dakota against Citibank, alleging the
company's practice of charging "junk fees" on returned checks
violates consumer finance protections.
Vivian Khuu of Los Angeles is seeking a class-action lawsuit
against the banking giant, which is headquartered in Sioux Falls.
The class of plaintiffs proposed in the lawsuit would include all
people nationally who had an account with Citibank and were charged
a similar fee. The suit is seeking to define a sub-class of
plaintiffs who reside in California who, like Khuu, were Citibank
customers and charged a similar fee, alleging Citibank's practice
violates the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The fee in question, called a deposited check returned unpaid fee,
is levied on customers when they deposit checks into their
accounts, but the checks cannot be processed.
"In other words," the lawsuit says, "when Person A writes a check
to Person B and the check bounces or is returned unpaid, the bank
charges Person B a fee even though Person B had no reasonable means
of knowing the check would not clear." [GN]
CITIBANK NATIONAL: Khuu Balks at Illegal Returned Check Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
VIVIAN KHUU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITIBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant,
Case No. 4:24-cv-04037-CBK (D.S.D., March 5, 2024) challenges
Citibank's deposited check returned unpaid fee policy and asserts
claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and for violations
of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition
Law.
By charging deposited check returned unpaid fees, Citibank unfairly
targeted its customers with financial penalties for faulty checks
irrespective of the circumstances or any action taken by the
accountholder. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to hold Citibank
accountable for their unlawful and unfair policy, and seek damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief.
Headquartered in Sioux Falls, SD, Citibank, N.A. is the primary
U.S. banking subsidiary of Citigroup, Inc. It is a national bank
engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to
consumers and businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott N. Heidepriem, Esq.
Matthew A. Tysdal, Esq.
Pete Heidepriem, Esq.
Heidepriem, Purtell, Siegel & Hinrichs, LLP
101 W. 69th Street, Suite 105
Sioux Falls, SD 57108
Telephone: (605) 679-4470
E-mail: scott@hpslawfirm.com
matthew@hpslawfirm.com
pete@hpslawfirm.com
- and -
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: lconsidine@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
ofaircloth@sirillp.com
COCA-COLA CO: Fletcher Seeks Damages Over Mislabeled Hard Seltzer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMERA FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-20834 (S.D.
Fla., March 4, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act over its use of misleading
product labels.
The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's ready-to-drink product
represented as "Margarita Hard Seltzer" under the Topo Chico brand.
Defendant used the label statement of "Margarita" with a backdrop
of agave plants which is well-known as the source crop for tequila.
The labeling suggests that the cocktail's main ingredient is
tequila. However, the ingredient list found on the back includes
"alcohol" and not real tequila. Additionally, Defendant did not
fully disclose that the alcohol ingredient was obtained through
brewing or fermentation of sugar with additional flavors. The
labeling leads consumers to believe that the product contains
tequila obtained from distillation, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks damages for violations of the FDUTPA and for
false and misleading advertising.
Headquartered in Georgia, Coca-Cola is one of the world’s largest
sellers of beverages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
COLOR FACTORY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Charles Due June 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles v. Color Factory,
LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00322-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered
an order granting bid for a civil case management plan as follows:
-- Class Certification is due: June 3, 2024
-- Response is due: June 17, 2024
-- Reply is due: June 24, 2024
-- Oral argument: June 28, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eFGSnt at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAVID DINELLO: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Oleman Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oleman v. Hammer, et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-3607 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta A. Preska
entered discovery orders as follows:
-- The Court finds that the substance of the Stipulation of
Confidentiality and Protective Order, so-ordered in Allen suit
(Case No. 19-cv-8173) on August 12, 2021, as clarified by the
order dated Dec. 13, 2021, remains largely applicable to the
Tranche I Cases.
-- The Court also finds that the substance of the HIPAA Qualified
Protective Order for Materials Produced by Defendants or NYS
DOCCS, so-ordered by the Court in Allen suit on Nov. 2, 2021,
is
also largely applicable to the Tranche I Cases.
However, as Defendants have noted, the Court entered the Allen
Discovery Orders when the parties were engaging in discovery in
anticipation of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motions
for
class certification in Allen.
-- The Court takes Defendants' point that the Tranche I Cases are
individual damages cases whose procedural postures are distinct
from when the Court entered the Allen Discovery Orders, in that
there is presently no anticipation of a ruling on class
certification.
Accordingly, the parties shall confer and propose in the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases a protective
order that includes the relevant terms from and effects of the
Allen Discovery Orders.
However, such proposed protective order shall include language
updated both to reflect the current procedural posture of the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases and accommodate
appropriately all factual and legal developments that have occurred
in the Tranche I Cases since the Court entered the Allen Discovery
Orders.
The Court separately holds that the Protective Order Regarding
Derrick Williams, filed under seal in Allen (the "Williams
Protective Order"), remains applicable to the Tranche I Case
Williams v. Dinello, Case No. 23-cv-3608. Accordingly, the Court
will so-order the Williams Protective Order under seal in Williams
Suit.
As requested by the Plaintiffs' counsel, the Court will hold in
abeyance Plaintiffs' request to conduct de bene esse depositions.
The Plaintiffs shall inform the Court when they wish to renew their
request.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V5BFdb at no extra
charge.[CC]
DEE BROOKHART: Bid for Reconsideration of Class Cert Order Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dalcollo v. Brookhart, et
al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00358 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 12, 2024), the Hon.
Judge Staci M. Yandle entered an order denying motion for
reconsideration of Order on Motion to Certify Class.
-- The Plaintiff's attempt to add a single signature to his motion
for class certification, via affidavit filed with Doc. 12, does not
alter the Court's analysis, where the original complaint has been
superseded and replaced by a First Amended Complaint that names a
single plaintiff who is proceeding pro se.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]
DEE DEE BROOKHART: Dalcollo Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Justin Dalcollo v. Dee Dee
Brookhart, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00358-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class action
and appointing class counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.23 sections 1
and 2.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xCbib5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DISCOVER BANK: Agrees to Settle Lending Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
MALDEF reports that after nearly four years, a proposed nationwide
class of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients
have settled claims that Discover Bank unlawfully denied them
student, personal, and home equity loans, solely because of their
immigration status. Specifically, their lawsuit, which was filed by
the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
and Outten & Golden, alleged that Discover Bank's denials violated
federal and state civil rights laws, including the California Civil
Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on alienage and
immigration status. Discover agreed to the settlement but disputes
the claims in the lawsuit and maintains that it complied with the
law.
Discover, a major U.S. lender, has agreed to change its lending
policies to make DACA recipients eligible for loans on terms
comparable to U.S. citizens. It has also agreed to create a
settlement fund of $979,500 (excluding administration costs and
attorneys' fees) to compensate impacted DACA recipients, which was
preliminarily approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on February 29, 2024.
"This settlement ensures that DACA recipients who seek to access
loans and credit with Discover Bank are treated no differently than
other qualified applicants, and that those DACA recipients who were
previously denied loans and credit are made whole," said Ernest I.
Herrera, Regional Counsel, Western Region Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund.
"There are nearly 600,000 DACA recipients in the U.S," said Ossai
Miazad, counsel for the plaintiffs and partner at Outten & Golden
LLP, "Many of them came to the U.S. as young children, and the
denial of access to credit seriously restricts their ability to pay
for college, buy homes, and otherwise promote their financial
stability. We're very pleased to have helped our clients seek
justice, and make a positive impact on the consumer lending
industry."
The case was initially filed by plaintiffs Iliana Perez and Flavio
Guzman Magana who were subsequently joined by Josue Jimenez Magana
and Emiliano Galicia Felix.
In 2010, San Francisco resident Iliana Perez received a $15,000
student loan from a Citibank subsidiary (the Student Loan
Corporation) to pay for graduate school at The New School. In
December of that year, The Student Loan Corporation and all of
their loans were sold to Discover. In 2018, Ms. Perez applied for a
"Private Consolidation Loan" in an attempt to refinance, but after
being asked about her citizenship status she was told that Discover
would not be able to move forward with her loan, and she should not
have been granted the loan in the first place.
Flavio Guzman Magana has been a DACA recipient since 2013 and since
then has continuously possessed a work authorization and SSN card.
In August 2016, Mr. Guzman Magana applied for a $35,000 loan to
attend Graduate school at the University of Southern California.
During the application process, Mr. Guzman Magana was prompted to
identify as either a U.S. citizen, a Permanent Resident, or an
International Student and chose to apply under the International
Student. The application then informed Mr. Guzman Magana that he
would need to apply with a co-signer who is either a U.S. citizen
or an LPR. To date, Mr. Guzman Magana has been making his payments
on time, but is still required to have a co-signer on his loan.
Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas A. Saenz and Ernest I. Herrera
of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and
Ossai Miazad, Chauniqua Young and Rebecca Pattiz of Outten & Golden
LLP. [GN]
DOCGO INC: Faces McDonald Shareholder Action Over DGCL Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MCDONALD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DOCGO INC. f/k/a MOTION ACQUISITION CORP., a Delaware
Corporation, STAN VASHOVSKY, MICHAEL BURDIEK, STEVEN KATZ, VINA
LEITE, ELY D. TENDLER, JAMES M. TRAVERS, and IRA SMEDRA, Case No.
2024-0202 (Del. Ch., March 4, 2024) seeks declaratory relief for
Defendants' alleged violation of the Delaware General Corporation
Law and Delaware common law and public policy.
This complaint relates to DocGo's charter, adopted and maintained
by Defendants, which contains a provision wherein the company
grants a blanket waiver of the corporate opportunity doctrine,
contrary to Delaware law.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of DocGo, seeking a declaratory judgment that
Defendants' waiver provision is in violation of Delaware law and
public policy and is invalid.
DocGo, Inc. is a healthcare technology company with its principal
offices located at 35 West 35th Street, Floor 6, New York, NY
10001. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Brandywine Building
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
- and –
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and –
Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
KRANENBURG
80-83 Long Lane
London EC1A 9ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: (44) 20-3174-0365
E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com
DOLLAR TREE: Jacobo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar Tree
Distribution, Inc. The case is styled as Arianna Jacobo, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dollar
Tree Distribution, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0002389 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 27, 2024).
The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc. -- https://www.dollartree.com/ --
operates as a supermarket.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William C. Sung, Esq.
Justice for Workers, P.C.
600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1815
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2622
Phone: 323-922-2000
Email: william@justiceforworkers.com
EAST TEXAS BAPTIST: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against East Texas Baptist
University. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. East Texas
Baptist University, Case No. 1:24-cv-01461 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
East Texas Baptist University (ETBU) -- https://www.etbu.edu/ -- is
a private Baptist university in Marshall, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
ELEVANCE HEALTH: Marshall Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shontay Marshall, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Elevance Health, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01326 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Feb. 28, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-20779 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Elevance Health, Inc. -- https://www.elevancehealth.com/ -- is an
American health insurance provider.[BN]
ENVY STYLZ BOUTIQUE: Competello Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Envy Stylz Boutique,
LLC. The case is styled as Susan Competello, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Envy Stylz Boutique, LLC, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01454 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Envy Stylz Boutique, LLC -- https://envystylz.com/ -- offers
selection of cute ladies graphic tees, earrings, necklaces,
Bridgewater home fragrance and gift items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
JON L. NORINSBERG, ESQ., PLLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 791-5396
Fax: (212) 406-6890
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
EXELON CORP: Consolidated Consumer Complaint in IL Court Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in August 2, 2023, that the plaintiffs filed an appeal
with the First District Court of Appeals with regards to a
consolidated consumer case where on September 8, 2023, the Illinois
appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a consolidated action.
Three putative class action lawsuits against Exelon were filed in
Illinois state court in the third quarter of 2020 seeking
restitution and compensatory damages on behalf of Commonwealth
Edison customers. The cases were consolidated into a single action
in October of 2020. In November 2020, Citizens Utility Board (CUB)
filed a motion to intervene in the cases pursuant to an Illinois
statute allowing CUB to intervene as a party or otherwise
participate on behalf of utility consumers in any proceeding which
affects the interest of utility consumers. On November 23, 2020,
the court allowed CUB's intervention, but denied CUB's request to
stay these cases.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated complaint, Exelon
filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional and substantive grounds
on January 11, 2021. Briefing on that motion was completed on March
2, 2021. The parties agreed, on March 25, 2021, along with the
federal court plaintiffs discussed above, to jointly engage in
mediation. The parties participated in a one-day mediation on June
7, 2021 but no settlement was reached.
On December 23, 2021, the state court granted Exelon's motion to
dismiss with prejudice. On December 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed a
motion to reconsider that dismissal and for permission to amend
their complaint. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion on January
21, 2022. Plaintiffs have appealed the court's ruling dismissing
their complaint to the First District Court of Appeals. On February
15, 2022, Exelon moved to dismiss the federal plaintiffs' refiled
state law claims. The court granted dismissal of the refiled state
claims on February 16, 2022. The original federal plaintiffs
appealed that dismissal on February 18, 2022. The state appeals
were consolidated on March 21, 2022. Parties are awaiting oral
argument and/or a decision.
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company engaged in
the energy transmission and distribution businesses.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA PENA, Successor in
Interest to JOSE PENA, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The Plaintiff seeks the type of statutory relief available under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") that has been sought and
obtained in several class actions brought in recent years and
involving similar false positive OFAC hits or alerts sold by other
CRAs on credit reports that defame unsuspecting Americans.
Experian is one of the Big Three CRAs in the United States,
together with TransUnion and Equifax.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QC376Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erika Angelos Heath, Esq.
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN
SOUMILAS, P.C.
369 Pine Street, Suite 410
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (628) 246-1352
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW, LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com
- and -
Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (323) 744-1146
Facsimile: (323) 967-7775
E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena Seeks Leave to File Materials Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA PENA, Successor in
Interest to JOSE PENA, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting her application for leave
to file certain materials under seal in connection with the
Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EoIA1A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
Erika A. Heath, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Facsimile: (215) 9400-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
eheath@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW, LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com
- and -
Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: 323-744-1146
Facsimile: 323-967-7775
E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com
FCA US: Faces Consumer Protection Lawsuit Over Defective Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY FRISCH, TAMMY OTTO, BRIAN KREB, HARRY VASQUEZ, JADE AND
CHRISTOPHER WADLEIGH, DAVID PERRERA, DENNIS BERNS, JONATHAN
LISCANO, and ROBERT STUEVE on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-10546-SJM-KGA
(E.D. Mich., March 4, 2024) seeks damages and repair under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, for Defendant's violations of state
consumer protection acts, breaches of implied warranties, and
unjust enrichment.
This action arises from Defendant's sale of dangerous and defective
Jeep Wrangler 4xe plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that are
susceptible to catching fire and exploding. The Plaintiffs are
owners and lessees of Jeep Wrangler 4xe vehicles (model years 2021
through 2023) which contain a defect in the hybrid propulsion
system that can cause vehicle fires and explosions, even when the
vehicles are parked with the ignition in the off position. The fire
defect is believed to be linked to the vehicles' high-voltage
lithium-ion battery packs which were manufactured by Samsung SDI
America. Samsung has a history of issues with such products and
Defendant has been aware of it since at least 2020, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has not offered them any
remedy to correct the defect despite the ongoing safety risk.
Instead, they were only advised to refrain from recharging the
vehicles and not to park them inside of buildings and structures or
near vehicles until the final repair has been completed. However,
Defendant has yet to perform any repair on the vehicles. The fire
defect has resulted in damages and financial losses for them, the
Plaintiffs added.
FCA is a motor vehicle manufacturer with its principal place of
business located at 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, MI. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
Dana E. Fraser
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
def@millerlawpc.com
- and –
Roger N. Heller, Esq.
Phong-Chau G. Nguyen, Esq.
Nicholas W. Lee, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: rheller@lchb.com
pgnguyen@lchb.com
nlee@lchb.com
- and –
John R. Davis, Esq.
Michael L. Slack, Esq.
SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP
6001 Bold Ruler Way, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 795-8686
E-mail: jdavis@slackdavis.com
mslack@slackdavis.com
- and –
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Craig S. Davis, Esq.
Krista K. Freier, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Ave., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
csdavis@locklaw.com
kkfreier@locklaw.com
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Howards Class Suit Trial Still Not Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2023, that the United
States District Court for the Central District of California has
not set trial date for Howards class suit.
On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff Troy Howards filed a putative class
action against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California (Case No. 1:18-CV-869, S.D.
OH 2018), alleging that Fifth Third improperly charged certain fees
related to insufficient funds, customer overdrafts, and
out-of-network ATM use.
Venue was subsequently transferred to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Plaintiff filed claims for breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law (Ca. Bus. & Prof. Code sec.
17200, et seq.), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1750 et seq.).
Plaintiff seeks to represent putative nationwide classes and
California classes of consumers allegedly charged improper repeated
insufficient funds fees, improper overdraft fees, and fees for
out-of-network ATM use from the beginning of the applicable statute
of limitations to present.
Plaintiff seeks damages of restitution and disgorgement in the
amount of the allegedly unlawfully charged fees, damages proved at
trial together with interest as allowed by applicable law.
Fifth Third filed a motion to dismiss all claims.
On February 6, 2023, the trial court issued an order dismissing the
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim with respect to out-of-network
ATM fees and dismissing the two claims for violations of California
consumer protection statutes.
The Court denied Fifth Third's motion to dismiss as it relates to
the claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing for certain customer
overdrafts and insufficient funds fees.
The case is in discovery, and no trial date has been set.
Fifth Third operates the residential and home improvement
financing
business branded "Dividend Finance
FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: Klopfenstein Post-Trial Bids Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2023, that the Klopfenstein
class suit post-trial motions are pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.
On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third
disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading.
Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible
customers with checking accounts.
The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers
who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances
within 30 days.
On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
In 2013, four similar putative class action lawsuits were filed
against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country
(Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v.
Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian
Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank).
Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of
Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth
Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-851).
On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified
monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA.
On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and remanded for
further proceedings.
The plaintiffs' claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract
claim exceed $440 million, plus prejudgment interest.
On March 26, 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification.
On March 29, 2023, the trial court issued an order granting summary
judgement on plaintiffs' TILA claim, with statutory damages capped
at $2 million plus costs and attorney fees.
Plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract proceeded to trial
beginning on April 17, 2023.
On April 27, 2023, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
Bank, finding a breach of contract, but that the voluntary payment
doctrine is a complete defense to the breach of contract claim.
Both parties have filed post-trial motions related to the jury
verdict, which are currently pending before the trial court.
Fifth Third operates the residential and home improvement
financing
business branded "Dividend Finance."[BN]
FLAT ROCK: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Freeman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
TRAVON FREEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLAT ROCK METAL INC., a Michigan
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-10553-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich.,
March 5, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the common law claim of
unjust enrichment.
In or about August 2023, Defendant hired Plaintiff as an hourly
material handler. In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant
incorporated various shift differentials and other forms of
remuneration into its payment structure. However, Defendant failed
to incorporate any shift differentials into its hourly employees'
regular hourly rate calculation. As a result, Plaintiff was only
paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that did not
include Defendant's shift differentials as required by the FLSA,
says the suit.
Based in Michigan, Flat Rock Metal Inc. provides surface
processing, flat polishing, sheet blanking, sheet cleaning, and
coating operation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
1 Towne Sq., 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48375
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: aasciutto@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
FLIPPER'S US: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flipper's US, LLC.
The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Flipper's US, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01534-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Flipper's US, LLC -- https://www.flippersus.com/ -- is a restaurant
in West Hollywood, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
FLOYD INC: Austin Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Aaron Austin, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FLOYD INC., an Illinois
Corporation; SUPER EGO HOLDING LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability
Company; SUPER EGO INC., an Illinois corporation; SUPER EGO
LOGISTICS LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV031309 was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Alameda, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 28, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01214.
On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff Aaron Austin ("Austin" or "Plaintiff")
filed a five count complaint on behalf of himself and a putative
class alleging recovery of unpaid wages and liquidated damages,
failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ruby H. Kazi, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, California 94111
Phone: 628.600.2250
Facsimile: 628.221.5828
Email: rkazi@beneschlaw.com
FMC CORP: Continues to Defend Employer-Teamster Local Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 27, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Employer-Teamster Local class suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On November 14, 2023, a purported FMC shareholder filed
Employer-Teamsters Local v. FMC Corporation, et al., a putative
class action complaint in the EDPA, asserting similar claims
against the same defendants, based on similar substantive
allegations as Heeg.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired FMC
stock during the period November 2, 2022 to October 20, 2023.
FMC believes the Defendants have meritorious defenses and intends
to defend itself and the Defendants vigorously.
FMC Corporation is an American chemical manufacturing company
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
FMC CORP: Continues to Defend Heeg Class Suit in E.D. Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 27, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Heeg securities class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On November 9, 2023, a purported FMC shareholder filed a putative
class action complaint (Heeg v. FMC Corporation, et al.) in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
("EDPA") and named as defendants FMC and certain of its current
executives (the "Defendants").
The complaint alleges, generally, that FMC made misrepresentations
regarding business, operations, and prospects, including
allegations that the Defendants failed to disclose: (1) the
diminishment of patent protection for flagship products in certain
markets, including India, China, and Brazil; and (2) the status of
proceedings related to FMC's patent protection efforts.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired FMC
stock during the period November 2, 2022 to October 20, 2023.
FMC believes the Defendants have meritorious defenses and intends
to defend itself and the Defendants vigorously.
FMC Corporation is an American chemical manufacturing company
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
FMC CORP: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 27, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from Oklahoma Firefighters Pension class suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On December 7, 2023, a purported FMC shareholder filed Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension v. FMC Corporation, et al., a putative class
action complaint in the EDPA, asserting similar claims against the
same defendants, based on similar substantive allegations as Heeg.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired FMC
stock during the period February 9, 2022 to October 20, 2023.
In January 2024, certain shareholders filed motions to consolidate
the various putative cases and to appoint them as lead plaintiff.
The district court has not yet ruled on the motions.
By stipulation of the parties, the Defendants have no obligation to
respond to the complaints until after a lead plaintiff is appointed
and an operative complaint is identified or a consolidated amended
complaint is filed.
FMC believes the Defendants have meritorious defenses and intends
to defend itself and the Defendants vigorously.
FMC Corporation is an American chemical manufacturing company
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
FUCHSIA SPA GROUP: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fuchsia Spa Group
LLC. The case is styled as Richard Winters, Jr., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fuchsia Spa Group
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00407-JFM (D. Ariz., Feb. 27, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Fuchsia Spa -- https://fuchsiaspa.com/ -- offer a full range of spa
treatments including facials, massage, manicures, pedicures,
waxing, and body treatments in a modern girly spa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
GATOS SILVER: $21MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 31
----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
MICHAEL BILINSKY, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
GATOS SILVER, INC., STEPHEN ORR,
ROGER JOHNSON, PHILIP PYLE, JANICE
STAIRS, ALI ERFAN, IGOR GONZALES,
KARL HANNEMAN, DAVID PEAT,
CHARLES HANSARD, and DANIEL
MUÑIZ QUINTANILLA,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00453-PAB-KLM
SUMMARY NOTICE
TO: All Persons and entities that (i) during the period from
December 9, 2020 and January 25, 2022, both inclusive (the "Class
Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired Gatos common stock listed
on the NYSE, or, in domestic transactions, purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded call options on Gatos common stock, and/or
sold publicly traded put options on Gatos common stock, and were
damaged thereby; or (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired Gatos
common stock pursuant or traceable to the 2020 Registration
Statement or the 2021 Registration Statement, in domestic
transactions or on the NYSE, and were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class").
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Court") and Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a hearing will be
held on May 31, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (Mountain Time), before the
Honorable Philip A. Brimmer, at the Alfred A. Arraj United States
Courthouse, in Courtroom A701, 901 19th Street, Denver, CO 80294,
for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement
of the claims in the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation")
for the sum of $21,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement") should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether a Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of the
Settlement; (3) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement dated September 12,
2023 (the "Stipulation"); (4) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should
be approved; and (5) the reasonableness of the application of Lead
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in
connection with this Litigation together with the interest earned
thereon (and any payment to Plaintiffs pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with their
representation of the Settlement Class). The Court may change the
date of this hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing
another notice. You do NOT need to attend the hearing to receive a
distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
The Litigation has been preliminarily certified as a class action
on behalf of a Settlement Class of all Persons or entities that (a)
from December 9, 2020 through January 25, 2022, both inclusive,
purchased or otherwise acquired Gatos common stock listed on the
NYSE, or, in domestic transactions, purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded call options on Gatos common stock or sold publicly
traded put options on Gatos common stock, and were damaged thereby;
or (b) in domestic transactions or on the NYSE, purchased or
otherwise acquired Gatos common stock pursuant or traceable to the
2020 Registration Statement or the 2021 Registration Statement, and
were damaged thereby, except for certain Persons or entities
excluded from the Settlement Class, as defined in the full
Long-Form Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action ("Long-Form Notice"), which is available as described below.
If the Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the
Litigation. Capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Long-Form Notice
and/or Stipulation.
A detailed description of the Litigation, including important
information about your rights and options, is in the detailed
Long-Form Notice available at www.GatosSecuritiesLitigation.com or
by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Gatos U.S. Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 5768, Portland, OR
97228-5768, or 877-757-6172.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") online at
www.GatosSecuritiesLitigation.com or by mail postmarked no later
than June 19, 2024. Failure to timely submit a Proof of Claim will
subject your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from
receiving any payment from the Settlement.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion electronically submitted or
postmarked by May 5, 2024, in the manner and form explained in the
detailed Long-Form Notice referred to above. All Members of the
Settlement Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion
from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in
the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Stipulation.
Any objection to the Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense
Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be mailed
or delivered to the Clerk of Court and counsel for the Parties at
the addresses below such that it is received no later than May 10,
2024:
Court:
Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, Room A105
901 19th Street
Denver, CO 80294-3589
Counsel for Plaintiffs:
Joseph A. Fonti
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
gatossettlement@bfalaw.com
Counsel for Gatos and the Individual Defendants:
Michael S. Flynn
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Counsel for the Underwriter Defendants:
Audra J. Soloway
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact counsel for Plaintiffs at the address listed above,
email gatossettlement@bfalaw.com, call (888) 879-9418, or go to the
following website: www.GatosSecuritiesLitigation.com.
URL: www.GatosSecuritiesLitigation.com
GENERAL MILLS: Necaise Sues Over Dangerous Levels of Pesticide
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina and Benjamin Necaise, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00367-TWR-VET (S.D. Cal., Feb. 23,
2024), is brought against the Defendant alleging that the company
manufactured, marketed, and distributed oat based cereal products
under the brand name "Cheerios" ("Products") that contain dangerous
levels of the chemical pesticide chlormequat chloride
("chlormequat").
Cheerios consists of pulverized oats shaped into a ring. Besides
the original unflavored Cheerios, the brand has produced and sells
a number of flavored Cheerios lines, including Honey Nut Cheerios.
Generations of children and adults internationally and in the U.S.
have enjoyed Cheerios for the past 75 years, making it one of the
most popular and recognizable foods brands in the world.
Unfortunately for consumers, Cheerios contain dangerously high
levels of chlormequat, a pesticide that has been linked to
disruption of fetal growth and harm to the nervous system.
Specifically, independent laboratory testing has revealed that the
following Cheerios products have tested positive for the presence
of chlormequat: regular Cheerios, Honey Nut Cheerios, Frosted
Cheerios, and Oat Crunch Oats N' Honey Cheerios. The Products have
tested out at levels of between 40 to more than 100 parts per
billion of chlormequat.
Chlormequat is dangerous to human health if ingested, even at very
low levels. Toxicological studies suggest that exposure to
chlormequat can reduce fertility and harm developing fetus at doses
lower than those used by regulatory agencies to set allowable daily
intake levels. Chlormequat has also been shown to delay puberty and
impair the reproductive functions in mammals.
The packaging and labelling for Defendant's Products do not list
chlormequat in the ingredient section, nor do they warn about the
inclusion or potential inclusion of chlormequat in the Products.
Consumers including the Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the label
and ingredients list of Cheerios to accurately inform them of the
components and ingredients of the Products. Consumers including
Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Products had their labels
accurately disclosed the presence of chlormequat in Cheerios.
Because of failure to disclose the presence of chlormequat in
Cheerios, Defendant was enabled to charge a premium for the
Products relative to key competitors' products, or relative to the
average price charged in the marketplace. Consumers including
Plaintiffs especially rely the labels on food products, as they
cannot confirm or disprove the claims stated on those labels simply
by viewing or even consuming the Products.
The Plaintiffs and, indeed, no reasonable consumer would ever
expect that a food Product--especially one heavily marketed to
children and families--would contain dangerous pesticides.
Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered economic injuries as a result
of purchasing the Products. The Plaintiffs suffered economic injury
by Defendant's fraudulent and deceptive conduct as stated herein,
and there is a causal nexus between Defendant's deceptive conduct
and Plaintiffs' injury, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs Necaises purchased Honey Nut Cheerios on June 12,
2023 for $7.49 from Albertsons.com, but they have purchased other
Cheerios products including regular Cheerios, at multiple times
throughout the Class period.
General Mills is a leading producer, manufacturer, marketer, and
seller of cereal foods, including the iconic Cheerios brand of
breakfast cereals, which is among the most famous food brands in
the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller (SBN: 207034)
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Phone: 858.414.7465
Fax: 858.300.5137
Email: legal@cweller.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Exclude Dahm's Opinion Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROY WHITE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00410-CNS-MEH (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order granting in part and denying
in part GM's motion to exclude Dr. Dahm, and denying GM's motion to
exclude Mr. Stockton.
The Court finds that certain opinions and testimony of Dr. Dahm
lack reliability and thus are excluded.
The Plaintiff White filed a Class Action Complaint against GM in
February 2021, alleging that GM's Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines
(Gen IV LC9 Engine) have an "inherent excessive oil consumption
problem," which the Plaintiff calls the "Oil Consumption Defect."
The Plaintiff alleges that the primary cause of the Oil Consumption
Defect is the allegedly defective piston rings GM uses in the Gen
IV LC9 Engines. The Plaintiff also argues that GM knew of the Oil
Consumption Defect as early as 2008 and concealed it from
consumers. The Plaintiff argues that the defect poses risk of
damage to the Gen IV LC9 Engines which, in turn, poses serious
safety risks to drivers. GM denies these allegations.
The parties agree that the Class Vehicles are defined and limited
to the following GM-manufactured vehicles:
2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado,
2011-2014 Chevrolet Suburban, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2011-2014
GMC Sierra, 2011-2014 GMC Yukon, and 2011-2014 Yukon XL
manufactured on or after February 10, 2011 with Generation IV 5.3
Liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 Engines (the Gen IV LC9 Engines) and
purchased or leased in the State of Colorado.
Any vehicle that has received free upgraded piston rings under
warranty is excluded from the definition of Class Vehicle.
Mr. White purchased a Class Vehicle—specifically a 2011 GMC
Sierra equipped with a "Generation IV LC9 Vortec 5300 engine"—in
2012.
Dr. Dahm is the Plaintiff's technical engineering expert. He
obtained a PhD from the Division of Engineering and Applied Science
at the
California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1985, an M.S.
degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Tennessee
in 1981, and a B.S.E. degree in mechanical engineering from the
University of Alabama in Huntsville in 1978.
Dr. Dahm has been a professor for 35 years; he currently is a
professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Arizona State
University and a professor emeritus at the College of Engineering
at the University of Michigan.
General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3o9KdR at no extra
charge.[CC]
GERBER LIFE: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Identified Filings
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE LOGUIDICE and
EMILIE NORMAN, V. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
7:20-cv-03254-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order permitting them to seal the identified filings.
Pursuant to Your Honor's Individual Rules and Practices, Standing
Order No. l 9-mc00583 and Section 6 of the Court's ECF Rules &
Instructions, Plaintiffs Emilie Norman and the Estate of Josephine
Logiudice ("Plaintiffs"), by and through counsel, seek leave to
file under seal their Oppositions to Defendant's Motions to Exclude
Plaintiffs' six proposed experts, Kent E. Barrett, Arthur Olsen,
Benjamin Lester, Ph.D., Wallis Wilkinson Tsai, Mark Kantrowitz and
Arthur Olsen, s well as the supporting Declarations and Exhibits.
While Plaintiffs disagree with the designations, the Oppositions to
the Defendant's Motions to Strike and supporting documents are
nearly entirely comprised of information that has been marked by
the Defendant as Confidential under the governing protective order
in this case, such that certain documents must be placed entirely
under seal while other documents nearly entirely contain
information marked as Confidential by the Defendant, and
determinations regarding redaction and publication, cannot be
reasonably made by the Plaintiffs, and therefore, there is good
cause to place the filings entirely under seal.
Gerber Life provides juvenile and family life insurance products to
middle-income families along with medical insurance to small- and
medium-sized businesses.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ysGao5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Natalie Lyons, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
nlyons@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks A venue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchla w .com
- and -
Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
Amanda Rosenberg, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4 783
Facsimile: (202) 615-3948
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
arosenberg@kalielgold.com
- and -
Japies J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
GOLDEN CORRAL: Inelus Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
MIKA INELUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN CORRAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No.5:24-cv-00141-FL (E.D.N.C., March 5, 2024) arises out of
Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard
data security practices that could have protected Plaintiff's and
Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information from the
data breach that occurred between August 11, 2023, and August 15,
2023.
The Defendant only began sending notice letters to Class members on
February 16, 2024. Thus, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and
Class members with prompt and full notice of the data breach.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking
redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for
negligence and negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and and for violations of the North Carolina Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Golden Corral Corporation is a buffet style restaurant chain with
franchise locations across the United States and Puerto Rico. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5003
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
HARBOR UCLA: Bid to Continue Class Cert Briefing Schedule Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Turesa Wilcox v. Harbor
UCLA Medical Center Guild, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-02802-MCS-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi
entered an order denying ex parte application to continue briefing
and hearing schedule for class certification.
Harbor UCLA provides health care services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oYZfbD at no extra
charge.[CC]
HARBOR UCLA: Wilcox Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TURESA WILCOX, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HARBOR UCLA MEDICAL CENTER GUILD, INC., a California nonprofit
corporation; ATC HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLC, a Georgia limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:23-cv-02802-MCS-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order continuing the May 20, 2024, hearing date on Motion
for Class Certification and all associated deadlines.
(1) ATC caused the need for this Application and the relief
sought
through its dilatory tactics in discovery and failure to
provide discovery, forcing the Plaintiff to move to compel
the
discovery, and which motions were ultimately granted on
Feb. 27, 2024.
(2) Now that the Court has compelled the discovery, the ensuing
supplemental responses from ATC (assuming they are truly
responsive) and deposition(s) will not be received and
completed in time to adequately prepare the Motion for Class
Certification that is now scheduled to be filed by April 1,
2024, and heard on May 20, 2024.
(3) A fully-noticed motion for the relief sought is not
practicable
now that the Court has granted the motions to compel and
with
the current deadlines.
(4) The relief sought will prevent prejudice to the class
members
and will in no way prejudice ATC.
(5) The Court has inherent power to manage its proceedings so as
to
allow all relief sought herein and in the interest of
justice.
Harbor provides health care services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4OeqNS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Paal Bakstad, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
paal@tomorrowlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
Shireen Y. Wetmore, Esq.
Lauren M. Case, Esq.
Eisha Perry, Esq.
Nathan K. Norimoto, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 499-6700
Facsimile: (312) 279-6780
E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
jariley@duanemorris.com
sywetmore@duanemorris.com
lmcase@duanemorris.com
eperry@duanemorris.com
nnorimoto@duanemorris.com
HILTON MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Decertify Class in Gonzalez
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDUARDO GONZALEZ, et al.,
v. HILTON MANAGEMENT LLC, a successor in interest to Hilton
Worldwide, Inc. (erroneously sued herein as "San Francisco Hilton,
Inc."), Case No. 4:14-cv-01523-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 decertifying the class in the action.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3btNYb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kelsey A. Israel-Trummel, Esq.
Renee Pauline T. Perez, Esq.
Michael J. Gray, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 626-3939
Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
E-mail: kitrummel@jonesday.com
mjgray@jonesday.com
rpperez@jonesday.com
HISMILE PTY: Ponce Sues Over False and Misleading Sale Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith Ponce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HISMILE PTY LTD., Case No. 2:24-cv-01496 (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 23, 2024), is brought against the Defedants violation of the
California's False Advertising Law which prohibits businesses from
making statements they know or should know to be untrue or
misleading, including statements falsely suggesting that a product
is on sale, when it actually is not.
On its website, Defendant lists purported regular prices for its
products, and also advertises purported limited-time discounts from
those purported regular prices. These include "LAST CHANCE"
discounts that are purportedly limited in time. These discounts are
made available by using a discount code, such as "SMILE" or are
automatically applied to the all products sitewide. Defendant uses
countdown clocks to represent that their sales are on the verge of
ending. Defendant also advertises that its products have a lower
discount price as compared to a higher, regular price shown in grey
and/or strikethrough font.
But the truth is, Defendant's sales are not limited in time. The
"regular" prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's
"regular" prices, and the products are routinely on sale. The
purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discount
the customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor
are the purported discounts limited-time offers or "LAST CHANCE."
Instead, the sales persist.
the Plaintiff bought products from Defendant from its website,
us.hismileteeth.com. When the Plaintiff made her purchase,
Defendant advertised that a 50% off sale was going on, and so
Defendant represented that the products that the Plaintiff
purchased were being offered at a 50% off discount from its
purported "regular" price that Defendant advertised. And based on
Defendant's representations, the Plaintiff believed that she was
purchasing products whose regular price and market value was the
purported "regular" price that Defendant advertised, that she was
receiving a substantial discount, and that the opportunity to get
that discount was time-limited. These reasonable beliefs are what
caused the Plaintiff to buy from Defendant when she did.
In truth, however, the representations the Plaintiff relied on were
not true. The purported "regular" prices were not the true regular
prices, the purported "discounts" were not the true discounts, and
the discounts were ongoing--not time-limited. Had Defendant been
truthful, the Plaintiff and other consumers like her would not have
purchased the Products, or would have paid less for them, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a customers who purchased Hismile Products.
HiSmile Pty Ltd. sells and markets oral care products online
through the Hismile brand and website, us.hismileteeth.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
Email: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit Over Use of AI, Violations of CIPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brigid O'Leary, writing for DWM Mag, reports that from the amusing
to the perplexing, artificial intelligence (AI) is under scrutiny
across many industries as people around the world work out what the
technology can and cannot do -- and in what ways companies should
wield those tools. Now Home Depot and Google, together, are in the
cross hairs for their alleged use of AI in "violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA").
Christopher Barulich, a California resident, has filed a class
action complaint against both the retail giant and technology giant
on his own behalf as well as anyone "who called Home Depot customer
service and had their privacy violated when Home Depot allowed
Google to access, record, read, and learn the contents of their
calls."
The class action complaint states that Google's Cloud Contact
Center AI ("CCAI") service "enables it to listen to and analyze
customer service calls in real time" and that by 2021, Home Depot
was using CCAI "to monitor and analyze all of its live customer
service calls."
This allowance, Barulich's legal team argues, conflicts with CIPA
which "prohibits the surreptitious third-party monitoring and
recording of phone calls." The plaintiff says Home Depot and Google
"violated CIPA each time someone called Home Depot and the contents
of that call were disclosed to third-party Google without prior
consent from all parties to the call."
Specifically, the initial complaint outlines the fact that "Section
631(a) of CIPA prohibits (i) intentional wiretapping, (ii)
willfully attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a
communication in transit over a wire, and (iii) attempting to use
or communicate information obtained under (i) or (ii)" and that
"this section also imposes liability upon any party who 'aids,
agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons' who
violate provisions (i)-(iii) of Sec. 631(a)."
Barulich's suit comes after a series of interactions with Home
Depot in October 2023. His communications started "with a Home
Depot 'virtual agent' and then was transferred to a human Home
Depot customer representative." His legal team states that he
"believed that all communications on these calls were only between
himself and Home Depot," and that he was not informed that Google
was involved with monitoring or recording any of the calls.
"Plaintiff did not expect, or have any reason to believe, that
Google was listening to the contents of his conversations and,
without prior authorization, reading, attempting to read, or
learning the contents or meaning of Plaintiff's communications,"
his legal team argues.
Barulich is bringing the suite on the belief that "Google used this
CCAI technology to transcribe Plaintiff's conversations in real
time, analyze the contents of Plaintiff's communications, and
suggest possible replies to the live Home Depot agent on the
phone." The effects of these alleged actions are two-fold.
According to the complaint, "Google profits from its deployment of
CCAI by charging users, such as Home Depot, to use Google's CCAI
services," and "Further, Google has the capability to use the
contents of communications it intercepts for purposes beyond the
scope of individual customer service calls. For example, Google can
use information and data gleaned from customer service calls to
Home Depot to further train or develop its AI models. On
information and belief, Google uses customer service calls to train
and refine its AI models." By doing so, "Google's CCAI did not act
as a mere passive tool. Google CCAI is . . . a third party to
conversations between callers and Home Depot. Instead of
functioning like a tape recorder purchased by Home Depot, the use
of CCAI allows Google itself to eavesdrop or wiretap into live
conversations between callers and Home Depot."
Due to the size of Home Depot's California market -- there are more
than 200 Home Depot stores within the state -- and the geographic
distance between them, "even a small percentage of customers
placing calls to Home Depot would satisfy Rule 23's numerosity
requirement" for a class-action lawsuit. The argument, in part,
hinges on the fact that "[p]laintiff and class members did not
consent to any of Google's actions with regard to the conduct
discussed herein. Moreover, plaintiff and class members could not
have consented to Google's actions because callers reasonably
believed that their communications were between themselves and Home
Depot."
The initial complaint includes two counts under cause of action,
both for violating CIPA, Cal. Penal Code Sec. 631. The count
against Google for using "CCAI, willfully and without the consent
of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner,
read, or attempted to read, or learn the contents or meaning of
electronic communications of plaintiff and class members while the
electronic communications were in transit or passing over any wire,
line, or cable, or were being sent from or received at any place in
California." The second count is against Home Depot alleging that
the company "knowingly and willingly enabled third-party Google to
tap into live customer service calls and to learn the contents of
those communications in real time."
If accepted as a class-action suit and ruled in favor of the
customers, damages would be "recoverable at $5,000 per violation"
for each company.
The initial complaint was filed in February 2024. [GN]
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Faces Hussein Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SALMA BAHAA HUSSEIN, ALESSANDRA DARRIGO, and DANIELA ARIELLE
DARRIGO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
HOOTERS OF AMERICA, LLC d/b/a HOOTERS, FRESH MEADOWS WINGS LLC
d/b/a HOOTERS, FARMINGDALE WINGS LLC d/b/a HOOTERS, and MARC
PHANUEF, Case No. 1:24-cv-01600 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2024) accuses
the Defendants of violating Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated employees who were not paid proper wages by
Defendant. They seek unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages,
misappropriated tips, unlawful wage deductions, liquidated damages,
uniform pay violations, unpaid regular wages due to off-the-clock
work, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs under the
FLSA and the NYLL.
Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Hooters of America LLC owns and
franchises hundreds of Hooters restaurants across the United
States, including the Hooters restaurants in Fresh Meadow and
Farmingdale, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
Angela Kwon, Esq.
BROWN KWON & LAM LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 295-5825
Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com
akwon@bkllawyers.com
HOUSER LLP: Giannelli Sues Over Private Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
MARK GIANNELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOUSER LLP, Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-00470 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2024), arises from Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class members' private
information that it collected and maintained, and for its failure
to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class members.
On May 9, 2023, the Defendant discovered that an unauthorized party
gained access to Defendant's systems between May 7, 2023, and May
9, 2023. However, despite learning of the data breach on May 9,
2023, Defendant waited until February 28, 2024, before informing
Plaintiff and Class members that their private information was
involved; a delay of almost ten months, says the suit.
Headquartered in Irvine, CA, Houser LLP is a law firm that serves
Fortune 500 companies and businesses of all sizes with eleven
offices nationwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
HOUSER LLP: McMillen Seeks Damages for Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD McMILLEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOUSER LLP, Case No. 8:24-cv-00468 (C.D.
Cal., March 4, 2024) accuses the Defendant of negligence, invasion
of privacy, and breach of quasi-contract/unjust enrichment over a
data breach.
The Plaintiff and class members are customers of Defendant's
clients. They provided certain personally identifying information
(PII) to clients of Defendant. Clients then provided the
information to Defendant. Between May 7, 2023 and May 9, 2023,
Defendant's computer network was illegally accessed during which
certain files were compromised. The perpetrators encrypted files on
the network and Defendant became aware of the incident on May 9,
2023.
The Defendant was forced to pay a ransom to the cyber criminals in
June 2023 in exchange for a decryption key. The data breach
affected hundreds of thousands of individuals, including Plaintiff.
They were only notified of the data breach on February 28, 2024.
The Plaintiff alleges that the data breach came as a result of
Defendant's inadequate data protection measures and non-compliance
with accepted security standards. Plaintiff seeks damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief for Defendant's
violations.
Houser LLP is a California law firm serving Fortune 500 companies
and businesses of all sizes. Its principal place of business is
located at 9970 Research Drive, Irvine, CA 92618. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
HUT 8 CORP: Latino Seeks Damages for Breaches of Securities Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK LATINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HUT 8 CORP., JAIME LEVERTON, and SHENIF VISRAM, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01636 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2024) pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff beings this action on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Hut 8 securities between
November 9, 2023 and January 18, 2024 inclusive. The Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements to the investing public about the business, operations,
and prospects of Hut 8, causing damages to Plaintiff and class
members.
Hut 8 is a crypto currency and data mining company with its
principal executive offices located in Miami, FL. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
HY CITE ENTERPRISES: Maldonado Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jennifer Maldonado, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HY CITE ENTERPRISES, LLC; WOLF UNION; And
CARFRED STEVEN ALDANA LUCENA, Case No. 2024CH00145 was removed from
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 28, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01670.
Plaintiff's claims under the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
John C. Scheller, Esq.
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
One South Pinckney Street, Suite 700
P.O. Box 1806
Madison, WI 53701-1806
Phone: 608.2832276
Fax: 608.283.2275
Email: jcscheller@michaelbest.com
- and -
Carolyn E. Isaac, Esq.
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
444 West Lake Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60606-0030
Phone: 312.222.0800
Email: ceisaac@michaelbest.com
IFIT HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek to Exclude Untimely Declarations
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TEEDA BARCLAY, JAY OVSAK,
and NICOLE NORDICK, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. iFIT Health & Fitness, Inc. f/k/a ICON HEALTH &
FITNESS, INC., and NORDICTRACK, INC., Case No.
0:19-cv-02970-ECT-DJF (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order that:
1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), excludes and/or strikes
the
following untimely expert witness declarations, reports, or
portions thereof:
a. Declaration of Harvey C. Voris;
b. Declaration of John A. Palmer;
c. Excerpts of the Declaration of Randy W. Shumway;
d. Declaration of Keith Botner; and
e. Declaration of Derk G. Rasmussen.
2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f), excludes and/or strikes
all
references to those declarations, or arguments relying
thereon,
from the Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Class Certification Motion.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CTLuHG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Christopher P. Renz, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
crenz@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
- and -
W.B. Markovits, Esq.
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Justin C. Walker, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
tcoates@msdlegal.com
jwalker@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
ILLINOIS WESLEYAN: Knowles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Illinois Wesleyan
University, Incorporated. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Illinois Wesleyan University, Incorporated, Case No. 1:24-cv-01462
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Illinois Wesleyan University -- https://www.iwu.edu/index.html --
is a nationally recognized private liberal arts university located
in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
INDIVIOR PLC: Consumer Law Group Investigates Suboxone Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Law Group is investigating a Canada-wide class action
lawsuit against Indivior, Aquestive Therapeutics, Monosol, Reckitt
Benckiser and Pharma Importing for manufacturing and selling the
prescription drug Suboxone to vulnerable Canadians, which they knew
or should have known carries with it serious health concerns.
Suboxone combines the active ingredients buprenorphine and
naloxone. Buprenorphine is highly acidic and, as recognized by the
FDA and British Columbia's Ministry of Health, its dissolution in a
user's mouth poses a serious risk of causing dental erosion, decay
and infections.
Suboxone is only available in Canada by prescription and is used to
treat opioid abuse disorder by reducing withdrawal symptoms and the
urge to consume opioids, while avoiding the cyclical symptoms
associated with opioid use.
Numerous published scientific studies concluded that dissolvable
buprenorphine posed significant risks of causing tooth decay,
erosion, infections, and cavities at a level comparable to the use
of methamphetamines. Despite this scientific evidence, the drug
companies failed to adequately disclose this risk to consumers.
If you or someone you know has ingested Suboxone and suffered
dental injury and you wish to obtain more information on potential
compensation or to be kept advised of the status of the Suboxone
Tooth Decay Class Action litigation or any resulting compensation
resulting from the Class Action Lawsuit in Canada, Ontario or
Quebec, please provide your contact information to our law firm
using the below form.
IF YOU WISH TO JOIN THE CLASS ACTION OR TO SIMPLY GET MORE
INFORMATION, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FORM BELOW. Please note that
providing your information creates no financial obligation for you.
You are not charged any fee or cost for joining this class action.
Our law firm is paid a contingency fee from the compensation
recovered, only if the class action is successful. All information
contained in this transmission is confidential and Consumer Law
Group agrees to protect this information against unauthorized use,
publication or disclosure. [GN]
INTERNATIONAL WIND: Burin Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Sept. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN BURIN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
INTERNATIONAL WIND, INC., a California corporation; INTERNATIONAL
WIND, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-02216-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order modifying the January 22,
2024, Scheduling Order as follows:
Event Date
Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on Dec. 11, 2025
Motions in Limine:
Last Date to File Motion for Class Sept. 20, 2024
Certification:
Last Date to File Opposition to Motion Oct. 21, 2024
for Class Certification:
Last Date to File Reply in Support of Nov. 7, 2024
Motion for Class Certification:
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Dec. 5, 2024
Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Mar. 28, 2024
Pleadings /Add Parties:
Last Date to Hear Motions : Sept. 18, 2025
Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference Oct. 1, 2024
International Wind is a complete evaluation, inspection and repair
services company for utility-scale wind turbine blades.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fQTWld at no extra
charge.[CC]
IROBOT CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Over Amazon Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against iRobot
Corporation ("iRobot" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IRBT). The lawsuit
alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
including allegations that:
(i) the Company's merger with Amazon ("Merger") would place
Amazon in a sufficiently dominant position in the market for robot
vacuum cleaners ("RVCs") that U.S. and European antitrust
regulators were unlikely to approve the Merger;
(ii) iRobot had conducted inadequate due diligence into the
Merger and/or ignored significant risks weighing against the
likelihood of regulatory approval; and
(iii) as a result of all the foregoing, iRobot overstated the
likelihood for successfully completing the Merger.
If you bought iRobot shares August 5, 2022 and January 26, 2024,
and suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are
encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer,
Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888)-508-6832 or, you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/irobot/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is May 7, 2024.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
JDC HEALTHCARE: Lee TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TABATHA LEE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JDC HEALTHCARE,
PLLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01134-E (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), LR 7.1, and LR 23.2, ask the
Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying a class with respect to her claims for the
Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. section 227 ("TCPA");
(2) designating the Plaintiff as class representative; and
(3) designating the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff moves to certify the following proposed Class:
All persons in the United States who, during the four years
prior to the filing of this case; (1) were sent more than
one
text message from Defendant; (2) for the purpose of
encouraging or promoting a visit to one of the Defendant's
dental offices; (3) who had previously requested to not
receive future text messages from the Defendant; and (4)
who
had placed their telephone number on the National
Do-Not-Call
Registry.
The total number of Class Members is approximately 6,264
individuals that received 31,978 text messages.
Excluded from the Class are Defendant, its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, any
entity
in which Defendant has a controlling interest, all
customers
who make timely election to be excluded; and all judges
assigned to this litigation and their immediate family
members.
These text messages -- which were sent to the Plaintiff and the
Class Members -- were part of the Defendant's "Recall Journey"
campaign which was operated by the Defendant's Marketing
Department. The text messages consisted of generic templates with
input fields for each recipient's name; meaning everyone was sent
the same or similar message the purpose of which was to encourage a
visit to one of the Defendant's locations. The Recall Journey
campaign was an aggressive one. It consisted of a cadence that that
lasted for two weeks and pursuant to which recipients were messaged
every other day, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff’s expert, Aaron Woolfson, reviewed the text message
logs produced by the Defendant, and conducted an analysis of those
numbers. Based on his analysis, Mr. Woolfson concluded that there
were 31,978 text messages sent to 6,264 unique numbers registered
on the National DNC, where the number had received two (2) or more
texts after sending an opt-out request to Defendant.
The Defendant operates 72 dental offices, with 68 locations in
Texas and four in Oklahoma.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h33hVb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW. P.A.
515 E las Olas Blvd. Ste 120,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
- and -
Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
JEEVES MANDEL LAW GROUP, P.C.
2833 Crockett St, Suite 135
Fort Worth, TX 76107
Telephone: (214) 253-8300
E-mail: rmandel@jeevesmandellawgroup.com
jeevesmandellawgroup.com
JMG SPECIALTIES: Faces Torres Suit Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HERRERIA TORRES, on behalf of himself, and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other similarly situated "aggrieved
employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, v. JMG SPECIALTIES, INC., a California corporation; JOSEPH M.
GAGE, an individual; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV05341 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2024) accuses
the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code, Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the California Business and
Professions Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at its facility located at
Livingston Ave., Valencia, California from June/July of 2021 until
on or about November 4, 2023. The Plaintiff alleges that he and
other similarly situated aggrieved employees were not properly paid
for all time worked as Defendant implemented a policy that resulted
in "time shaving". The Defendant committed several other violations
of the Labor Code, including, among others, failure to provide the
required rest and meal periods, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to pay wages when employment ends.
Defendant is also accused of unfair competition under the
California Business and Professions Code, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Valencia, CA, JMG Specialties Inc. is engaged in
food services and material handling. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
MM LAW, APC
500 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 2000
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 810-7747
Facsimile: (818) 230-9018
E-mail: maralle@mmlawapc.com
KAISER FOUNDATION: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Hearing Aid Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Snyder, writing for Hearing Loss Association of America,
reports that there's good news for residents of Washington state
who wear hearing aids -- a new law now requires some large group
health plans to cover the cost of hearing aids and services. And
some Kaiser Foundation Health Plan members may be eligible for
reimbursement for their hearing aids under a recent class action
lawsuit settlement if they act before April 2, 2024.
These recent efforts illustrate the importance of the Hearing Loss
Association of America (HLAA) and its community of local advocates
to spur change across the nation.
Grassroots Efforts Pay Off
The HLAA Washington State Association was instrumental in pushing
for the expanded coverage for hearing aids and services that just
went into effect January 1, 2024. House Bill 1222 now requires some
large group health plans in the state, and those for public
employees, to cover the cost of hearing aids, assessments,
adjustment, fitting and training -- up to $3,000 per ear every
three years. While this law exempts companies that are
self-insured, it's an important precedent, and local advocates
continue to push for broader coverage.
Also, claims are now being accepted in a class action settlement in
Washington for people who bought hearing aids. The case, Schmitt,
et al., v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, argues that excluding
hearing aids and services violates the Affordable Care Act's
anti-discrimination provision. An opinion by the federal Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, calling the exclusion
discriminatory.
This expanded coverage in Washington, together with the
anti-discrimination settlement, is good news to millions of people
with hearing loss across the U.S. who don't get the treatment they
need because of cost. We fully expect that other states could use
this as an example to follow. This is the kind of grassroots spark
that HLAA can share with members and constituents throughout the
country.
Act Fast for Hearing Aid Payouts
The settlement establishes a $3 million fund that will reimburse
people who paid out of pocket for hearing aids and related services
from October 30, 2014, through December 31, 2023, and were covered
under certain Kaiser Foundation Health plans in Washington state.
Next Steps and Wider Implications
HLAA Washington State Association (HLAA-WA) says more legislation
could further broaden coverage for hearing aids and services in
individual and small group health plans, too. Thanks to SB 5338,
also passed last year, the Washington State Insurance Commissioner
is seeking the addition of hearing aids to the state's Essential
Health Benefits (EHB). The EHB spells out what every health
insurance plan overseen by the state must offer. HLAA-WA hopes
others follow suit, potentially influencing Congress to provide
coverage to Medicare beneficiaries.
Since the Kaiser case ended in a settlement between two parties, no
court ordered a judgment. But the opinion could be repeated by
bringing additional lawsuits in other states if health plans
exclude hearing aid coverage based on disability.
A Community Pushing for Nationwide Change
HLAA has more than 120 local chapters that help advocate for change
in access to hearing loss care, treatment and accessible
communication across the nation. The organization is the leading
voice of the growing number of people with -- and at risk of --
hearing loss in the U.S.
"Change often happens in local communities first, as we're seeing
in Washington, and that's what HLAA is all about. We show people
that they're not alone -- there are 50 million Americans with
hearing loss, who need to be empowered to get the care they need to
stay healthy and connected to the world around them," says HLAA
Executive Director Barbara Kelley. [GN]
LANTRONIX INC: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set on April 23
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired
Lantronix, Inc. (NASDAQ: LTRX) common stock between May 11, 2023
and February 8, 2024. Lantronix is a global industrial and
enterprise internet of things ("IoT") provider of solutions that
purportedly target high growth applications in specific verticals
such as smart grids, intelligent transportation, smart cities, and
artificial intelligence ("AI") data centers.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: According to the complaint, in May 2023, Lantronix
forecasted that it would achieve revenue in a range of $175 million
to $185 million, as well as non-GAAP2 earnings-per-share ("EPS") in
a range of $0.50 to $0.60 per share, for its fiscal year 2024
results. During the class period, defendants repeatedly assured
investors and analysts that this guidance for fiscal year 2024
remained unchanged, despite knowing that Lantronix's customers were
experiencing elevated levels of inventory for IoT products, and
that embedded IoT revenues expected from a customer design win were
pushed out to the next fiscal year.
Plaintiff contends that during the class period, defendants failed
to disclose that:
(i) Lantronix overstated demand and/or its visibility into
demand for its IoT products;
(ii) Lantronix's customers were reducing elevated levels of
inventory of IoT products, thereby causing a general slowdown in
the Company's business;
(iii) certain of Lantronix's embedded IoT revenues expected from
a customer design win were delayed to the next fiscal year;
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Lantronix anticipated lower
sales for its embedded IoT solutions for fiscal year 2024; and
(v) accordingly, Lantronix was unlikely to meet its own
previously issued guidance for fiscal year 2024.
On February 8, 2024, Lantronix issued disappointing financial
results for the second quarter of its fiscal year 2024, negatively
revising its fiscal year 2024 guidance to expect revenue in a range
of $155 million to $165 million and non-GAAP EPS in a range of
$0.35 to $0.45 per share. On this news, Lantronix's stock price
fell $1.89 per share, or 32.53%, to close at $3.92 per share on
February 9, 2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Lantronix, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by
April 23, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member. For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Lantronix, Inc. settles or
to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in
wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com
https://www.facebook.com/RobbinsLLP/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/robbins-llp/
LIBERTY HOSPITAL: Cook Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Liberty Hospital
Foundation. The case is styled as Dan Cook, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Liberty Hospital
Foundation d/b/a Liberty Hospital, Case No. 4:24-cv-00134-BP (W.D.
Mo., Feb. 28, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Civil
Miscellaneous Case.
Liberty Hospital -- https://www.libertyhospital.org/ -- offer a
full range of medical specialties and state-of-the-art technology
to assure exceptional care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John F Garvey, Jr., Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC
701 Market Street, Suite 1510
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 374-6306
Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com
LIGHT & WONDER INC: Continues to Defend Boorn Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Light & Wonder Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Boorn class suit in the Fayette
Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
On September 15, 2022, plaintiff Hannelore Boorn filed a putative
class action against L&W, SciPlay Corporation, and Appchi Media
Ltd. in the Fayette Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
In her complaint, plaintiff sought to represent a putative class of
all persons in Kentucky who, within the past five years, purchased
and allegedly lost $5.00 or more worth of virtual coins, in a
24-hour period, playing SciPlay's online social casino games.
The complaint asserted claims for alleged violations of Kentucky's
"recovery of gambling losses" statute and for unjust enrichment,
and sought unspecified money damages, the award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
injunctive and/or other declaratory relief.
On October 18, 2022, defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
On October 26, 2022, plaintiff filed a notice voluntarily
dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice.
On October 27, 2022, the district court entered an order dismissing
the lawsuit.
On November 17, 2022, claimant Hannelore Boorn filed an arbitration
demand against respondents L&W, SciPlay Corporation, and Appchi
Media Ltd. before the American Arbitration Association, pursuant to
which she seeks declaratory judgments that (1) SciPlay's online
social casino games constitute gambling under Kentucky law, and (2)
SciPlay's terms of service are void under Kentucky law.
On January 12, 2023, respondents filed their answering statement to
plaintiff's arbitration demand.
On February 2, 2024, claimant filed a dispositive motion seeking a
ruling that SciPlay's terms of service are void under Kentucky law
and that claimant's claims are not arbitrable.
On February 2, 2024, respondents filed a motion for summary
disposition seeking dismissal of claimant's claims. Both motions
are pending.
The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.
The Company believes that the claims in the arbitration demand are
without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them.
Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with
a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying
game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and
table game products and services to licensed gaming entities;
providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual
gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite
of digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account
management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and
services.
LIGHT & WONDER INC: Continues to Defend Tonkawa Tribe Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Light & Wonder Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Tonkawa Tribe class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
On September 3, 2020, the Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma
d/b/a Tonkawa Enterprises filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a
Bally Gaming, Inc.
On October 5, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
to add Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians and the Umpqua
Indian Development Corp., d/b/a Seven Feathers Casino as a
plaintiff.
On October 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims
arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S.
patents.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to
create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for card
shufflers sold or leased to regulated casinos in the United States.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all regulated
United States casinos directly leasing or purchasing card shufflers
from the defendants on or after April 1, 2009.
The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, the award of
plaintiff's costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
expert fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.
On November 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' second amended complaint or, in the alternative, to
compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims.
On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment, seeking a finding that defendants are collaterally
estopped from re-litigating issues litigated in the 2018 litigation
versus Shuffle Tech International Corp., Aces Up Gaming, and
Poydras-Talrick Holdings.
On August 27, 2021, the Nevada district court entered an order
transferring the lawsuit to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.
On May 19, 2022, the Illinois district court granted defendants'
motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' individual claims;
stayed all proceedings in the lawsuit pending resolution of the
arbitral process; and accordingly dismissed all pending motions
without prejudice as moot.
The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.
The Company believes that the claims in the lawsuit are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them.
Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with
a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying
game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and
table game products and services to licensed gaming entities;
providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual
gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite
of digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account
management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and
services.
LYFT INC: Chen Sues Over Misleading Financial Statements
---------------------------------------------------------
YUAN CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LYFT, INC., DAVID RISHER, and ERIN BREWER,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01330 (N.D. Cal., March 5, 2024)
alleges claims against Lyft and certain of its officers for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of
1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiff Chen brings this action on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Lyft common shares on a U.S. open
market during the class period February 13, 2024 at 4:05 PM through
February 13, 2024 at 4:51 PM. During the class period, the
Defendants issued a press release misrepresenting that Lyft
anticipated an adjusted EBITDA margin expansion of approximately
500 basis points year-over-year. The misrepresentation with respect
to margins was material and caused Lyft common stock, which closed
on February 13, 2024 at $12.13, to trade as high as $20.25 in the
aftermarket. The Plaintiff Chen purchased 20,000 shares of Lyft
common stock during the Class period and suffered damages as a
result of the federal securities law violations and false and/or
misleading statements and/or material omissions, says the suit.
Headquartered in San Francisco California, Lyft provides online
ridesharing services. Its common shares trade on NASDAQ under the
ticker symbol "LYFT." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip M. Black, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
E-mail: pblack@wolfpopper.com
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Alexander Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Harris et
al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
Thomas Anderson entered an order denying Symetra's motion to
dismiss or stay African Methodist Episcopal Church's third-party
complaint.
The Court said, "AMEC has carried its modest burden at the
pleadings stage to show that the Court has specific personal
jurisdiction over Symetra Financial. Likewise, the Third-Party
Complaint plausibly alleges an injury to AMEC and the Plan, which
is fairly traceable to the acts and omissions of Symetra
Financial.
Symetra Financial's factual challenge has not overcome those
allegations. Therefore, Symetra Financial's Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED. Because a discretionary stay of the proceedings between
AMEC and Symetra Financial is warranted, Symetra Financial's
request for a stay of the proceedings is granted.
On the whole, the Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of a
discretionary stay of the proceedings on AMEC's non-arbitrable
claims against Symetra Financial.
The Alexander Suit is consolidated in RE: AME Church Employee
Retirement Fund Litigation -- MDL 3035. This multidistrict
litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement Plan
established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church ("AMEC") for
its clergy and employees. The Plaintiffs are current or retired
clergy of the church and allege a number of claims under Tennessee
law against the denomination, church officials, third-party service
providers to the Plan, and other alleged tortfeasors.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pEn2p2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Carmichael Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al v.
HARRIS, et al. (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-01127-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas Anderson entered an order denying Symetra's motion to
dismiss or stay African Methodist Episcopal Church's third-party
complaint.
The Court said, "AMEC has carried its modest burden at the
pleadings stage to show that the Court has specific personal
jurisdiction over Symetra Financial. Likewise, the Third-Party
Complaint plausibly alleges an injury to AMEC and the Plan, which
is fairly traceable to the acts and omissions of Symetra
Financial.
Symetra Financial's factual challenge has not overcome those
allegations. Therefore, Symetra Financial's Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED. Because a discretionary stay of the proceedings between
AMEC and Symetra Financial is warranted, Symetra Financial's
request for a stay of the proceedings is granted.
On the whole, the Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of a
discretionary stay of the proceedings on AMEC's non-arbitrable
claims against Symetra Financial.
The Carmichael Suit is consolidated in RE: AME Church Employee
Retirement Fund Litigation -- MDL 3035. This multidistrict
litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement Plan
established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church ("AMEC") for
its clergy and employees. The Plaintiffs are current or retired
clergy of the church and allege a number of claims under Tennessee
law against the denomination, church officials, third-party service
providers to the Plan, and other alleged tortfeasors.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ToAxe7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in ERISA Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund
Litigation -- MDL 3035, Case No. (Court), Case No.
1:22-cv-03035-STA-jay ((W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Anderson
entered an order denying Symetra's motion to dismiss or stay
African Methodist Episcopal Church's third-party complaint.
The Court said, "AMEC has carried its modest burden at the
pleadings stage to show that the Court has specific personal
jurisdiction over Symetra Financial. Likewise, the Third-Party
Complaint plausibly alleges an injury to AMEC and the Plan, which
is fairly traceable to the acts and omissions of Symetra
Financial.
Symetra Financial's factual challenge has not overcome those
allegations. Therefore, Symetra Financial's Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED. Because a discretionary stay of the proceedings between
AMEC and Symetra Financial is warranted, Symetra Financial's
request for a stay of the proceedings is granted.
The Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of a discretionary
stay of the proceedings on AMEC's non-arbitrable claims against
Symetra Financial.
This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA
retirement Plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal
Church ("AMEC") for its clergy and employees. The Plaintiffs are
current or retired clergy of the church and allege a number of
claims under Tennessee law against the denomination, church
officials, third-party service providers to the Plan, and other
alleged tortfeasors.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ilcXR4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Ewing Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02136-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas Anderson entered an order denying Symetra's motion to
dismiss or stay African Methodist Episcopal Church's third-party
complaint.
The Court said, "AMEC has carried its modest burden at the
pleadings stage to show that the Court has specific personal
jurisdiction over Symetra Financial. Likewise, the Third-Party
Complaint plausibly alleges an injury to AMEC and the Plan, which
is fairly traceable to the acts and omissions of Symetra
Financial.
Symetra Financial's factual challenge has not overcome those
allegations. Therefore, Symetra Financial's Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED. Because a discretionary stay of the proceedings between
AMEC and Symetra Financial is warranted, Symetra Financial's
request for a stay of the proceedings is granted.
On the whole, the Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of a
discretionary stay of the proceedings on AMEC's non-arbitrable
claims against Symetra Financial.
The Ewing Suit is consolidated in RE: AME Church Employee
Retirement Fund Litigation -- MDL 3035. This multidistrict
litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement Plan
established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church ("AMEC") for
its clergy and employees. The Plaintiffs are current or retired
clergy of the church and allege a number of claims under Tennessee
law against the denomination, church officials, third-party service
providers to the Plan, and other alleged tortfeasors.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D0aEwp at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3035: Bid to Junk Third Party Complaint in Jackson Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-2174-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas Anderson entered an order denying Symetra's motion to
dismiss or stay African Methodist Episcopal Church's third-party
complaint.
The Court said, "AMEC has carried its modest burden at the
pleadings stage to show that the Court has specific personal
jurisdiction over Symetra Financial. Likewise, the Third-Party
Complaint plausibly alleges an injury to AMEC and the Plan, which
is fairly traceable to the acts and omissions of Symetra
Financial.
Symetra Financial's factual challenge has not overcome those
allegations. Therefore, Symetra Financial's Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED. Because a discretionary stay of the proceedings between
AMEC and Symetra Financial is warranted, Symetra Financial's
request for a stay of the proceedings is granted.
On the whole, the Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of a
discretionary stay of the proceedings on AMEC's non-arbitrable
claims against Symetra Financial.
The Jackson Suit is consolidated in RE: AME Church Employee
Retirement Fund Litigation -- MDL 3035. This multidistrict
litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement Plan
established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church ("AMEC") for
its clergy and employees. The Plaintiffs are current or retired
clergy of the church and allege a number of claims under Tennessee
law against the denomination, church officials, third-party service
providers to the Plan, and other alleged tortfeasors.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LqyUdV at no extra
charge.[CC]
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT RESOURCE: Montoya Files Suit in D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Management
Resource Group LLC. The case is styled as Marie Montoya, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Medical Management
Resource Group LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00382-MTM (D. Ariz., Feb. 23,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Medical Resources Group, LLC -- https://www.mrgllc.net/ -- provides
medical billing and collections services and solutions to the
healthcare industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC
7508 N 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85301
Phone: (623) 826-5593
Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Phone (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Gallegos & Drews Sue Over Late Breach Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Gallegos and James Drews, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Medical Management Resource Group, LLC
d/b/a American Vision Partners, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00463-DJH (D. Ariz., March 5, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of its
patients, that were subsequently exposed in a data breach, which
Defendant publicly disclosed on February 6, 2024.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant inexcusably delayed
disclosing and providing notice of the data breach to its patients.
Moreover, Plaintiffs Gallegos and Drews assert claims for
negligence; negligence per se; breach of implied contract; unjust
enrichment; invasion of privacy, and for violations of the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act.
Headquartered in Maricopa County, Arizona, Medical Management
Resource Group, L.L.C. d/b/a American Vision Partners is a limited
liability company that partners with ophthalmology practices in the
country to integrate a best-in-class management system,
infrastructure and technology. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7508 N. 59th Avenue
Glendale, AZ 85301
Telephone: (602) 730-7100
Facsimile: (623) 235-6173
E-mail: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
MEDMINDER SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Grote Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN GROTE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MEDMINDER SYSTEMS, INC., and TROY L. HILSENROTH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10559-IT (D. Mass., March 5, 2024)
arises from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff, and
similarly situated employees, all earned wages and overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Massachusetts wage
and hour laws.
In or around April 2021, the Defendant hired Plaintiff Grote to
work to fill prescriptions at its Norwood facility. Medminder's
employees, including Mr. Grote, are regularly scheduled and work in
excess of 40 hours in a work week, but are not paid time and a half
for those excess hours. Additionally, at times Medminder fails to
pay employees at all or more than six days after the pay period in
which the wages are earned, says the suit.
Headquartered in Norwood, MA, Medminder is a pharmacy which
provides patients medications through the mail. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
Matthew Patton, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
50 Congress Street, Suite 540
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 338-9400
E-mail: mdp@mass-legal.com
MERCK SHARP: Bids for Class Cert in Baltimore Suit Due Oct. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
BALTIMORE ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered a scheduling order:
-- Fact discovery shall be completed no later than April 4,
2025.
-- The parties shall agree on custodians and search terms and
produce structured data in response to the first set of
requests
for production by April 3, 2024.2
-- The parties shall begin rolling production of documents in
response to the first set of requests for production by May 3,
2024.
-- Amended pleadings pursuant to FRCP 15, if any, shall be filed
by
June 4, 2024.
-- Document production in response to the first set of requests
for
production shall be substantially completed by November 4,
2024.
-- Plaintiffs may conduct up to 17 depositions without seeking
leave
under FRCP 30.
-- The time limit for witnesses produced pursuant to FRCP
30(b)(6)
is enlarged to 14 hours per witness.
-- Affirmative expert reports for any party shall be due by June
4,
2025.
-- Rebuttal expert reports for any party shall be due by Aug. 4,
2025.
-- Reply expert reports for any party shall be due by Sept. 15,
2025.
-- All expert discovery shall be completed by Oct. 5, 2025.
-- Motion(s) for class certification shall be due by Oct. 27,
2025.
-- Opposition to motion(s) for class certification and Rule 702
motions, with respect to class certification-related opinions,
shall be due by Dec. 8, 2025.
Merck Sharp operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xvgfMQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
MERIT ENERGY: GOP "Oklahoma Wells" Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOP, LLC, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, v. Merit Energy Company,
LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00278-RAW-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiff
moves the court for an order granting class certification,
appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing
the Plaintiff's undersigned attorneys as class counsel.
Because Plaintiff satisfies each element of Rule 23, Plaintiff
respectfully requests that the Court enter an order certifying the
Class, appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing
Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.
The Plaintiff proposes a class definition as follows:
All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received an
Untimely Payment from Merit for oil and gas proceeds from
Oklahoma wells, or on whose behalf an Untimely Payment was
sent
as unclaimed funds to a government entity by Merit; and (2)
whose proceed payment did not include statutory interest. An
"Untimely Payment" for purposes of this class definition
means
a payment of proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production
after the statutory periods identified in Okla. Stat. tit.
52,
section 570.10(B)(1) (i.e., not later than six (6) months
after
the date of first sale and thereafter not later than the
last
day of the second succeeding month after the end of the
month
within which such production is sold) or Okla. Stat. tit.
52,
section 570.10(B)(2) (i.e., not later than 6 months after
the date of first sale and thereafter not later than the
last
day of the third succeeding month after the end of the month
within which such production is sold), as applicable.
Untimely
Payments do not include: (a) payments of proceeds equal to
or
less than $25.00; (b) prior period adjustments, or (c)
payments
made on or before Sept. 29, 2017.
The persons or entities excluded from the class are: (1) Merit, its
affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors;
(2)
agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of
America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any Indian Tribe as defined
at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30
U.S.C. section 1702(2), and (4) officers of the Court.
The Plaintiff brought this case based upon the Defendant's willful
and ongoing violations of the requirement of the Oklahoma
Production Revenue Standards Act ("PRSA") for the Defendant to pay
interest on payments of proceeds derived from the sale of oil and
gas production outside of the statutory timeframes set out
therein.
The PRSA is and commands holders to pay oil-and-gas proceeds within
clearly defined timeframes. Despite this, Merit has largely
sidestepped its statutory obligations under the PRSA by making no
effort to pay interest to its owners when it pays proceeds outside
the statutory timeframes. Absent classwide litigation of this
issue, this class of owners will never recover the interest owed to
them under Oklahoma law.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0sLbOD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Gleason, Esq.
MORICOLI, KELLOGG & GLEASON, PC
One Leadership Square, Suite 1350
211 N. Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: 405-235-3357
Fascimile: 405-232-6515
E-mail: dgleason@moricoli.com
— and —
Randy C. Smith, Esq.
RANDY C. SMITH PLLC
One Leadership Square, Suite 1310
211 North Robinson Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone (405) 212-2786
Facsimile (405) 232-6515
E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com
MILLER PIPELINE: Amezcua Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ignacio Amezcua, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MILLER
PIPELINE, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; ARTERA
SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; Case No. C24-00176 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra
Costa, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Feb. 23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01131.
The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks damages, based on the following
alleged violations: unpaid overtime wages; failure to provide meal
period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages;
final wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage statements;
unreimbursed business expenses; and violation of California
Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Alexandra Asterlin, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: Michael.Nader@ogletree.com
alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com
- and -
Robert Vorhees, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: 714-800-7900
Facsimile: 714-754-1298
Email: robert.vorhees@ogletree.com
MOBILEYE GLOBAL: Le Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tung Le, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MOBILEYE GLOBAL INC., AMNON SHASHUA, MORAN SHEMESH
ROJANSKY, and ANAT HELLER, Case 1:24-cv-01390 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23,
2024), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Mobileye securities between January 26, 2023
and January 3, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period") and to pursue
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") as a result of The Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements.
The Company generates the majority of its revenue from the sale of
EyeQ System-on-Chips ("SoCs"). EyeQ SoCs are a computer chip used
for driver-assistance and partial autonomous driving. Mobileye
sells EyeQ SoCs to Tier 1 automotive suppliers who in turn sell to
Original Equipment Manufacturers ("OEMs").
On January 4, 2024, before the market opened, Mobileye issued a
press release disclosing that it had "become aware" of a build-up
of excess inventory including an estimated 6 to 7 million units of
EyeQ SoCs held by customers. The Company stated this was a result
of "supply chain constraints in 2021 and 2022 and a desire to avoid
part shortages" and "lower than expected production at certain
OEM's during 2023." The Company then disclosed that "the
lower-than-expected volumes in the EyeQ SoC business will have a
temporary impact on our
profitability." The Company also provided a preliminary financial
outlook for 2024, in which it stated that it "expects Q1 revenue to
be down approximately 50%, as compared to the $458 million revenue
generated in the first quarter of 2023." On this news, Mobileye's
stock price fell $9.75 per share, or 24.5%, to close at $29.97 per
share on January 4, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: to avoid the
shortages experienced amid supply chain constraints in 2021 and
2022, the Company's Tier 1 customers had purchased inventory in
excess of demand during fiscal 2023; as a result, the Company's
customers had excess inventory on hand, including approximately 6
to 7 million units of EyeQ SoCs; due to the build-up of inventory,
there was a significant risk that the Tier 1 customers would buy
less product, thus adversely impacting the Company's fiscal 2024
financial results; and as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Mobileye securities during the Class Period
and suffered damages as a result.
Mobileye is a technology company engaged in the development and
deployment of advanced driver assistance systems ("ADAS") and
autonomous driving software and hardware products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: ahood@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
MULTI-MAN PUBLISHING: Beauchamp Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Multi-Man Publishing,
LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Beauchamp, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Multi-Man Publishing, LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01429 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Multi-Man Publishing, LLC ("MMP") -- https://mmpgamers.com/ -- is a
Maryland based game company that publishes many wargame
titles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
MZ WALLACE INC: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MZ Wallace, Inc. The
case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. MZ Wallace, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01376 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
MZ Wallace -- https://www.mzwallace.com/ -- is an accessories
company launched in 2000 by Monica Zwirner and Lucy Wallace
Eustice, two native New Yorkers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Kolev Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOYAN KOLEV, et al., v.
NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-15107-JHR-EAP
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal entered a discovery
dispute order and amended scheduling order:
-- No later than March 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall submit a
letter
to the Court concerning their pending Motion to Amend the
Complaint, explaining the proposed amendment's effect on
the Court's diversity jurisdiction.
-- De-anonymized Documents: Defendants' objection is overruled.
The
Defendants shall produce a de-anonymized list of drivers,
which
may be marked as confidential in accordance with the
Confidentiality Agreement and Stipulated Protective Order
The Defendants shall respond to the Plaintiffs' Interrogatory
No.
3 and Document Requests Nos. 6, 10, 15,19, 27, and 28.
-- Jobs, Locations, Mileage, and Time: The parties have resolved
these disputes; the Defendants' objections are moot.
-- Defendant NFI's Management Structure in Illinois: The parties
have resolved the disputes surrounding Interrogatories Nos. 4
and
7; therefore, the Defendants' objections are moot.
The Defendants' objections as to Interrogatories Nos. 8 and 9
are
overruled. Defendants shall answer Plaintiffs' Interrogatories
Nos. 8 and 9 and shall produce the responsive documents, if
they
exist.
-- "Prong A" Document Requests: Defendants' objection is
sustained.
The parties shall meet and confer regarding how to limit
Document
Requests Nos. 9-12, 17-18.
-- Document Request No. 31: Defendants' objection is overruled.
The
Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with documents reflecting
the
relationship between Defendant National Freight, Inc. and NFI
Integrative Logistics, LLC.
-- Miscellaneous Issues: The parties have resolved the disputes
surrounding Document Requests Nos. 4 and 6; therefore,
Defendants' objections are moot.
-- No later than April 23, 2024, Defendants shall serve their
responses as specified in paragraphs 4-9 above.
-- Fact Discovery. Pretrial factual discovery is extended to June
3,
2024. All pretrial discovery shall be concluded by that date.
All
discovery disputes shall be presented to the Court in
accordance
with Local Civil Rule 37.1(a)(1), and the procedures set forth
in
this Order, prior to the expiration of pretrial factual
discovery.
-- Class Certification Motions. Class certification motions shall
be
filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than August 9,
2024.
Opposition to the motion(s) should be served in a timely
fashion.
National Freight provides logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h17Wqs at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATIONAL VISION: Continues to Defend SGERS Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings Inc. 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 the City of Southfield General
Employees Retirement System class suit in the federal court of
Northern District of Georgia.
On January 27, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed
in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia against the
Company and two of the Company's officers.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 for materially false and misleading
statements made between May 2021 and May 2022.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages as well as equitable
relief.
On March 28, 2023, the original plaintiff, City of Southfield
General Employees Retirement System, and a new plaintiff,
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 793, Members
Pension Benefit Trust of Ontario, filed a lead plaintiff motion,
seeking to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs.
On April 3, 2023, the Company along with its named officers filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.
On May 19, 2023, the court granted the lead plaintiff motion.
On June 30, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which
added a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act and extended
the alleged class period to February 28, 2023.
On August 21, 2023, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint.
The plaintiffs filed their Response in Opposition to this motion on
October 5, 2023.
The court heard oral argument on this motion on January 18, 2024.
The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend the
litigation vigorously.
National Vision Holdings, Inc. is an optical retailer,
Headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. [BN]
NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mortgage Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Crowell, writing for the Seattle Medium, reports that a
mortgage discrimination case that began with two plaintiffs last
December was consolidated in late February with seven others to
form a class action lawsuit alleging that Navy Federal Credit Union
-- the nation's largest with 13.4 million members and $170.8
billion in assets -- "systematically and intentionally
discriminates against minority borrowers across the United
States."
The lawsuit alleges that Navy Federal, which serves current and
former military members from all service sectors, denied loans for
52 percent of Black borrowers and 44 percent of Latino borrowers,
while denying only 23 percent of white applicants for home mortgage
purchase or refinance loans and Home Equity Lines of Credit.
Affidavits of affected borrowers told stories of the financial and
emotional distressed caused by qualified loan applicants having to
find alternative -- and often more costly -- financing after being
denied by their member-owned credit union.
The lawsuit, led by nationally-known attorney Ben Crump and his
associate Adam Levitt, said the lender's own data show that Navy
Federal approved loans for a higher percentage of white borrowers
annually earning less than $62,000 a year than for Black loan
applicants earning $140,000 or more.
And when Navy Federal did approve a loan to a Black or Latino
applicant, they often were offered worst interest rates and loan
terms than those offered to white borrowers with similar financial
profiles. These activities are illegal under federal laws,
including the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act
(ECOA).
"The outright discrimination that occurs when Banking While Black
continues to reveal itself in the lending practices of many of
America's largest financial institutions," said Crump. "It is
shameful that Navy Federal, an organization that prides itself in
helping the families of men and women who served their country,
does not give their Black and Latino customers the same
opportunities as white customers."
"We hope this legal action will stop racial lending discrimination
in its tracks and require Navy Federal to right their wrongs," said
Adam Levitt. "Home ownership is recognized as the cornerstone of
the American Dream. We will not sit by while that dream is denied
to hard-working and deserving Americans based on discriminatory
practices and algorithms."
Navy Federal said in a December 2023 statement that its more than
$3.5 billion in mortgages to Black borrowers in 2022 shows its
"longstanding commitment to expanding credit and economic
opportunity to Black borrowers."
But the number of people calling to hold Navy Federal accountable
is growing, and now includes civil rights activist Rev. Al
Sharpton, 10 U.S. Senators, over 20 Members of Congress, consumer
advocates and others.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Ranking Member of the House Financial
Services Committee called for federal agencies to begin
investigations.
"Credit unions are owned by their members and while this type of
discrimination may be par for the course for a profit-driven
megabank, a member-driven credit union should know better," said
Waters.
"As a private institution that bears the name of an esteemed branch
of the United States military, Navy Federal must explain both to
Congress and their members how such practices took place, what
immediate steps are being taken to correct the harm done, and who
in management will be held responsible," Waters continued. "These
abuses will not be tolerated, and I urge the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, National Credit Union Administration, and other
appropriate agencies to promptly investigate this matter."
Consumers Union, a nonprofit advocacy group, added its support.
"The large racial disparity found between loan approvals for
applicants with roughly the same financial profile raises serious
concerns that Navy Federal may be unfairly discriminating against
Black and Latino applicants," said Jennifer Chien, CU's senior
policy counsel for financial fairness.
In a joint letter on January 11,2024, 10 U.S. Senators led by
Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown urged the CFPB
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department HUD to
investigate the issue.
"As the regulators with primary responsibility for enforcing ECOA
and the Fair Housing Act, we ask that you thoroughly review Navy
Federal's mortgage lending practices and outcomes for compliance
with all federal fair housing and fair lending laws and
regulations. Navy Federal's members have made countless sacrifices
in their service to our country. We must do all we can to ensure
illegal barriers are not placed on their path to homeownership."
Even more lawmaker support came on February 28 in a joint letter
from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the New Democrat
Coalition that called upon six federal agencies to investigate and
report on their findings.
"[T]he federal financial regulators have a duty to 'affirmatively
further fair housing,' which means they must take meaningful
actions that overcome and do not further entrench patterns of
segregation and systemic disinvestment, such as through redlining,
based on protected classes under the law," wrote the lawmakers.
[GN]
NEI GENERAL: Court Enters Class Certification Order in Ruiz Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE C. RUIZ, CRUZ EDUARDO
RUIZ, AND LUKASZ ZAJKOWSKI, Individually And on Behalf of All
Similarly-Situated Employees, v. NEI GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC.,
DELTA DRYWALL AND FRAMING LLC, JOSEF RETTMAN, AND DAVID ADAM
VILLANUEVA, Case No. 1:21-cv-11722-WGY (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge
William G. Young entered an order:
-- Granting the motion to certify class as to the following two
subclasses: the Overtime Wages Class and the Unpaid Wages
Class,
since they satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b).
-- The Court denies the motion to certify class as to the
Retaliation
Class subclass because it lacks either numerosity or
commonality,
depending on how the class is defined, and so the claims under
that subclass are better suited for individual adjudication and
joinder.
In this class action, project workers Jose C. Ruiz, Cruz Eduardo
Ruiz and Lukasz Zajkowski sue NEI General Contracting, Inc., Delta
Drywall and Framing LLC, Josef Rettman, and David Villanueva
alleging underpaid overtime, unpaid wages, and retaliatory
termination. The
Project Workers now move to certify three overlapping subclasses:
(1) a Retaliation Class, (2) an Overtime Class, and (3) an Unpaid
Wages Class.
The Court certifies the subclass for overtime with the following
refinements to the class definition:
"all employees who worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more
weeks on the Mary D. Stone Project under foreman Lukasz
Zajkowski
between June 21, 2021, through August 20, 2021 (Phase II)."
The Court Certifies the subclass for Unpaid Wages with the
following refinements to the class definition:
"all employees who worked on the Mary D. Stone Project under
foreman Lukasz Zajkowski between June 21, 2021, through August
20,
2021 (Phase II)."
The Court Certifies the Overtime Wages Class and the Unpaid
Wages Class but denies certification of the Retaliation Class.
EI is a general contractor specializing in affordable housing.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gSlj26 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NESTLE USA: O'Rourke Seeks Damages for Misbranded Mineral Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN O’ROURKE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NESTLE USA INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01607
(E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the
New York General Business Law for making misrepresentations and
omissions about its mineral waters.
This action arises from Defendant's alleged false and misleading
claims about its mineral water products under the Perrier brand.
The Defendant used "Sparkling Natural Mineral Water," "Natural
Mineral Water," and "Flavored Carbonated Mineral Water" in the
labeling and packing of the products, claiming that the mineral
water is sourced in France. However, an investigation into the 2020
mineral water scandal uncovered that Defendant used illegal
filtration systems resulting in its natural mineral waters losing
their status as natural mineral waters.
The Plaintiff is among consumers who purchased and used Defendant's
Perrier mineral waters based on the labeling and packaging of the
product. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made false and
misleading representations and omissions about their Perrier
mineral waters, resulting in the product being sold at a premium
price, higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading
representations and omissions.
Nestle USA, Inc. produces and distributes food and beverage
products with its principal place of business located in Virginia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
NESTLE USA: O'Rourke Sues Over Mineral Water False Ads
------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Action, reports that Perrier
mineral water not as pure as advertised, a class action claims.
Who: Plaintiff Kevin O'Rourke filed a Perrier class action lawsuit
against Nestle USA Inc.
Why: Nestle allegedly misleads consumers about the purity of its
Perrier mineral water.
Where: The Perrier class action lawsuit was filed in New York
federal court.
Nestle USA Inc. markets Perrier mineral water as being pure water
"captured at the source in France" without disclosing it uses
filters to modify the water's composition, a recent Perrier class
action lawsuit claims.
Plaintiff Kevin O'Rourke says he purchased Perrier mineral water
because he believed the product to be natural mineral water, not
subjected to treatment processes typically associated with lower
quality water.
The Perrier mineral water label reportedly describes the product as
"Sparkling Natural Mineral Water" that is "captured at the source
in France" with images of naturally-occurring bubbles from the
Perrier spring.
However, Nestle's underground water source is no longer protected
and may be contaminated by bacteria and pollutants requiring
treatment, the Nestle class action alleges.
Nestle misled investigators about Perrier mineral water treatment,
plaintiff alleges.
In 2020, a whistleblower associated with a mineral water bottling
company reported unauthorized practices to a French agency. The
agency investigated and reportedly found extensive practices
inconsistent with regulations for the sale of mineral water,
including Perrier mineral water.
The inspectors allegedly found that they were "deliberately misled
during previous inspections" at Nestle plants and a magistrate
subsequently found that Nestle's mineral water lost its status as
natural mineral water, and concluded Nestle's conduct "amounts to
deception."
The federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act follows the European
standard of quality for mineral water, specifying that mineral
water must originate "from a geologically and physically protected
underground water source" and is "distinguished by other types of
water by its constant level and relative proportions of minerals
and trace elements at the point of emergence from the source,"
according to the Perrier class action.
New York has also adopted these standards, O'Rourke says.
O'Rourke alleges the Perrier pure mineral water products are
misbranded because they do not conform to the standard of identity
for mineral water.
"None of the treatment methods applied are necessary when mineral
water originates from a protected underground source," according to
the Perrier class action.
O'Rourke filed the Perrier class action lawsuit on behalf of a
proposed class of persons in New York who purchased Perrier pure
mineral water in New York during the applicable statute of
limitations period.
A judge recently dismissed a separate Perrier class action lawsuit
alleging Nestle misleads consumers about how much lime is in its
Perrier beverages.
O'Rourke is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates
PC.
The Perrier pure mineral water class action lawsuit is Kevin
O'Rourke v. Nestle USA Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01607, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Central Islip.
[GN]
NEW YORK LIFE: Seeks Permit to File Documents Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LINHART, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORPORATION; and DOES 1 TO 50, inclusive,
Case No. 5:21-cv-01640-JWH-kk (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order permitting to file under seal certain
documents and references to those documents, either because those
portions of the Joint Exhibit are designated as "Confidential" or
"Highly Confidential" by one of the parties in this action or
because they contain information that must be redacted pursuant to
Local Rule 5.2-1, found in the concurrently submitted documents:
1. The Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification;
2. Declaration of Frank Citera in Support of Defendant's
Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and
3. Exhibits 7, 11–15, 18–33, and 35–36 to Defendant's
Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 1, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ewrnc6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael D. Mulvaney, Esq.
John A. Little, Jr., Esq.
Caleb C. Wolanek, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1700
Birmingham, AL 352103
Telephone: (205) 254-1000
Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
E-mail: mmulvaney@maynardnexsen.com
jlittle@maynardnexsen.com
cwolanek@maynardnexsen.com
- and -
Cindy M. Rucker, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (323) 987-3356
Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
E-mail: crucker@maynardnexsen.com
NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Buckley Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET M. BUCKLEY, CSJ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MARY T. BASSETT, M.D., as Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Health; and DANIEL W. TIETZ, as Commissioner of the
Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State
Department of Family Assistance, Bassett et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-01436-JMA-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joan Azrack
entered an order:
-- The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and
-- Movant's motion to intervene is denied.
This putative class action lawsuit takes aim at New York State's
administrative fair hearing system for Medicaid appeals.
In challenging the State's fair hearing operations, the Plaintiff
Margaret M. Buckley, CSJ, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
against the Defendants.
For two principal reasons, the Court denies Movant's motion to
intervene and dismisses her Class Action Complaint.
First, Movant's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were
extinguished by her death. Second, no successor or representative
has
sought to be substituted for her within the period required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) when Movant requested an
expedited fair hearing on April 28, 2022, the Defendants were not
required to take final administrative action within three business
days.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 1, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q1Uy0K
at no extra charge.[CC]
NEXION HEALTH AT MARRERO: Devore Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nexion Health at
Marrero, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Latoya Devore, as
representative of Cynthia Devore; Richard Hamilton; individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nexion Health at
Marrero, Inc. doing business as: Marrero Healthcare Center; Nexion
Health of OHI, Inc.; Case No. 2:24-cv-00481-GGG-KWR (E.D. La., Feb.
26, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Contract Dispute.
Nexion Health -- https://www.nexion-health.com/ -- is a local
leader in skilled nursing, rehabilitation, and memory care services
in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew M. Coman, Esq.
GARCIA & ARTIGLIERE
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2045
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 354-9750
Fax: (504) 354-9751
Email: mcoman@lawgarcia.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
NKCH BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Jackson Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bessie Jackson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Board of Trustees of North Kansas
City Hospital, Meritas Health Corporation, Perry Johnson &
Associates, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-00109 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Feb.
28, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01485-RPK-LGD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
North Kansas City Hospital (NKCH) -- https://www.nkch.org/ -- is an
acute care facility with 451 licensed beds and 550 physicians
representing 49 medical specialties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John S. Steward, Esq.
14824 West Clayton Road, Suite 24
St. Louis, MO 63017
Phone: (314) 504-0979
Fax: (314) 594-5950
Email: js@MoLawGroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq.
Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
BOULWARE LAW LLC
1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416
Kansas City, MO 64102
Phone: (816) 492-2826
Email: jeremy@boulware-law.com
brandon@boulware-law.com
- and -
Timothy S. Frets, Esq.
ROUSE FRETS WHITE GOSS GENTILE RHODES, PC - LEAWOOD
5250 W. 116th Place, Suite 400
Leawood, KS 66211
Phone: (913) 387-1600
Fax: (913) 928-6739
Email: tfrets@rousepc.com
NORDSEC LTD: Hanscom Sues Over Deceptive Automatic Renewal Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS HANSCOM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORDSEC LTD., NORDSEC B.V., NORDVPN S.A.,
NORD SECURITY INC., and TEFINCOM S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, Defendants,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00277 (W.D.N.C., March 5, 2024) challenges
NordSec's use of deceptive and illegal "automatic renewal"
practices to dupe consumers into paying for unwanted, pricey
subscriptions to NordSec's virtual private network and other
services.
According to the complaint, NordSec's subscription enrollment and
cancellation process is deceptive and violates the North Carolina
automatic renewal law because it fails to clearly and conspicuously
disclose the terms of the automatic renewal before consumers
purchase a NordSec subscription, fails to clearly and conspicuously
disclose how to cancel the automatic renewal in the Company's
acknowledgement emails sent to consumers after they purchase a
NordSec subscription, and fails to provide written notice that the
contact will automatically renew at least 15 days but no earlier
than 45 days before the subscription automatically renews.
Headquartered in Vilnius, Lithuania, NordSec Ltd.is an internet
privacy and security company that offers products and services
intended to provide subscribers with privacy and protection from
cybersecurity threats while using the internet. Those offerings
include a VPN service called "NordVPN," a password manager called
"NordPass," and an encrypted cloud storage service called
"NordLocker." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
Kathryn Anne B. Robinson, Esq.
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Telephone: 919-600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
krobinson@milberg.com
hbryson@milberg.com
- and -
J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
Ethan D. Roman, Esq.
WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
305 BROADWAY, 7TH FLOOR
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (914) 775-8862
Facsimile: (914) 775-8862
E-mail: jbm@wittelslaw.com
edr@wittelslaw.com
NORTH KANSAS CITY HOSPITAL: H.Z. Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as H.Z., A.J.; M.Z. G.Z., by and through their Next
Friend, H.Z., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. North Kansas City Hospital Auxiliary, Perry Johnson &
Associates, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-00111 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Feb.
28, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01486-RPK-LGD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
North KC Hospital Auxiliary offers financial assistance,
scholarships, and health promotion services for North KC Hospital
and the community.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
1656 Washington Street, Suite 140
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Fax: (816) 332-6295
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
BOULWARE LAW LLC
1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416
Kansas City, MO 64102
Phone: (816) 492-2826
Email: brandon@boulware-law.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Heitzner Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ilise Heitzner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Northwell Health, Inc., Perry
Johnson & Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10694 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
Feb. 26, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01168-RPK-LGD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Northwell Health -- https://www.northwell.edu/ -- is a nonprofit
integrated healthcare network that is New York State's largest
healthcare provider and private employer, with more than 81,000
employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Norton, Esq.
Benjamin David Baker, Esq.
Newman Ferrara LLP
1250 Broadway
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 619-5400
Fax: (212) 619-3090
Email: jnorton@nfllp.com
bbaker@nfllp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher Paul Conniff, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 596-9000
Fax: (212) 596-9090
Email: Christopher.Conniff@ropesgray.com
- and -
Joel Michael Maxwell, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
3 Wtc, 175 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (516) 639-4564
Email: jmaxwell@cozen.com
NOVAVAX INC: $47MM Class Action Settlement to be Heard on May 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and Pomerantz LLP disclosed that the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit those who purchased or otherwise
acquired Novavax, Inc. publicly traded common stock:
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All persons or entities who or which, during the period from
May 11, 2021 through October 19, 2021, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common
stock of Novavax, Inc. ("Novavax") and were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement
Class; and Novavax; and Stanley Erck, Gregory Covino, John
Trizzino, and Gregory Glenn (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants" and, with Novavax, "Defendants"), have reached a
proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class
action (the "Action") in the amount of $47,000,000 (the
"Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Theodore D. Chuang,
either in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on
May 23, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. at the United States Courthouse, United
States District Court, District of Maryland, 6500 Cherrywood Lane,
Greenbelt, MD 20770 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether
the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as
provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
January 12, 2024; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement
Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Co-Lead
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without
providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement
Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement
Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice,
you may obtain copies of the Postcard Notice, long-form Notice, and
Claim Form by visiting the Claims Administrator's website,
www.strategicclaims.net/novavax/, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:
Novavax, Inc. Securities Settlement
c/o Strategic Claims Services, Inc.
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
P.O. Box 230
Media, PA 19063
(866) 274-4004
www.strategicclaims.net/novavax/
info@strategicclaims.net
Inquiries, other than requests for copies of notices or about the
status of a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel:
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
Michael H. Rogers, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
(888) 219-6877
POMERANTZ LLP
Brian Calandra, Esq.
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
www.pomlaw.com
bcalandra@pomlaw.com
(212) 661-1100
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 18,
2024. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit
a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice available on the Claims Administrator's website, and such
request must be received no later than May 2, 2024. If you properly
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel's Fee
and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation
must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be
mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the
instructions in the Notice available on the Claims Administrator's
website, such that they are received no later than May 2, 2024.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE
DATED: FEBRUARY 20, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
OHIO: Court Certifies Suit on Pandemic Unemployment Assistance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Kamczyc, writing for 21WFMJ, reports that a judge in Franklin
County has ruled that a class action lawsuit over federal Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance (PUA) payments can continue in court.
The lawsuit, filed by DannLaw, challenges Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine's
decision to terminate $900 million in financial benefits for
Ohioans in 2021.
In a 16-page order, Judge Michael Holbrook denied Ohio Attorney
general Dave Yost's motion to dismiss the suit, saying the
plaintiffs "sufficiently plead claims for declaratory judgement,
injunctive relief and petitions for writs of mandamus."
A status conference for the lawsuit has been scheduled for April 9
at 1:30 p.m.
Originally filed in July of 2021 by attorneys Marc Dann, Brian
Flick, and Andrew Engel, the suit asks the Court to order Governor
DeWine to reverse his decision and notify the U.S. Secretary of
Labor that the state would accept and distribute $300 in weekly
supplemental benefits made available under the CARES Act to
eligible Ohioans. According to Dann, those affected may be owed as
much as $900 million. [GN]
OKTA INC: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Okta Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2024, that discovery is ongoing for
securities class suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
On May 20, 2022, a purported shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
executive officers, captioned In re Okta, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 3:22-cv-02990.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
alleging that the defendants made false or misleading statements or
omissions concerning the Company's cybersecurity controls,
vulnerability to data breaches, and the Company's integration of
Auth0.
The lawsuit seeks an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action
and unspecified damages.
The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
On March 31, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss.
The court dismissed in full the claims based on the plaintiff’s
allegations related to the Company's cybersecurity controls and
vulnerability to data breaches, and dismissed in part and denied in
part the claims based on allegations related to the Auth0
integration.
On November 1, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, on January 17, 2024, the defendants filed a notice
of non-opposition to the motion, and on February 5, 2024, the court
granted the motion.
The court has not otherwise issued a scheduling order, and
discovery is proceeding.
Okta is an American identity and access management company based in
San Francisco.
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Court OK's Sealing of Class Cert Support Exhibits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Pauli, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Mae D'Agostino entered an order sealing Exhibits D-I, K, N,
Q-X in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
filed Feb. 29, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 1, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KQ1QFt at no extra
charge.[CC]
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Pauli Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES PAULI, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN
OUTLET, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
(1) certifying action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23;
(2) authorizing that notice of this matter be published to
members of the putative class in the form attached as
Exhibit
BB to the Moreno Decl.; and
(3) directing the Defendants produce a full and complete Class
List
within 30 days from the date of the Court's order in
accordance
with the proposed Order attached to the Moreno Decl. as
Exhibit
CC.
Ollie's is an American chain of discount closeout retailers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3yiKhB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
mmoreno@vandallp.com
- and -
Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
The White House
7030 E. Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Telephone: (315) 314-8000
E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com
OLO INC: $9MM Class Action Settlement to be Heard on June 10
------------------------------------------------------------
Kroll Settlement Administration issued a statement regarding
Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore -- International
Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund v. Olo Inc., 22-CV-8228
(JSR) (S.D.N.Y.).
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
SHARES OF THE CLASS A COMMON STOCK ("COMMON STOCK") OF OLO INC.
("OLO") BETWEEN MARCH 17, 2021 AND AUGUST 11, 2022, INCLUSIVE (THE
"CLASS").
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on June 10, 2024, at 4:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge, at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
Courtroom 14B, New York, NY 10007, for the purpose of determining:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement of the
above-captioned Action, as set forth in the settlement agreement
reached between the Parties, consisting of Nine Million Dollars
($9,000,000) in cash, should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Members of the Class; (2) whether the release by
Class Members of claims as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement and Release (the "Stipulation") should be
authorized; (3) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
settlement proceeds (the "Plan of Allocation") is fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (4) whether the application by Class Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses and any award to Class
Representative should be approved; and (5) whether the Judgment, in
the form attached to the Stipulation, should be entered. The Court
may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing
another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in
order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ANY OF THE CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF OLO
DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 17, 2021 THROUGH AUGUST 11, 2022,
INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
Form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than July 9,
2024), or electronically at the following website:
www.OloSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by email at the following email
address: info@OloSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than July 9,
2024. Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by
July 9, 2024, will subject your claim to possible rejection and may
preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with
the Settlement of this Action. If you are a member of the Class and
do not request exclusion, you will be bound by the Settlement and
any judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim. Class Counsel represents you and other Members of the Class.
If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one
at your own expense.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement or exclude
yourself from the Class), or a Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain
these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in
this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at
www.OloSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to, emailing, or
calling:
Olo Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration
PO Box 53 24
New York, NY 10150-5324
1-833-462-3513
info@OloSecuritiesLitigation.com
Inquiries may also be made to a representative of Class Counsel
at:
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
Jeffrey P. Jacobson
230 Park Ave., Fl. 17
New York, NY 10169
Phone: 1-800-332-2259
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN MAY
20, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL
MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE
CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE LITIGATION
EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY CLASS COUNSEL
FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE
APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD TO THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE FOR ITS TIME
AND EXPENSES. ANY WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE SENT TO THE COURT
POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN MAY 20, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU FAIL TO OBJECT IN THE MANNER AND
FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE, YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED ANY
OBJECTION AND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO APPEAR SEPARATELY AT THE
SETTLEMENT HEARING OR MAKE ANY OBJECTION TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE
PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY CLASS COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE APPLICATION FOR AN
AWARD TO THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE FOR ITS TIME AND EXPENSES.
This is only a summary. For details, including information on
objecting or filing an opt-out, or to file a claim, visit the
settlement website, www.OloSecuritiesLitigation.com, or call the
Claims Administrator at 1-833-462-3513.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS
NOTICE.
ORDER DATED: FEBRUARY 20, 2024
OLO INC: To Settle Mariners' Pension Fund Row Over SEC Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------------
Olo Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission February 21, 2024, that on January 16, 2024, the parties
in a class action lawsuit filed on September 26, 2022 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the
company and certain of its executive officers, reached an agreement
to settle the lawsuit, and lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement.
Said court preliminarily approved the settlement on February 20,
2024 and scheduled a final settlement hearing for June 10, 2024.
On December 21, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel on behalf of the class, following which the case was
captioned "Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore - International
Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund v. Olo Inc., et al.," Case
No.1:22-cv-08228-JSR.
On August 9, 2023, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
asserting claims on behalf of a class composed of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between March 17,
2021 and August 11, 2022, inclusive which asserts a claim against
all defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b5 promulgated thereunder and a claim under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Glass, its Chief
Executive Officer, and Benevides, its Chief Financial Officer, as
alleged controlling persons. It alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements concerning, among other
things, its business relationship with the restaurant brand
"Subway," its financial position, enterprise market customers and
publicly disclosed "active locations" counts, and that these
alleged false and misleading statements caused losses and damages
for members of the class. It seeks unspecified damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief that the
Court deems appropriate.
On August 24, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss this and
on September 26, 2023, the court issued a summary order granting in
part and denying in part its motion to dismiss, dismissing the
claims in the Second Amended Complaint to the extent they are
premised on misstatements about Subway, financial prospects, and
our prospects in the enterprise market, but permitting the
remaining claims concerning our publicly disclosed "active
locations" counts to proceed.
On December 1, 2023, the court issued an opinion confirming its
September 26, 2023, order granting in part and denying in part the
company's motion to dismiss. Also on December 1, 2023, the court
entered an order certifying a class of stockholders that purchased
Olo's Class A common stock between March 17, 2021 and August 11,
2022.
Olo is open SaaS platform for restaurants that powers their digital
ordering, delivery, and payment programs and enables them to
collect, analyze, and act on data to drive more meaningful guest
experiences. Its platform and application programming interfaces,
or APIs, seamlessly integrate with a wide range of solutions,
unifying disparate technologies across the restaurant ecosystem.
OREGON: Court Junks J.N. Suit
-----------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.N., et al.; v. OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-00096-AA (D.
Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann Aiken entered an order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction, denying as
moot the pending motions for summary judgment and related motions,
and dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
The Plaintiffs' lawyers embarked on a worthy path to make a
difference—and they did—for all of Oregon's Public School
Children attending school with disabilities.
The Plaintiffs' dogged advocacy to bring this landmark case caught
the attention of the Oregon Legislature, and the legislative branch
carried the baton over the finish line to enact the very
protections plaintiffs zealously sought.
The Defendants' responsiveness to the allegations in this lawsuit
and herculean effort to quickly implement SB 819 demonstrates its
commitment to the public to correcting the systemic deficiencies
identified by plaintiffs and the jointly retained expert. The Court
commends the lawyers' diligent work in this important case.
The Court finds that those factors point to mootness: the policy
change to provide resources, technical training, and guidance to
the districts is
(1) broad in scope and unequivocal, evidenced by the multitude
of
training documents created and defendants’ contractual
commitments;
(2) the policy change fully addresses plaintiffs' allegations in
this case of inadequate resources and training;
(3) this lawsuit served as a catalyst for defendants' policy
change, including the findings and recommendations from the
expert Report on the need for technical training, which
defendants imported;
(4)-(5) while the Defendants' increased commitment to delivering
technical training and guidance has not been in force for a
long duration, defendants nevertheless demonstrate a that
the
agency's officials have not engaged in conduct similar to
that
challenged by plaintiffs, evidenced by the multiple
trainings
and guidance now issued.
Finally, the contracts, agreements, and financial investments
defendants have made weigh against a finding that they might
"easily abandoned or alter" their conduct in the future."
The Plaintiffs in this class action are Oregon public school
children with disabilities and a non-profit advocacy group. They
allege that inadequate state policies and procedures for
monitoring, compliance and enforcement, and technical training and
assistance for school districts has led to a statewide practice
among school districts
of misusing shortened school day schedules for students with
disability-related behaviors.
The Plaintiffs assert that the inadequacy of the state's policies
and procedures violate their rights under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act.
The named plaintiffs and plaintiff class are "students with
disabilities aged 3 to 21 residing in Oregon who are eligible for
special education and related services under the IDEA, Title II,
and Section 504, who are "currently being subjected to a shortened
school day or are at substantial risk of being subjected to a
shortened school day due to their disability-related behaviors."
Oregon Department of Education oversees public K-12 education and
public libraries in Oregon.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 29, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hMo4CT
at no extra charge.[CC]
OUTSET MEDICAL: Securities Suit Over Hemodialysis System Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Outset Medical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 2, 2022, that on September 7, 2022,
the plaintiff in a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action
without prejudice, and this action is now concluded.
On July 8, 2022, plaintiff named the company, its Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and former Chief Financial
Officer as defendants. The complaint alleges that between September
15, 2020 and June 13, 2022, the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making false
or misleading statements regarding the company's regulatory studies
of the Tablo Hemodialysis System for at home use and the company's
prospects related to the sale of the system for at home use.
Outset Medical, Inc. is a medical technology company based in
California.
PACIFIC GAS: Sarfraz-Sattar Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Shehraz Mohammad Sarfraz-Sattar,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California company; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CU23-04681 was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County
of Solano, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Feb. 27, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-at-00169.
The Complaint contains nine causes of action, alleging: Recovery of
Unpaid Minimum Wages; Recovery of Unpaid Overtime Wages; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Waiting Time
Penalties; Failure to provide Wage Statements; Failure to Reimburse
Business Expenses; Failure to Produce Employment Records and Unfair
Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joshua D Kienitz, Esq.
Courtney Chambers, Esq.
Harman S Deol, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.932.2468
Fax: 925.946.9809
Email: jkienitz@littler.com
cchambers@littler.com
hdeol@littler.com
PARKING CONCEPTS: Bartholomew Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parking Concepts,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Brendan P. Bartholomew,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Parking Concepts, Inc., Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
CGC24612624 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 26, 2024).
The case type is stated "Business Tort."
Parking Concepts, Inc. -- https://parkingconcepts.com/ --
proactively manages parking & transportation operations with
unparalleled integrity & service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany Skye Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1990 N California Blvd., Ste. 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3745
Phone: 925-300-4455
Email: bscott@bursor.com
PBF HOLDING: Piscitelli Class Cert Hearing Set for April 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2024, that the class certification
hearing is scheduled for April 10, 2025.
On August 16, 2023, in Joseph Piscitelli and Lara Zanzucchi v.
Martinez Refining Company LLC, our subsidiary MRC was named as a
defendant in a class action and representative action complaint
which contains allegations of public and private nuisance,
trespass, and negligence arising from MRC's operations.
MRC filed its answer to the complaint on October 31,2023.
The initial Court hearing to discuss discovery issues was held on
January 2, 2024.
At the hearing, the Court raised the issue of mediation and
directed the parties to meet and confer and agree to stipulate to a
mediation deadline.
On January 9, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to
consider private mediation by September 20, 2024.
On January 17, 2024, the Court issued a scheduling order setting
the class certification hearing for April 10, 2025.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery.
The Company presently believe the outcome will not have a material
impact on our financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows.
PBF Holding Company LLC is an independent petroleum refiner and
supplier based in New Jersey.
PELICIA E. HALL: Bid to Replace Exhibit 24 OK'd in Alexander Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ALEXANDER, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
PELICIA E. HALL, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00021-SA-JMV (N.D.
Miss.), the Hon. Judge Jane Virden entered an order granting the
Defendants' unopposed motion to replace Exhibit 34 to the
Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Clerk's Office is directed to replace the previously filed
Exhibit 34 with the newly filed Exhibit 34.
By agreement of the parties, the Defendants had filed documents,
including Exhibit 34 with redactions of the Plaintiffs' names to
alleviate safety concerns raised by the Plaintiffs. In so doing,
the Defendants inadvertently did not redact one of the Plaintiff's
names, which this motion and the corrected exhibit seek to correct,
the suit says.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FyG7uF at no extra
charge.[CC]
PER DIEM LLC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PER DIEM, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Juan Carlos Rodriguez, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees v. Per Diem,
LLC, PD Transbay, LLC, Naomi Comstock, Darren Matte, Does 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. CGC24612769 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Feb. 28, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class
Action Complaint for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay state
minimum wage, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide
rest breaks)."
Esthetics by Jeanette LLC -- https://www.ebjspa.com/ -- is a beauty
salon in the Arden-Arcade, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew Lewis, Esq.
THE LEWIS LAW OFFICE, PC
2999 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 180
Roseville, CA 95661-4219
Phone: 650-665-9000
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Western Cab Sues Over Oil Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
Western Cab Company, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION;
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG
RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Case Mo.
2:24-cv-00401 (D. Nev., Feb. 28, 2024), is brought arising from the
Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and ultimately constrain,
domestic shale oil production, which has had the purpose and effect
of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil in and
throughout the United States of America (and worldwide).
The Defendants have also conspired with the Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries ("OPEC"), the international oil
cartel that believes that it can escape U.S. antitrust law because
its members are sovereign nations. Defendants agreed with OPEC to
constrain production of crude oil worldwide, with the purpose and
effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil
in and throughout the United States of America (and worldwide).
Defendants are not sovereign nations, and they are not immune to
U.S. antitrust law.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent classes of persons and entities
that, like itself, paid artificially inflated prices for motor
vehicle fuel they purchased for commercial use. Gasoline and diesel
fuel are a major cost of businesses small and large, from
sole-proprietor taxicab companies and electricians to thirty-person
landscaping companies to major long-haul trucking businesses
employing thousands of drivers. Class members purchase millions of
gallons of gasoline and diesel for commercial use every day.
Running a business—especially one that depends on inputs as cost
variable as fuel—is difficult and risky in the best of
circumstances. Defendants have been making it harder, violating the
law to misappropriate billions of dollars that should belong to
class members, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Western Cab Company is a Nevada-based cab company and
has purchased gasoline in Nevada for commercial use.
Permian Resources Corporation is a publicly traded Delaware
corporation headquartered in Midland, Texas and is a major producer
of crude oil from shale oil formations, largely in the Permian
Basin in Texas and New Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
Artemus W. Ham, IV, Esq.
Erica D. Entsminger, Esq.
EGLET ADAMS EGLET HAM HENRIOD
400 South Seventh Street, Suite 400
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: (702) 450-5400
Facsimile: (702) 450-5451
Email: eservice@egetlaw.com
- and -
Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
Robert W. Cobbs, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW. Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Email: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10005
Phone: (212) 883-7797
Email: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Dotterer Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen
Associates, Ltd. The case is styled as Rhonda Dotterer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., Case No. 1:24-cv-01098-MMM-JEH
(C.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. -- https://phillips-cohen.com/ --
provides collections and financial recovery services. The Company
offers services that includes compassionate deceased care and
probate, pre and post charge-off credit and business cards,
consumer retails, debt management, and cease and desist
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
PRATT (LATHROP CORRUGATING): Villa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pratt (Lathrop
Corrugating). The case is styled as Rigoberto Villa, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pratt (Lathrop
Corrugating), Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0002550 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 29, 2024).
The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Pratt -- https://corrugate.prattindustries.com/ -- is America's 5th
largest corrugated packaging company and the world's largest.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Yslas, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 213-255-3937
Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com
RADIOLOGY PARTNERS: Underpays Patient Service Reps, Petty Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE E. PETTY, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. RADIOLOGY PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05436 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., March
4, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor
Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the Business &
Professions Code.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, non-exempt Senior Patient
Service Representative at one of Defendants' facilities and
locations in El Segundo, California in Los Angeles County. He
alleges Defendants of multiple violations of the Labor Code,
including, among others, failure to pay minimum wages and for all
hours worked, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to maintain
records, failure to provide requested employment records, and
failure to reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants violated relevant orders
of the IWC and the California Business & Professions Code.
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees seek penalties and
damages for the alleged violations.
Radiology Partners Management, LLC is a radiology practice serving
hospitals and other healthcare facilities throughout Los Angeles
County and the state of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
David Yeremian, Esq.
Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
Jean Hopkins Power, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
880 E Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205
Telephone: (818) 962-6465
Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
E-mail: emil@d.law
d.yeremian@d.law
a.lindsay@d.law
jean@d.law
ROBINSON WINE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robinson Wine and
Spirits, LLC. The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Robinson Wine and
Spirits, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01535 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Roberson Wine -- https://www.robersonwine.com/ -- is a
multi-award-winning online wine retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
SCHLAGE LOCK: Bailey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schlage Lock Company
LLC. The case is styled as Ryan Bailey, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Schlage Lock Company LLC, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0002551 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
Feb. 29, 2024).
The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Schlage -- https://www.schlage.com/en/home.html -- is an American
lock manufacturer founded in 1920 by Walter Schlage.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Yslas, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 213-255-3937
Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com
SHIPT INC: Boson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shipt, Inc. The case
is styled as David Boson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Shipt, Inc., Case No. CGC24612766 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 29, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Shipt -- http://www.shipt.com/-- is an American delivery service
owned by Target Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
21031 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364-6522
Phone: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Carrillo Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rogelio Carrillo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV001497
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on Feb. 28, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 1:24-at-00171.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a single cause of action for
civil penalties under PAGA, Labor Code based on Siemens' alleged
failure to: pay straight time wages; pay all overtime wages;
provide meal periods; provide rest periods; pay wages due at
termination of employment; provide itemized wage statements; adopt
a compliant sick pay/paid time off policy and provide written
notice setting forth amount of sick leave available; and reimburse
for all business expenses.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Samantha C. Grant, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6078
Phone: +1 310 734 5200
Facsimile: +1 310 734 5299
Email: sgrant@reedsmith.com
- and -
Jeffrey Elkrief, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
Phone: +1 213 457 8000
Facsimile: +1 213 457 8080
Email: jelkrief@reedsmith.com
STAPLES CONTRACT: Bruno Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Perry Bruno, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v.
BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC., Case No. 24STCV01770 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Feb. 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01563.
The Plaintiff alleges the claim "100% Mountain Spring Water" on the
label of Arrowhead brand bottled spring water is false, misleading,
and deceptive because the water contains microplastics. The
Plaintiff alleges the following claims for relief: violation of
California's False Advertising Law and California's Unfair
Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bryan A. Merryman, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
Phone: (213) 620-7700
Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
Email: bmerryman@whitecase.com
STATE FARM: Bid to Dismiss COVID-19 Losses Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Wystan M. Ackerman, writing for National Law Review, reports that
when a class certification decision overlaps with merits issues,
can a court of appeals deciding an interlocutory appeal from a
class certification order also review an earlier decision on a
motion to dismiss if it was integral to the class certification
order? Yes, according to a new Fourth Circuit decision.
Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, No. 22-1853, -- F.4th --, 2024 WL 995480 (4th Cir. Mar. 8,
2024), is one of many cases brought against property insurers
seeking coverage for business income losses arising from the
COVID-19 pandemic. With near unanimity, these lawsuits have been
dismissed on Rule 12 motions and almost all those dismissals have
been affirmed on appeal. But here the district court denied a
motion to dismiss and declined to certify that ruling for
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b). It later
certified a class of the defendant's commercial property insurance
policyholders in Virginia that were affected by COVID-19 government
orders and whose insurance claims were denied. The Fourth Circuit
granted the insurer permission to appeal the class certification
order under Rule 23(f).
When the case reached the Fourth Circuit, that court had previously
affirmed the dismissal of a similar case under West Virginia law.
The insurer asked the Fourth Circuit to review the earlier ruling
on its motion to dismiss in addition to the class certification
order. The Fourth Circuit majority held that it could review the
motion to dismiss decision under its pendent appellate
jurisdiction. Under that circuit's jurisprudence, it can exercise
pendent appellate jurisdiction if the rulings are "so
interconnected" that "either (1) an issue is inextricably
intertwined with a question that is the proper subject of an
immediate appeal, or (2) review of a jurisdictionally sufficient
issue is necessary to ensure meaningful review of an immediately
appealable issue." (Cleaned up.) The second of those two
alternative prongs applied here. The district court's ruling on the
motion to dismiss was relied upon in its class certification
decision, and "was integral to the district court's later
conclusion that the class members could prove their claims through
evidence common to the class." Because the court of appeals could
not "meaningfully review the class certification order" while
ignoring its own recent decision on the insurance coverage issues
that were the subject of the motion to dismiss ruling, pendent
appellate jurisdiction was appropriate. The Fourth Circuit then
applied its recent decision on the merits issues, finding Virginia
law functionally the same as West Virginia law. It therefore
reversed both the motion to dismiss and class certification orders,
remanding with direction to dismiss the entire case.
Judge Wynn concurred in the reversal of the class certification
order, but otherwise dissented. He disagreed with the majority's
finding of pendent appellate jurisdiction, concluding that such
jurisdiction should be exercised only in "exceedingly rare
circumstances." He would have reversed the class certification
order because, even assuming the district court correctly found the
possibility of coverage for the claimed losses, this "would require
an individual review of each denied claim to determine whether the
loss of business income claimed was due to the [COVID-19] executive
orders or to another cause." He noted that the named plaintiff had
"business troubles [that] long predated COVID-19" and had closed
before the government orders took effect. His opinion suggests that
he would exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction in this procedural
posture only if it would be "impossible" to review the class
certification order without reviewing a motion to dismiss decision.
He expressed concerns that the majority opinion might unduly open
the door to defendants seeking review of merits issues on class
certification appeals.
The majority's opinion puts the Fourth Circuit in line with other
circuits. Often courts of appeals have ruled on a merits issue
simply because it formed part of the analysis of the class
certification issues, without finding it necessary to rely on
pendent appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Van v. LLR, Inc., 61
F.4th 1053, 1065 (9th Cir. 2023); In re State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
872 F.3d 567, 572-73 (8th Cir. 2017); Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 482 F.3d 372, 381 (5th Cir. 2007).
[GN]
STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Stepney Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Corey Stepney, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
2024 CH 00541 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Feb. 28, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01677.
The Complaint alleges a violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
111 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 443-0462
Email: michael.mcmorrow@lockelord.com
STPGOODS INC: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against STPGoods, Inc. The
case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. STPGoods, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01371
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
STPGoods, Inc. -- https://www.stpgoods.com/ -- is a unique store
selling home goods, versatile quality cookware, kitchen textiles,
souvenirs, Imperial eggs, corporate gifts, porcelain, shawls &
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
SUN COUNTRY INC: Smith Sues Over for ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Smith and Derik George, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SUN COUNTRY, INC., THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE SUN COUNTRY, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, JOHN
DOES AND JANE DOES 1-50, Case No. 0:24-cv-00619 (D. Minn., Feb. 27,
2024), is brought pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), and the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (“ERISA”), on behalf of a class of current
and former employees of Sun Country, Inc. who did not receive the
pension contributions allocated to their individual accounts as
mandated by USERRA and required by the terms of the Sun Country,
Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the “Plan”) for periods in
which those employees took leave to serve in the uniformed
services.
Sun Country failed to make contributions for those periods of
military service as required by USERRA and the fiduciaries of the
Plan violated their fiduciary duties by failing to collect the
proper amount of contributions required under the terms
of the Plan that were required to be made for those periods of
military service.
Both USERRA and the terms of the Plan, which incorporate the
corresponding provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”),
mandated that participants in the Plan who performed qualified
military service and were reemployed with Sun Country would receive
pension contributions for those periods of qualified military
service. Despite being informed by Plaintiffs and the Air Line
Pilots Association (the union that represents Sun Country pilots)
that employees returning from military duty were not receiving
their pension contributions as required by USERRA, Sun Country
remains non compliant with its USERRA obligations.
As the terms of the Plan also required payment by Sun Country of
these pension contributions when servicemembers returned from
military service, the Plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to enforce the terms of the Plan and by operating
the Plan contrary to its terms. Additionally, the Plan’s
fiduciaries failed to properly manage the assets of the Plan and
hold all of the assets of the Plan in trust, including a “chose
in action” to collect these pension contributions
contractually-owed by Sun Country.
As remedy for these violations, this action seeks a determination
regarding the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class under USERRA, the
payment of the pension contributions for military service in the
Plan, recovery of the losses incurred by the Plan as a result of
the breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and disgorgement of any
profits by Sun Country for failing to make these contributions,
and/or imposition of a surcharge against the breaching fiduciaries.
Plaintiffs seek to have any monies recovered for the Plan be
allocated to the Class members’ respective Plan accounts, and
that they be awarded attorneys fees, costs, and all other
appropriate relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Nicholas Smith is and has been employed as a Sun
Country pilot since 2019.
Sun Country is a certificated air carrier providing scheduled
passenger service, air cargo service, charter air transportation
and related services throughout North America and Central
America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kent M. Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
1632 Homestead Trail
Long Lake. MN 55356
Phone: 612-9404452
Email: kent@williamslawfirmmn.com
- and -
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
Colin M. Downes, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES LLP
1633 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202-734-7046
Email: ibarton@bartondownes.com
colin@hartondownes.com
- and -
Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS JARRARD, PLLC
1020 N Washington Street
Spokane, WA 99201
Phone: 425-239-7290
Email: TJgrrard@ag.net
SUSQUEHANNA UNIVERSITY: Gladfelter Sues Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GLADFELTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SUSQUEHANNA UNIVERSITY, Case No. 4:24-cv-00382-MWB
(M.D. Pa., March 4, 2024) accuses the Defendant of breach of
implied contract and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff was an undergraduate student at Defendant during the
Spring 2020 semester. He paid tuition and fees to enroll in
Defendant's on-campus, in-person education program for the entire
semester. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant
transitioned to remote, online-only education on March 2020,
cancelled all on-campus activities, and prohibited students from
entering the campus. As a result, he and other similarly situated
students were unable to avail of Defendant's on-campus education,
services, and amenities for the remainder of the Spring 2020
semester, says the Plaintiff.
The Defendant refused to provide a prorated refund of tuition or
fees tied to its on-campus program and therefore breached its
contracts with students or was otherwise unjustly enriched,
Plaintiff alleges.
Founded in 1858, Susquehanna is a private university that offers
over 100 majors and minors. Its principal campus is located in
Selinsgrove, Snyder County, PA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- 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
T-MOBILE USA: Rendon TCPA Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Esperanza Reyes Rendon, on behalf of herself,
all others similarly situated, and the general public v. T-Mobile
USA, Inc., Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV27370 was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 29, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01666-FLA-KS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American
wireless network operator headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas
and Bellevue, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alvin M. Gomez, Esq.
Boris Smyslov, Esq.
GOMEZ LAW GROUP PC
2725 Jefferson Street Suite 3
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (858) 552-0000
Fax: (760) 542-7761
Email: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com
boris@thegomezlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Martin L. Fineman, Esq.
Annie Shi Zhang, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
50 California Street, 23rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 276-6500
Fax: (415) 276-6599
Email: martinfineman@dwt.com
AnnieZhang@dwt.com
- and -
James H Moon, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Phone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Email: jamesmoon@dwt.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Crommelin Sues Over Empty Vyvanse Capsules
------------------------------------------------------------------
GUNTER CROMMELIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly, Plaintiff v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.; TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC.; and TAKEDA MANUFACTURING U.S.A.,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10552 (D. Mass., March 5, 2024)
asserts claims for breach of express warranty and for violations of
the Alabama Deceptive Trade and Practices Act.
The class action arises from the manufacture and sale of
prescription medicine Vyvanse (lisdexamfetamine dimesylate), which
is used to treat Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in
children and adults. Amidst the shortage of ADHD medications,
consumers, like Plaintiff, who believed they were obtaining
medication to treat their ADHD were in fact receiving empty
capsules or capsules containing less of the active ingredient than
indicated. Plaintiff's September 12, 2023 prescription bottle had a
label representing that the Vyvanse capsules, manufactured by
Takeda, were 40 mg. In truth, the capsules were empty and contained
0 mg of the medication. As a result, Plaintiff brings this action
on behalf of those consumers who lost money or were otherwise
injured by Takeda's empty, or partially empty, Vyvanse capsules.
Headquartered in Lexington, MA, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.
is a global biopharmaceutical company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 542-8300
Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq.
James M. Terrell, Esq.
Courtney C. Gipson, Esq.
METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 939-0199
Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
E-mail: rgm@mtattorneys.com
jterrell@mtattorneys.com
cgipson@mtattorneys.com
TAYLOR FARMS RETAIL: Armenta Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Silvia Lopez Armenta, Maria Castro Garcia,
and Enedina De La Torre on behalf of themselves and all similarly
aggrieved employees v. Taylor Farms Retail, Inc.; and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23CV001891 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Monterey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Feb. 23, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01131.
The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges four causes of action:
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; IWC Wage Order); failure
to reimburse business expenses; a representative claim on behalf of
Armenta and Garcia under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA Claim") for alleged violations of
California Labor Code; and unfair business practices under
California Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew B. Levin, Esq.
Ricardo R. Bours, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, Esq.
Esplanade Center III, Suite 800
2415 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-778-3700
Facsimile: 602-778-3750
Email: andy.levin@ogletree.com
ricardo.bours@ogletree.com
TESLA INC: Karunatilaka Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Neil Karunatilaka, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, INC.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02742 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Feb. 28, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01727-HDV-RAO to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Tesla, Inc. -- https://www.tesla.com/ -- is an American
multinational automotive and clean energy company headquartered in
Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cody Robert Padgett, Esq.
Laura Ellen Goolsby, Esq.
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-4811
Fax: (310) 943-0396
Email: cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com
laura.goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David L. Schrader, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: (213) 612-2500
Fax: (213) 612-2501
Email: david.schrader@morganlewis.com
U.S. NEWS: Breaches CIPA Over Use of Trackers, Gabrielli Suit Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN GABRIELLI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01685 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2024) accuses
the Defendant of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
Allegedly, Defendant installed the Trackers or "pen registers" on
the user's browser, and the Trackers collect information--users' IP
addresses--that identifies the outgoing "routing, addressing, or
signaling information" of the user. The Plaintiff did not provide
his prior consent to Defendant to install or use the Trackers on
Plaintiff's browser. In addition, Defendant did not obtain a court
order before installing or using the Trackers. Thus, Plaintiff has
had his privacy invaded by Defendant's violations of CIPA, says the
suit.
U.S. News & World Report, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership
that owns and operates a website, usnews.com. Its advertising,
sales and corporate offices are located in New York, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
UNITE HERE: Puller-Soto Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unite Here. The case
is styled as Michelle Puller-Soto, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Unite Here, Case No. 1:24-cv-01565
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2024).
The nature of suit is as Other Fraud for Property Damage.
Unite Here -- http://www.unitehere.org/-- is a labor union in the
United States and Canada with roughly 300,000 active members.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mason Adams Barney, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Keriazis Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAS KERIAZIS individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED; UNITEDHEALTHCARE,
INC.; OPTUM, INC.; and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Case No.
0:24-cv-00751-JWB-DLM (D. Minn., March 4, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act,
negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of third-party
beneficiary contract.
This action is in connection with a massive data breach that
recently hit UnitedHealth Group (UHG) during which costumers'
sensitive information has been compromised. A ransomware group
hacked Change Healthcare, UHG's payment processing unit, putting at
risk millions of people's personal data, including that of
Plaintiff. Plaintiff, a California resident, fills his medical
prescriptions at a local CVS Pharmacy that uses UHG's Change
Healthcare platform.
The Plaintiff accuses Defendants of failing to implement reasonable
security procedures and practices to protect customers’ sensitive
information. The Defendant also failed to disclose material facts
regarding its deficient security protocols, Plaintiff alleges. The
Plaintiff and class members seek damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief as the court deems
just and proper.
UHG is an American multinational health insurance and services
company with its principal place of business in Minnetonka, MN.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Telephone: (612) 594-5933
E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
- and –
Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3046
E-mail: mdesanto@bm.net
- and –
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Stefon J. David, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MI 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
david@stuevesiegel.com
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Mackey Sues Over Massive Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MACKEY, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP
INCORPORATED; UNITEDHEALTHCARE INC.; OPTUM, INC.; and CHANGE
HEALTHCARE INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-00771-DWF-JFD (D.N.D., March 5,
2024) arises from Defendants' failure to protect the sensitive
personal information of patients.
The information was allegedly stolen by cybercriminals in a
cyber-attack that accessed patient data through Change Healthcare's
services on or around February 21, 2024. As of March 5, 2024,
Defendant have yet to notify Plaintiff or provide any information
on mitigating the fallout of this data breach. Accordingly,
Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied contract,
and unjust enrichment/quasicontract.
Headquartered in Minnetonka, MN, UnitedHealthcare, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation that provides health insurance and services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Joe E. Nelson, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
jnelson@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLICACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St NE, Suite 302
Washington DC 20002
Telephone (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
UNIVERSITY OF SIOUX FALLS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University Of Sioux
Falls. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. University Of Sioux
Falls, Case No. 1:24-cv-01497 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The University of Sioux Falls -- https://www.usiouxfalls.edu/ -- is
a private Baptist university in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
UNLIMITED CARRIER: Wooten Sues Over Unlawful Wage Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Wooten and Paul White, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNLIMITED CARRIER, INC., TRANS QUALITY
INC., ES EXPRESS LINES, INC., SVAJUNAS MASIULIONIS, individually,
ARNOLDAS BLINSTRUBAS, individually, and EDVINAS BALCIUNAS,
individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-01568 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 26, 2024), is
brought against the Corporate Defendants based on their violations
of the federal Department of Transportation's regulatory
requirements, known as the Truth-in-Leasing regulations ("TIL
regulations") and for violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act (the "IWPCA").
The Plaintiffs allege that the Corporate Defendants violated the
TIL regulations with respect to drivers with whom they executed
lease agreements ("lease drivers") by, inter alia, taking
undisclosed, unspecified, and improper deductions and "chargebacks"
from drivers' compensation, failing to include mandatory
provisions, disclosures, and terms in their lease agreements with
drivers, and failing to compensate drivers properly.
The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants misclassified lease drivers as
independent contractors when they were, as a matter of law,
employees; failed to pay lease drivers all wages owed; took
unlawful and excessive deductions from lease drivers' wages; and
required lease drivers to pay for necessary expenditures incurred
within the scope of their employment and directly related to
services performed for Defendants, which inured to the primary
benefit of Defendants, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former truck drivers for Defendants.
Trans Quality and Unlimited Carrier are interstate motor carriers
authorized by the federal Department of Transportation ("DOT") to
transport property in interstate commerce.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Phone: 312.233.1550
Fax: 312.233.1560
Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
- and -
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Rachel Smit, Esq.
Brant Casavant, Esq.
FAIR WORK P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 607-3260
Fax: (617) 488-2261
Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
rachel@fairworklaw.com
brant@fairworklaw.com
UPPER IOWA UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Upper Iowa
University. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Upper Iowa
University, Case No. 1:24-cv-01498 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Upper Iowa University -- https://uiu.edu/ -- is a private
university in Fayette, Iowa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
UV SKINZ INC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UV Skinz, Inc. The
case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. UV Skinz, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01559-ALC
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
UV Skinz -- https://www.uvskinz.com/ -- is a sun protection company
that sells UPF 50+ apparel and swimwear for the entire family.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
VAPOR BOSS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vapor Boss, LLC. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Vapor Boss, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01401
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vapor Boss -- https://vaporboss.com/ -- is the ultimate online vape
shop providing quality vapes, E-liquid, E-juice, RabBeats, Elf Bar,
Orion Bar, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Beard Seeks to Vacate Class Cert. 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 Plaintiff requests the Court to vacate the motion
for class certification deadline provided under Local Rule 23.1(b).
-- The Plaintiff filed his complaint on Dec. 8, 2023, and the
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and
accompanying memorandum of law on Feb. 13, 2024.
-- An initial pretrial conference has not yet been scheduled in
this
case.
-- This case is a putative class action initiated under the North
Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA") on
behalf of a nationwide class comprising of all veterans who
paid
Veterans Guardian in connection with an initial claim for VA
Disability Compensation under a contract in substantially the
same form as Exhibit "A" of the Complaint.
The Plaintiff alleges that Veterans Guardian unlawfully
prepares,
presents, and prosecutes United States Military veterans'
disability compensation claims; charging veterans illegal fees
for doing so.
-- 4. Pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(b), the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification is due on March 7, 2024.
-- In accordance with Local Rules 5.3(f)(2) and 7.3(j), Plaintiff
is submitting as an attachment hereto a proposed order
granting
the motion and will email a copy of the proposed order to the
presiding Judge's email address as specified in the NCMD
CM/ECF
Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.
Veterans Guardian is a pre-filing consulting firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 29, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Or87Jv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
E-mail: cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
plevinson@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
- and -
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Jeff Osterwise, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 191013
Telephone: (215) 875-4656
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
josterwise@bm.net
VIATRIS INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set June 12 in Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RAJESH PATEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, CIVIL DIVISION
No. GD-21-13314
Plaintiff,
v.
VIATRIS, INC., PFIZER INC., MICHAEL GOETTLER, SANJEEV NARULA, BRYAN
SUPRAN, MARGARET M. MADDEN, DOUGLAS E. GIORDANO, ROBERT J. COURY,
IAN READ, and JAMES KILTS,
Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY'S FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO:
All Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded shares of the common stock of Viatris Inc. (ticker:
VTRS) in exchange for Mylan N.V. shares directly in the
stock-for-stock exchange conducted pursuant to the offering
materials issued in connection with the November 2020 merger of
Mylan N.V. and Upjohn, Inc. to form Viatris Inc. (the "Settlement
Class"):
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Court"), that
the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") is pending in the
Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Plaintiff in the Action, Rajesh
Patel, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action with
Defendants Viatris Inc., Pfizer Inc., Michael Goettler, Sanjeev
Narula, Bryan Supran, Margaret M. Madden, Douglas E. Giordano,
Robert J. Coury, Ian Read, and James Kilts (collectively, the
"Defendants"), that, if approved, will (i) provide for the payment
of $16,000,000.00 in cash for the benefit of the Settlement Class,
and (ii) resolve, settle, dismiss and release all claims asserted
in the Action against the Defendants and their Related Persons (the
"Settlement").
A hearing will be held on June 12, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time,
before the Hon. Alan D. Hertzberg. At the hearing, the Court will
determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against all Defendants, and whether the
releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement and in the Notice should be granted; (iii) whether,
for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class,
Plaintiff should be certified as Class Representative for the
Settlement Class, and Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and Hedin
Hall LLP ("Lead Counsel") should be appointed as Class Counsel;
(iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as
fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Plaintiff's counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses (including an award to Plaintiff) should be
approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class (a "Settlement Class
Member"), your rights will be affected by the pending Action and
the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement
Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you
may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at Viatris Securities Litigation,
c/o A.B. Data Ltd, P.O. Box 173004, 1-877-495-0969. Copies of the
Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website
maintained by the Claims Administrator at
www.ViatrisSecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
online or mailed so that it is received no later than July 2, 2024,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If
you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the
Action if the Settlement is approved.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is received no later than May 13, 2024, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and
you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application,
must be filed with the Court and received on or before May 22,
2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Viatris, the
other Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to:
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
Max A. Schwartz, Esq.
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
1-800-404-7770
scottcases@scott-scott.com
HEDIN HALL LLP
David W. Hall, Esq.
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
1-415-766-3534
dhall@hedinhall.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Viatris Securities Litigation Settlement
c/o A.B. Data Ltd
P.O. Box 173004
Milwaukee, WI 53217
www.ViatrisSecuritiesSettlement.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition, as set forth in the long-form Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness
Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorney's Fees and Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice"), a copy of which may be downloaded from the
settlement website maintained by the Claims Administrator at
www.ViatrisSecuritiesSettlement.com.[GN]
VM E-COMMERCE INC: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VM E-Commerce, Inc.
The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. VM E-Commerce, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01558-DEH-GS (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
VM E-Commerce, Inc. is an independent home accessories retailer
Rouge recently renovated their physical store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
WEST VIRGINIA WESLEYAN: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Virginia
Wesleyan College. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. West Virginia
Wesleyan College, Case No. 1:24-cv-01499 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
West Virginia Wesleyan College -- https://www.wvwc.edu/ -- is a
private college in Buckhannon, West Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
WESTMINSTER UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westminster
University. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Westminster
University, Case No. 1:24-cv-01564-RA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Westminster University -- https://www.westminster.ac.uk/ -- is a
private, non-profit, accredited, and comprehensive liberal arts
university in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
WWIL PERSONNEL: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WWIL Personnel, et
al. The case is styled as Alfredo Hernandez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. WWIL Personnel AKA
Staffing Network LLC, SEKO WORLDWIDE LLC, Case No. 24CMCV00279
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 28, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
WWIL Personnel also known as Staffing Network LLC --
https://staffingnetwork.com/ -- a full-service recruiting firm
specializing in the recruiting and staffing of light/skilled
industrial, engineering, and operations professionals.[BN]
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY: Herszage-Feldan Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yeshiva University.
The case is styled as Shayna Herszage-Feldan, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Yeshiva University, Case No.
1:24-cv-01474-CM (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Yeshiva University -- https://www.yu.edu/ -- is a private Orthodox
Jewish university with four campuses in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW PC
1 Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
Fax: (516) 747-5024
Email: mtompkins@lmblaw.com
YUM YUM: Gamez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA GAMEZ v. YUM YUM DONUT SHOPS, INC. and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05324 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 4, 2024) is a class action alleging the Defendant's
violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for Defendant at their
various store locations in the state of California. She alleges
that Defendant committed multiple violations of the California
Labor Code, such as failure to to pay Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including the
statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock"
work, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide rest
periods, failure to provide meal periods, and failure to keep
accurate and complete payroll records indicating the actual hours
worked per day.
The Plaintiff is bringing a claim for Private Attorneys General Act
penalties for Defendant's alleged Labor Code violations.
YUM YUM Donut Shops, Inc. is an American donut shop chain based in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
ZEELOOL INC: Bradford Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zeelool, Inc. The
case is styled as Yolanda Bradford, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Zeelool, Inc., Case No.
4:24-cv-00745 (D. Ariz., Feb. 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Zeelool Inc. -- https://www.zeelool.com/ -- is a sunglasses &
eyewear shop that deals in the sales of eyewear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
*********
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 ***