/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240321.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, March 21, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 59
Headlines
12425 INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Aguiar Suit Claims
1248 HOLDINGS: Tobler Suit Hits Anticompetitive No-Poach Agreements
2U INC: Continues to Defend Favell Class Suit in California
2U INC: Continues to Defend Francis Class Suit in Massachusetts
3M COMPANY: Joint Bid for Entry of Final Order & Judgment Sought
A G B BODY JEWELRY: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADS ALLIANCE: Class Settlement in Stephens Gets Final Nod
ADVANTAGE FEDERAL: Joint Bid for 30-Day Stay Denied in Part
AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Parties Must File Discovery Bids by April 1
AIR LIQUIDE: Booze Suit Removed to N.D. California
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Bid to Continue Class Certification Hearing Tossed
ALCHEMEE LLC: Howard et al. Sue Over Deceptive Sale of BPO Products
AMAZON.COM INC: Quinn Emanuel and ZLG Named Interim Lead Counsel
AMERICAN BANKERS: Bid to Dismiss Dahl Suit Tossed as Moot
AMERICAN FAMILY: Bid to Certify Classes in Knox Due Feb. 3, 2025
AMERICAN FAMILY: Parties Must Confer Expert Disclosure Deadlines
AMERICAN HONDA: Close of Discovery in Cadena Suit Due Sept. 24
ANALOG DEVICES INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
ANAVEX LIFE: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors
ANNAPOLIS, MD: Fisher Loses Bids for Partial Summary Judgment
ANNAPOLIS, MD: Johnson Loses Bids for Partial Summary Judgment
APT MARKETING: Wilcher Suit Seeks More Time for Class Cert Deadline
ARDAGH GLASS: Filing for Class Cert Opposition Due April 17, 2025
AXOS BANK: Pliszka Sues Over Unfair Banking Practices
BANNER BANK: $14-Mil. Settlement in Bolding Suit Has Final Nod
BINANCE: 2nd Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Patent Listings
BUILDERS SOURCE: Herranz Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
C3.AI INC: Court Narrows Claims in Reckstin Securities Class Suit
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach
CLEVELAND, OH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Delayed Tax Refunds
COLEMAN PROFESSIONAL: Armstrong Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
CONTINENTAL AG: Gianne and Larson Sue Over Tire Price Fixing
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Faces Valenzano Antitrust Suit
CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Johnson Sue Over TCPA Violations
DENNY'S INC: Court Grants Wintjen's Partial Summary Judgment Bid
DIGITAL DOWNLOAD: Seguin Sue Over Invasion of Privacy
FADU TECHNOLOGY: Inflates Stock Price During IPO, Suit Claims
FBQ INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages to Sales Agents, Elliott Says
FCA US: Stryker et al. Sue Over Vehicles' Security Defects
FERTILITY CENTER: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Lundin Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit on Telematics Insurance Data Collection
GRIFFSS 1 LLC: Magliano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
HOSPITALITY PURVEYORS: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation
INHIBRX INC: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to Sanofi
INK 477 LLC: Lirio Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Bushansky Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
KAZDAN RACING: Maylath Alleges Wage and Hour Law Violations
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Frank Appeals Approval of in Kurtz Suit Deal
L'ANTICA PIZZERIA: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LANTRONIX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 23
MAR TILE: Aparicio Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MDL 1869: Exhibits in Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation Excluded
MDL 1869: Exhibits in Oxbow Carbon Antitrust Litigation Excluded
MDL 3060: Plaintiffs Respond to Motion to Dismiss Hair Relaxer Suit
MEDICURE PHARMA: Sandusky File Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
MICHAEL GRANT: Faces Leon Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
MICROSOFT CORP: May Face Class Suit Over Minecraft Data Privacy
MID SOUTH WAFFLES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Armes Suit Says
NEMOURS FOUNDATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 18
NEW SOUTH WALES: Sued Over Breach of Racial Discrimination Act
NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Settlement in Sow Suit Gets Final Nod
NEW YORK: Court Certifies Two Classes of Minors in C.K. v. NYSDOH
NONNI'S FOODS: Bardsley Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Derailment Suit
NURSEFINDERS LLC: Class Action, PAGA Settlement Gets Initial Nod
NUSCALE POWER: Lo Named as Lead Plaintiff in Sigman Securities Suit
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Filing for Class Cert Response in Pauli Extended
OLYMPIC AVENUE: Banks Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Suit Over Rexulti Side Effects
PATREON INC: Bid for Class Cert. in Stark Suit Extended to July 10
PELICIA HALL: Seeks Leave to Submit Identified "Doe" Plaintiffs
PEORIA, IL: Court Sets Rule 16 Scheduling Conference in Oxford Suit
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Courtmanche and 2 Suits Given to Judge Navarro
PLAYAGS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Nevada
QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Information
REHABCARE GROUP: Dakota Wins Bid for Add'l Class Distributions
REMITLY GLOBAL: O'Connor Files Suit Over Advance Notice Bylaw
RING LLC: Cody Ordered to File 2nd Amended Complaint by March 25
SAGAL MEAT: Faces Cancino Suit Over Labor Law Breaches
SARISSA CAPITAL: Appeals Denial of Bid for Interlocutory Order
SIENNA SENIOR: Ontario Sup. Ct. Certifies LTC Home Providers' Suit
SLB OF IOWA: Ct. Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Woods Class Suit
SOUTHEAST UTILITIES: Logan Sues Over Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
SPLUNK INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod
SSM HEALTHCARE: Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
ST. CLAIR, IL: Miller Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
STONE HILL MINERALS: Shields Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
STT SECURITY SERVICES: Haynes Suit Removed to N.D. California
SUNNY DELIGHT: Albrigo Files Mislabeling Suit Over Seltzer Drink
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Bernard Suit
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Crichlow Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Dunbar Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Hale Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Marcial Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Miller Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Williams Case
TALPHERA INC: Hearing on Suit Dismissal Bid Set for April 4
TCI LOGISTICS: Misclassifies Dispatcher Agents, Hollimon Says
TCOM LP: Court Oks Parties' Joint Motion to Certify Collective
THEMISBAR.COM: Faces Class Action Over Illegal User Info Tracking
TILLAMOOK CREAMERY: Supreme Court Hears Greenwashing Class Suit
TRANSPHORM INC: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to Renesas
TRANSPRO LOGISTICS: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference Set for April 5
TUYA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Lian Suit
U.S. FARATHANE: Boykin Sues Over Unlawful Rounding Policy
UNITED AIRLINES: Class Suit Seeks Damages Over Flight Cancellation
UNITED STATES: Court Approves Settlement on Immigration Custody
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Can File Exhibits Under Seal
VARSITY BRANDS: Bid to Exclude Maki's Testimony Granted in Part
WALGREEN CO: Gliadkovsky Suit Removed to S.D. California
WALGREENS BOOTS: Mullins Sues Over Hazardous Beauty Products
WALMART INC: Magpayo Sues Over Fish Oil Supplement's False Claims
WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Pileggi Appeals Dismissal of Privacy Suit
WEBER METALS: Altamirano Sues Over Labor Code Violations
WEEE! INC: S.D. New York Dismisses Liau Suit Over Data Breach
WELCH FOODS: Winkelbauer Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Materials
WELLS FARGO BANK: Delpapa Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
WELLS FARGO BANK: Forsburg Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
WELLS FARGO BANK: Green Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
WELLS FARGO BANK: Healy Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
WELLS FARGO BANK: Urista Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
WELLS FARGO: Huber et al. Sue Over Unwanted Financial Products
WESTERN CONFERENCE: Disclosure of Expert Testimony Due May 31
WG1 LLC: Castro Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due
WILMINGTON, DE: Seeks to Dismiss NAACP Class Action
[*] Rise in Class Action-Style Claims Fuels Mass Arbitration
*********
12425 INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Aguiar Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAYANA AGUIAR, for herself and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 12425, INC. d/b/a STIR CRAZY, MANUEL H.
INSUA, MANUEL INSUA JR., and GABRIEL INSUA Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20802 (S.D. Fla., February 29, 2024)
is a class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
over Defendants' misclassification of Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals as independent contractors.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals did not receive minimum wages, overtime
compensation, as required by FLSA. They also did not receive
additional critical employee protection such as unemployment
benefits and Workers' compensation due to the Defendants' improper
classification.
The Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped employees also
violates the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA, as does the
practice of distributing Plaintiff's tips to non-tipped employees,
including managers, says the suit.
Plaintiff Dayana Aguiar was employed by the Defendants as an exotic
dancer on June 1, 2023.As of the filing of the complaint, the
Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants for 36 weeks.
12425, Inc., d/b/a Stir Crazy, is an adult entertainment club
located in South Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
1248 HOLDINGS: Tobler Suit Hits Anticompetitive No-Poach Agreements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAKOB TOBLER and MICHELLE MCNITT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1248 HOLDINGS, LLC f/k/a
BICKNELL FAMILY HOLDING COMPANY; MARINER WEALTH ADVISORS, LLC f/k/a
MARINER HOLDINGS, LLC; MONTAGE INVESTMENTS, LLC; MARINER, LLC f/k/a
MARINER WEALTH ADVISORS, LLC; MARINER CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC;
TORTOISE CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC; TORTOISEECOFIN INVESTMENTS, LLC;
AMERICAN CENTURY COMPANIES, INC.; AMERICAN CENTURY SERVICES, LLC;
AMERICAN CENTURY INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02068 (D. Kan., February 23, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for tortious interference
with business expectancy, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Sherman Act and the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act arising from
Defendants' illegal and anticompetitive no-poach agreement.
According to the complaint, Defendants secretly agreed to restrict,
suppress, and eliminate their competition in the recruitment and
hiring of asset and wealth management professionals and other
skilled workers. The Defendants entered into this agreement for one
clear and overarching reason -- so they could pay these
highly-skilled employees less than they would be paid in a
competitive market. The Defendants' conspiracy deprived Asset and
Wealth Management Professionals of the benefits of competition. By
agreeing not to recruit and hire each other's employees, Defendants
were able to pay their Asset and Wealth Management Professionals
lower wages than would have prevailed in a competitive market and
deprived such workers of job opportunities, experience, and many
other benefits that accompany professional mobility, the suit
alleges.
Plaintiff Tobler was employed as a Research Analyst with Tortoise
Capital Advisors, LLC from June 2015 to July 2019. He was also
employed as a Senior Associate with TortoiseEcofin from July 2019
to July 2021.
Plaintiff McNitt was employed as a Trading Assistant with Tortoise
Capital Advisors, LLC from April 2016 to December 2017. She was
also employed as a Trader with TortoiseEcofin from December 2017 to
March 2022.
1248 Holdings, LLC, f/k/a Bicknell Family Holding Company, LLC, is
a private investment company that manages the personal and
philanthropic assets.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George A. Hason, Esq.
Stefon J. David, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
david@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 776-5585
E-mail: Rowdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
2U INC: Continues to Defend Favell Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
2U 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 6, 2024, that Company continues to defend
itself from the Favell class suit in the Superior Court of the
State of California.
On December 20, 2022, Plaintiffs Iola Favell, Sue Zarnowski, and
Mariah Cummings filed a putative class action in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the
University of Southern California ("USC") and the Company on behalf
of "[a]ll students who were enrolled in an online graduate degree
program at USC Rossier, from April 1, 2009 through April 27, 2022."
Plaintiffs purported to allege violations of California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Civ. Code § 17500, California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Civ. Code § 17200,
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code
§ 1770, as well as for unjust enrichment related to the use of USC
Rossier's rankings in certain marketing materials.
On February 3, 2023, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
On March 8, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, arguing, among other things, that all of Plaintiffs'
allegations lacked merit and that certain claims for relief could
not be brought in federal court in light of other allegations
Plaintiffs had made.
On March 28, 2023, before the court could rule on that motion,
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the "First Amended
Complaint"), dropping the challenged claims for relief and instead
asserting only a single cause of action under the CLRA.
The First Amended Complaint is based on the same factual
allegations as the original complaint but seeks declaratory relief,
actual damages, incidental damages, consequential damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney' fees and
costs in connection with their CLRA claim.
On March 28, 2023, Plaintiffs also filed a separate class action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles, reasserting the FAL, UCL, and CLRA claims they dropped
from the federal lawsuit ("Favell II").
The state court lawsuit is based on the same factual allegations as
the federal lawsuit.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, and
attorneys' fees and costs in connection with the claims in state
court.
On April 17, 2023, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint in Favell I in its entirety, arguing that all of
Plaintiffs’ claims lack merit.
On May 4, 2023, the Company removed the Favell II lawsuit from
state court to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and Plaintiffs later filed a motion to
remand it back to state court.
On July 6, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the Company’s motion
to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in Favell I and the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand in Favell II, and issued a ruling
granting the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend and
denying Plaintiffs' motion to remand.
On July 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in both
Favell I and Favell II, adding an additional plaintiff and more
detailed allegations but otherwise reasserting the same claims in
each case.
2U moved to dismiss the amended complaints on August 31, 2023, and
a hearing was held on November 16, 2023.
On January 23, 2024, the Court issued an order dismissing
Plaintiffs' amended complaints in both Favell I and II, but
granting Plaintiffs leave to amend within twenty-one days of the
order.
Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint within twenty-one days
of the order.
Therefore, there are no active claims against 2U in the matter any
longer.
The Company has always maintained that both lawsuits' claims
against 2U were meritless.
2U, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an online education
platform that provides access to education in partnership with 250
top-ranked global universities and other leading organizations by
offering online learning opportunities, including open courses,
executive education offerings, boot camps, micro-credentials,
professional certificates as well as undergraduate and graduate
degree programs.
2U INC: Continues to Defend Francis Class Suit in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
2U 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 6, 2024, that Company continues to defend
itself from Francis class suit in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.
On October 10, 2023, plaintiff Chad Francis filed a putative class
action against the Company and edX LLC in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging
violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.
The plaintiff, who seeks to represent a class of individuals who
viewed a video on edX while they had a Facebook account, alleges
that 2U and edX disclosed his personal viewing information to
Facebook without his consent.
Plaintiff seeks damages of $2,500 for each violation, punitive
damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees.
On December 15, 2023, the Company and edX filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim.
The plaintiff filed a response on February 12, 2024, and the
Company and edX's reply is due on March 13, 2024.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
2U, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an online education
platform that provides access to education in partnership with 250
top-ranked global universities and other leading organizations by
offering online learning opportunities, including open courses,
executive education offerings, boot camps, micro-credentials,
professional certificates as well as undergraduate and graduate
degree programs.
3M COMPANY: Joint Bid for Entry of Final Order & Judgment Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v.
3M COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03147-RMG (D.S.C.), the Parties move
for an entry of a final order and judgment:
1. On June 22, 2023, the Parties entered into a Class Action
Settlement Agreement between Public Water Systems and 3M
Company
2. On Dec. 18, 2023, Class Counsel filed a Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement and for Final Certification of
the
Settlement Class.
3. On Jan. 9, 2024, Class Counsel filed their Response to
Objections. Both the Final Approval Motion and the Response
to
Objections remain pending before the Court.
4. Section 2.45 of the Agreement defines "Order Granting Final
Approval" as "the order entered by the Court approving the
terms
and conditions of this Settlement Agreement, including the
manner and timing of providing Notice and certifying a
Settlement Class." The Settlement Agreement does not attach a
proposed form for the Order Granting Final Approval.
5. The Parties jointly request by this instant motion that any
Order Granting Final Approval issued take either the form of
the
proposed Final Order and Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit
A,
or one substantially similar to it.
6. The proposed Order Granting Final Approval includes
provisions,
finding that "the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements
of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), solely
for
settlement purposes," and is "fair, reasonable, and
adequate."
The proposed Order further confirms the dismissal of the
Litigation as to Released Parties. It also contains language
approving the "manner and timing of providing Notice," as
required by Section 2.45 of the Settlement Agreement.
3M is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the
fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6BOPgb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. London, Esq.
DOUGLAS AND LONDON P.C.
59 Maiden Lane, 6th
Floor New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 566-7500
Facsimile: (212) 566-7501
E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
- and -
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK
1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907
Telephone: (833) 271-4502
Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com
- and -
Scott Summy, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
- and -
Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard F. Bulger, Esq.
Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
Michael A. Olsen, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-0600
E-mail: rbulger@mayerbrown.com
dring@mayerbrown.com
molsen@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Brian Duffy, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 720-2044
E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
A G B BODY JEWELRY: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A G B Body Jewelry,
Inc. The case is styled as Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. A G B Body Jewelry,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01590 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A G B Body Jewelry, Inc. -- http://www.agbbodyjewelry.com/--
offers a quality collection of body jewelry.[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
ADS ALLIANCE: Class Settlement in Stephens Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tammy Stephens, v. ADS
Alliance Data Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02152-MHW-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael Wattson entered an order granting
final approval of class settlement.
-- Cathy Howard is the Representative Plaintiff for the Ohio
Class
Members and Brenda Parsons is the Representative Plaintiff for
the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Members, and they
will
fairly and adequately represent their respective
Class/Collective
Members.
-- The Service Awards for the Representative Plaintiffs, as set
forth
in the Agreement, are approved, and the Representative
Plaintiffs
shall each be entitled to receive $3,500.00 to compensate them
for
their unique services in initiating and/or maintaining this
litigation.
-- ILYM Group, Inc.'s expenses for administering the settlement,
including the distribution of Notice and the settlement funds,
are
reasonable and are approved.
The Settlement Class is defined as follows:
All employees who are current and former hourly Care
Center
employees and Work at Home Care Center employees who were
employed by Defendant in Ohio for a period of more than
thirty
days and whose job it was to interact with customers via
the
telephone and/or the computer from April 29, 2018 through
the
final disposition of this matter.
The Ohio Settlement Class shall not include anyone who has already
opted into the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action in Tammy
Stephens, etal. v. ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-02152-MHW-KAJ.
The Ohio Settlement Class Participants, as finally approved by the
Court and subject to the final judgment entered in this Action,
shall not include anyone who has timely and validly opted out of
the Rule 23 Ohio class settlement. The parties represent that there
are over 4000 Class Members.
The Plaintiffs sued ADS Alliance for unpaid overtime wages and
other relief under the FLSA and analogous state laws. The
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant required her and similarly
situated employees to perform "off the clock" work without pay,
which resulted in unpaid overtime.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 5, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bAF72I
at no extra charge.[CC]
ADVANTAGE FEDERAL: Joint Bid for 30-Day Stay Denied in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSANNE FRACCHIA and
GENADY MALTSEV, d/b/a Aquariascape, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. ADVANTAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Case No. 6:23-cv-06344-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marian W.
Payson entered an order denying in part the joint motion for a
30-day stay of the matter.
Rather than stay the deadlines, the Court finds that an extension
of the scheduling deadlines by 30 days is more appropriate.
Therefore, it is hereby ordered, that this Court's September 6,
2023 Scheduling Order shall be amended as follows:
1. All motions to join other parties and to amend the
pleadings
shall be filed on or before April 3, 2024. Any third party
action shall be commenced on or before April 3, 2024.
2. The telephone status conference scheduled to be held with
the
undersigned on May 7, 2024, at 11:40 a.m., is adjourned
until
June 11, 2024, at 11:20 a.m., to discuss the status of the
case and the possibility of settlement. Dial-in
instructions
will be emailed to counsel prior to the conference.
3. All factual discovery in this case, including depositions,
shall be completed on or before June 27, 2024. All motions
to
compel discovery shall be filed by July 29, 2024.
4. The Plaintiffs shall identify any expert witnesses pursuant
to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) and provide reports pursuant to
Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and/or disclosures pursuant to Rule
26(a)(2)(C) by March 28, 2024. Defendant shall identify any
expert witnesses and provide reports pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ.
P. 26 by May 13, 2024. Rebuttal expert witness disclosures
shall be provided by May 30, 2024. Parties shall complete
all
discovery relating to experts, including depositions, by
June
27, 2024.
5. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certifications shall be
filed
by August 26, 2024.
6. Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed no later than
Oct. 28, 2024.
Advantage is a not-for- profit financial organization, wholly and
locally owned and operated by and for its members.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PZD9yg at no extra
charge.[CC]
AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS: Parties Must File Discovery Bids by April 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germano v. Aimmune
Therapeutics, Inc. et al. (RE AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-06733-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties stipulate as follows, subject to Court approval:
1. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall remain March 8, 2024.
2. The Parties shall serve written responses to all
interrogatories and requests for admission on or before March
18, 2024.
3. The Parties shall file any discovery motions on or before
April 1, 2024.
4. The Defendants shall file any opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification on or before April 22, 2024.
5. The Plaintiffs shall file any reply brief in further support
of their motion for class certification on or before May 22,
2024.
6. The deadline for any dispositive or Daubert motions shall
remain June 14, 2024.
7. The Parties shall respond to any dispositive or Daubert
motion(s) on or before Aug. 5, 2024.
8. The Parties shall file any reply brief(s) in further support
of their respective dispositive or Daubert motions on or
before Sept. 17, 2024.
Aimmune operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Parties' stipulation dated March 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CZ7f2k at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David E. Bower, Esq.
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES, PC
600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (213) 466-6652
E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
KAHN, SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew Rawlinson, Esq.
Kristin N. Murphy, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 328-4600
E-mail: matt.rawlinson@lw.com
kristin.murphy@lw.com
AIR LIQUIDE: Booze Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Donte Booze, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AIR LIQUIDE ADVANCED MATERIALS,
INC. a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 24CV060686 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 March 1, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 3:24-cv-01288.
The Plaintiff, generally, seeks: damages and/or penalties pursuant
to California Labor Code; for restitution to Plaintiff and other
similarly situated affected members of the general public of all
funds unlawfully acquired by Defendant by means of any acts or
practices declared by this Court to be in Violation of Business &
Professions Code; and for costs and attorneys' fees; fees and costs
as provided by California Labor Code. In addition, the Complaint
alleges a cause of action for violation of the Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Chad D. Greeson, Esq.
Nicholas Gioiello, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, California 94597
Phone: 925.932.2468
Fax: 925.946.9809
Email: cgreeson@littler.com
ngioiello@littler.com
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Bid to Continue Class Certification Hearing Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher Sherman et al.
v. Albertson's LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06377-ODW-RAO (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright II entered an order denying ex
parte application to continue class certification hearing and
briefing schedule and compel the plaintiffs' appearances at
deposition.
The Court said, "The Defendant fails to establish that it is
without fault in creating the crisis requiring ex parte relief or
that the asserted crisis is due to the Defendant's excusable
neglect."
The Defendant additionally fails to establish that it acted
diligently in conducting class discovery or that the failure to
timely complete the desired depositions was unavoidable, the Court
adds.
The Court referred discovery disputes to the Magistrate Judge
assigned to this case and they will rule on discovery motions.
Counsel are directed to comply with the assigned Magistrate Judge's
procedures for raising discovery related matters with the Court.
Albertsons operates a chain of grocery stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oh2YyZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALCHEMEE LLC: Howard et al. Sue Over Deceptive Sale of BPO Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE HOWARD, CHATHAM MULLINS, WILLIAM EISMAN, CHRISTIAN M. RAINEY,
and TRACEY CUOMO, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated, and the public, Plaintiffs v. ALCHEMEE, LLC, TARO
PHARMACEUTICAL USA, INC., and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-01834 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2024) seeks to redress
the economic harms caused by Defendants' deceptive sale of benzoyl
peroxide acne treatment drug products ("BPO Products"), asserting
claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
and for violations of several state deceptive trade practices
laws.
According to the complaint, Defendants misled Plaintiffs, the
Class, the Subclasses, and the public by representing the BPO
Products only had the ingredients listed, and not benzene. The
Defendants misled Plaintiffs, the Class, the Subclasses, and the
public by representing the BPO Products were safe while concealing
material health and safety information known to them, e.g., the BPO
Products degraded to benzene, or were contaminated with benzene,
says the suit.
Headquartered in Santa Monica, CA, Alchemee sells and distributes
BPO Products under the brand name Proactiv. Its parent company is
Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
Stepahnie Sherman, Esq.
WISNER BAUM, LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-3233
Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
E-mail: rbwisner@wisnerbaum.com
ssherman@wisnerbaum.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Quinn Emanuel and ZLG Named Interim Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, issued an order appointing interim
lead counsel in the lawsuit captioned IN RE: AMAZON RETURN POLICY
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01372-JNW (W.D. Wash.).
The matter comes before the Court on dueling motions for the role
of interim class counsel in this putative class action against
Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. In one corner are the attorneys
representing Plaintiff Sumeet K. Srivastava--they are Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC and George Feldman McDonald PLLC ("GFM")
(collectively, "TM/GFM Team"). In the other corner are the law
firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Zigler Law Group,
LLC ("ZLG") (collectively, "QE Team"), representing Plaintiffs
Laura Abbott, Sima Hernandez, Melissa Urbancic, and Jill Cappel.
Judge Whitehead notes that all counsel are highly qualified and
capable of leading a class action against Amazon, but having
reviewed the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court
finds that the QE Team is best suited to represent the interest of
the class members here.
The Court previously consolidated three putative class actions
against Amazon regarding its return policies. Generally, the
Plaintiffs allege that Amazon disregarded its refund and exchange
policies by failing to refund its customers for purchases that had
been timely returned. The Abbott case is the first-filed action.
The Plaintiffs are represented by the QE Team. Abbott proposes a
nationwide class defined thusly:
All persons in the United States, who, according to the
Defendant's records, were charged by Defendant for failing
to return a product that was timely returned in its original
condition during the six years prior to the filing of this
action.
The Srivastava and Clark lawsuits are the second and third-filed
actions respectively. The TM/GFM Team represents Srivastava while
the GrantFirm and BORDE represent Clark. Srivastava and Clark
propose the following nationwide class:
All persons in the United States who (1) timely returned a
purchase to Amazon or a Designated Location; (2) were
provided confirmation from Amazon and/or its affiliates that
the returned purchase was timely received; and (3) were
either provided a refund by Amazon for the purchase and then
were later re-charged by Amazon, or were never provided a
refund, solely on the ground that Amazon and/or its
affiliates had purportedly not timely received the returned
purchase.
Srivastava and Clark also propose a "Nationwide Amazon Drop-Off
Subclass" that would capture those customers who returned their
purchases in person, rather than mailing them back to Amazon.
The three consolidated matters all assert the same causes of
action: (1) breach of contract, (2) violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, (3) money had and received, (4) unjust
enrichment, and (5) conversion.
The Court appoints the QE Team as interim co-lead counsel. The
Court has reviewed the competing motions for the appointment of
interim class counsel. The papers make clear that both the TM/GFM
Team and the Quinn Emanuel Team would fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the class.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Abbott Plaintiffs' motion to
appoint the QE Team as interim lead co-counsel and denies the
Srivastava and Clark Plaintiffs' motion requesting the same.
Judge Whitehead outlines the obligations of the interim lead
co-counsel and the Executive Committee.
The Srivastava and Clark Plaintiffs suggest, without much
explanation, that an Executive Committee should be appointed.
Judge Whitehead observes that the parties bring identical claims
against Amazon, but they define the proposed classes differently.
Srivastava and Clark argue their class definitions are superior to
Abbott's because they are not solely limited to items returned in
"original condition," and, therefore, represent classes that are
substantially broader than the proposed class in Abbott.
The Court is skeptical whether the slightly divergent class
definitions render the Plaintiffs' claims dissimilar enough to
warrant the creation of an executive committee. This is especially
true given the parties' agreement that this case is
"straightforward," involving the same narrow issues against
Amazon.
Even so, the Court's primary concern is protecting the interests of
the putative class members, and if there's a chance the appointment
of an executive committee will best serve the class, the Court will
listen. If the Srivastava and Clark Plaintiffs wish to propose an
Executive Committee, they may move separately requesting such
relief, Judge Whitehead says.
In sum, Judge Whitehead grants the Abbott Plaintiffs' motion for
appointment of interim class counsel under Rule 23(g). The Clark
and Srivastava motion is denied. The Court orders the QE team to
file a consolidated complaint within 30 days of this Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4pbuamh4 from PacerMonitor.com.
AMERICAN BANKERS: Bid to Dismiss Dahl Suit Tossed as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dahl v. American Bankers
Insurance Company of Florida, Case No. 3:23-cv-08584 (D. Ariz.,
Filed Oct. 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered an order:
-- Denying as moot the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and
-- Denying as moot the Defendant's motion to deny class
certification.
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
American Bankers provides specialty credit-related insurance
products.[CC]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Bid to Certify Classes in Knox Due Feb. 3, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORA KNOX and JODY KNOX,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-00790-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Crocker
entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows:
-- Motion and Brief To Certify Classes: Feb. 3, 2025
-- This is the deadline for plaintiffs to seek certification of
a
Rule 23 class or for defendant to seek decertification of a
conditional FLSA class:
Responses: March 3, 2025
Replies: March 24, 2025
-- Deadline for filing dispositive motions: June 30, 2025
-- Fact Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 15, 2025
-- Settlement Letters: Jan. 16, 2026
-- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and Jan. 23, 2026
all motions in limine:
Objections: Feb. 6, 2026
-- First Final Pretrial Conference: Feb. 17, 2026
-- Second Final Pretrial Conference: Feb. 24, 2026
-- Trial: March 2, 2026
American Family is an American private mutual company that focuses
on property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers
commercial insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well
as investment and retirement-planning products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WbRuli at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Parties Must Confer Expert Disclosure Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Knox, Lora et al v.
American Family Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00790
(W.D. Wisc., Filed Nov. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley
entered an order that the parties are to meet and confer about
expert disclosure deadlines, then report to the court.
The nature of suit states contract -- insurance.
American Family is an American private mutual company that focuses
on property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers
commercial insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well
as investment and retirement-planning products.[CC]
AMERICAN HONDA: Close of Discovery in Cadena Suit Due Sept. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN CADENA, et al.,
v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Case No.
2:18-cv-04007-MWF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael
Fitzgerald entered an order granting joint stipulation modifying
post class certification hearing
schedule:
Event Deadline
Close of discovery: Sept. 24, 2024
Trial expert disclosures: Oct. 24, 2024
Dispositive motion deadline: Nov. 18, 2024
Rebuttal expert disclosures: Dec. 12, 2024
Final pretrial conference and hearing on Feb. 10, 2025
motions in limine:
Jury trial: Mar. 11, 2025
American Honda Motor Co Inc (American Honda), a subsidiary of Honda
Motor Co Ltd, is an automotive manufacturing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hkF5VW at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANALOG DEVICES INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Analog Devices, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended February 3, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that on May 2, 2023,
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order
dismissing C.A. No. 2022—0255 in its entirety and with prejudice.
On May 9, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Re-argument,
which the court denied on May 30, 2023. On June 21, 2023, the
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court.
The appeal is fully briefed, and the Delaware Supreme Court heard
argument on February 14, 2024.
On March 17, 2022, Walter E. Ryan and Ryan Asset Management, LLC,
purported stockholders of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., filed a
putative class action in the Court of Chancery against the company
and the former directors of Maxim. The complaint alleges breaches
of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants in connection with
Maxim's agreement, as part of the merger negotiations with the
company, to suspend Maxim dividends for up to four quarters prior
to the closing of the Company's acquisition of Maxim. The complaint
further alleges that the company aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, plaintiffs’ costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’
fees, costs and other expenses.
Analog Devices, Inc. is into semiconductors and other related
devices based in Massachusetts.
ANAVEX LIFE: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Anavex Life Sciences Corporation (NASDAQ: AVXL) stock between
February 1, 2022 and January 1, 2024. Anavex investigates,
manufactures, and markets pharmaceuticals for central nervous
system (CNS) disorders.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating the Allegations that
Anavex Life Sciences Corporation (AVXL) Misled Investors Regarding
the Likelihood of Success of its Clinical Trial.
According to the complaint, Anavex's primary product is
blarcamesine. Anavex sponsored the "Excellence" Phase II/Phase III
study to investigate blarcamesine as a treatment for pediatric Rett
syndrome patients.
Plaintiff alleges that during the class period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
defendants misled investors by providing a materially flawed and
inaccurate impression of Anavex's research program and of
blarcamesine's actual likelihood of success in the Rett syndrome
trials.
On January 2, 2024, Anavex announced the Excellence study results
and in doing so revealed that Anavex used the "MMRM" method -- a
statistical method not previously used by Anavex in its prior
blarcamesine studies -- to analyze the data and that the Excellence
study failed to achieve statistical significance on all but one
measure. On this news, the price of Anavex stock fell more than
35%, according to the complaint.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Anavex Life Sciences Corporation. Shareholders who want to
serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with
the court by May 13, 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.
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
Email: adumas@robbinsllp.com
Phone: (800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
ANNAPOLIS, MD: Fisher Loses Bids for Partial Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland denies the Plaintiffs' motions for partial
summary judgment, without prejudice, in the lawsuit titled ESTATE
OF DAMON R. FISHER, et al. v. CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-01074-CCB (D. Md.). Cross-Docketed in Related Case:
Johnson, et al. v. City of Annapolis, Civ. No. CCB-21-1120 (D.
Md.).
In 2019, the public learned that the City of Annapolis, a defendant
in these cases, had an agreement with the Housing Authority of the
City of Annapolis ("HACA") to exempt HACA properties from the
rental property licensing and inspection requirements of its City
Code. Following that revelation, several lawsuits were filed
challenging the City's policy as discriminatory in violation of
federal law and claiming that it had resulted in abysmal living
conditions at HACA properties.
Judge Blake notes that HACA is a defendant in Fisher and a
third-party defendant in Johnson, but it is not a target of the
instant motions.
Now pending before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motions for
partial summary judgment against the City cross-filed in two of
those cases. The Plaintiffs collectively refers to the Estate of
DaMon R. Fisher, Mr. Fisher's personal representatives Darlene
Faith Richardson and Robert Smith, Jr., and Tamara Johnson, the
other named Plaintiffs, and the unnamed class members in 21-1120.
The City objects to the Plaintiffs' statements of fact. The City
argues that their Exhibits A, B, and C are not properly
authenticated.
Judge Blake opines that these objections are unavailing. Exhibit A,
a copy of the City Council's Resolution R-26-19, is
self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902(5). Exhibit B, an
affidavit signed by Teresa Sutherland and submitted in another
case, is admissible because the City filed the identical document,
authenticated by Teresa Sutherland in an affidavit submitted in
this case, as an exhibit in support of its opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion. Exhibit C, a list of Code violations discovered
during the City's 2016 inspections of HACA properties, is
admissible because it was produced by the City or HACA pursuant to
a Maryland Public Information Act request and the City did not
object to the document's authenticity when the Plaintiffs provided
it with a copy and the opportunity to dispute its legitimacy.
The City also raises a host of objections to the Plaintiffs'
statements based on relevance and lack of competent supporting
evidence. The Court resolves these objections by providing its own
citation for the statements in its recitation of the facts, which
will only include information that the Court has found sufficiently
relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401.
Finally, the City asserts that the Plaintiffs cannot cite
allegations it made in its third-party complaints against HACA and
the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") in Johnson,
and the briefing on the motions to dismiss those complaints, as
proof of the truth of those allegations.
The Court agrees with the reasoning in Continental Insurance Co. of
N.Y. v. Sherman, 439 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir. 1971), that
construing the City's allegations in its third-party complaints as
admissions of fact would improperly deny the City an opportunity to
seek recovery from HACA and HUD in the event of liability in the
principal action while also defending the principal action on the
merits, and will strike from consideration paragraphs asserting
that facts are undisputed based on the City's third-party
complaints.
HACA is established by Maryland law, Md. Code Ann., Hous. & Cmty.
Dev. Sections 12-201, 13-103, and consists of seven Commissioners
appointed by the Mayor of Annapolis and approved by the Annapolis
City Council. HACA's properties are subject to the planning,
zoning, sanitary, health, fire, housing, subdivision, and building
laws, ordinances, codes, rules, and regulations that apply where
the housing project is located. However, Maryland law permits the
City to make exceptions to its sanitary, building, housing, fire,
health, subdivision, or other similar laws, rules, regulations, and
ordinances or make any changes to its map or master plan to aid and
cooperate in the planning, undertaking, construction, or operation
of housing projects within its jurisdiction.
Practically all the public housing in the City is owned and
operated by HACA. During the time relevant to this litigation, HACA
owned and operated six low-income housing properties: Bloomsbury
Square; Harbor House; Newtowne Twenty; Eastport Terrace; Robinwood;
and Morris H. Blum Senior Apartments. These properties contained
790 individual housing units; the City had 831 total public housing
units as of 2015.
From the establishment of HACA until 2016, the City did not enforce
its licensing and inspection requirements with respect to any HACA
properties, a practice the Court will refer to as the
"non-enforcement policy." It did not issue any operating licenses
to HACA properties, nor did it require HACA properties to acquire a
license before they could operate. It inspected HACA properties on
a "complaint only" basis. This policy was apparently not formally
memorialized. The City justified the non-enforcement policy as a
way to reduce HACA's financial obligations and the burden of
duplicative inspections.
In 2016, following the election of a new Mayor, the City conducted
general inspections of all HACA properties for the first time. The
2016 inspections identified at least 2,498 specific Code violations
across the 790 individual units at HACA properties. These
violations included countless instances of broken appliances,
damaged lights, stains, water damage, leaks, collapsing ceilings
and walls, pests including bed bugs, cockroaches, and rodents,
electrical issues or failures, mold, defective or non-compliant
smoke detectors, painted-over sprinkler heads, missing fire
extinguishers, and much more. Nevertheless, the City apparently
reverted to its "complaint only" inspection regime at some point
following the 2016 inspections.
In mid-May 2019, HACA was involved in a lawsuit against a HACA
tenant and, at a hearing in the case, a City inspection worker
testified that the City had decided to exempt HACA from the City's
licensing requirement. Shortly after the City publicly acknowledged
the non-enforcement policy, 52 HACA residents filed suit in this
Court alleging that the policy was illegally discriminatory (White
v. City of Annapolis, No. 19-cv-1442-CCB (D. Md. 2019)).
The White litigation ended with the imposition of a consent decree
enacting prospective equitable remedies intended to improve the
City's public housing, and awarding monetary damages to the
plaintiffs.
On June 10, 2019, in the wake of that suit, the City ended the
non-enforcement policy and resolved to begin requiring rental
operating licenses for HACA properties based on inspections
completed by the DPZ. Maryland's General Assembly also acted,
passing a new provision prohibiting the City from making an
exception for HACA to a law, a rule, a regulation, or an ordinance
that: (1) operates in the City of Annapolis; and (2) relates to:
(i) licensure; or (ii) the inspection of real property.
The Plaintiffs in these two cases (Fisher and Johnson) filed suit
in early May 2021 alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act,
several federal civil rights acts, the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
In Fisher, the Plaintiffs sued the City and HACA. In Johnson, a
class action, only the City was named as a defendant.
The Defendants moved to dismiss in both cases; in Fisher both the
City's and HACA's motions were granted in part and denied in part,
and in Johnson the City's motion was denied. The City, then,
brought third-party complaints against HUD in both cases and
against HACA in Johnson. The third-party defendants moved to
dismiss, and the Court granted HUD's motions and denied HACA's.
The Court granted class certification in Johnson on Feb. 26, 2023.
Now pending are the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment on
their Fair Housing Act claim in each case.
The Plaintiffs challenge the City's non-enforcement policy as
discriminatory. Although the City points out that it did inspect
HACA properties in response to complaints, it readily admits that
at all times relative to the allegations contained in the
Plaintiffs' Complaint, HACA properties were exempt from local
licensure requirements and, therefore, were not inspected on a
regular basis. The existence of the City's non-enforcement policy,
as defined by the Court, is, therefore, undisputed.
Judge Blake finds that the Plaintiffs' motions lack sufficient
evidentiary support to establish their alleged harm. Because the
Court does not consider their statements of fact based on
allegations in the City's third-party complaints and related
briefing, the Plaintiffs' evidence of harm consists of the reports
cataloging the violations discovered by the City during its 2016
inspections of the HACA properties.
Although these violations are relevant and may be actionable
because the non-enforcement policy may constitute a continuing
violation of the FHA, Judge Blake says the class certified in
Johnson is limited to the two years immediately preceding the
filing of the lawsuit, from May 7, 2019, to May 7, 2021, for the
purposes of the FHA claim. Judge Blake points out that proof of the
poor conditions at HACA properties in 2016 is insufficient to
support summary judgment for a class limited to HACA tenants from
2019 to 2021.
Mr. Fisher's estate alleges that he resided in HACA properties from
2012 until his death in 2020. On the Court's review, there is no
evidence in the record to confirm Mr. Fisher's residence period
other than an admission that his apartment at Harbor House was
inspected in 2020, four years after the only proof of poor
conditions at that location, and the City does not admit Mr.
Fisher's residence. Summary judgment is, therefore, inappropriate,
Judge Blake holds.
The Court does not reach steps two and three of the FHA analysis
because the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof at step
one.
Judge Blake concludes that the Plaintiffs' motions for summary
judgment are not sufficiently supported by the evidence in the
record at this time. The Court has identified some deficiencies,
and additional discovery appears to be necessary. The Court will,
therefore, deny the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment
without prejudice to renewal after additional evidence is
obtained.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Feb. 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mryk7ysh from PacerMonitor.com.
ANNAPOLIS, MD: Johnson Loses Bids for Partial Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland denies, without prejudice, the Plaintiffs'
motions for partial summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled TAMARA
JOHNSON, et al. v. CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01120-CCB
(D. Md.). Cross-Docketed in Related Case: Estate of Fisher, et al.
v. City of Annapolis, et al., Civ. No. CCB-21-1074 (D. Md.).
In 2019, the public learned that the City of Annapolis, a defendant
in these cases, had an agreement with the Housing Authority of the
City of Annapolis ("HACA") to exempt HACA properties from the
rental property licensing and inspection requirements of its City
Code. Following that revelation, several lawsuits were filed
challenging the City's policy as discriminatory in violation of
federal law and claiming that it had resulted in abysmal living
conditions at HACA properties.
HACA is a defendant in Fisher and a third-party defendant in
Johnson, but it is not a target of the instant motions, Judge Blake
notes.
Pending before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motions for partial
summary judgment against the City cross-filed in two of those
cases. The Plaintiffs collectively refers to the Estate of DaMon R.
Fisher, Mr. Fisher's personal representatives Darlene Faith
Richardson and Robert Smith, Jr., and Tamara Johnson, the other
named Plaintiffs, and the unnamed class members in 21-1120.
The City objects to the Plaintiffs' statements of fact. The City
argues that their Exhibits A, B, and C are not properly
authenticated.
Judge Blake opines that these objections are unavailing. Exhibit A,
a copy of the City Council's Resolution R-26-19, is
self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902(5). Exhibit B, an
affidavit signed by Teresa Sutherland and submitted in another
case, is admissible because the City filed the identical document,
authenticated by Teresa Sutherland in an affidavit submitted in
this case, as an exhibit in support of its opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion. Exhibit C, a list of Code violations discovered
during the City's 2016 inspections of HACA properties, is
admissible because it was produced by the City or HACA pursuant to
a Maryland Public Information Act request and the City did not
object to the document's authenticity when the Plaintiffs provided
it with a copy and the opportunity to dispute its legitimacy.
The City also raises a host of objections to the Plaintiffs'
statements based on relevance and lack of competent supporting
evidence. The Court resolves these objections by providing its own
citation for the statements in its recitation of the facts, which
will only include information that the Court has found sufficiently
relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401.
Finally, the City asserts that the Plaintiffs cannot cite
allegations it made in its third-party complaints against HACA and
the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") in Johnson,
and the briefing on the motions to dismiss those complaints, as
proof of the truth of those allegations.
The Court agrees with the reasoning in Continental Insurance Co. of
N.Y. v. Sherman, 439 F.2d 1294, 1298 (5th Cir. 1971), that
construing the City's allegations in its third-party complaints as
admissions of fact would improperly deny the City an opportunity to
seek recovery from HACA and HUD in the event of liability in the
principal action while also defending the principal action on the
merits, and will strike from consideration paragraphs asserting
that facts are undisputed based on the City's third-party
complaints.
HACA is established by Maryland law, Md. Code Ann., Hous. & Cmty.
Dev. Sections 12-201, 13-103, and consists of seven Commissioners
appointed by the Mayor of Annapolis and approved by the Annapolis
City Council. HACA's properties are subject to the planning,
zoning, sanitary, health, fire, housing, subdivision, and building
laws, ordinances, codes, rules, and regulations that apply where
the housing project is located. However, Maryland law permits the
City to make exceptions to its sanitary, building, housing, fire,
health, subdivision, or other similar laws, rules, regulations, and
ordinances or make any changes to its map or master plan to aid and
cooperate in the planning, undertaking, construction, or operation
of housing projects within its jurisdiction.
Practically all the public housing in the City is owned and
operated by HACA. During the time relevant to this litigation, HACA
owned and operated six low-income housing properties: Bloomsbury
Square; Harbor House; Newtowne Twenty; Eastport Terrace; Robinwood;
and Morris H. Blum Senior Apartments. These properties contained
790 individual housing units; the City had 831 total public housing
units as of 2015.
From the establishment of HACA until 2016, the City did not enforce
its licensing and inspection requirements with respect to any HACA
properties, a practice the Court will refer to as the
"non-enforcement policy." It did not issue any operating licenses
to HACA properties, nor did it require HACA properties to acquire a
license before they could operate. It inspected HACA properties on
a "complaint only" basis. This policy was apparently not formally
memorialized. The City justified the non-enforcement policy as a
way to reduce HACA's financial obligations and the burden of
duplicative inspections.
In 2016, following the election of a new Mayor, the City conducted
general inspections of all HACA properties for the first time. The
2016 inspections identified at least 2,498 specific Code violations
across the 790 individual units at HACA properties. These
violations included countless instances of broken appliances,
damaged lights, stains, water damage, leaks, collapsing ceilings
and walls, pests including bed bugs, cockroaches, and rodents,
electrical issues or failures, mold, defective or non-compliant
smoke detectors, painted-over sprinkler heads, missing fire
extinguishers, and much more. Nevertheless, the City apparently
reverted to its "complaint only" inspection regime at some point
following the 2016 inspections.
In mid-May 2019, HACA was involved in a lawsuit against a HACA
tenant and, at a hearing in the case, a City inspection worker
testified that the City had decided to exempt HACA from the City's
licensing requirement. Shortly after the City publicly acknowledged
the non-enforcement policy, 52 HACA residents filed suit in this
Court alleging that the policy was illegally discriminatory (White
v. City of Annapolis, No. 19-cv-1442-CCB (D. Md. 2019)).
The White litigation ended with the imposition of a consent decree
enacting prospective equitable remedies intended to improve the
City's public housing, and awarding monetary damages to the
plaintiffs.
On June 10, 2019, in the wake of that suit, the City ended the
non-enforcement policy and resolved to begin requiring rental
operating licenses for HACA properties based on inspections
completed by the DPZ. Maryland's General Assembly also acted,
passing a new provision prohibiting the City from making an
exception for HACA to a law, a rule, a regulation, or an ordinance
that: (1) operates in the City of Annapolis; and (2) relates to:
(i) licensure; or (ii) the inspection of real property.
The Plaintiffs in these two cases (Fisher and Johnson) filed suit
in early May 2021 alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act,
several federal civil rights acts, the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
In Fisher, the Plaintiffs sued the City and HACA. In Johnson, a
class action, only the City was named as a defendant.
The Defendants moved to dismiss in both cases; in Fisher both the
City's and HACA's motions were granted in part and denied in part,
and in Johnson the City's motion was denied. The City, then,
brought third-party complaints against HUD in both cases and
against HACA in Johnson. The third-party defendants moved to
dismiss, and the Court granted HUD's motions and denied HACA's.
The Court granted class certification in Johnson on Feb. 26, 2023.
Now pending are the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment on
their Fair Housing Act claim in each case.
The Plaintiffs challenge the City's non-enforcement policy as
discriminatory. Although the City points out that it did inspect
HACA properties in response to complaints, it readily admits that
at all times relative to the allegations contained in the
Plaintiffs' Complaint, HACA properties were exempt from local
licensure requirements and, therefore, were not inspected on a
regular basis. The existence of the City's non-enforcement policy,
as defined by the Court, is, therefore, undisputed.
Judge Blake finds that the Plaintiffs' motions lack sufficient
evidentiary support to establish their alleged harm. Because the
Court does not consider their statements of fact based on
allegations in the City's third-party complaints and related
briefing, the Plaintiffs' evidence of harm consists of the reports
cataloging the violations discovered by the City during its 2016
inspections of the HACA properties.
Although these violations are relevant and may be actionable
because the non-enforcement policy may constitute a continuing
violation of the FHA, Judge Blake says the class certified in
Johnson is limited to the two years immediately preceding the
filing of the lawsuit, from May 7, 2019, to May 7, 2021, for the
purposes of the FHA claim. Judge Blake points out that proof of the
poor conditions at HACA properties in 2016 is insufficient to
support summary judgment for a class limited to HACA tenants from
2019 to 2021.
Mr. Fisher's estate alleges that he resided in HACA properties from
2012 until his death in 2020. On the Court's review, there is no
evidence in the record to confirm Mr. Fisher's residence period
other than an admission that his apartment at Harbor House was
inspected in 2020, four years after the only proof of poor
conditions at that location, and the City does not admit Mr.
Fisher's residence. Summary judgment is, therefore, inappropriate,
Judge Blake holds.
The Court does not reach steps two and three of the FHA analysis
because the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof at step
one.
Judge Blake concludes that the Plaintiffs' motions for summary
judgment are not sufficiently supported by the evidence in the
record at this time. The Court has identified some deficiencies,
and additional discovery appears to be necessary. The Court will,
therefore, deny the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment
without prejudice to renewal after additional evidence is
obtained.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Feb. 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3sbr47s3 from PacerMonitor.com.
APT MARKETING: Wilcher Suit Seeks More Time for Class Cert Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL WILCHER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
APT MARKETING LLC,
Case No. 6:23-cv-03087-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
for entry of an extending the time until two weeks after Defendant
complies with the October 16, 2023, Order within which to move
class certification.
-- 1. On October 16, 2023 the Court entered an Order (ECF 21)
compelling the Defendant to produce records of its calls to
putative class members.
-- 2. On October 20, 2023, the Defendant produced call records
that
were truncated and incomplete due to the manner in which
they
were rendered.
-- 3. On January 23, 2024, the Plaintiff deposed the Defendant's
owner operator, who testified that he did not previously
know
that the records that had been produced were incomplete,
and
agreed to produce complete call records within one week of
the
deposition.
-- 4. On January 30, 2024, in response to the Plaintiff's
counsel's
follow up regarding the call records, the Defendant's
counsel
indicated that the Defendant required 10-14 additional days
to
provide the complete call records.
-- 5. On February 12, 2024, in response to the Plaintiff's
counsel's
follow up regarding the call records, the Defendant's
counsel
indicated that the Defendant was still in the process of
gathering the call records.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=su3Cgn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Tylor Whitham, Esq.
WHITHAM LAW OFFICE
12120 State Line Rd, Box 265
Leawood, KS 66209
Telephone: (816) 522-3399
Facsimile: (913) 341-2807
E-mail: tylor@whithamlawfirm.com
ARDAGH GLASS: Filing for Class Cert Opposition Due April 17, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alex Castaneda,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Ardagh Glass Inc. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
4:23-cv-05850-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order setting Class Certification Deadline and Briefing Schedule
as follows:
Event Proposed Deadline
Last day to file motion for class Mar. 13, 2025
certification
Deadline to file opposition to motion April 17, 2025
for class certification
Deadline to file reply in support of May 15, 2025
motion for class certification
Ardagh manufactures custom glass containers for a variety of food
applications including oils and vinegars, jams, jellies, honey,
sauces, and spices.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YfJf9O at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Chancellor Nobles, Esq.
Brielle Edborg, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 358-7046
Facsimile: (310) 820-1258
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
chancellor@lebelaw.com
Brielle@lebelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq.
Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
Matthew J. Goodman, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
Emails: sshadi@bakerlaw.com npoper@bakerlaw.com
mgoodman@bakerlaw.com
AXOS BANK: Pliszka Sues Over Unfair Banking Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PLISZKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AXOS BANK d/b/a/ UFB DIRECT, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00445-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal., March 6, 2024) arises from
Defendant's deceptive and unfair tactic of surreptitiously
reclassifying its customers' purportedly high-yield money market
accounts into lower yielding "legacy" accounts.
Allegedly, the Defendant created a series of new, but functionally
identical accounts with competitive rates, with no notice to
customers and while it concealed its conduct by removing so-called
"legacy" accounts from its website. Although the Defendant ceased
offering the "legacy" accounts to new depositors, it continued to
maintain those accounts for preexisting money market account
holders. However, it neglected to inform its account holders about
the availability of a new money market account, nor did the
Defendant inform account holders that its advertised money market
account was not simply another name for their existing money market
account, but instead was a distinct account offering a higher rate
of interest, says the suit.
Headquartered in San Diego, CA, Axos Bank offers online banking
services, including high-yield money market accounts. It is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Axos Financial Inc., a publicly traded
bank holding company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip M. Black, Esq.
Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: 212.759.4600
E-mail: pblack@wolfpopper.com
cwaldman@wolfpopper.com
BANNER BANK: $14-Mil. Settlement in Bolding Suit Has Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants final approval to the
parties' $14 million class action settlement in the lawsuit
captioned KELLY BOLDING, et al., Plaintiffs v. BANNER BANK,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00601-RSL (W.D. Wash.).
Judge Lasnik finds that the settlement negotiated between the
parties is fair, reasonable, and adequate. It is the product of
hard-fought, arms-length, non-collusive negotiations, is reasonably
anticipated to provide approximately $14 million in financial
relief to a relatively small class, treats class members equitably
relative to each other, and has not garnered any objections or
opt-outs.
In addition, Judge Lasnik says the litigation triggered operational
changes in 2017 that in all likelihood reduced unpaid work and
further benefited the class. Judge Lasnik adds that the settlement
is impressive in light of the uncertainty of success on the merits,
the anticipated challenges associated with proving damages, and the
additional litigation fees, costs, and delays that would arise if
the claims were pursued through trial.
The Court confirms its certification for settlement purposes of the
following settlement class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
(a) All current and former Mortgage Loan Officers, Real Estate
Commissioned Loan Officers, and/or Residential Lenders
(collectively, "MLOs") who were employed by Banner Bank or
its predecessor, AmericanWest Bank, in Washington State at
any time from April 17, 2014, to the date the order
preliminarily approving the settlement was entered
("Settlement Date");
(b) All current and former MLOs who were employed by Banner
Bank or its predecessor, AmericanWest Bank, in Oregon at
any time from April 17, 2011, to the Settlement Date;
(c) All current and former MLOs who were employed by Banner
Bank or its predecessor, AmericanWest Bank, in California
at any time from April 17, 2013, to the Settlement Date;
and
(d) The Settlement Class also includes Lisa Garrison, whose
Settlement Class Period is April 17, 2014, to the last
date of employment.
The class notice program and class counsels' additional efforts
have and will continue to provide the best notice practicable to
the settlement class members of this litigation, their right to
object to the settlement or to exclude themselves from
participation therein, their right to make a claim under the
settlement, and their right to appear at the final approval
hearing.
The Court approves the negotiated plan of distribution of the
settlement funds. The parties are directed to proceed with the
settlement procedures as specified under the terms of the
settlement agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybbwszjd from PacerMonitor.com.
BINANCE: 2nd Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Stradbrooke, writing for COINGEEK, reports that Binance
can't dodge a U.S. class action suit for selling unregistered
securities, while the exchange's favorite stablecoin can't dodge
suspicions that its trading volume is artificially enhanced.
On March 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed a lower court's dismissal of a class action suit brought
against Binance, its founder Changpeng 'CZ' Zhao and co-founders Yi
He (CZ's significant other) and Roger Wang in April 2020.
The suit alleged that Binance had never registered with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a broker-dealer or
securities exchange, but was nonetheless offering unregistered
securities through the sale of a number of Ethereum-based tokens --
ELF, EOS, FUN, ICX, OMG, QSP and TRX -- that launched during the
initial coin offering (ICO) craze of 2017-18.
In May 2022, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York
dismissed the suit due to (a) the statute of limitations having run
out and (b) Binance.com was not a U.S.-based exchange and thus not
subject to U.S. securities laws.
Appeals Court ruling overturned this dismissal, saying the
plaintiffs had "adequately alleged that their transactions on the
Binance exchange were domestic transactions and that therefore the
application of federal and state securities laws here was not
impermissibly extraterritorial." The ruling added that "the parties
became bound to the transactions in the United States, and
therefore irrevocable liability attached in the United States."
Binance had attempted to argue that the plaintiffs were trying to
apply U.S. securities laws beyond its borders. The Appeals Court
rejected this because the transactions "were matched [with token
sellers], and therefore became irrevocable, on [Amazon Web
Services] servers located in the United States." The plaintiffs
also "transacted on Binance from the United States, and pursuant to
Binance's Terms of Use, their buy orders became irrevocable when
they were sent."
Binance's "intentional efforts to evade the jurisdiction of
regulators" prompted the Appeals Court to offer this blistering
backhand: "Even if the Binance exchange lacks a physical location,
the answer to where that [buyer and seller] matching occurs cannot
be 'nowhere.'"
Binance's insistence that it has no formal headquarters also played
a role in the ruling. The Appeals Court noted that the server issue
was the tipping point "given that Binance has not registered in any
country, purports to have no physical or official location
whatsoever, and the authorities in Malta, where its nominal
headquarters are located, disclaim responsibility for regulating
Binance."
The extraterritoriality issue was a similar own goal. "Since
Binance notoriously denies the applicability of any other country's
securities regulation regime, and no other sovereign appears to
believe that Binance's exchange is within its jurisdiction, the
application of United States securities law here does not risk
'incompatibility with the applicable laws of other countries.'"
The Appeals Court also rejected the timeliness argument, saying the
plaintiffs' claims "did not accrue until after they made the
relevant purchases, and therefore their claims arising from
purchases made during the year before filing suit are timely."
The suit will now be sent back to the district court for further
argument.
Third verse is the same as the first
While the Appeals Court ruling doesn't have any direct bearing on
the SEC's 2023 complaint against Binance.US for offering
unregistered securities, it's yet another reputational nail in the
U.S.-licensed exchange's soon-to-be-lowered coffin, at least if the
most recent joint status report released earlier this month is any
indication.
The report informs the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia that the two parties remain miles apart on several key
issues. This includes the SEC's ongoing lament that there are
"certain key questions that BAM [the entities that oversee
Binance.US] has been unable or unwilling to answer, and thus, the
Court's intervention is warranted."
For instance, the SEC claims that expedited discovery has "cast
doubt upon BAM's claims that it exclusively controls the private
keys, Customer Assets, and related transfers and withdrawals in its
customer deposit and 'hot' (or internet-connected) wallets." Much
of the SEC's case is based on evidence that CZ and international
Binance entities had more control over Binance.US customer assets
than Binance.US management.
Binance.US responded that it "occasionally" contacts international
entities when it requires "technical assistance" but rejects the
idea that this means CZ is calling the shots. Binance.US asked the
court again to halt expedited discovery, claiming that the SEC "has
not identified the slightest evidence that BAM's customer assets
are not secure or have been misused or dissipated in any way."
Binance.US a dead exchange walking
Among the more interesting aspects of the joint status report were
excerpts from a December 2023 deposition of Binance.US COO
Christopher Blodgett. Blodgett testified that the exchange's
"trading volumes and business more generally have imploded"
following the SEC's complaint, delivering "an almost near-mortal
blow."
Blodgett claimed the SEC suit had caused "immense reputational
harm," as evidenced by the roughly $1 billion worth of cash and
digital assets that were pulled off Binance.US by customers fearful
of an FTX-style disaster in the making. Revenue fell by 75%,
operating costs "exploded," and external legal fees are "in the
neighborhood of $10 million."
The SEC suit also "severely undermined institutional trust in our
platform," with the number of market-makers active on the exchange
falling from over 20 to "less than five." Banks were also skittish
about offering fiat on-/off-ramps to Binance.US lest they receive
"a nasty subpoena from the SEC."
Blodgett said Binance.US had cut over 200 jobs -- roughly
two-thirds of its staff -- impacting "many honest, hardworking
Americans." Blodgett apparently disavows Binance's responsibility
for the loss of these jobs, choosing instead to pin all blame on
the SEC for having the cheek to believe Binance was subject to its
regulatory oversight.
Never mind the admissions of rampant criminality contained in
Binance's $4.3 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of
Justice (DoJ) last November. Never mind that CZ is currently
waiting to learn how long he'll have to spend in a U.S. prison cell
for his years of flagrant lawbreaking. Never mind that countries
worldwide continue to find Binance thumbing its nose at local laws.
No, it's the SEC's fault, definitely.
Philippines reprieve?
One jurisdiction in which Binance appears to be getting at least a
temporary pass is the Philippines, where the exchange has never
received (nor even applied) for registration with the Philippine
Securities and Exchange Commission (PSEC).
Last November, the PSEC initiated restricting access to Binance
following years of urging
from the local think tank Infrawatch PH. The process of restricting
access was expected to take three months, meaning the country's
telecom regulators would start blocking local access to the Binance
website on or around February 29.
However, the PSEC later stated that this date could be delayed
based on "feedback" from unspecified sources. As that deadline
approached, a PSEC spokesperson told local media outlet BitPinas
that the regulator was "evaluating all possible ramifications of
the blocking, including implications to Filipino customer funds."
On March 7, PSEC chair Emilio Aquino told the Inquirer it was
delaying the ban due to turnover in the PSEC's executive ranks.
Commissioner Hubert Dominic B. Guevara recently took over as
markets and securities regulation head, replacing the outgoing
Kelvin Lester Lee. Aquino added that there was an "ongoing
discussion" at the PSEC about Binance and he assured the Inquirer
that the situation "will be addressed."
And yet this executive turnover didn't prevent the National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) from issuing an order for local
internet service providers to block the websites and apps of the
investment platform MiTrade, which, like Binance, lacks a license
to operate in the Philippines.
That order even quoted Aquino thanking the NTC for "supporting our
campaign against investment scams and other predatory financial
schemes." Aquino added that the PSEC and NTC "will continue to work
closely together to take similar actions on other platforms
facilitating illegal investment-taking activities and other
predatory financial schemes."
FDUSDetergent
Much has been made of the Tether (USDT) stablecoin's role in token
value bubbles past and present, particularly as USDT's market cap
recently topped $100 billion for the first time. Tether's money
printer tends to switch on whenever a token rally appears to be
flagging, helping to fuel wash trading of BTC and other tokens on
exchanges like Tether's sister company Bitfinex.
Far less attention has been paid to FDUSD, the stablecoin that
launched last July following the demise of Binance's BUSD
stablecoin. FDUSD trades almost exclusively on Binance and has
always exhibited some questionable characteristics, but its volume
on the exchange is now entering bad fan-fiction territory.
FDUSD's market cap remains only slightly above $3.2 billion, and
yet FDUSD's 24-hour trading volume topped $21.5 billion on March
11. That means every FDUSD in existence is changing hands nearly
seven times a day. Compare that to USDT, the volume of which on
March 11 was only around 80% of its market cap.
More to the point: FDUSD is doing more than twice the daily volume
of all of the vaunted BTC spot-based exchange-traded funds
combined. And that's on the BTC ETFs' best days.
Some blockchain observers have repeatedly flagged this outsized
volume as seriously suspect. Others point to the fact that FDUSD
has only around 850 unique addresses, of which only six addresses
hold all but 2.5% of issued FDUSD. Grab your dirty laundry because
there's a new wash trading detergent in town, and it's seriously
sudsy!
The expectation is that these shenanigans will halt once U.S.
federal authorities finally appoint the independent compliance
monitor that Binance agreed to install for the next three to five
years as part of its November settlement. While the controversial
law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell is said to have the inside track
for this position, the feds need to shake their tailfeathers and
get a proper fox inside this filthy chicken coop ASAP.
As for the rest of you, don't forget to look up now and then so you
don't get crushed when BTC and other tokens crash back to earth.
Imagine the smell
We'd be remiss if we didn't at least mention Binance's wrong-footed
celebration of International Women's Day, which saw them tease a
new 'Eau de Binance' perfume it called -- wait for it -- Crypto.
The product was apparently intended to encourage more women to dive
into the toxic male soup that is 'crypto,' but female reactions
ranged from confusion to irritation at being patronized.
Binance's CMO Rachel Conlan told TechCrunch the "tongue-in-cheek"
perfume was the product of "an all-female team," but that doesn't
seem to have impressed a great many female social media users who
caught the promo. This is one of those situations where the goal is
to 'start a conversation,' but the result is a collective STFU.
[GN]
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit Over Patent Listings
------------------------------------------------------------------
MASSACHUSETTS LABORERS' HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10565-DJC (D. Mass., March 6, 2024)
accuses the Defendant of unlawfully thwarting of generic
competition in multiple markets -- including those for Combivent
Respimat and its generic equivalents, and Spiriva Respimat and its
generic equivalents and asserts claims for, among other things,
unjust enrichment, and for violations of state consumer protection
and antitrust laws.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have unlawfully prolong
their monopoly by developing ways to abuse the Hatch-Waxman system.
Specifically, Defendants have wrongfully submitted patents for
listing in the Orange Book under Combivent Respimat and Spiriva
Respimat more than four dozen times. Moreover, Defendants' conduct
caused the delay of affordable generic drugs in entering the
market. As a result, the Plaintiff and members of the classes have
borne the overcharges when they purchased and/or reimbursed all or
part of the purchase price of (i) ipratropium bromide and albuterol
sulfate and (ii) tiotropium bromide products.
Headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany, Boehringer Ingelheim
International operates as pharmaceutical company. Its subsidiary,
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is headquartered at 900
Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, CT. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leslie R. Stern, Esq.
Steven L. Groopman, Esq.
Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq.
Brooke Lowell, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617)
542-8300
Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
E-mail: lstern@bermantabacco.com
sgroopman@bermantabacco.com
klasalle@bermantabacco.com
blowell@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
Matthew D. Pearson, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California St, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
mpearson@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
mperez@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Natasha J. Fernández-Silber, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: nfernandezsilber@edelson.com
- and -
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: ysalahi@edelson.com
- and -
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
Andrew Szot, Esq.
Kate E. Boychuck, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1320
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 332-3200
E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
mvantine@millerllc.com
lfanning@millerlawllc.com
aszot@millerlawllc.com
kboychuck@millerlawllc.com
BUILDERS SOURCE: Herranz Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Herranz, Dimas A. Vizcaino, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. Builders Source LLC, and Randy Berner,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00431 (M.D. Fla.,
February 29, 2024) is an action to recover monetary damages for
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Herranz and Vizcaino were employed by the Defendants as
non-exempted, full-time employees. They worked as concrete truck
drivers and worked consistently more than 40 hours weekly. They
assert that they were not paid for all their overtime hours because
Defendants improperly deducted five or six hours of lunchtime every
week.
Builders Source LLC is a construction company that provides
concrete pouring services to commercial and residential
clients.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
C3.AI INC: Court Narrows Claims in Reckstin Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the C3 Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled THE
RECKSTIN FAMILY TRUST, et al., Plaintiffs v. C3.AI, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
Pending before the Court are motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
putative securities class action filed by the C3 Defendants and
Defendant Baker Hughes. The Plaintiffs filed an omnibus opposition
to the Defendants' separately filed motions. The Court finds the
matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the
matter is deemed submitted.
On March 4, 2022, the Reckstin Family Trust filed this lawsuit,
asserting various violations of the Securities and Exchange Acts.
In December 2022, the Court appointed Mark Samarghandi -- an
investor who purchased shares of C3 stock and claims that he was
damaged by the Defendants' alleged securities law violations -- as
Lead Plaintiff, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as lead
counsel.
On February 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint ("CAC") against numerous Defendants. The Court will refer
to one subset of Defendants as the "C3 Defendants," which includes
(i) Defendant C3.ai, Inc. ("C3"), a company incorporated in
Delaware and headquartered in Redwood City, California, that makes
and sells artificial intelligence ("AI") software for enterprise
clients using a subscription model; and (ii) four individually
named C3 officers: Thomas M. Siebel, Edward Y. Abbo, David Barter,
and Lorenzo Simonelli (the "Individual Defendants").
In addition to the C3 Defendants, the Plaintiffs also named Baker
Hughes (or "BH") as a Defendant. Baker Hughes, incorporated in
Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas, is one of the world's
largest oil field service companies. As relevant here, BH purchased
C3's artificial intelligence software for its own use, and also
agreed to be "the exclusive seller" for C3's products within the
oil and gas industry.
The Plaintiffs allege that the C3 Defendants made false or
misleading statements concerning the nature of C3's joint venture
with "gas monolith" BH during the class period, which they define
as starting with C3's initial public offering ("IPO") on Dec. 9,
2020, and ending the following year on Dec. 2, 2021. The Plaintiffs
allege that although the C3 Defendants made statements during the
class period suggesting that BH's 12,000-person sales team was
engaged in selling C3's AI software, C3 did not have Baker Hughes'
entire 12,000-person salesforce at its disposal.
Instead, the Plaintiffs aver that the sale of C3 products was
supposedly handled in a separate unit outside of BH's normal
structure staffed with salespeople, who lacked the industry
expertise and connections of Baker Hughes' normal salesforce. The
Plaintiffs contend that the relegation of C3's sales to this
inexperienced subunit contributed to lackluster sales performance.
In addition to misleading investors about C3's access to BH's
12,000-person salesforce, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
further concealed a "massive restructuring" of C3's own salesforce
in July 2021 despite the significant risks it posed to the company.
The Plaintiffs further claim, among other things, that the
Individual Defendants, who knew about the sales issues, then
engaged in insider trading by dumping hundreds of millions of
dollars in C3 stock upon expiration of the post-IPO lockup period.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs bring causes of action
against the Defendants on behalf of putative classes under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Items 303 and 505 of
Regulation S-K (17 C.F.R. Sections 229.303(a)(3)(ii), 229.105(a));
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule
10b-5 (17 CFR 240.10b-5).
The Defendants have moved the Court to judicially recognize a
number of documents they cite in their motion. The Plaintiffs have
done the same. The C3 Defendants request that the Court consider
numerous documents outside the pleadings, which can be sorted into
two buckets: (1) public documents filed with the SEC and (2)
financial analyst reports.
The Court agrees that consideration of these documents is
permissible. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' request
for judicial notice as to Exhibits A-O, S, and T. In doing so, the
Court does not assume the truth of any of the facts asserted, or
endorse either of the competing inferences that the parties
maintain arise out of the financial filings. The Court also grants
the Defendants' request for judicial notice as to Exhibits P-R, and
will consider these documents not for their truth, but to determine
what information may or may not have been publicly disclosed.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court take judicial notice of
five documents they rely on in their opposition to the motions to
dismiss. Exhibits 1, 2, and 5 are publicly available documents C3
filed with the SEC that reflect what the market was aware of at the
time. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice
as to these documents. In so doing, the Court overrules the
Defendants' objection that Exhibit 1, the Joint Venture Agreement
between C3 and BH (which was enclosed as an attachment to the
Registration Statement C3 submitted to the SEC), should not be
considered under either the incorporation by reference doctrine or
the judicial notice doctrine.
Although Plaintiffs do not explicitly reference the Joint Venture
Agreement ("JVA") by name in their complaint, they do reference a
"joint venture" and "deal" -- the execution of which underpins
their action. The Court, therefore, finds that the JVA, a document
filed with the SEC, "is not reasonably subject to dispute" and can
be considered. However, in keeping with its previously articulated
approach, the Court does not assume the truth of any of the facts
asserted in the judicially noticed documents or use those documents
to supplement the allegations in the Plaintiffs' complaint.
The Plaintiffs also seek judicial notice of Exhibits 3 and 4, which
are, respectively, a CNBC article titled "Billionaire Tom Siebel
faces tumult at C3.ai as investor lawsuit, short sellers question
metrics," and the video segment from the CNBC business show "Last
Call" embedded within the article. Both reports are dated June 2,
2023, which is years after the class period ended and a month after
the C3 Defendants filed their motion to dismiss.
But the Court is unpersuaded that considering media reports
published years after the class period (in response to the very
litigation at issue) is a proper application of the judicial notice
doctrine, and the Plaintiffs do not point to any cases to change
that. While the Court recognizes that judicially noticing news
articles may be appropriate in some instances, this is not such an
instance. Since the reporting postdates the class period, it cannot
provide insight into what the market knew during that time. The
Court, therefore, denies judicial notice as to Exhibits 3 and 4.
The Plaintiffs contend in their CAC that the C3 Defendants made
false and misleading statements and material omissions in the
Registration Statement that C3 filed in connection with its
December 2020 IPO. They say these statements and omissions violated
Section 11 of the Securities Act, as well as Items 303 and 105 of
Regulation S-K, which imposes additional requirements on SEC
registrants.
The C3 Defendants argue, for their part, that the Plaintiffs'
Section 11 claims sound in fraud and, thus, must meet the
heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). They contend that
the Plaintiffs fail to state a cognizable claim under that
standard, and that, in any event, certain of their Section 11
claims are time-barred.
The Court finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have not
adequately alleged that the structure and staffing of the BH
salesforce focused on selling C3 products was a "known risk"
requiring disclosure in the Plaintiffs' IPO materials beyond what
the Defendants provided. The Defendants' disclosures cautioned
investors about the contingencies of their strategic partnerships
and the possibility that they would not increase revenues.
Accordingly, the Court grants the C3 Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims premised upon Statements #1 and
#2, but denies it as to Statement #3. It further grants the C3
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims arising under
Items 303 and 105. Finally, it grants the C3 Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 15 claim against Abbo, but denies
the motion as to the claims asserted against Siebel, Barter, and
Simonelli.
The Plaintiffs also allege that the C3 Defendants violated Section
10(b) of the of the Exchange Act of 1934 and implementing Rule
10b-5 by making false statements or omissions about (1) BH's
salesforce and (2) the BH/C3 Partnership. The Defendants assert
that the Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims fall short on three bases:
falsity, scienter, and loss causation.
While the Court finds falsity and loss causation adequately
alleged, it determines that scienter is too thinly pled to state a
cognizable claim under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The
Defendants argue that because the CAC fails to plead a primary
violation of securities laws, the insider trading claims must also
fail. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the Court grants the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 20(A)
claims.
Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the C3
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and grants Defendant Baker Hughes'
Motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court:
-- grants the C3 Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Section 11 claims premised upon Statements #1 and #2, but
denies the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 11
claims to the extent they are premised on Statement #3;
-- grants the C3 Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims arising under Items 303 and 105;
-- grants the C3 Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Section 15 claim against Abbo, but denies that motion as
relates to Siebel, Barter, and Simonelli; and
-- grants the C3 Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims, and accordingly,
grants the C3 Defendants' and Defendant Baker Hughes'
motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Sections 20(a) and 20A
claims.
The Court also grants the C3 Defendants' Request for Judicial
Notice, and grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs'
Request for Judicial Notice.
Since the Court cannot conclude that amendment would be futile,
Judge Gilliam holds that the Plaintiffs may file an amended
complaint within 21 days of the date of this order. When preparing
an amended complaint, the Plaintiffs are further ordered to prepare
a statement-by-statement chart of the information required by 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(b)(1) and (2) that specifically identifies:
(A) each statement or action alleged to have been false or
misleading, (B) the reasons the statement or action was false,
misleading, or deceptive when made, and (C) if an allegation
regarding the statement or omission is made on information and
belief, all facts on which the belief is formed.
The chart should clearly identify which statements or omissions are
attributable to which Defendants, and include a detailed statement
of the facts giving rise to a strong inference that each Defendant
acted with the required state of mind. The Plaintiffs should also
summarize their allegations regarding what each Defendant knew with
regard to the statement or omission, and when they knew it. Such a
chart should be included within any amended complaint or attached
to any amended complaint. For guidance on the format for such a
chart, the Court directs the Plaintiffs to review In re NVIDIA
Corp. Sec. Litig., 18-cv-07669-HSG, Dkt. No. 149-2.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tnd659hv from PacerMonitor.com.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2024, Gibbs Law Group filed a class action lawsuit
against Change Healthcare Inc. following a massive data breach
impacting the single largest healthcare payment processor in North
America. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of consumers, charges Change
Healthcare with failing to take reasonable security measures to
protect the confidential health and personal information of
millions of Americans following what is being seen as the most
significant data breach impacting the US healthcare system.
Consumers, patients, and healthcare providers who believe they were
impacted by the Change Healthcare data breach should contact our
legal team for a free case evaluation by calling 510-369-0259 or
visiting our website: Change Healthcare Class Action Lawsuit.
Case Background
Change Healthcare is the largest healthcare payment processor in
North America, according to the American Hospital Association
(AHA), with 15 billion transactions processed each year that touch
1 in every 3 patient records. On February 21, 2024, a data breach
at Change Healthcare resulted in hackers accessing confidential
health and personal information of millions of consumers.
Widespread Impact
The impact of the data breach and resulting decision to disable
critical healthcare processing systems has crippled the healthcare
industry, impacting patients, doctors, pharmacies, and hospitals
throughout the United States. Some patients have been unable to
access medicine they critically need or have been forced to pay for
expensive medications out of pocket. Healthcare providers have also
been harmed from the cyberattack and have reported being unable to
verify insurance for medical procedures and unable to receive
reimbursement for medical claims. It's unknown how long Change
Healthcare's systems will be down and according to one estimate,
the security incident is costing medical providers "over $100
million a day," raising fears that some medical providers may have
problems staying afloat over the next two months and others may
shut down.
Previous Concerns and Warnings
In 2021, the DOJ and AHA previously raised concerns about
UnitedHealth Group's acquisition of Change Healthcare and the
access to significant amounts of health data. The FBI has
continuously issued warnings, including as early as 2014, that
hackers specifically target the healthcare industry. Change
Healthcare recently confirmed that ransomware group ALPHV, or
Blackcat, a group known for healthcare company ransomware attacks,
was responsible for the breach, according to the Associated Press.
Groups like Blackcat typically first scramble an organization's
data with file-encrypting malware and then steal a copy for
themselves that they threaten to publish if a ransom is not paid.
In the case of Change Healthcare, affiliates with Blackcat claim
they still have the stolen data although a $22 million ransom has
already been allegedly paid.
"There is no excuse for companies this large and profitable to
allow something so devastating to happen," said Rosemary Rivas, a
lead data breach attorney with Gibbs Law Group. "Millions of
Americans had no choice but to trust Change Healthcare and
UnitedHealth with their personal health information, and it should
have been ensuring reasonable security."
About Gibbs Law Group
Gibbs Law Group is a nationwide leader in class action lawsuits
seeking to holding companies accountable for large-scale data
breaches. It has prosecuted some of the largest privacy cases
throughout the country, and the firm's attorneys have received
numerous awards for their privacy and data breach work including
"Cybersecurity & Privacy MVP," "Top Cybersecurity and Privacy
Attorneys Under 40," and "Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar."
The firm achieved a historic $1.5 billion settlement from Equifax
in 2019, on behalf of 147 million consumers whose social security
numbers and other private data were exposed in a breach. Described
by the court as "the largest and most comprehensive recovery in a
data breach in U.S. history by several orders of magnitude," the
settlement also required Equifax to spend over $1 billion in data
security technology and to make comprehensive security reforms.
Previously, the firm negotiated a $115 million settlement in the
Anthem data breach, the largest data breach settlement at the time,
after approximately 80 million personal records were compromised in
a massive data breach of the health insurance giant.
CATHERINE CONROY
PHONE: 510-350-9705
EMAIL: CRC@CLASSLAWGROUP.COM [GN]
CLEVELAND, OH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Delayed Tax Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. EKATERINA WOS and DAVID STEFFES and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF CLEVELAND and AHMED
ABONAMAH, in his official capacity as Finance Director of the City
of Cleveland, Defendants, Case No. CV-24-993917 (Ohio Com. Pl.,
Cuyahoga Cty., March 6, 2024) arises from the Defendants' failure
to timely refund Plaintiffs and their failure to pay interest due
to delayed refund, pursuant to H.B. 110 and Cleveland Codified
Ordinance Sections 192.06 (19)(n)(2) and 192.28.
According to the complaint, the City's codified ordinances provide
that when the City owes a tax refund, the refund is subject to
interest at a rate of the federal funds rate plus 5%, unless the
refund is paid within 90 days after the taxpayer filed her return.
When the City finally paid, however, it did not include any
interest on the refund, says the suit.
The City of Cleveland is a municipality which collects municipal
income taxes. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jay R. Carson, Esq.
WEGMAN HESSLER VALORE
6055 Rockside Wood Blvd., Ste 200
Cleveland, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 642-3342
E-mail: jrcarson@wegmanlaw.com
- and -
David C. Tryon, Esq.
Alex Certo, Esq.
THE BUCKEYE INSTITUTE
88 East Broad Street, Suite 1300
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-4422
E-mail: d.tryon@buckeyeinstitute.org
COLEMAN PROFESSIONAL: Armstrong Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB ARMSTRONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLEMAN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00382-SL (N.D. Ohio, February 29, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected
health information (PHI), personally identifiable information
(PII), and financial information stored within Defendant's
information network.
On September 18, 2023, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals
gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and
financial information as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of
engaging in the misuse of these information, including marketing
and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII and financial
information.
The complaint alleges that Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate
and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PHI/PII and financial information was safeguarded, failing
to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data,
and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate
protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of
data, even for internal use.
Coleman Professional Services, Inc. is a provider of behavioral
health, residential, employment, and supportive services within
Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
CONTINENTAL AG: Gianne and Larson Sue Over Tire Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE GIANNE, and KAREN LARSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONTINENTAL
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE
GÉNÉRALE DES ÉTABLISSEMENTS MICHELIN SCA; MICHELIN NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC; NOKIAN TYRES
U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI &
C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE
AMERICAS, INC.; AND DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00431
(N.D. Ohio, March 6, 2024) seeks redress for injuries suffered as a
result of Defendants' violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
Plaintiffs Gianne and Larson allege that the Defendants have
entered into unlawful agreements to fix the prices of new
replacement tires. Evidence of these agreements is supported by:
(1) the tires' sudden and dramatic price increases beginning in
February 2021, which was not economically rational unless they were
involved in a conspiracy to fix prices; (2) the European
Commission's raids; (3) the highly concentrated nature of the
replacement tire market in the United States; (4) high barriers to
entry in the replacement tire market; (5) the lack of substitutes
for tires; (6) the standardization and thus interchangeability of
tires; and (7) the motive and opportunity for Defendants to
conspire with one another to fix the prices of tires.
Continental manufactures and distributes a complete line of
passenger, light truck, and commercial tires for both the original
equipment and replacement markets. The company sells its tires at
independent tire dealers, car dealers, and mass retail companies
across North America. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul Grieco, Esq.
GRIECO LAW LLC
623 West Saint Clair Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 965-0009
Facsimile: (216) 621-2951
E-mail: paul@grieco.law
- and -
Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
901 South MoPac Expressway
Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (213) 462-2772
E-mail: egrauman@bathaeedunne.com
bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
- and -
Andrew Chan Wolinsky, Esq.
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (332) 322-8835
E-mail: awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com
yavar@bathaeedunne.com
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Faces Valenzano Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES VALENZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL
TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GÉNÉRALE DES ÉTABLISSEMENTS
MICHELIN SCA; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC;
NOKIAN TYRES INC; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR
TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC;
BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; AND DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00948-JDA (D.S.C., February 23,
2024) seeks redress for injuries suffered by the Plaintiff as a
result of Defendants alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, and various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.
On January 30, 2024, the European Commission, in collaboration with
national competition authorities from European Union member states,
carried out unannounced dawn raids on the premises of several tire
companies, including the Defendant companies. Evidence of
Defendants' unlawful agreements to fix the prices of new
replacement tires is supported by: (1) their sudden and dramatic
price increases beginning in February 2021, which was not
economically rational unless they were involved in a conspiracy to
fix prices; (2) the EC's raids; (3) the highly concentrated nature
of the replacement tire market in the United States; (4) high
barriers to entry in the replacement tire market; (5) the lack of
substitutes for tires; (6) the standardization and thus
interchangeability of tires; and (7) the motive and opportunity for
Defendants to conspire with one another to fix the prices of tires,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff paid prices for his tires that are higher than they
would be absent Defendants' anticompetitive conduct. The Plaintiff
suffers other ongoing injuries from Defendants' anticompetitive
conduct, including diminished product quality and reduced consumer
choice in the United States Replacement Tire Market -- a market in
which Plaintiff is an active consumer, the suit asserts.
Continental Aktiengesellschaft is a German tire company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
MCGOWAN, HOOD, FELDER & PHILLIPS, LLC
10 Shem Drive, Suite 300
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 388-7202
Facsimile: (843) 388-3194
E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com
- and -
Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
901 South MoPac Expressway
Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (213) 462-2772
E-mail: egrauman@bathaeedunne.com
bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
- and -
Andrew Chan Wolinsky, Esq.
Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (332) 322-8835
E-mail: awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com
yavar@bathaeedunne.com
CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Johnson Sue Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
TRACEY JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, a
Delaware Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00303-UNA (D. Del.,
March 6, 2024) is a class action arising out of Defendant's
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff has never utilized Defendant's services, has never
had a prior business relationship with Defendant, nor has she been
a Surge Mastercard holder. However, Defendant has sent, or caused
to be sent, multiple text messages to Plaintiff's residential
number reminding her to make payments on her non-existent Surge
Mastercard. Even though he had made several opt-out requests to
Defendant, she continued receiving text messages from Defendant to
her residential line, each one encouraging her to make payments on
an unknown Surge Mastercard account in violation of the TCPA, the
Plaintiff asserts.
Headquartered in Wilmington, DE, Continental Finance Company, LLC
manages and services a variety of Mastercard products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel C. Herr, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL C. HERR LLC
3411 Silverside Road
The Baynard Building
Wilmington, DE 19810
Telephone: (302) 483-7060
E-mail: dherr@dherrlaw.com
- and -
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (952) 336-2940
E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Kevin M. Cox, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: kcox@thelyonfirm.com
DENNY'S INC: Court Grants Wintjen's Partial Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JULI WINTJEN, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENNY'S INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00069-CCW (W.D. Pa.), Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued
an Opinion:
(a) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and
(b) denying the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
In this hybrid class/collective action, Ms. Wintjen asserts a claim
on behalf of herself and other individuals employed by Denny's in a
tipped capacity under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29
U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
of 1968, 43 P.S. Sections 333.101, et seq.
The Plaintiff alleges that Denny's violated its minimum wage
obligation because it failed to properly notify its tipped
employees that it would claim a tip credit and, therefore, paid
them sub-minimum wage. Originally, Ms. Wintjen also asserted a
claim that Denny's had violated wage-and-hour laws when it asked
its servers to perform excessive side-work. However, the parties
have since resolved this claim and received the Court's approval of
the settlement agreement.
Denny's is a restaurant chain that operates nationwide. Between
Jan. 22, 2016, and Aug. 1, 2019, Denny's owned 13 restaurants in
Pennsylvania. Denny's corporate-owned restaurants in Pennsylvania
have similar operations. Specifically, these restaurants share
common management, employees, labor policies and practices, payroll
administration, and human resources services. In addition, when
training its new servers, Denny's employs a uniform system. It
provides the same onboarding process, so that all servers receive
the same information.
During this process, Denny's' managers use a written orientation
checklist to onboard new servers. It is undisputed that, as early
as January of 2016, Denny's was aware of 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m),
the FLSA provision related to the tip credit, and 29 C.F.R. Section
531.59(b), the accompanying regulation that sets forth the five
pieces of information to include in the tip credit notice.
Denny's asserts that it provided tip credit information orally by
the manager and/or trainer responsible for onboarding and through
written materials, including employee paystubs, state and federal
labor law posters, the Employee Guidebook, and the Important Wage
and Hour Policies Summary and Acknowledgement Form.
Beginning Jan. 1, 2019, Denny's required new servers to acknowledge
receipt of a document titled "Important Information for Tipped
Employees." Prior to 2019, Denny's did not provide any of its new
servers with this document. Judge Wiegand notes that it is
undisputed that this document contains all five elements required
by the FLSA.
During this litigation, the Court has issued a number of rulings
that are relevant to the parties' Motion. On Feb. 25, 2021, the
Court granted summary judgment in Ms. Wintjen's favor, on her
individual claim, on the issue of whether Denny's complied with the
tip credit notice provisions of the FLSA. Following the Court's
Summary Judgment Ruling, and an unsuccessful mediation, she moved
to certify a Pennsylvania class under the PMWA and to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action regarding her tip credit notice
claim.
Following the Court's certification of the collective action and
class, and a second phase of discovery, Ms. Wintjen moved for a
finding that Denny's violation of the FLSA and PMWA was willful. On
Aug. 25, 2022, the Court denied her motion and held that, at a
minimum, Denny's distribution of Fact Sheet #15 to managers is
sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether Denny's
"recklessly disregarded" its tip credit notice obligations. As
such, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could conclude that
Denny's did not willfully violate the FLSA.
At the request of Ms. Wintjen, the Court excluded certain opt-in
plaintiffs, who had signed the Tip Credit Notice, because she
argued that such opt-ins could not state a claim for violation of
the FLSA or PMWA. On July 13, 2023, the Court finally certified the
following FLSA collective:
All Tipped Employees who worked for Denny's, Inc., in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at any point between Jan. 22,
2016, and Aug. 1, 2019, and were hired prior to Jan. 1,
2019.
Excluded from this Class are any individuals for whom the
Defendant has produced an executed copy of the 2011 Employee
Tip Credit Notification form.
In its Motion, Denny's asks the Court to revisit its prior rulings,
arguing that (1) Ms. Wintjen, the class members and the collective
action members lack standing because they have only alleged an
informational injury, and (2) that it gave adequate notice under
the PMWA and FLSA because they do not require the fifth piece of
information. In addition to addressing Denny's arguments
substantively, Ms. Wintjen and the class and collective action
members respond that the law of the case doctrine applies and
forecloses Denny's arguments.
None of Denny's arguments have merit, Judge Wiegand holds. She
explains the Third Circuit has recognized several "extraordinary
circumstances" that warrant a court's reconsideration of an issue
decided earlier in the litigation: (1) new evidence is available;
(2) a supervening new law has been announced; or (3) the earlier
decision was clearly erroneous and would create manifest injustice,
citing Pub. Int. Rsch. Grp. of New Jersey, Inc. v. Magnesium
Elektron, Inc., 123 F.3d 111, 116–17 (3d Cir. 1997).
Judge Wiegand points out that no such extraordinary circumstances
exist here. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to
apply the law of the case doctrine to its prior rulings. Denny's
has cited no legal authority for its proposition that the Court's
decisions had to be made at the summary judgment stage to be the
law of the case. Further, the fact that the prior orders are
interlocutory is not a bar to the law of the case doctrine
applying.
The Court has previously considered—and rejected—the very
arguments that Denny's advances and declines to reconsider the
issues for what would be the third time. For these reasons, Judge
Wiegand denies Denny's Motion for Summary Judgment in full.
In her Motion, Ms. Wintjen argues that the class and collective
action members are entitled to summary judgment in their favor
because (1) Denny's violated the FLSA and PMWA by failing to
provide sufficient tip credit notice, (2) Denny's FLSA violation
was willful, and (3) she and the collective members are entitled to
liquidated damages under the FLSA. In response, Denny's argues that
its tip credit notice was adequate and that genuine issues of
material fact preclude summary judgment on the issues of
willfulness and liquidated damages.
The Court has already found that Denny's' use of the Employee
Handbook, postings, the orientation checklist and, now, the
Information Sheet, are inadequate under the FLSA and PMWA because
they fail to contain the fifth piece of information. However, Judge
Wiegand says, it is undisputed that the Tip Credit Notice contains
all five elements required by the FLSA and PMWA.
A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Notice
List Employees received the Tip Credit Notice, Judge Wiegand holds.
Accordingly, summary judgment on the tip credit notice claim under
the FLSA is denied as to the Notice List Employees. Summary
judgment on the tip credit notice claim under the FLSA and PMWA is
granted as to Ms. Wintjen and all other class and collective
members.
Judge Wiegand finds that the law of this case doctrine means
willfulness is an issue for the jury. The Court holds that Ms.
Wintjen and the collective action members have not shown that any
extraordinary circumstances exist. Accordingly, summary judgment as
to the issue of willfulness is denied.
The Court also finds that it would be premature to rule on the
issue of liquidated damages. Judge Wiegand points out that Denny's
has presented sufficient evidence of its efforts to comply with the
FLSA to survive this motion. Further, since the issue of whether
Denny's violation of the FLSA was willful will be left to the jury,
so too should the issue of whether Denny's acted in good faith.
The Court will consider whether Ms. Wintjen and the collective
action members are entitled to liquidated damages after the
outstanding issues of liability and willfulness are resolved at
trial. Accordingly, summary judgment on the issue of liquidated
damages is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Feb. 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/43va6rhx from PacerMonitor.com.
DIGITAL DOWNLOAD: Seguin Sue Over Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------
JERRY SEGUIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIGITAL DOWNLOAD, INC. and NIGHT FLIGHT
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01354 (N.D. Cal., March 6, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Video Privacy Protection
Act and the California Civil Code.
Allegedly, the Defendants installed "tracking pixels" on its
website. These tracking pixels secretly and surreptitiously send
consumers' viewing activities to third-party providers like Meta
Platforms, Inc. without their consent, in violation of the VPPA,
and California Civil Code. Meta, in turn, uses such video
consumption habits to build profiles on consumers and deliver
targeted advertisements to them, among other activities, says the
suit.
Headquartered in Sarasota, FL, Digital Download, Inc. offers the
Night Flight Plus streaming service throughout California and the
United States. It offers streaming of music and movies, focusing on
retro content from the 1980s. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
Joshua B. Glatt, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
jglatt@bursor.com
FADU TECHNOLOGY: Inflates Stock Price During IPO, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Yeon-woo, writing for koreatimes.co.kr, reports that
shareholders of FADU, a fabless semiconductor company, have filed a
class action lawsuit against both the company and its IPO
underwriters, accusing them of inflating the stock price during its
initial public offering (IPO) last July 2023, according to a law
firm representing retail investors.
This marks the first lawsuit related to an IPO since the
Securities-related Class Action Act was enacted in 2005.
Litigation representative Hannuri Law said it filed the class
action against FADU, NH Investment & Securities and Korea
Investment & Securities. This legal action comes on behalf of
investors who suffered financial losses from the IPO of FADU, which
resulted in a sharp decline in its stock price.
Last July, FADU's offering price was set at 31,000 won ($23.31).
However, following the announcement of a disappointing
third-quarter performance last November, its share price nearly
halved. As a result, the market capitalization, which was around
1.5 trillion won at the time of listing, dropped below 800 billion
won.
FADU's share price traded at the 19,000 won range. Since last
November, the share price has never reached the offering level
again.
This situation starkly contrasts with the optimistic projections
made by FADU and its IPO underwriters, according to the
plaintiffs.
In their securities registration statement and prospectus, they
noted that the company's sales were projected to "continue their
rapid growth into 2023," with "revenues expected to hit 120.3
billion won, marking a 113 percent increase compared to the prior
year." They also stated that, as of the date the statement was
prepared, there had been "no significant developments affecting
investor protection," including changes in orders or financial
performance.
Hannuri Law alleges that FADU and its underwriters offered "false
information" in its IPO process, setting the offering price based
on overestimated projections of sales and net profits.
"At the time of the disclosure, FADU was already facing substantial
setbacks, including order cancellations from key clients, which
resulted in second-quarter sales of merely 59 million won and an
operating loss of 15.3 billion won," Hannuri Law said.
The claim is set at 100 million won, including delayed damages.
Hannuri Law aims to adjust this figure to reflect the collective
losses once all affected investors are identified. The class is
defined as those who purchased FADU's shares during the IPO and
suffered losses either by selling their shares after the company's
underperformance was disclosed on Nov. 8, 2023, or by still holding
onto their shares.
According to the Securities-related Class Action Act, the verdict
in the lawsuit led by the representative plaintiffs will also
affect victims who have not joined the lawsuit. [GN]
FBQ INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages to Sales Agents, Elliott Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARION ELLIOTT, on behalf of herselfand those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FBQ, INC., (dba) Florida Best Quote Insurance a
Florida Profit Corporation and JEANETTE LAWRENSON, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00593 (M.D. Fla., March 6, 2024) seeks
all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff as an insurance sales agents from
August 31, 2020, through February 15, 2024, at Defendants' office
in Largo, FL and Indian Rock Beach, FL. The Plaintiff and those
similarly situated insurance sales agents worked more than 40 hours
per workweek without receiving the proper overtime pay for all
their overtime hours worked because Defendants failed to calculate
the overtime pay rate to include non-discretionary bonuses
properly, says the suit.
Headquartered in Largo, FL, FBQ, Inc. is a Florida insurance agency
that specializes in auto, home and business insurance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. State Road 84 Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324-4241
Telephone No.: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile No.: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
FCA US: Stryker et al. Sue Over Vehicles' Security Defects
----------------------------------------------------------
IVY STRYKER; MICHELLE LASKOWSKI; KATRINA O'CONNOR; ARIC WHITE; DAWN
GIBBS-ALLEN; BURTON WAY INVESTMENTS LLC; MARK PFEIFER; EMMA PIRE;
ANTHONY SPANGLER; GARRETT PFEIFER; MICHAEL BUSH; DANIEL CHANDLER;
LABRAUN CRAYTON; TAMARA DARBY; NARCISO MALDONADO; LESLIE
WILCZEWSKI; CICELY TEGELER; WALTER KWAK; CHARLES ZIMMERSCHIED; PAUL
SOBERANO; JOSEPH CURB; JOYCE JONES, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and STELLANTIS NV, a public limited
liability company in the Netherlands, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-01923 (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2024) arises from the
Defendants' failure to disclose the security defects of class
vehicles, seeking all available relief for Defendants' breach of
warranty under Magnuson-Moss, breach of implied warranty,
fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud,
breach of the Indiana Implied Warranty of Merchantability, silent
fraud, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, the
California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the Georgia Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act.
The Defendants irresponsibly sold millions of vehicles equipped
with substandard anti-theft and ignition systems that are less
secure than traditional keyed ignitions used thirty years ago.
These systems lack basic security features that are required by
automotive industry standards in the United States, Canada, and
Europe. This dangerous mix predictably makes the vehicles prime
targets for criminals who use them to commit serious crimes, the
suit alleges.
Headquartered in Auburn, MI, FCA US LLC is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Stellantis and owns the licensing rights to the
following brand names: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Alfa Romeo,
Fiat, Mopar, and SRT performance designation. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark M. Berardi, Esq.
Daniel A. Hawkins, Esq.
BERARDI AND ASSOCIATES LLC
14919 Founders Crossing
Homer Glen, IL 60491
Telephone: (708) 942-8030
Facsimile: (815) 205-3546
E-mail: Mark@berardilawoffice.com
Daniel@berardilawoffice.com
- and -
Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq.
THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
800 Market Street, Suite 1700
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-2929
Facsimile: (314) 241-2029
E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com
jnixon@simonlawpc.com
FERTILITY CENTER: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Lundin Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SARITA LUNDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FERTILITY CENTER OF LAS VEGAS-SHAPIRO, MD,
PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00411 (D. Nev., Feb. 29, 2024)
seeks to remedy harms caused to Plaintiff and a class of all others
similarly situated for Defendant's violation of Electronic
Communications Privacy Act; common law invasion of
privacy-intrusion upon seclusion; breach of duty of good faith and
fair dealing; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; and
negligence.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members who
visited and used FCLV's website, https://fertilitycenterlv.com,
reasonably believed that they were communicating only with their
trusted healthcare providers. At no point has Defendant, despite
intentionally incorporating invisible tracking codes from
unauthorized third parties into its website and servers, informed
Users that their personally identifiable information and protected
health information, communicated via its website was intentionally
disclosed to a third party -- let alone Facebook, which has a
sordid history of privacy violations.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury because of
Defendant' conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of
privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain; (iii) compromise and
disclosure of Private Information; (iv) diminution of value of
their private information; (iv) statutory damages; and (v) the
continued and ongoing risk to their private information, the suit
asserts.
Fertility Center of Las Vegas-Shapiro, MD, PLLC is a fertility
center that owns, controls, and maintains the website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark J. Bourassa, Esq.
Jennifer A. Fornetti, Esq.
Valerie S. Christian, Esq.
THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP
2350 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (702) 851-2180
Facsimile: (702) 851-2189
E-mail: mbourassa@blgwins.com
jfornetti@blgwins.com
vchristian@blgwins.com
- and -
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Matthew J. Langley, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
matt@almeidalawgroup.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit on Telematics Insurance Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sellers, writing for Insurance Business, reports that
according to a NY Times report, last December Romeo Chicco faced
rejection from seven insurance providers before finally securing a
policy at nearly twice his former rate. A recent legal filing
seeking to establish a class action claims the giant jump in
premiums was linked to his 2021 Cadillac XT6's invasive data
tracking. And, as reported in Insurance Business, Chicco isn't the
only policyholder complaining to the Times.
Dubbed by some as "smartphones on wheels", many modern vehicles are
internet-connected and equipped with various sensors and cameras.
These sensors can, in some cases send telematics data back to the
manufacturer, and from there the data can be sold to carriers. This
telematics market is dominated by US-based Progressive, Allstate,
Liberty Mutual, Nationwide and State Farm. At the end of 2022 there
were 16.8 million telematics policies in the country -- and growing
at a CAGR of 11.7%, that number is predicted to reach almost 30
million by 2027.
Chicco claims that he had no idea that his car was telling anyone
about his premium-increasing driving habits until learned from a
Liberty Mutual representative that his insurance application was
declined due to findings in his "LexisNexis report".
LexisNexis Risk Solutions is a firm that compiles data for insurers
on drivers' histories and has been gathering information for
insurers for a number of years. It had detailed records of Chicco's
driving habits, provided by Cadillac's parent company, General
Motors.
Upon reviewing his report from LexisNexis, Chicco discovered it
chronicled 258 of his journeys in the last six months, including
specific details like trip durations, distances, and instances of
speeding or abrupt driving maneuvers. This discovery led him to
file a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District
of Florida against General Motors and LexisNexis Risk Solutions,
alleging breaches of privacy and consumer laws. This action comes
in the wake of a New York Times investigation that uncovered the
secretive sharing of driver information with insurers by car
manufacturers, potentially leading to higher insurance premiums for
some. LexisNexis and another company, Verisk, reportedly have
access to a vast amount of driving data from countless vehicles.
Chicco's pursuit for answers from GM and LexisNexis about the
alleged unsolicited data collection met with explanations that
linked the data transmission to his involvement in OnStar's Smart
Driver program via OnStar, GM's connectivity service also
implicated in the legal action. Despite claims of never enrolling
in OnStar or the Smart Driver initiative -- though he did use the
MyCadillac app -- Chicco remains baffled about his supposed
participation in the program, telling The Times, "What no-one can
tell me is how I enrolled in it. You can tell me how many times I
hard-accelerated on Jan. 30 between 6am and 8am, but you can't tell
me how I enrolled in this?"
In response to inquiries, GM spokesperson Malorie Lucich told the
NY Times that enrollment in SmartDriver happens through the
connected car app or at dealerships, as detailed in OnStar's
privacy statement, which mentions the possibility of data sharing
with third parties. She added, "GM's OnStar Smart Driver service is
optional to customers," emphasizing the program's aim to educate
customers on safe driving and vehicle performance for potential
insurance benefits, with the option for users to withdraw at any
time."
In another response a spokesperson provided the following
statement:
"GM's OnStar Smart Driver service is optional to customers, who
give their consent three times before limited data is shared with
an insurance carrier through a third party. Customer benefits
include learning more about their safe driving behaviors or vehicle
performance that, with their consent, may be used to obtain
insurance quotes. Customers can also unenroll from Smart Driver at
any time.
-- "The driving behavior insights can only be shared when a
customer explicitly consents through an insurance carrier to have
the data shared. This is after two other consents as well, one at
the time of accepting privacy terms when enrolling in OnStar, and
the other at the time of consenting to and enrolling in Smart
Driver.
-- "The goal of these programs is always to reduce the total cost
of insurance, and millions of GM customers have saved on their car
insurance because of such services."
"Relying on consumers to fill in the critical, but sometimes
non-obvious or unknown, details for their insurer to then assess
risk and provide an appropriate premium back to the consumer can be
a cumbersome and unreliable proposition," a Lexis Nexis spokesman
told Insurance Business when promoting the service. Chicco,
presumably following legal advice, has refrained from further
comments post-lawsuit filing.
GM's OnStar reports data after every drive, including specific
driving behavior data, including hard braking events, hard
acceleration events, speeds over 80 miles per hour, average speed,
late night driving, seat belt usage, when and where these events
occur, and the number of miles driven.
The controversy has caught the attention of experts like Georgetown
law professor David Vladeck, who, speaking to the NY Times warned
"Just wait for the avalanche. It's coming."
The debate has also caught the attention of lawmakers -
Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey has already asked the Federal Trade
Commission to take a close look at the practice. "With new advances
in vehicle technology and services, automakers have been vacuuming
up huge amounts of data on drivers, passengers, and even
individuals outside the vehicle," he wrote. "Based on public
reporting and responses to my own inquiries into these practices,
automakers face few, if any, limitations on the collection, use,
and disclosure of this data. Consumers are often left in the dark.
I therefore urge the FTC to investigate the automakers' data
practices and take all necessary actions to protect the privacy of
all road users." [GN]
GRIFFSS 1 LLC: Magliano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jean F. Magliano, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Griffss 1 LLC, a/k/a Yakuza Sushi, Gage
Holding Group Corp, Mauricio Galindo and Marinely Gervazzi,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00436 (M.D. Fla., Feb.
29, 2024) is an action to recover monetary damages from the
Defendant for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and retaliation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In his first period, Plaintiff worked as a cook from approximately
September 15, 2020, to February 15, 2022, or 74 weeks. However, for
FLSA purposes, Plaintiff's relevant employment period is 57 weeks
to June 27, 2023. The Plaintiff left his position and was re-hired
on October 1, 2022, and he worked until January 4, 2024. In this
second period, Plaintiff worked 66 weeks.
The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants willfully failed to pay him
overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his regular rate,
for every hour that he worked in excess of 40. He added that he was
terminated for his complaints about unpaid regular and overtime
wages.
Griffss 1 LLC, a/k/a Yakuza Sushi, Gage Holding Group Corp.,
operates food trucks and a restaurant in Osceola County,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
HOSPITALITY PURVEYORS: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YOEL HERNANDEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. HOSPITALITY PURVEYORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-20806
(S.D. Fla., Feb. 29, 2024) is an action to recover monetary damages
for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
full-time employee, from approximately April 6, 2022, to January 3,
2024, or 91 weeks. However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff's relevant
employment period is 80 weeks. After approximately October 30,
2023, Plaintiff did not work overtime hours. The Plaintiff had a
wage rate of $15 an hour. His overtime rate should be $22.50 an
hour. The Plaintiff further alleges that he was fired due to his
continuous complaints about overtime hours, and due to
discriminatory reasons.
Hospitality Purveyors, LLC is a provider of supplies for the
hospitality industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
INHIBRX INC: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to Sanofi
------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are now investigating:
Monteverde & Associates PC Logo
-- Inhibrx, Inc. (Nasdaq: INBX), relating to its proposed sale to
Sanofi. Under the terms of the agreement, INBX shareholders are
expected to receive $30.00 in cash and 0.25 shares of the newly
combined company per share they own. Shareholders may also receive
a plus one CVR worth up to $5.00 in cash contingent upon certain
milestones. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/inhibrx-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Kaman Corp. (NYSE: KAMN), relating to its proposed sale to
Arcline Investment Management, L.P. Under the terms of the
agreement, KAMN shareholders are expected to receive $46.00 in cash
per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/kaman-corp. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Juniper Networks, Inc. (NYSE: JNPR), relating to its proposed
sale to Hewlett Packard. Under the terms of the agreement, JNPR
shareholders are expected to receive $40.00 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/juniper-networks-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Haynes International, Inc. (Nasdaq: HAYN), relating to its
proposed sale to North American Stainless. Under the terms of the
agreement, HAYN shareholders will receive $61.00 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/haynes-international-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
INK 477 LLC: Lirio Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN LIRIO, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. INK 477, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
(DBA) LEVEL 6, LEVEL 6 BY AMAL, AMAL, AND AMAL MIAMI, GROVE INK,
LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (DBA) LEVEL 6, LEVEL 6 BY
AMAL, AMAL, AND AMAL MIAMI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-20785
(S.D. Fla., February 29, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for failure to pay Florida's mandated minimum wages for
all hours worked to Plaintiff and Class members pursuant to Fla.
Const. Art. X Section 24 and under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The lawsuit seeks to recover from Defendants overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempt tipped employee from June
1, 2023 through January 3, 2024. His job duties as a non-exempt
tipped employee included, at varying times, serving food, cleaning
tables, bussing tables, bartending, and other non-management/non
administrative tasks involved in the production aspect of serving
patrons food and beverages at Defendants' restaurant.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located within
Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. State Road 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Bushansky Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., RAMI RAHIM, ANNE
DELSANTO, KEVIN DENUCCIO, JIM DOLCE, STEVE FERNANDEZ, CHRISTINE
GORJANC, JANET HAUGEN, SCOTT KRIENS, RAHUL MERCHANT, WILLIAM
STENSRUD, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, and JASMINE
ACQUISITION SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0214 (Del. Ch.,
March 6, 2024) alleges Juniper and members of Juniper's board of
directors for breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the
Board's efforts sell the company to Hewlett Packard Enterprise
(HPE) Company.
On January 9, 2024, Juniper and HPE issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into a definitive Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated January 9, 2024, to sell Juniper to HPE. Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, HPE will acquire Juniper in an
all-cash transaction for $40.00 per share, representing an equity
value of approximately $14 billion. Allegedly, the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Juniper stockholders in
connection with the proposed merger transaction by omitting
material information from the proxy statement, says the suit.
Juniper is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 1133 Innovation Way, Sunnyvale, CA. Its common
stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker
symbol "JNPR." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
1204 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 803-4600
E-mail: rernst@bk-legal.com
- and -
Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
476 Hardendorf Ave. NE
Atlanta, GA 30307
Telephone: (404) 692-7910
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
KAZDAN RACING: Maylath Alleges Wage and Hour Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
PETER MAYLATH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. KAZDAN RACING STABLES, INC., ALEXANDER
KAZDAN, Individually, and NORMAN C. FOLLETT, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01665 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2024) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, wages for overtime work performed,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and other damages on behalf of
all of Defendants' Hot Walkers and Groomers and other similarly
situated employees, based on Defendants' violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt Hot
Walker at Belmont racetrack in Elmont from approximately July
21,2023 through December 2023. Accordingly, during his employment
with Defendants, Plaintiff worked approximately 95 hours per week.
However, Defendants did not pay him in compliance with minimum wage
law or time and a half for the hours regularly worked over 40 in a
workweek, violating the provisions of the FLSA and NYLL, says the
Plaintiff.
Located in Staten Island, NY, Kazdan Racing Stables, Inc. is owned
and operated by Alexander Kazdan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory S. Lisi, Esq.
FORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA LLP
333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 1010
Uniondale, NY 11553
Telephone: (516) 248-1700
E-mail: glisi@forchellilaw.com
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Frank Appeals Approval of in Kurtz Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector THEODORE H. FRANK filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated January 17, 2024 entered in the lawsuit
entitled D. JOSEPH KURTZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION and
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-1142, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.
The Plaintiff brought this suit before the court on February 21,
2014 alleging deceptive, improper or unlawful conduct in the
design, marketing, manufacturing, distribution and sale of
Kimberly-Clark's flushable wipes that cause harm to plumbing and
sewer system.
In April 2022, eight years after the instant lawsuits were
initiated, Plaintiff and Defendant Kimberly-Clark entered into the
Settlement Agreement, which set forth the terms and conditions for
a proposed settlement and the dismissal of the instant class action
lawsuits as to Defendant.
The Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of the Settlement,
which the Court granted on May 19, 2022.
On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff moved for final approval of the
Settlement and applied for fees. In response to Plaintiff's motion
for final approval, class member Theodore H. Frank ("Objector")
filed an objection to the Settlement and fee application,
contending that the Settlement failed to meet the fairness standard
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and that the requested
fees were unreasonable.
On June 12, 2023, after holding two final settlement approval
hearings, the Court finally approved the Settlement and certified
the settlement class, as well as scheduled a hearing on Class
Counsel's fees.
The Objector challenged Plaintiff's fee request. Citing to the 2018
Amendments to Rule 23(e), he contended that attorneys' fee awards
should be "focused on the actual result for the class so as to
encourage class counsel to achieve the best possible result for the
class." He argued that the requested attorneys' fees are excessive
and disproportionate to the actual recovery for the Class. He also
challenged the provision in the Settlement Agreement that provides
advance payment to Class Counsel before the recovery benefits are
distributed to the Class. While he argued that the Court should use
the percentage-of-recovery method to calculate attorneys' fees, he
reiterated that, regardless of the method applied, "the actual
benefit to the class [should be] a fundamental focus for the
Court's fee award.”
On January 17, 2024, Judge Pamela K. Chen entered a Memorandum
Opinion and Order that the Settlement Agreement entered into by
Plaintiffs and Defendant Kimberly-Clark Corporation satisfies all
four factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and the
Grinnell factors, and thus is substantively fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Court affirmed its prior decision finally approving
the Settlement Agreement and certifying the Settlement Class. In
addition, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's
fee application for Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses, and class representative incentive awards. The Court
hereby approved and awarded: (1) attorneys' fees in the amount of
$3,169,335.02, (2) litigation expenses and charges in the amount of
$138,331.23, and (3) class representative incentive awards of
$10,000 to Plaintiff Kurtz. The payment shall be paid by Defendant
Kimberly-Clark Corporation to Plaintiff and Class Counsel in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, says the
Order.
The appellate case is captioned as Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, Case No. 24-425, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on February 22, 2024.[BN]
Objector-Appellant THEODORE H. FRANK is represented by:
Anna St. John, Esq.
HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE
1629 K Street, NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
L'ANTICA PIZZERIA: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'ANTICA PIZZERIA DA MICHELE NYC, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01541-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 29, 2024) is
a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.damicheleusa.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she
attempted multiple times, most recently on February 16, 2024, to
access Defendant's website from her home but encountered barriers
that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online content
and services.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
L'ANTICA PIZZERIA DA MICHELE NYC, LLC is a pizzeria from Naples,
Italy, now with locations in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 102
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
LANTRONIX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on April 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Action reports that if you suffered a loss on your
Lantronix, Inc. (NASDAQ:LTRX) investment and want to learn about a
potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the
link below for more information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/lantronix-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=70729&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Lantronix, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who
were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between May 11,
2023 and February 8, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that:
(i) Lantronix overstated demand and/or its visibility into
demand for its IoT products, network-enabled devices, excluding
traditional computers like laptops and servers;
(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 all the foregoing, Lantronix anticipated
lower sales for its embedded IoT solutions for fiscal year 2024;
(v) accordingly, Lantronix was unlikely to meet its own
previously issued guidance for fiscal year 2024; and
(vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Lantronix, Inc. stock during
the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go
to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/lantronix-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=70729&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
MAR TILE: Aparicio Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo E. Aparicio, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Mar Tile Design Corp., and Jose
J. Herrera, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00420 (M.D.
Fla., February 29, 2024) is an action to recover monetary damages
for unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated the FLSA by failing
to pay him and other similarly situated individuals the proper
compensation for every regular and overtime hour worked at the rate
of time and one-half their regular rate.
Plaintiff Aparicio was employed by the Defendants as a tile
installer helper from approximately September 7, 2022 to November
30, 2022, or 12 weeks.
Mar Tile Design is a remodeling contractor specializing in tile
design and installations based in Winter Garden, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
MDL 1869: Exhibits in Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation Excluded
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION (MDL 1869), Case No. 1:07-mc-00489-PLF-GMH
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Paul Friedman entered an order that the
exhibits shall be excluded or admitted.
The Court further orders that the Defendants -– operating in good
faith and consistent with the analysis set forth in this opinion --
shall submit proposed redactions for the following exhibits on or
before Mar. 18, 2024: PX0610, PX0596, PX0237, PX0595, PX0120,
PX0253, PX0242, PX0167, PX0474, PX0067, PX0085, Oxbow 24, PX0095,
PX0612, and Oxbow 8.
The Plaintiffs shall file any objections to the Defendants'
proposed redactions on or before Apr. 1, 2024.
These cases involve allegations of a conspiracy to fix prices in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1.
The Plaintiffs in Rail Freight, purchasers of rail freight
transportation services, allege that defendants, BNSF Railway
Company, CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Railway
Company, and Union Pacific Railroad Company, "engaged in a
price-fixing conspiracy to coordinate their fuel surcharge programs
as a means to impose supra
competitive total price increases on their shipping customers."
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 4, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=doyEks
at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 1869: Exhibits in Oxbow Carbon Antitrust Litigation Excluded
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OXBOW CARBON & MINERALS
LLC et al v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, et al. (RAIL FREIGHT
FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL 1869), Case No.
1:11-cv-01049-PLF-GMH (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Paul Friedman
entered an order that the exhibits shall be excluded or admitted.
The Court further orders that the Defendants -– operating in good
faith and consistent with the analysis set forth in this opinion --
shall submit proposed redactions for the following exhibits on or
before Mar. 18, 2024: PX0610, PX0596, PX0237, PX0595, PX0120,
PX0253, PX0242, PX0167, PX0474, PX0067, PX0085, Oxbow 24, PX0095,
PX0612, and Oxbow 8.
The Plaintiffs shall file any objections to the Defendants'
proposed redactions on or before Apr. 1, 2024.
These cases involve allegations of a conspiracy to fix prices in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1.
The Plaintiffs in Rail Freight, purchasers of rail freight
transportation services, allege that defendants, BNSF Railway
Company, CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Railway
Company, and Union Pacific Railroad Company, "engaged in a
price-fixing conspiracy to coordinate their fuel surcharge programs
as a means to impose supra competitive total price increases on
their shipping customers."
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UT8dza at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3060: Plaintiffs Respond to Motion to Dismiss Hair Relaxer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for aboutlawsuits.com, reports that lawyers
representing women nationwide who were exposed to an increased risk
of cancer from toxic hair relaxer products in recent years, are
asking the U.S. District Judge presiding over the litigation to
reject an effort by the cosmetic manufacturers to dismiss claims
being pursued in class action lawsuits, indicating that the
companies are just rehashing "failed arguments" already rejected by
the Court.
According to a docket report released on March 1, there are
currently at least 8,334 product liability lawsuits filed by women
who indicate that they developed uterine cancer, ovarian cancer,
fibroids or other injuries that were caused by exposure to
endocrine disrupting chemicals in Dark & Lovely, Just for Me,
Optimum, ORS Olive Oil and other chemical hair straighteners that
have been frequently used by African American women for decades.
The litigation emerged in late 2022, following the publication of a
study that highlighted a link between use of hair relaxer and
uterine cancer, finding that women who regularly used the products
face a 156% increased risk compared to women who did not use hair
relaxers.
As a result of those findings, women throughout the U.S. began
filing Dark & Lovely lawsuits, Just for Me lawsuits and similar
claims against the makers of other popular hair relaxers, as well
as hair relaxer class action lawsuits seeking financial
compensation and medical monitoring, each raising similar
allegations that a desire for profits was placed before the health
of consumers.
Given common questions of fact and law raised in hair relaxer
lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system, the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established
coordinated pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of
Illinois under U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland in January 2023.
Motion to Dismiss Hair Relaxer Class Action Lawsuit
In early February, defendants filed a motion to dismiss class
action lawsuits over the toxic hair relaxer chemicals, arguing that
the claims for economic harm are preempted by federal law, and that
plaintiffs have not filed sufficient claim of injury, and that they
lack standing to file a nationwide class action.
On March 11 plaintiffs entered a response to the motion to dismiss,
indicating that the arguments being put forward by defendants have
already been addressed by the Court, and should be rejected.
"In the present Complaint, Plaintiffs again allege that Defendants'
hair relaxer products are toxic and carcinogenic, with scientific
studies showing higher risks of ovarian and uterine cancer
associated with use of those products," the response states.
"However, Defendants argue this motion almost as if this Court's
prior motion-to-dismiss ruling does not exist; their memorandum in
support of their motion to dismiss contains almost no discussion of
it at all and rehashes failed arguments from their prior motion."
Plaintiffs indicate defendants' positions are inconsistent with the
law, and note in a previous ruling against a motion to dismiss, the
Court pointed out that it is required to look at the complaint "in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff", noting that detailed,
factual allegations are not required for the complaint to move
forward.
They argue that the hair relaxer class action lawsuits have been
adequately pled, and that the claim of economic damages is
sufficient.
The Court has yet to rule on the defendants' motion. However, even
if the class action lawsuits were dismissed, it would not affect
thousands of personal injury claims filed against the
manufacturers.
March 2024 Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Update
In November, parties proposed competing draft hair relaxer lawsuit
bellwether trial plans, which outlined a process for selecting
potential bellwether cases and putting them through case-specific
discovery in preparation for early trial dates. However, the
parties have been unable to agree on several key points regarding
the bellwether selections, as well as when the first trials should
begin, and how big a factor general causation should play in the
early phases of the litigation.
Following a hair relaxer lawsuit status conference held last week,
it is expected that Judge Rowland will issue a case management
order establishing how the litigation will move forward.
While the stated intention of bellwether trials is to identify the
most representative lawsuits, parties in complex litigation often
jockey to make selections that are most beneficial to their side,
as the average hair relaxer lawsuit payouts will have a substantial
impact on the amount of money the manufacturers may be required to
pay to avoid the need for thousands of individual cases to go
before separate juries nationwide.
Following coordinated discovery in the MDL and any early bellwether
trials, if the parties fail to negotiate hair relaxer settlements
for individuals diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer,
ovarian cancer, uterine fibroids and other complications, Judge
Rowland may later remand each individual lawsuit directly filed in
the MDL back to the U.S. District Court where it would have
originated for a separate trial. [GN]
MEDICURE PHARMA: Sandusky File Placeholder Bid for Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDUSKY WELLNESS CENTER,
LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, v.
MEDICURE PHARMA INCORPORATED, a New Jersey corporation, Case No.
3:24-cv-00402-JZ (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff files this
"placeholder" motion for class certification to protect against any
potential attempt by the Defendant to moot its claims through the
tendering of individual relief.
In other words, the Plaintiff files this motion to prevent a
"pick-off" of its claims. The Plaintiff also submits its
accompanying brief in support.
The Court should allow the Plaintiff to keep a motion for class
certification on file to protect against any attempt by the
Defendant to "pick-off" its individual claims in order to "moot"
the case before the Court can decide the issue of class
certification.
The Plaintiff proposes the following class definition:
All persons who on or after four years prior to the filing
of
this action were successfully sent telephone facsimile
messages the same or similar to the Fax attached to the
Complaint as Exhibits A.
Medicure is a pharmaceutical company, focusing on the development
and commercialization of therapeutics of cardiovascular products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KQn6zW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
MICHAEL GRANT: Faces Leon Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos G. Leon, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Michael Grant Painting L.L.C., Michael
Grant, and Allison Grant, Individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-20807 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 29, 2024) is an action to recover
monetary damages from the Defendants for unpaid regular wages and
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Leon was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time painter from approximately May 1, 2022, to December 23,
2023, or 86 weeks. While employed by Defendants, he worked from
Monday to Friday or 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff has deducted
2.5 of lunchtime weekly.
On December 23, 2023, Plaintiff complained to his supervisor and
owner of the business, Michael Grant, about his unpaid wages. The
Plaintiff had not received compensation for two consecutive weeks.
As a result of Plaintiff's complaints, Defendants fired him the
same day. At the time of his termination, Defendants refused to pay
his overdue wages, the Plaintiff asserts.
Michael Grant Painting L.L.C. is a painting contractor providing
commercial and residential painting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
MICROSOFT CORP: May Face Class Suit Over Minecraft Data Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rafly Gilang, writing for MSPowerUser, reports that a law firm
alleges that Microsoft, owner of Minecraft, might have breached the
privacy of users who purchased Minecraft games through the
Minecraft.net website while logged into Facebook.
Attorneys collaborating with ClassAction.org suspect that
Microsoft, the owner of Minecraft, may have violated federal
privacy laws by utilizing a tracking tool called the Meta Pixel to
covertly transmit user data to Facebook for advertising purposes.
(Update: The website has apparently been up for quite some time.)
The alleged violations pertain to the sharing of information
regarding game purchases made on Minecraft.net, including titles
such as Minecraft, Minecraft Legends, or Minecraft Dungeons, along
with corresponding Facebook IDs.
This could have let Facebook connect what users bought with their
profiles, sparking worries about privacy. Joining the effort won't
cost anything, and you could get up to $2,500 under privacy laws.
Meta Pixel, formerly known as Facebook Pixel, is a tool offered by
Meta (formerly Facebook) that helps businesses track and understand
how users interact with their website after viewing Facebook or
Instagram ads.
Just this year, popular entertainment company AMC agreed to pay
$8.3 million to settle claims over its use of Meta Pixel (via
ArsTehnica). It was alleged that AMC unlawfully shared viewers'
watching habits with companies like Google, Facebook, and X.
Novant Health, a major North Carolina hospital system, also settled
a patient lawsuit for $6.6 million over its use of Meta Pixel on
its website (via WRAL). This followed reports that WakeMed, Duke
University Hospital, and UNC Health also used similar pixels to
handle their patients' data. [GN]
MID SOUTH WAFFLES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Armes Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE ARMES and MARKESHA FAULKNER, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. MID SOUTH WAFFLES, INC.,
d/b/a WAFFLE HOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00098 (E.D. Tenn.,
Feb. 29, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiffs wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs were paid the same rate --
below the applicable minimum wage -- for both tipped work and
non-tipped work. As a result of the policies put in place by
Defendant, the Plaintiffs were often required to perform non-tipped
work for less than minimum wage.
Plaintiff Armes was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
server from approximately January 2023 until December 2023 at its
location in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Plaintiff Faulkner was also employed as an hourly-paid Server from
approximately June 2019 until September 2023, and during this
tenure she worked at its location in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, among
other locations in Tennessee.
Mid South Waffles, Inc., d/b/a Waffle House, owns and operates
restaurants throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
NEMOURS FOUNDATION: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 18
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJMANIN STRUSOWSKI, et
al., v. THE NEMOURS FOUNDATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00537-JMY (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
a. The Plaintiffs shall file a Motion for Class Certification
by
Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2024.
b. The Plaintiffs shall produce their expert report(s) by
Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2024.
c. the Defendant shall file any opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for Class Certification by Monday, Dec. 21, 2024.
d. The Defendant shall produce its expert report(s) by Monday,
Dec. 21, 2024.
e. The Plaintiffs shall file any response/reply to the
Defendant's opposition to a motion for class certification
by
Monday, Feb. 24, 2025.
f. This case is referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Carol
Sandra Moore-Wells for settlement purposes.
g. Counsel are referred to Judge Younge's operating procedures
for further information:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/judges-
info/district-court-judges/johnmilton-younge
Nemours Foundation is a non-profit organization in Jacksonville,
Florida dedicated to improving the health of children.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZtFTEj at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW SOUTH WALES: Sued Over Breach of Racial Discrimination Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Howarth, writing for sbs.com.au, reports that South Coast
Native Title claim holders have filed a class action against the
State of New South Wales alleging a breach of the Racial
Discrimination Act.
Traditional Owners say the state breached the Act by prosecuting
Aboriginal fishers who were participating in protected cultural
fishing practices.
The class action, filed in the Federal Court of Australia, is
brought on behalf of individuals who were fined or jailed, as well
as their families and the broader community who were indirectly
impacted by the prosecutions.
Walbunja Elder, Uncle Wally Stewart, from the NSW Aboriginal
Fishing Rights group, told NITV prosecuting Aboriginal people for
exercising cultural fishing practices has destroyed lives in a
multitude of ways from culture to health.
"When we couldn't access those resources it changed our diet," Mr
Stewart said.
"Our people got high diabetes and heart disease, and they were
overweight because they were too scared to go and fish because
every time they went down to the water the fisheries were there
searching their cars and they'd turn up with the police."
Mr Stewart said intimidation and the threat of prosecution was used
to keep mob away from the water.
"We were too scared to hand that culture down to our community
because it was like we were teaching them to be criminals," he
said.
The class action is seeking damages on behalf of more than 10,000
claimants for breaches of the Racial Discrimination Act, including
cultural loss, over an almost 30 year period, from 1 January 1994
to 27 June 2023.
A lot of people were sent to jail and a lot of our community down
here on the South Coast got their first criminal record from
fishing.
Mr Stewart said the impact has been generational and widespread
throughout the community and families.
"There were people who were sent to jail who were the breadwinners
in our community, and when they were sent to jail their family
structure was breaking down.
"These guys are coming out of jail with mental health issues and
couldn't understand why they were being sent to jail because we
were taught about our fishing rights and how to look after the
water and feed our families."
Mr Stewart added that some of those prosecuted have also been
handed bail conditions that ban them from going near the water for
up to five years.
"That's taking their culture away from them straight away. What
right have they got to do that?"
Despite prosecuting traditional owners for practising culture under
the Native Title Act, Mr Stewart said the state enables the abalone
industry to damage the reef and legally exploit the area.
"When we go fishing some of our guys might come out of the water
with five or six kilos, but [abalone fisheries] are legally allowed
to take 100 tonne of abalone a year," he said.
The damage to the area, he said, is so widespread from
unsustainable fishing practices that passing on cultural knowledge
has been hindered.
"I'm so disappointed, some of the places I go now were rich places
and we knew the indicators but you can't even get the indicators
now because it's not the same anymore."
Lawyer Tristan Gaven, representing the claimants, said the
prosecutions have impacted the entire South Coast Aboriginal
community.
"The ongoing prosecution of Indigenous fishers on the South Coast
exercising their cultural fishing rights has not only caused
considerable personal distress, humiliation and intimidation to
those people fined and jailed, but also their families and the
broader community," Mr Gaven said.
"We know that these prosecutions have stopped people from passing
on these traditional practices to their children and grandchildren
out of fear exposing them to criminal charges."
Mr Stewart said he wants to restore and revitalise Country.
"I can see my water damaged and I want to fix it up, my duty is to
fix this water up and this government needs to put some money into
fixing our reef." [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Settlement in Sow Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adama Sow, David Jaklevic,
Alexandra De Mucha Pino, Oscar Rios, Barbara Ross, Matthew Bredder,
Sabrina Zurkuhlen, Maria Salazar, Dara Pluchino and Savitri Durkee,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. City Of
New York; Mayor Bill De Blasio; New York City Police Department
Commissioner Dermot Shea; New York City Police Department Chief of
Department Terence Monahan; NYPD Detective Edward Carrasco; NYPD
Officer Kevin Agro; and NYPD Offices John and Jane Does 1-40, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00533-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Colleen McMahon
entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
class action settlement, final certification of the settlement
class, determination that the Court's preliminary approval orders,
approval of service award payments, approval of individual
Plaintiffs' settlements and approval of class counsel's attorneys'
fees and cost:
1. Certification of Settlement Class
"All persons who were arrested and subjected to force, by
NYPD
officers during the "George Floyd protests" at the dates and
locations in par. 32 of the Amended Stipulation of Settlement
and allege any of the Released Claims described in par. 31 of
the Amended Stipulation of Settlement."
2. Total Award Payment of the Class
Each eligible class members will be paid $9.950.
3. The Class Administrator has calculated the total awards
payout
to be approximately $9,532,100.
4. Attorneys' Fees and Costs
The Court finds that the requested negotiated payment of
$5,850,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel
for
work performed through June 15, 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GlshmP at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK: Court Certifies Two Classes of Minors in C.K. v. NYSDOH
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York grants the parties' joint motion and
certifies their agreed upon class definitions in the lawsuit
captioned C.K. through his next friend P.K.; C.W. through her next
friend P.W.; C.X. through her next friend P.X.; C.Y. through his
next friend P.Y., for themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. James V. McDonald, in his official capacity as the
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; Ann Marie
T. Sullivan, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New
York State Office of Mental Health, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01791-NJC-JMW (E.D.N.Y.).
The named Plaintiffs in this action are four minors, each of whom
proceed through their "Next Friend" on behalf of themselves and two
putative classes to bring claims against New York State officials
for failure to ensure that the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
children with mental health conditions, who require intensive home
and community-based mental health services, receive mental health
services as required under federal laws.
The Plaintiffs bring claims for injunctive and declaratory relief
under: (1) the Medicaid Act; (2) 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (3) Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); and (4) Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA").
Before the Court is the parties' joint motion to certify two
proposed classes, extend current litigation deadlines, and stay
litigation activity for three months for the purpose of settlement
discussions.
On March 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Mary T.
Bassett, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Health and Ann Marie T. Sullivan, in her
official capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Office
of Mental Health. James V. McDonald, the current Commissioner of
the New York State Department of Health, was automatically
substituted for former Commissioner Basset pursuant to Rule 25(d)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants Sullivan and
McDonald, and former Defendant Bassett, are collectively referred
to as the "Defendants."
On Oct. 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against
the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants' policies and
practices fail to ensure compliance with the Medicaid Act, ADA, and
RA requirements to timely provide or arrange for the provision of
intensive home and community-based mental health services for
children in New York.
On Nov. 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs timely filed a motion for class
certification and served expert reports on the Defendants in
accordance with the schedule adopted by Judge Brian M. Cogan prior
to the reassignment of this case to this Court's docket.
The Defendants subsequently moved for an extension of time to
complete expert discovery and to file their response to the class
certification motion, which the Plaintiffs opposed. After the Dec.
12, 2023 hearing on the Defendants' motion for an extension of
time, the Court found that the Defendants failed to show good cause
for the extension but nevertheless extended the expert discovery
and class certification motion briefing schedule as set forth in
the Plaintiffs' proposed revised schedule.
On Jan. 17, 2024, the Court held a status conference at which the
parties reported on their ongoing discussions to resolve the
Plaintiffs' class certification motion without a court ruling. The
Defendants asked for a four-week extension of the Feb. 26, 2024
deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion and serve opposing expert
reports, and argued that the opposing expert report deadline
applies only to experts procured by the Defendants to oppose the
Plaintiffs' class certification motion, rather than all experts
whom the Defendants intend to rely upon at trial. The Plaintiffs
opposed the request.
At the conference, the parties agreed, however, that if they were
to reach a stipulation as to the definition of the two classes
proposed by the Plaintiffs, as well as the facts supporting class
certification, the parties would jointly seek a stay of discovery
deadlines to permit the parties to engage in settlement
negotiations in a process overseen by the Court, which could
potentially resolve the Plaintiffs' claims.
The Court extended the deadlines for briefing the class
certification motion and serving opposing and reply expert reports,
granting the parties a two-week period of time to focus on
determining whether they could resolve the class certification
motion.
On Feb. 8, 2024, the parties filed the Joint Motion, stipulating to
the definition of two classes and requesting an extension of
deadlines and a litigation stay to permit the parties to engage in
a three-month period of settlement negotiations overseen by the
Court.
The parties seek certification of the proposed classes under Rules
23(a) and (b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., in order to resolve the
litigation efficiently and expeditiously, without needless motion
practice. The parties also agree, among other things, that none of
their stipulations will be deemed to constitute a finding of
wrongdoing or liability by the Defendants or that any of their
alleged actions or omissions violated the Plaintiffs' rights under
any federal, state, or local law or regulation and that none of
their stipulations will be deemed to constitute a waiver by the
Parties of any right they may have to seek the modification,
alteration, or de-certification of the Plaintiff classes pursuant
to Rule 23.
The parties agree that the following definitions of two proposed
classes meet the requirements for class certification under Rules
23(a) and (b)(2) and that the action may be appropriately litigated
as a Rule 23(b)(2) class action:
1. The "EPSDT Class" is defined as consisting of all current
or future Medicaid eligible children in New York State under
the age of 21 (a) who have been diagnosed with a mental
health or behavioral health condition, not attributable to
an intellectual or developmental disability, and (b) for
whom a licensed practitioner of the healing arts acting
within the scope of practice under state law has recommended
intensive home and community-based mental health services
("IHCB-EPSDT Services") to correct or ameliorate their
conditions; and
2. The "ADA Class" is defined as consisting of all current or
future Medicaid eligible children in New York State under
the age of 21 (a) who have been diagnosed with a mental
health or behavioral health condition, not attributable to
an intellectual or developmental disability, that
substantially limits one or more major life activities, (b)
for whom a licensed practitioner of the healing arts acting
within the scope of practice under state law has recommended
IHCB-EPSDT Services to correct or ameliorate their
conditions or who have been determined eligible for HCBS
Waiver Services (as defined in the Amended Complaint, and
(c) who are segregated, institutionalized, or at serious
risk of becoming institutionalized due to their mental
health or behavioral health condition.
In support of certification of the EPSDT Class and the ADA Class as
defined, the parties stipulate that the term "IHCB-EPSDT Services"
includes: (1) Intensive Care Coordination; (2) Intensive,
home-based behavioral health services; and (3) Mobile Crisis
Services.
Judge Choudhury finds that the Proposed Classes meet the Rule 23(a)
requirements, and the requirements for certification of a Rule
23(b)(2) class for injunctive and declaratory relief.
The parties agree that a three-month extension of expert discovery
and class certification motion briefing deadlines in the current
case schedule will permit them to engage in settlement negotiations
in a process overseen by the Court, which could potentially resolve
the Plaintiffs' claims.
Finally, the Court grants the parties' requested stay of all
litigation activity through April 30, 2024, to permit counsel for
the parties and staff of the Defendants' agencies to concentrate on
settlement discussions without the pressure of imminent litigation
deadlines.
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order, the Court
grants the Parties' Joint Motion to certify the proposed EPSDT and
ADA Classes, extend current litigation deadlines, and stay
litigation activity for three months for the purpose of settlement
discussions.
The parties are directed to file on ECF a jointly proposed schedule
laying out the process for Court involvement in the parties'
settlement negotiations.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 22,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ms2czs68 from
PacerMonitor.com.
NONNI'S FOODS: Bardsley Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lisa Bardsley and Andre
Haskett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Nonni's Foods LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-02979-NSR-JCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b), and (c):
-- Certifying all persons who purchased lemon biscotti cookies
purporting to be flavored mainly or exclusively by lemon sold
by
Nonni's Foods LLC in New York during the statutes of
limitations,
excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to this case;
Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling
interest; Defendant’s officers, directors, legal
representatives,
successors, and assigns;
-- Appointing Lisa Bardsley and Andre Haskett as representatives
of
the Class; and
-- Appointing Sheehan & Associates, P.C. as Class Counsel.
Nonni's manufactures bakery products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k8jVes at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are 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
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Derailment Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Gorman, writin for Salem News, reports that a federal judge
denied a request by Norfolk Southern to dismiss the class action
lawsuit against them as a result of the Feb. 3, 2023, derailment of
a train carrying chemicals that court papers said was dubbed "32
Nasty" by rail workers because of concerns over its safety.
U.S. Judge Benita Y. Pearson in the U.S. Northern District Court of
Ohio also denied claims by three companies named as third-party
defendants by Norfolk Southern to have their cases dismissed as
well, except for one claim.
She also denied motions by those companies -- OxyVinyls LP and GATX
Corp. and General American Marks Co. -- to dismiss the class action
suit.
The plaintiffs in the cases are seeking damages for economic losses
caused by the derailment, as well as for emotional distress. Jury
selection in the case is set for March 31, 2025.
The derailment caused a leak of chemicals that were being carried
by the rail cars, and the decision was made later to burn off the
chemicals, which resulted in a gigantic smoke plume that made
headlines across the world.
In her ruling on Norfolk Southern's request, Judge Pearson wrote
that in prior court documents the train that was officially known
as 32N was known by railway workers as "32 Nasty" to rail workers
because of their concerns about its safety risks."
The derailment was caused by a failed bearing on one of the cars,
Judge Pearson wrote.
Norfolk Southern asked for the suit and any claim for punitive
damages to be dismissed, saying there was "no single actionable
claim," Judge Pearson wrote.
Judge Pearson wrote that the complaint "alleges conduct sufficient
to support a request for punitive damages" as one of the reasons
for her denial of Norfolk Southern's request.
As for the three companies named as third-party defendants in the
suit, Judge Pearson denied their request except for one claim.
Under civil procedure, the defendant in the case can file a claim
against a third party, claiming that the third party is responsible
for all or part of the damages in the case. Norfolk Southern asked
last summer that the parties be considered third-party defendants
because of their work handling the rail cars or chemicals. [GN]
NURSEFINDERS LLC: Class Action, PAGA Settlement Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATOYA HONEY WALKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v.
NURSEFINDERS, LLC; AMN SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1–100, inclusive,
Case No. 3:22-cv-04084-AGT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Alex Tse
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action and PAGA settlement:
1. The Court grants preliminary certification of the provisional
Settlement Class, in accordance with the Settlement, for the
purposes of this Settlement only.
2. The Court authorizes the retention of Phoenix Class Action
Administration Solutions as Settlement Administrator for the
purpose of the Settlement, with reasonable administration
costs.
3. The Court conditionally appoints Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP as Counsel for the Settlement Class.
4. The Court hereby appoints Plaintiff LaToya Honey Walker as
Representative for the Settlement Class.
5. Class Counsel's requests for attorneys' fees in the amount of
33
1/3% of the Gross Settlement Amount, or $1,666,666.67, plus
their costs up to $20,000.00, are conditionally approved
subject
to Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and costs to be
heard at the time of the final fairness hearing.
Nursefinders is a nurse staffing agency and per diem nurse agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ErznDD at no extra
charge.[CC]
NUSCALE POWER: Lo Named as Lead Plaintiff in Sigman Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karin J. Immergut of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon appoints Plaintiff Lawrence Lo as lead plaintiff in the
securities class action lawsuit entitled SCOTT SIGMAN, and NUSCALE
INVESTMENT GROUP, Plaintiffs v. NUSCALE POWER CORPORATION, JOHN L.
HOPKINS, CHRIS COLBERT, ROBERT R. HAMADY, CLAYTON SCOTT, THOMAS
BASILE, and CARMEN CHASE, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01689-IM
(Lead Case), Case No. 3:23-cv-01956-IM (Trailing Case) (D. Or.).
Before the Court are dueling motions to appoint a lead plaintiff in
this class action securities litigation. The case concerns claims
of securities fraud against the Defendants for their alleged
misrepresentations and omissions concerning Defendant NuScale Power
Corporation's ability to fulfill two large contracts.
As alleged in the Complaint, two corrective disclosures led to
large falls in the stock price: first, an Iceberg Research report
published on Oct. 19, 2023, and second, a NuScale press release on
Nov. 8, 2023. The class period is March 15 to Nov. 8, 2023.
Earlier in this action, the Court consolidated the two
above-numbered actions because they raised identical securities
frauds claims against the same defendants. Although six parties
filed motions for appointment as lead counsel, four of these
parties then filed notices withdrawing, or effectively withdrawing,
their motions. Only Plaintiffs Dr. Kevin Liang Li and Mr. Lawrence
Lo, who filed responses in opposition to one another's motions,
remain as lead plaintiff candidates.
After considering Dr. Li's and Mr. Lo's filings, and in accord with
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the Court
appoints Mr. Lo as lead plaintiff to this litigation. Further,
consistent with Mr. Lo's selection of counsel, the Court appoints
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as lead counsel and Ransom, Gilbertson,
Martin & Ratliff, LLP, as local liaison counsel. The Court,
accordingly, denies Dr. Li's Motion to Appoint Lead Counsel, and
grants Mr. Lo's Motion to Appoint Lead Counsel.
Defendant NuScale is a nuclear power company that develops small
modular reactor technology. Defendants John L. Hopkins, Chris
Colbert, Robert R. Hamady, and Clayton Scott are current or former
executives of NuScale.
At the heart of this case are two contracts NuScale entered into in
2015 and 2023. In 2015, it contracted with Utah Associated
Municipal Power Systems ("UAMPS") to build a power plant by 2029.
This contract was valued at over $9 billion. It also included a
subscription target. Then, in October 2023, NuScale contracted with
Standard Power to build two power plants by 2029. This contract was
valued at $37 billion.
During the class period of March 15 to Nov. 8, 2023, the Defendants
expressed optimism about NuScale's ability to fulfill these
contracts. In the Plaintiffs' view, however, the Defendants'
positive statements about NuScale's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
In particular, the Plaintiffs say, the Defendants misled investors
regarding these two contracts because they failed to disclose that:
(1) due to the impact of inflationary pressures on the cost of
construction and power, NuScale and UAMPS would be unable to sign
up enough subscribers to reach their contract's subscription
target; and (2) Standard Power did not have the financial ability
to support its agreement with NuScale.
On Oct. 19, 2023, the first corrective disclosure in this action
occurred: Iceberg Research released a report that identified these
two issues and accordingly questioned whether NuScale could fulfill
the two contracts. As a result, on Oct. 19, 2023, NuScale's share
price fell $0.61 per share, or 12.0%, to close at $4.46 per share,
on unusually high trading volume, and on Oct. 20, 2023, the share
price continued to fall another $0.67 per share, or 14.9%, to close
at $3.80 per share, also on unusually high trading volume.
Next, on Nov. 8, 2023, the second corrective disclosure occurred:
after the market closed, NuScale and UAMPS announced that they had
mutually agreed to terminate their contract because they had failed
to engage enough subscribers. As a result, NuScale's share price
fell $1.02 per share, or 32.9%, to close at $2.08 per share on Nov.
9, 2023, again on unusually high trading volume.
The Complaint in the leading case was filed on Nov. 15, 2023. It
alleges that all Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Rule 10b-5 and that the individual Defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On the same day, a notice
concerning this class action was published in the Globe Newswire.
Consistent with the PSLRA, Federal District Judge Michael Mosman
ordered that any motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel be filed no later than Jan. 16, 2024. Although six parties
filed motions for appointment as lead counsel, four of these
parties then filed notices withdrawing, or effectively withdrawing,
their motions. Only Plaintiffs Dr. Kevin Liang Li and Mr. Lawrence
Lo, who filed responses in opposition to one another's motions,
remain as lead plaintiff candidates.
Both Mr. Lo and Dr. Li have alleged substantial financial losses
from the inflated price of NuScale shares. Mr. Lo bought 50,000
shares of NuScale on Oct. 9, 2023, and then sold all 50,000 on Oct.
20, 2023, the day after the first disclosure--resulting in losses
of $68,250. During the class period, Dr. Li bought 135,056 shares,
sold 15,955, and incurred losses of $56,503.89.
The Court appoints Mr. Lo as lead plaintiff explaining that he has
the largest monetary loss between himself and Dr. Li. The Court
finds he has made a prima facie showing that satisfies Rule 23's
adequacy and typicality requirements. And, in the Court's view, he
is not subject to unique defenses that disqualify him as lead
plaintiff.
The Court also appoints Mr. Lo's choice of counsel to lead this
litigation: The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel and Ransom,
Gilbertson, Martin & Ratliff as liaison counsel.
Judge Immergut says the lead counsel and liaison counsel, after
being appointed by the Court, will manage the prosecution of this
litigation. Lead counsel and liaison counsel are to avoid
duplicative or unproductive activities and are vested by the Court
with the responsibilities that include, without limitation, the
following: (1) to prepare all pleadings; (2) to direct and
coordinate the briefing and arguing of motions in accordance with
the schedules set by the orders and rules of this Court; (3) to
coordinate the selection of counsel to act as a spokesperson at
pretrial conferences; (4) to call meetings of the Plaintiffs'
counsel as they deem necessary and appropriate from time to time;
(5) to initiate and direct discovery; (6) prepare the case for
trial; (7) to engage in settlement negotiations on behalf of lead
plaintiff and the class; and (8) to supervise any other matters
concerning the prosecution, resolution or settlement of the
securities class action.
Within 28 days of entry of this Opinion and Order, Judge Immergut
directs Mr. Lo to file an amended consolidated complaint solely in
the leading case. The Defendants will respond to the consolidated
complaint within 28 days of its filing.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 22,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/226xcwz5 from
PacerMonitor.com.
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Filing for Class Cert Response in Pauli Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 22,
2022), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order granting
motion for extension of time to file response / reply motion to
certify class.
-- The Defendants response to motion due by: April 10, 2024
-- The Plaintiffs Reply to Response to Motion May 1, 2024
due by:
The nature of suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).[CC]
Ollie's is an American chain of discount closeout retailers.
OLYMPIC AVENUE: Banks Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN BANKS, an individual, and other aggrieved employees,
Plaintiff v. Olympic Avenue Venture, Inc., a California Corporation
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV05135
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 29, 2024) arises from the
unlawful labor practices of Defendants in violation of the
California Labor Code.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage
for all hours worked, failure to pay wages at the agreed upon rate,
taking of employee gratuities, failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide compensation at time of termination, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to maintain accurate
records.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an exotic dancer from
2021 to 2023.
The Defendants operate an adult entertainment club known as
Spearmint Rhino Gentlemen's Club in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Rist, Esq.
RIST LAW OFFICE, LC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 377-4660
E-mail: tom@sdvictimlaw.com
OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Class Suit Over Rexulti Side Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saba Aziz, writing for Global News, reports that the companies
behind a prescription drug that was recently approved to treat
symptoms of agitation in Alzheimer's patients are facing a
class-action lawsuit over alleged "harmful side effects" to
patients.
The lawsuit relates to the antipsychotic drug Rexulti, which was
approved by Health Canada in January for managing agitation
associated with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease in patients
with aggressive behaviour that is unresponsive to
non-pharmacological approaches.
Rexulti was also previously approved in Canada for the treatment of
schizophrenia in adults and as an additional therapy to
antidepressants in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).
The Superior Court of Quebec authorized a national class action
earlier March on behalf of all Canadians who were prescribed and
used Rexulti and developed some side effects.
In a news release, Toronto law firm Rochon Genova LLP said the
class action seeks, among other things, damages for both personal
injuries and financial loss as well as damages allegedly suffered
by family members of individuals taking Rexulti.
The lawsuit alleges that Rexulti can cause compulsive behaviours
and impulse control disorders, including compulsive gambling,
hypersexuality, compulsive shopping and binge eating.
It also alleges that the pharmaceutical companies Otsuka Canada
Pharmaceutical Inc. and Lundbeck Canada Inc., which co-developed
Rexulti, "failed to adequately warn" patients and their doctors of
this risk.
Moreover, the pharmaceutical companies allegedly "failed to conduct
adequate research and testing in relation to those side effects and
conspired to conceal the risks of these harmful side effects from
the Class Members," according to the law firm.
Both Otsuka Canada Pharmaceutical Inc. and Lundbeck Canada Inc.
have denied these allegations. The court has yet to rule on the
merits of the class action.
Class members include all Canadian residents who were prescribed
and used Rexulti starting Feb. 16, 2017, and who developed one or
more of the following: compulsive gambling, hypersexuality, binge
eating, and compulsive shopping and/or spending.
Those who wish to opt out of this class action have until May 15 to
do so by mailing a signed form to the Superior Court of Québec in
Montreal.
Rexulti can be taken once daily with or without food.
Some of the side effects of the drug include diarrhea,
constipation, weight gain, headache, dizziness, anxiety,
sleep-walking, bladder infection and rash, according to Health
Canada. [GN]
PATREON INC: Bid for Class Cert. in Stark Suit Extended to July 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAYDEN STARK, JUDD
OOSTYEN, ISAAC BELENKIY, VALERIE BURTON, LAURA GOODFIELD and
DENOVIAS MACK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. PATREON, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-03131-JCS (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Joseph Spero entered an order that:
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of
their motion for class certification be extended to July 10,
2024.
-- The hearing on the Motion for Class Certification be continued
to
Aug. 16, 2024.
Patreon develops application software.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dAwRhD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Simon Grille, Esq.
Reid Gaa, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
sgrille@girardsharp.com
rgaa@girardsharp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Fred Norton, Esq.
Nathan Walker, Esq.
Bree Hann, Esq.
Gil Walton, Esq.
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
299 Third Street, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 906-4900
E-mail: fnorton@nortonlaw.com
nwalker@nortonlaw.com
bhann@nortonlaw.com
gwalton@nortonlaw.com
PELICIA HALL: Seeks Leave to Submit Identified "Doe" Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ALEXANDER, et al.,
V. PELICIA E. HALL, et al, Case No. 4:20-cv-00021-SA-JMV (N.D.
Miss.), the Defendants request leave to submit to the Court for in
camera review a legend identifying the names of Plaintiffs
identified as "Doe 1" through "Doe 14" in both parties' briefs on
class certification and the Defendants' previously-filed exhibits
in support of their response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Defendants also request leave to file under seal, and restrict
from public view, an un-redacted version of the Plaintiffs'
Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) records, a redacted version of
which the Defendants previously filed as Exhibit 34 to their
Response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
On Feb. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs submitted to the Court un-redacted
versions of the Plaintiffs' deposition transcripts and other
exhibits that Plaintiffs moved to restrict from public view.
The deposition transcripts Plaintiffs submitted to the Court on
Feb. 9, 2024, identified the Plaintiffs' names and the additional
information that Plaintiffs claimed could be used to discover the
identities of the Plaintiff.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U8GqQt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Claire Barker, Esq.
LYNN FITCH
Jackson, MS 39205-0220
Telephone: (601) 359-3523
E-mail: Claire.Barker@ago.ms.gov
- and -
William Trey Jones, III, Esq.
Karen E. Howell, Esq.
Cody C. Bailey, Esq.
L. Kyle Williams, Esq.
Jacob A. Bradley, Esq.
J. Breland Parker, Esq.
BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC
The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100
190 East Capitol Street (39201)
Post Office Drawer 119
Jackson, MS 39205
Telephone: (601) 948-3101
Facsimile: (601) 960-6902
E-mail: tjones@brunini.com
khowell@brunini.com
cbailey@brunini.com
kyle.williams@brunini.com
jbradley@brunini.com
bparker@brunini.com
PEORIA, IL: Court Sets Rule 16 Scheduling Conference in Oxford Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oxford House, Inc., v.
City of Peoria, Illinois, Case No. 1:23-cv-01406 (C.D. Ill., Filed
Oct 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Joe Billy Mcdade entered an order
order Setting Scheduling Conference (Rule 16).
-- If the complaint makes allegations on behalf of a class, the
proposed discovery plan should include a deadline for filing a
motion to certify class at a stage early in the case.
-- The Discovery Plan event may be found in the CM/ECF system
within
the other Documents category.
-- All counsel must read and be familiar with the standing order
attached to this text order prior to their Rule 26(f) planning
meeting.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Peoria lies along the Illinois River where it widens to form Peoria
Lake.[CC]
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Courtmanche and 2 Suits Given to Judge Navarro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada transfers three
lawsuits to Judge Gloria M. Navarro: Brian Courtmanche, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Permian Resources Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00198-GMN-MDC (D. Nev.); Laurie Olsen Santillo, Plaintiff
v. Permian Resources Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00279-APG-EJY (D. Nev.); and Richard Beaumont, Plaintiff v.
Permian Resources Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00298-CDS-BNW (D. Nev.).
Each of the Plaintiffs, in a proposed class action, bring claims
arising from an alleged conspiracy among the largest U.S. shale oil
producers to coordinate and constrain U.S. shale oil production.
The Plaintiffs filed a notice of related cases in each case. These
cases are related to each other and to Case Nos.
2:24-cv-00103-GMN-MDC; 2:24-cv-00164-GMN-MDC;
2:24-cv-00150-GMN-MDC; 2:24-cv-00253-GMN-DJA.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that these cases involve
similar questions of law and fact. Indeed, the cases all assert
substantially overlapping claims and all share a common question of
law--whether the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to coordinate,
and ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production in
violation of federal and state antitrust laws. The same Defendants
are named in all cases and the claims are made by related putative
class members (consumers).
Because the related actions involve similar questions of fact and
law, and their assignment to the same district and magistrate judge
is likely to result in a substantial savings of judicial effort,
the Court transfers the subsequently-filed related actions to
District Judge Gloria M. Navarro and Magistrate Judge Maximiliano
D. Couvillier, III, for all further proceedings.
The Clerk of Court is, therefore, ordered to transfer and reassign
Case Nos. 2:24-cv-00198 JAD-MDC, 2:24-cv-00279-APG-EJY, and
2:24-cv-00298-CDS-BNW to District Judge Gloria M. Navarro and
Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III, for all further
proceedings.
These judges signed the Order: Gloria M. Navarro, Andrew P. Gordon,
Jennifer A. Dorsey and Cristina D. Silva.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/muu4wpc7 from PacerMonitor.com.
PLAYAGS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Playags 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 6, 2024, that the Company continues to
defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada.
On June 25, and July 31, 2020, putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada (the "Court"), by two separate plaintiffs against the
Company and certain of its officers, individually and on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities
between August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019.
The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), by making false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's forward-looking financial outlook and
accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming
reporting unit, resulting in injury to the purported class members
when the value of the Company's common stock declined following its
release of its Second Quarter 2019 results on August 7, 2019.
On August 4, 2020, a third plaintiff ("OPPRS") filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the same court asserting similar claims to
those alleged in the first two class action complaints, based on
substantially the same conduct, on behalf of a slightly larger
class (stretching back to May 3, 2018).
Specifically, OPPRS claimed that the Company, certain of its
officers, and certain entities that allegedly beneficially held
over 50% of the Company's common stock at the beginning of the
class period, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by allegedly making false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for
goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, and
the adequacy of its internal controls over financial reporting,
resulting in injury to the purported class when the Company's
common stock price declined following the release of its Second
Quarter 2019 results.
In addition, based on substantially similar alleged false or
misleading statements, OPPRS asserted claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), on behalf of all persons who purchased Company
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's August
2018 and March 2019 secondary public offerings.
These secondary-offering claims were brought against the same
defendants identified above, plus certain of the Company's
directors and the underwriters.
On October 28, 2020, the Court consolidated these three related
putative class actions into In re PlayAGS, Inc. Securities
Litigation and appointed OPPRS as lead plaintiff.
On January 11, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
in the consolidated action against the same set of defendants,
again asserting claims (i) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, with an even larger putative class period ( May 3,
2018 through March 4, 2020), and (ii) under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of the same putative class
as in OPPRS’s previous complaint.
The Amended Complaint alleges that statements the defendants made
about, among other things, the Company's growth, financial
performance, and forward-looking financial outlook were materially
false or misleading because the Company omitted to state that,
according to plaintiffs, its market strength was declining, its
growth strategies were unsustainable, and it was experiencing
challenges in the Oklahoma market.
Plaintiffs claim that the purported class was injured when the
common stock price declined after the alleged "truth" was revealed
following release of the Company's financial reports on August 7,
2019, November 7, 2019, and March 4, 2020.
Plaintiffs also assert that the Company violated Regulation S-K
Items 303 and 105 by failing to disclose these same alleged
negative trends and significant risks in the registration materials
for the Company's secondary offerings.
Unlike the previous complaints, the Amended Complaint does not
allege false or misleading statements concerning the Company's
accounting for the iGaming reporting unit or the adequacy of the
Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.
On February 23, 2021, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's
unopposed motion to file a Second Amended Complaint.
The Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 25, 2021 and
asserts substantially the same claims as the Amended Complaint but
extends the beginning of the putative class period back to
January 26, 2018.
On May 24, 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint, and on December 2, 2022, the court
granted in part and denied in part those motions.
It dismissed each of the five claims in the second amended
complaint—including all claims under the Securities Act—but the
court carved out from the dismissal a "scheme liability" claim
under Section 10(b), brought only against the Company, David Lopez,
and Kimo Akiona, which the court felt was insufficiently briefed.
The lead plaintiff was granted leave to file a further amended
complaint but chose not to, and instead seeks to move forward on
the sole remaining scheme liability claim.
On January 17, 2023, the Company, Mr. Lopez, and Mr. Akiona filed
an answer to the remaining claim, along with a motion to
temporarily stay discovery and a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that the legal findings contained in the
court’s December 2, 2022 decision require dismissal of the
scheme liability claim as well and termination of the action.
Those motions were fully briefed as of March 22, 2023.
On March 23, 2023, the Court decided the motion to temporarily
stay discovery in favor of the defendants, holding that all
discovery is stayed pending resolution of the motion for judgment
on the pleadings.
On February 13, 2024, the Court granted the motion for judgment on
the pleadings and dismissed the securities class action in full
with prejudice.
Plaintiffs may choose to appeal this dismissal.
The defendants believe all claims in the action are without merit,
and will continue to defend vigorously against them, but there can
be no assurances as to the outcome.
PlayAGS, Inc. is a designer and supplier of gaming products and
services for the gaming industry.
QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janine Pollack and George Feldman McDonald, writing for Cook County
Record, report that a class action lawsuit accuses Quaker Oats of
allegedly failing to disclose the presence of the plant growth
regulator chemical known as chlormequat in many of its products.
The lawsuit alleges the company has violated a host of state
consumer protection laws, among other counts.
The lawsuit was filed March 11 in Chicago federal court by named
plaintiff Daniel Tepper, of New York.
The suit alleges that the company failed to disclose the presence
of a chemical known as chlormequat chloride in its oat-based
products.
The lawsuit claims that Quaker Oats has been misleading in its
packaging and marketing, omitting the fact that their products
contain or are at risk of containing chlormequat. According to the
complaint, this chemical is harmful and poses a risk of adverse
health impacts to consumers.
According to the complaint, the Environmental Working Group (EWG)
published a study showing the presence of chlormequat in certain
oat-based foods, including Quaker Oats' products. The study
allegedly found levels of chlormequat higher than EWG's suggested
health benchmark in all tested Quaker Oats products.
Chlormequat is used agriculturally to help strengthen plants. In
the case of oats, it prevents the plant from bending over and
touching the ground.
The lawsuit argues that oat production should not require the use
of chlormequat, pointing out that organic products tested did not
contain detectable levels of this chemical.
Plaintiffs seek to expand the action to include thousands of others
in the states of New York, California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri
and New Jersey who purchased Quaker Oats products containing oats.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified money damages, as well as
attorney fees.
They are represented by attorneys Janine L. Pollack, Lori G.
Feldman, David J. George and Brittany Sackrin, of the firm of
George Feldman McDonald PLLC, of New York and Lake Worth, Florida;
and Rebecca A. Peterson, of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, of
Minneapolis. [GN]
REHABCARE GROUP: Dakota Wins Bid for Add'l Class Distributions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion for approval
of additional class distributions and substitution of lead class
counsel in the lawsuit entitled DAKOTA MEDICAL, INC., individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
REHABCARE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM (E.D. Cal.).
On Sept. 21, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the class
action settlement in the amount of $25 million, awarded attorneys'
fees and incentive payments, and directed distribution of the
settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the
settlement administrator, KCC, distributed settlement checks in the
total sum of $6,739,088.97 to 12,294 class members.
This distribution occurred in two parts: Distribution 1A
($2,256,563.68) consisted of 4,823 checks payable to class members
that were entitled to receive less than $600 based on the
settlement formula, and to class members that were entitled to
receive $600 or more and had provided valid taxpayer identification
numbers ("TINs").
Distribution 1B ($4,482,525.29) consisted of 7,471 checks payable
to class members that were entitled to receive $600 or more but had
not provided valid TINs. In accordance with the final approval
order, these class members were mailed checks in the amount of
$599.99, as well as a notice informing them that their payments
were limited because KCC did not receive a valid TIN from them. KCC
reserved the balance of funds due to these members for payments in
subsequent years.
The Plaintiff has previously moved for Court approval of additional
class distributions, as provided by the settlement agreement, and
the Court granted those motions on Sept. 20, 2018, Dec. 27, 2019,
and Dec. 8, 2021.
The Plaintiff now moves for a fourth time for Court approval of
additional class distributions because KCC now holds a little over
$204,000 in class funds. The Plaintiff requests that the Court
direct KCC to: (1) restore the attorneys' expense reserve ($1,200)
to the class settlement fund; (2) distribute $192,891.32 to 7,585
eligible class members, who cashed checks from distribution 8A no
later than April 30, 2024; (3) apply an amount not to exceed
$19,414.00 from the settlement fund balance to cover costs of the
distribution; and (4) increase the administrative cost reserve by
$4,000 and use uncashed checks from the proposed distribution to
recapture the remaining administrative cost, not to exceed
$19,414.00, of the proposed distribution.
The settlement fund holds $1,200 for attorney expenses in reserve.
Pursuant to the court's final approval of the class action
settlement, the unused portion of the attorney expense reserve, if
any, was to return to the common fund after the initial
distribution.
Because $1,200 is currently held in the attorney expenses reserve
after multiple distributions, the Court finds that restoring the
$1,200 attorney expense reserve to the common fund is appropriate.
As noted, in total, the settlement fund now holds a little over
$204,000. After distribution costs, the average eligible class
members would receive $25.43. KCC estimates that the administrative
cost of the proposed distribution would not exceed $19,414.
Together, the proposed distribution and estimated administrative
cost exceed the current settlement fund balance. Nonetheless, KCC
has indicated that it would be willing to increase the
administrative expenses reserve, currently at $7,385.16, by $4,000
and recoup the balance of the distribution amount from amounts
leftover from uncashed checks. KCC indicates that this would
reasonably increase the distribution amount to class members.
Further, the Plaintiff projects that this may be the final
distribution because further distributions would not be
economically viable.
Accordingly, the Court finds that a distribution of $192,891.32 to
the 7,585 eligible class members as proposed to be reasonable.
The Plaintiff also moves to withdraw and substitute out lead class
counsel C. Darryl Cordero of Payne & Fears LLP. Effective Feb. 1,
2024, attorney C. Darryl Cordero took inactive status with the
California bar. Attorney C. Darryl Cordero has also indicated he
will withdraw from membership of the bar of this Court.
Accordingly, the Court finds the withdrawal of lead class counsel
C. Darryl Cordero to be appropriate. The Plaintiff proposes that
Scott O. Luskin of Payne & Fears LLP be substituted as lead class
counsel. Scott O. Luskin has been active in this case since its
inception in 2015 and is familiar with the settlement and class
distributions.
The Court finds Scott O. Luskin to be well-qualified to represent
the class as lead class counsel and will grant the requested
substitution of counsel.
Accordingly, Judge Drozd grants the unopposed motion for approval
of additional class distributions and substitution of lead class
counsel. The settlement administrator will, no later than April 30,
2024, distribute $192,891.32 to 7,585 class members, who cashed
checks from distribution 8A in accordance with the formula set
forth in the settlement agreement. All checks payable to class
members in this distribution will expire 120 days after mailing,
and KCC is authorized to close the account on which the checks are
drawn or otherwise take expedient measures to stop payment on the
checks 125 days after mailing.
The settlement administrator will restore $1,200.00 currently held
in the attorney expense reserve to the common fund and will
increase the administrative expenses reserve by $4,000.
The settlement administrator will pay itself the balance it is
owed, not to exceed $19,414, for the administrative costs of the
distribution ordered here by using the funds held in the
administrative expenses reserve and recouping the remaining balance
from the uncashed checks from the distribution ordered here.
The Plaintiff will file a report of the status of the settlement
account with the Court on or before Oct. 1, 2024, detailing the
results of the distributions and providing an accounting of funds
remaining in the class settlement fund at that time.
Attorney C. Darryl Cordero of Payne & Fears LLP is terminated as
lead settlement class counsel, and Scott O. Luskin of Payne & Fears
LLP is designated and appointed as lead settlement class counsel.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect
that attorney Scott O. Luskin of Payne & Fears LLP has replaced
attorney C. Darryl Cordero of Payne & Fears LLP as lead class
counsel in this action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3vmza9 from PacerMonitor.com.
REMITLY GLOBAL: O'Connor Files Suit Over Advance Notice Bylaw
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES O'CONNOR, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
stockholders of REMITLY GLOBAL, INC., Plaintiff v. RYNO BLIGNAUT,
PHYLLIS CAMPBELL, BORA CHUNG, JOSH HUG, LAURENT LE MOAL, NIGEL
MORRIS, MATTHEW OPPENHEIMER, PHILLIP RIESE, MARGARET M. SMYTH and
REMITLY GLOBAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0190 (Del. Ch.,
Feb. 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking
declaratory relief for invalidating the Company's Advance Notice
Bylaw.
Like many corporations, Remitly Global has an advance notice bylaw
that requires any stockholder seeking to nominate a candidate to
the board of directors to provide advance notice of such nomination
to the Company. The Advance Notice Bylaw dictates the time period
during which a notice of nomination must be received by the Company
-- the nomination window -- and sets forth the requirements of what
information must be included in a notice of nomination. Remitly
Global's Advance Notice Bylaw, however, incorporates a definition
of "Acting in Concert" that renders the Advance Notice Bylaw
preclusive and coercive, says the suit.
As a result, the Advance Notice Bylaw effectively limits the scope
of stockholders' voting rights to voting for or against candidates
nominated by the Board, and is fundamentally inconsistent with the
notion that stockholders' right to vote includes the right to
nominate. Absent the relief requested herein, the Advance Notice
Bylaw will continue to operate as a hindrance to the free and fair
vote of the Company's stockholders, the suit contends.
Remitly Global is named as a Defendant in its capacity as a party
to the Company's Restated Bylaws, effective September 27, 2021, and
as a necessary party for the requested relief to be granted. The
Plaintiff also asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against
the Director Defendants.
Plaintiff O'Connor is, and has continuously been, a Remitly Global
stockholder since at least June 2023.
Remitly Global is an American online remittance service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq.
Irene R. Lax, Esq.
Daniel M. Baker, Esq.
Robert Erikson, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3600
E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com
lindsay@blockleviton.com
irene@blockleviton.com
daniel@blockleviton.com
robby@blockleviton.com
- and -
Jason Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
- and -
Abbott Cooper, Esq.
ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
1266 East Main Street Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902
RING LLC: Cody Ordered to File 2nd Amended Complaint by March 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANNETTE CODY, Plaintiff v. RING LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00562-AMO (N.D. Cal.), Judge Araceli
Martinez-Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants Ring's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Section 631(a) claim, with leave to amend.
The Plaintiff's second amended complaint must be filed by March 25,
2024.
Defendant Ring manufactures and sells smart home and home security
devices. In September of 2022, Plaintiff Annette Cody visited
Ring's website through the web browser on her smart phone and had a
brief conversation through the chat feature with a customer
representative from Ring.
Ring enables and allows a third party, Kustomer, Inc., a subsidiary
of Meta, to intercept chats between customers and Ring. Kustomer's
application program is "plugged into" Ring's website. When chat
messages are sent to Ring, they are first routed through Kustomer's
server to analyze and collect customer-support agent interactions
in real time as they occur. Cody alleges that when she used the
website, Ring caused the internet communication to be recorded and
secretly allowed, aided, and abetted Kustomer to intercept and
eavesdrop on the conversations during transmission, and then
exploit the data for their mutual gain.
On Feb. 8, 2023, Cody filed a putative class action complaint
against Ring and Does 1 through 25. On April 16, 2023, in response
to Ring's first motion to dismiss, Cody filed a first amended
complaint alleging two violations of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code, Sections 631(a), 632.7. Ring filed
the motion to dismiss at issue on May 1, 2023.
Ring argues that Cody's claim under California Penal Code Section
631(a) fails on multiple grounds: (1) Ring cannot be held liable
for recording its own conversation; (2) Cody does not allege
tapping of a telephone line; (3) Cody's allegations undermine any
claim of interception in transit; (4) Cody consented to any
recording; and (5) Cody fails to state a claim for aiding and
abetting a third-party violation.
Judge Martinez-Olguin notes that the California Supreme Court has
clarified that this provision contains three operative clauses
protecting against "three distinct and mutually independent
patterns of conduct": (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 as a result of engaging in
either of the two previous activities," citing Tavernetti v.
Superior Court, 22 Cal. 3d 187, 192 (1978).
Ms. Cody does not dispute that Ring cannot be held directly liable
under the first three clauses of Section 631(a). Nor could she,
Judge Martinez-Olguin says. Section 631 of California Penal Code
applies only to eavesdropping by a third party and not to recording
by a participant to a conversation.
Thus, to the extent that Cody alleges that Ring directly violated
Section 631(a)'s first, second, or third clause, Judge
Martinez-Olguin holds that those claims must fail.
Cody contends that Ring is vicariously liable under the fourth
clause of Section 631(a) for aiding and abetting the third-party
chat provider's violations of the first, second, and third clauses
of Section 631(a).
In sum, Judge Martinez-Olguin opines that Cody fails to state a
claim under the first and second clauses of Section 631(a). As Cody
failed to allege facts suggesting that Ring used or communicated
any information obtained through a violation of the first or second
clauses, she has also failed to plead a violation of the third
clause.
Similarly, Judge Martinez-Olguin holds, as Cody fails to establish
an underlying third-party violation, she cannot allege aiding and
abetting liability. The Court, therefore, dismisses Cody's claims
under Section 631(a).
Ring also seeks to dismiss Cody's claim under Section 632.7. Cody
alleges that she used the web browser on her smartphone to access
Ring's website.
The fact that Cody used a smart phone to access the internet does
not fit within Section 632.7's statutory reach, Judge
Martinez-Olguin holds. Indeed, the statute very clearly refers to
different types of telephone technology, not the internet. However,
Judge Martinez-Olguin says it is not the Court's role to engage in
statutory rewriting.
The fact that the definitional provision of "communication"
includes many forms does not change the statutory text requiring
communications transmitted between two telephones, Judge
Martinez-Olguin notes. Cody's proffered construction would
contradict the very terms of the statute which explicitly dictate
that communication between two telephones is required. Therefore,
the Court dismisses Cody's claim under Section 632.7(a).
The National Retail Federation ("NRF") moves for leave to file an
amicus brief. Judge Martinez-Olguin explains that the "classic
role" of amicus curiae is to assist a court in a case of public
interest by supplementing the efforts of counsel, and drawing the
court's attention to law that escaped consideration. It is within
the Court's discretion whether to allow amici to file a brief, and
courts generally exercise great liberality in permitting amicus
briefs.
Ms. Cody objects to the NRF's proposed amicus brief because it
echoes arguments in Ring's motion to dismiss and would prejudice
her if she were not permitted to respond.
Judge Martinez-Olguin opines that it is inapposite that an amicus
brief raises the same issues as the parties' briefs. The salient
question is whether such brief is helpful to the Court. In this
case, Judge Martinez-Olguin finds that NRF's brief is not useful to
the Court as it provides no additional insight or authorities.
Accordingly, the Court denies NRF's motion to file an amicus
brief.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 631(a) claim, with leave to amend.
The Plaintiff's second amended complaint must be filed by March 25,
2024. No additional parties or claims may be added without leave of
Court or stipulation of the Defendant.
However, because the Plaintiff cannot amend the complaint to allege
that communication through a website chat feature is between two
telephones, and any amendment would be futile, the Court grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Section 632.7 claim
with prejudice.
The Court denies the motion for leave to file amicus brief.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2jpdu68x from PacerMonitor.com.
SAGAL MEAT: Faces Cancino Suit Over Labor Law Breaches
------------------------------------------------------
REYES CANCINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAGAL MEAT MARKET VII, INC., SAGAL FOOD &
FRUITS, 134th STREET MEAT MARKET, INC., 65 BURNSIDE MEAT MARKET
CORP., DD&S MEAT, FISH, & PRODUCE INC. d/b/a SAGAL FOOD, any other
related entities, and LENIN SANCHEZ, JOSELITO SANCHEZ, FERNANDO
SANCHEZ, VICTOR SANCHEZ, ZULI SANCHEZ individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01688 (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2024) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately 2002 until
approximately January 25, 2021. Allegedly, he was not paid the
applicable overtime hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week. Among other things, he also did not receive the
"spread of hours" premium of one additional hour at the minimum
wage rate for the days in which he worked 10 or more hours, says
the Plaintiff.
Based in Bronx, NY, Sagal Food & Fruits is a domestic business
corporation that operates meat markets and grocery stores
throughout Brooklyn and the Bronx. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
Paige I. Piazza, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
SARISSA CAPITAL: Appeals Denial of Bid for Interlocutory Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER J. DENNER and SARISSA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., et al.,
filed an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Delaware Court
of Chancery in the case styled STEWART N. GOLDSTEIN, M.D.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ALEXANDER J. DENNER, SARISSA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.,
SARISSA CAPITAL DOMESTIC FUND LP, SARISSA CAPITAL OFFSHORE MASTER
FUND LP, and SARISSA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GP LLC, Case No.
2020-1061-JTL, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
Defendant Alexander Denner is the principal of Sarissa Capital, an
activist hedge fund. In 2017, he was also a director of Bioverativ,
Inc., a publicly traded biopharmaceutical company. The Plaintiff
contends that Denner and Sarissa engaged in insider trading after
Sanofi S.A. approached Denner about acquiring Bioverativ.
In this lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserts that the members of the
Board and three of the Company's officers breached their fiduciary
duties during the sale process. The Sale Process Claims state
non-exculpated claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Denner,
Posner, and Defendant John G. Cox, the lone inside director. It is
reasonably conceivable that Denner favored a sale disloyally and in
bad faith to capture the profits on the shares he secretly
purchased based on inside information about Sanofi's interest. It
is reasonably conceivable that Posner acted in bad faith by
concealing Sanofi's approach from the Board. It is reasonably
conceivable that Cox had a differential interest in receiving $72.3
million in severance payments, says the suit.
After the close of discovery, the Plaintiff moved for sanctions.
The Sanctions Motion invoked Court of Chancery Rule 37(e) and
argued that the Defendants failed to preserve electronically stored
information.
By opinion dated January 26, 2024, the Court granted the Sanctions
Motion. The Opinion found that electronically stored information
had been lost. The Opinion found that the Defendants had not taken
any affirmative steps to preserve their texts in response to the
litigation holds.
As sanctions, the Plaintiff asked the court to:
-- presume that when Denner and Sarissa purchased stock, they
were motivated by Sanofi's initial expression of interest;
-- preclude the Defendants from offering any fact or expert
testimony that would disavow scienter;
-- preclude the Defendants from offering any fact or expert
testimony about alternative reasons for Sarissa's trades, such as a
preexisting plan;
-- presume that the destroyed texts would have supported the
Plaintiff's argument that the sale process fell outside the range
of reasonableness because Denner maneuvered to secure a near-term
sale that would lock in the profits from his insider trading.
Under Rule 37(e), those sanctions required either a finding of
intentional non-preservation or recklessness.
The Defendants have asked the court to certify an interlocutory
appeal.
On February 26, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion
denying the Defendant's application to certify an interlocutory
appeal.
The appellate case is captioned as ALEXANDER J. DENNER, SARISSA
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., SARISSA CAPITAL DOMESTIC FUND LP, SARISSA
CAPITAL OFFSHORE MASTER FUND LP, and SARISSA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GP
LLC, Defendants-Appellants v. STEWART N. GOLDSTEIN, M.D.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Case No. 80,2024, in the Supreme Court of the
State of Delaware, filed on February 23, 2024.
Defendants-Appellants Alexander J. Denner, Sarissa Capital
Management, L.P., Sarissa Capital Domestic Fund LP, Sarissa Capital
Offshore Master Fund LP, and Sarissa Capital Management GP LLC are
represented by:
Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
Richard D. Heins, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 654-1888
E-mail: sjenkins@ashbygeddes.com
rheins@ashbygeddes.com
- and -
Tariq Mundiya, Esq.
Sameer Advani, Esq.
Richard Li, Esq.
M. Annie Houghton-Larsen, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019-6099
Telephone: (212) 728-8000
SIENNA SENIOR: Ontario Sup. Ct. Certifies LTC Home Providers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Lang, writing for CBC News, reports that Class action
lawsuits against six of Ontario's largest for-profit long-term care
(LTC) home providers, claiming gross negligence that led to
illnesses and deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, have been
allowed to proceed.
In a ruling last week, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified class action suits against Sienna, Revera, Schlegel,
Responsive, Extendicare and Chartwell.
The separate class actions were filed on behalf of thousands of
clients, family members and visitors, who allege the companies were
unprepared to provide care during the pandemic and failed to
protect the health of residents and visitors.
"There were many homes in Ontario that didn't have a problem but
these were the worst offenders from our perspective," said Joel
Rochon, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs. "We allege that
their conduct fell far below any reasonable standard."
At the height of the pandemic in 2020, the quick spread of COVID-19
through LTC homes led the province to ask the military for help
staff struggling to provide care. That led to a scathing military
report about living conditions in some of those homes.
From March 2020 to April 2022, 4,335 residents died in Ontario's
LTC homes, according to a September report from the province's
ombudsman. In their core submissions, the plaintiffs' counsel say
at least 3,300 of those deaths were in LTC homes owned and operated
by the defendants.
In certifying the class actions, the court considered expert
opinions, provided by the plaintiffs, that defendants had fallen
short of providing reasonable infection control and prevention
during the pandemic. The plaintiffs claim the majority of
COVID-related resident deaths at LTC homes were preventable.
"Inhibiting the LTC home industry from repeating any mistakes is a
significant goal of this class action that would be diluted if
individual claims were pursued in its place," wrote Justice E.M.
Morgan in the court's decision to allow the class actions to
proceed.
Provincial legislation passed in 2020 provides liability
protections to businesses from COVID-19 exposure-related lawsuits,
but doesn't protect "bad actors" from endangering others willfully
or through "gross negligence."
CBC News has reached out to all six defendants for comment. Three
have not yet responded.
A spokesperson for Revera declined to comment as the matter is
before the courts, while Chartwell spokesperson Sharon Ranalli said
in an email that "the claim that was certified does not have any
merit and Chartwell intends to vigorously defend itself."
In another email, Schlegel spokesperson Kristian Partington
expressed condolences for those who lost loved ones to COVID-19 in
the company's homes, but said Schlegel "followed the guidance of
Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health through the pandemic."
Class actions will bring long-awaited justice: advocate
Two other pending class action suits against independent LTC
companies and municipally-owned LTC facilities were also
considered, but the court decided not to certify them, citing a
lack of representative plaintiffs and cause of action.
That doesn't mean plaintiffs in those proposed class actions don't
have valid grievances, says long-term care advocate Vivian
Stamatopoulos, a professor and researcher at Ontario Tech
University. She says she hopes those grievances can be addressed
through other legal avenues.
Stamatopoulos says she's happy class actions against for-profit LTC
homes will go ahead.
"I have been vehemently against the profit motive in long-term
care," she said in an interview. "They had the vast majority of
deaths. They were clearly shown in numerous investigations to fail
compared to the non-profits."
Stamatopoulos says these class actions will finally give families
the chance to seek justice for the avoidable loss of their loved
ones.
"I just really hope that, you know, when they have their day in
court, that they establish what we all saw unfold," she said,
"which was this massive, widespread, often preventable negligence
that resulted in far too many unnecessary deaths, and just trauma
that will live with these families for the rest of their lives."
Lina Pugliese knows that trauma. Her late mother-in-law, Teresa, is
the representative plaintiff through her estate executor in the
class action suit against Chartwell.
"If proper steps were taken from the beginning of this pandemic it
would have alleviated a lot of heartache and all these deaths that
occured," Pugliese said.
None of the allegations in these class action suits have been
proven in court.
The certification of these lawsuits comes less than a month after
the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a ruling to allow a class action
against Ontario's LTC minister to proceed. Plaintiffs in that case
allege the provincial government knew the risks COVID-19 posed to
vulnerable LTC home residents, but failed to respond quickly
enough, resulting in thousands of illnesses and deaths.
Those allegations have also not been proven in court. [GN]
SLB OF IOWA: Ct. Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Woods Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Woods v. SLB of Iowa, LLC,
Case No. 4:24-cv-04027-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan
E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hyi8hg at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOUTHEAST UTILITIES: Logan Sues Over Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Logan, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Southeast Utilities of Georgia LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00223 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 29, 2024) is an
action to recover monetary damages from the Defendant for unpaid
regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Logan was employed by the Defendant as a full-time,
non-exempt hourly employee from approximately March 15, 2021, to
November 6, 2023, or 138 weeks. During the relevant employment
period with Defendant, the Plaintiff worked as a driver and lineman
installing fiber optic lines. The Plaintiff's wage rate was $55 an
hour. Plaintiff's overtime rate should be $82.50 an hour, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly and was paid for his
overtime hours. However, during his last three weeks of employment
he was not paid his regular wages and overtime hours. On November
6, 2023, Plaintiff was unfairly terminated. At the time of his
termination, Defendant refused to pay his back wages, the Plaintiff
alleges.
Southeast Utilities of Georgia LLC is a construction company
providing fiber optic and cable TV installations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SPLUNK INC: Class Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Splunk Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:20-cv-08600-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar
entered an order granting the Lead Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of settlement.
1. The Court confirms certification of the class for settlement
purposes only.
2. The Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement
agreement and plan of allocation.
3. Class members who asked to opt out of the settlement are
excluded from the class.
4. All claims asserted against the Defendants by the Lead
Plaintiff
and the other Settlement Class Members are dismissed with
prejudice.
5. The parties shall bear their own costs and expenses, except
as otherwise expressly provided in the Stipulation.
The Lead Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action
against
Splunk under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
It brings these claims on behalf of:
"all persons who purchased Splunk common stock between May 21,
2020, to Dec. 2, 2020, inclusive."
The crux of the dispute is whether Splunk's common stock was
artificially inflated because of the Defendants' allegedly false
and misleading misstatements and omissions about whether Splunk was
continuing to invest in marketing and continuing to hire and retain
sales professionals, and whether a subsequent decline in the stock
price resulted from the issuance of additional clarifying
statements.
The Plaintiffs filed the original class action complaint on Dec. 4,
2020. On Feb. 2, 2021, Louisiana Sheriffs moved for appointment as
Lead Plaintiff.
The proposed settlement agreement, resolves the claims between
Splunk and the class, which the Court certifies as follows:
"all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Splunk during the Class Period, and continued to
hold any Splunk common stock after December 2, 2020."
The class excludes "(i) Defendants, (ii) any current or former
Officers and directors of Splunk; (iii) the Immediate Family
Members of the foregoing excluded persons; (iv) any entity that
any
Defendant or any of Defendants' Immediate Family Members owns or
controls, or owned or controlled during the Class Period; and
(v)
the legal representatives, heirs, agents, affiliates, successors
or
assigns of any excluded persons and any persons or entities that
exclude themselves by submitting a request for exclusion that is
accepted by the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rxyeUF at no extra
charge.[CC]
SSM HEALTHCARE: Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Doe and Jane Doe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SSM HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION D/B/A SSM HEALTH and NAVVIS & COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
2422-CC00208 was removed from the Circuit Court of the City of St.
Louis in the State of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on March 1, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 4:24-cv-00317.
The Class Action Petition ("Petition") contains six causes of
action: Count I: Negligence; Count II: Negligence per se; Count
III: Invasion of Privacy; Count IV: Breach of Implied Contract;
Count V: Unjust enrichment; Count VI: Violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher M. Hohn, Esq.
Amanda J. Hettinger, Esq.
David M. Mangian, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LL
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Phone: (314) 552-6000
Facsimile: (314) 552 7000
Email: chohn@thompsoncoburn.com
ahettinger@thompsoncoburn.com
dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com
ST. CLAIR, IL: Miller Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bradley Miller, Kayla
Kilpatrick, and Blake Bumann, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. County of St. Clair, Illinois, Case
No. 3:23-cv-02597-JPG (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting the following relief:
(1) Plaintiffs moves for authorization to proceed as a
collective
action for overtime violations under the Fair Labor
Standards
Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b), on behalf of
themselves
and similarly-situated past and present employees of the
County of St. Clair, Illinois, with the collective to be
defined as follows:
All full-time, hourly paid Telecommunicators who are or
were
employed by the Defendant St. Clair County's Emergency
Management Agency from July 26, 2020 to the present, who
worked 12 hour shifts, and who were only compensated at
one-
and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for work
performed in excess of 80 hours in a 14 day pay period.
(2) Plaintiffs moves for an Order directing the Defendant to
produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel within ten days of the
Order granting this Motion a list of the names, the last
known addresses, last known email addresses, and phone
numbers for hourly-paid Telecommunicators employed by
the Defendant from July 26, 2020 to present;
(3) Plaintiffs moves for authorization to send notice, in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and consent to join, in
the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, to all individuals
whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendant's
counsel by first-class mail and email so that they can
assert
their claims on a timely basis as part of this
litigation;
(4) Plaintiffs moves that the statute of limitations for the
putative class be tolled as of the date this action was
filed;
(5) Plaintiffs move that the opt-in plaintiffs' Consent Forms
be
deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.
St. Clair County is the ninth most populous county in Illinois.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pdxwwv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip Oliphant, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 737-7740
Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com
STONE HILL MINERALS: Shields Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stone Hill Minerals
Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Robert L. Shields,
Individually, and on behalf of all individuals and legal entities
similarly situated v. Stone Hill Minerals Holdings, LLC, EQT TGHL
Exploration, LLC, EQT TGHL Exploration II, LLC, EQT TGHL Holdings
Midco, LLC, Tug Hill Operating, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00039-JPB
(N.D.W. Va., March 1, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Stone Hill Minerals -- https://www.stonehillminerals.com/ -- is a
privately-owned company that buys mineral and royalty interests in
oil and gas basins.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph M. Scipione, Esq.
THE NITTANY GROUP
169 Gerald Street, Suite 110
State College, PA 16801
Phone: (814) 826-2244
Fax: (877) 424-3267
Email: Joe.Scipione@nittanygroup.com
- and -
Mark A. Kepple, Esq.
BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
1219 Chapline St.
Wheeling, WV 26003
Phone: (304) 233-3100
Fax: (304) 233-0201
Email: mkepple@baileywyant.com
- and -
Robert L. Redfearn, Jr., Esq.
SIMON, PERAGINE, SMITH & REDFEARN, LLP
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3000
New Orleans, LA 70163
Phone: (504) 569-2030
Email: robertjr@spsr-law.com
- and -
Thomas E. White, Esq.
WHITE LAW OFFICE
604 Sixth St
Moundsville, WV 26041
Phone: (304) 845-7008
Fax: (304) 845-7016
Email: twhite@lawyer.com
STT SECURITY SERVICES: Haynes Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Leticia Haynes, individually, and on behalf
of all other similarly situated v. STT SECURITY SERVICES INC., a
Michigan corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
23CV057497 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on March 4, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01303.
The Plaintiff (on behalf of herself and others similarly situated)
alleged that defendant STT violated Labor Code sections 201, 202,
203, 204, 226, 226.7, 512, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1198, 1198.5, 2802,
and 17200 and applicable Wage Orders, and seeks allegedly unpaid
wages and any and all legally applicable penalties.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dan M. Forman, Esq.
Wanja S. Guy, Esq.
CDF LABOR LAW LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 612-6300
Email: dforman@cdflaborlaw.com
wguy@cdflaborlaw.com
SUNNY DELIGHT: Albrigo Files Mislabeling Suit Over Seltzer Drink
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA WILLIS ALBRIGO, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. SUNNY DELIGHT
BEVERAGES CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00403-CAB-BLM (S.D.
Cal., February 29, 2024) seeks to enjoin the Defendant from
deceptively marketing the alcoholic spirit drink called Sunny D
Vodka Seltzer, and to recover compensation for injured Class
Members pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code.
According to the complaint, Sunny Delight markets and sells the
Seltzer, in a variety of flavors, which is prominently labeled, "0g
SUGAR." However, that claim is literally false. The Seltzer is
actually sweetened with fruit juice and contains approximately 2
grams of sugar.
The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Seltzer, or would not
have been willing to pay as much for it, if she knew the "0g SUGAR"
labeling claim was false and that the Seltzer, in fact, contained
sugar. Similarly, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Seltzer,
or would have only been willing to pay less for it, if she had
known it was being sold in violation of state and federal law, says
the suit.
Sunny Delight Beverages Co. is a producer of juice-based drinks in
North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Melanie R. Monroe, Esq.
Trevor Flynn, Esq.
Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1741
E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
mmonro@fmfpc.com
tflynn@fmfpc.com
cemhardt@fmfpc.com
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Bernard Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bernard, v. Dinello et
al., Case No. 23-cv-3323 (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").
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wRv8Yv at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Crichlow Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crichlow v. Dinello et
al., Case No. 23-cv-3386 (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").
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=APxDhK at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Dunbar Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dunbar v. Hammer, et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-3391 (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").
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FACKnZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Hale Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hale v. Mueller et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-3396 (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").
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hTvVZJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Marcial Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marcial v. Mueller et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-3455 (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").
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZibzdI at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Miller Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller v. Hammer, et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-3462 (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=uHQN4F at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Williams Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. Dinello et
al., Case No. 23-cv-3608 (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").
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5MvDOY at no extra
charge.[CC]
TALPHERA INC: Hearing on Suit Dismissal Bid Set for April 4
-----------------------------------------------------------
Talphera 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 6, 2024, that the third amended
complaint dismissal motion hearing for securities class suit is set
for April 4, 2024.
On June 8, 2021, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and two of its officers.
The plaintiff is a purported stockholder of the Company.
The complaint alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact about the
Company’s disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its
marketing of DSUVIA.
The complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys’
fees, and other costs.
On December 16, 2021, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2022.
The amended complaint named the Company and three of its officers
and continued to allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact about the
Company’s disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its
marketing of DSUVIA.
The amended complaint also asserted a violation of Section 20A of
the Exchange Act against the individual defendants for alleged
insider trading.
The amended complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys’ fees, and other costs.
On September 1, 2022, the Court held oral hearings on the Company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice that was
filed on July 21, 2022.
On September 28, 2022, the Court issued a formal written opinion,
or the First Opinion, dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims
against the Company and the named defendants with leave for
plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
On November 28, 2022 the plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint.
On July 7, 2023, the Court issued a formal written opinion, or the
Second Opinion, dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims against
the Company and the named defendants with leave for plaintiffs to
amend their complaint in part and without leave to amend in part.
On September 5, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint is fully
briefed and a hearing is scheduled for April 4, 2024.
San Mateo, CA-based Talphera, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical
company focused on the development and commercialization of
innovative therapies for use in medically supervised settings.
TCI LOGISTICS: Misclassifies Dispatcher Agents, Hollimon Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAMRRON HOLLIMON, and JEREMIAH FRYE, on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs v. TCI LOGISTICS INC. and IVAYLO
ANTOV, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01726 (S.D. Ill.,
February 29, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendants' failure to pay
overtime wages to Plaintiffs and misclassification of Plaintiffs as
an independent contractors.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other non-exempt
employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week but Defendant did
not pay them overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay under the guise that they were
independent contractors or managers. However, Plaintiffs were
actually non-exempt employees under the economic realty test, the
suit says.
Plaintiffs Hollimon and Frye were employed by Defendants as
dispatcher agents on December 6, 2022 and on May 2023,
respectively. They were both terminated on November 25, 2023.
TCI Logistics Inc. was founded in 1996. The Company's line of
business includes the warehousing and storage of a general line of
goods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chad W. Eisenback, ESQ.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8180
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com
TCOM LP: Court Oks Parties' Joint Motion to Certify Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER LITTARES,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TCOM, L.P., Case No. 2:23-cv-00060-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Louise Flanagan entered an order approving the Parties' joint
motion to certify a Collective.
The Court further orders that a collective of employees consisting
of all individuals employed by the Defendant in the position of
Field Service Representative in TCOM's Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
program within three years before today's date is conditionally
certified.
The Court further orders that the Parties' proposed notice and
messages to potential plaintiffs are approved.
TCOM LP offers airborne persistent surveillance solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fDOKmr at no extra
charge.[CC]
THEMISBAR.COM: Faces Class Action Over Illegal User Info Tracking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
classaction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges that
the operator of ThemisBar.com illegally tracks user information --
including which video lectures they watch on the site -- and
secretly shares it with Facebook.
The 17-page lawsuit claims defendant Themis Bar Review has run
afoul of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), a federal law
that prohibits a "video tape service provider" from disclosing
personal information about consumers without their written
consent.
According to the complaint, the bar exam preparation service has
installed a piece of code called the Facebook pixel on
ThemisBar.com to collect and transmit to the social media giant
data about users as they navigate the website. The case contends
that the pixel shares website visitors' names, email addresses and
the video lectures they watch.
"[The plaintiff] and class members did not provide [the defendant]
with any form of consent -- either written or otherwise -- to
disclose their [personally identifiable information] or video
viewing activity to third parties," the filing says.
The suit claims the tracking tool also reveals consumers' Facebook
IDs, which are unique identifiers that can be used to locate
individual Facebook accounts. This means that the defendant's
alleged data-sharing practice allows Facebook to link consumers'
activities on ThemisBar.com with their actual identities, the
complaint asserts.
Per the filing, the user information Facebook receives from Themis
Bar Review is compiled into datasets that are used for targeted
advertising purposes.
"Facebook can target users so effectively because it surveils user
activity both on and off its site," the case shares. "This allows
Facebook to make inferences about users beyond what they explicitly
disclose, like their 'interests,' 'behavior,' and 'connections.'"
The plaintiff, a Los Angeles resident, says she enrolled in a bar
preparation course on ThemisBar.com in September 2022. Without her
knowledge or consent, the company shared the woman's viewing
history with Facebook through the tracking pixel on 400 occasions,
the suit alleges.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States with a
Facebook account who watched a video on ThemisBar.com. [GN]
TILLAMOOK CREAMERY: Supreme Court Hears Greenwashing Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Figueroa, writing for OPB, reports that the Oregon
Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments about whether a lawsuit
against the Tillamook County Creamery Association should be allowed
to proceed. That lawsuit, filed in 2019 by an animal welfare group,
alleges Tillamook of misleading marketing and misrepresenting its
livestock practices.
Tillamook, founded in 1909 as a farmer-owned cooperative, and known
for its varieties of cheese, ice cream and yogurt, is accused of
"greenwashing" -- the act of making false or misleading statements
to persuade consumers that a company is environmentally friendly.
Tillamook has denied the allegations, and said it's open about its
environmental stewardship practices.
The five-year-old lawsuit, filed as a class action by the Animal
Legal Defense Fund on behalf of four Oregon residents, alleges
Tillamook's advertising campaigns allowed the creamery to sell its
products at a premium. It claims the creamery's marketing led
consumers to believe its milk is sourced from small, family-owned,
pasture-based dairies in Tillamook County, when in reality it
sources two-thirds of its milk from one of the country's largest
factory farms with over 28,000 dairy cows.
"Located in eastern Oregon, this complex of cement-floored
production facilities and barren dirt feedlots, where cows are
continuously confined, milked by robotic carousels, and afflicted
with painful udder infections, is a far cry from the rolling green
hills of the Tillamook County family farms shown throughout
Tillamook's marketing campaign," reads the California-based animal
rights nonprofit's lawsuit. [GN]
TRANSPHORM INC: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Sale to Renesas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are now investigating:
Transphorm, Inc. (Nasdaq: TGAN), relating to its proposed sale to
Renesas Electronics Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, TGAN
shareholders will receive $5.10 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/transphorm-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
HomeStreet, Inc. (Nasdaq: HMST), relating to its proposed sale to
FirstSun Capital Bancorp. Under the terms of the agreement, HMST
shareholders are expected to receive 0.4345 shares of FirstSun
common stock per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/homestreet-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Masonite International Corp. (NYSE: DOOR), relating to its proposed
sale to Owens Corning. Under the terms of the agreement, DOOR
shareholders are expected to receive $133.00 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/masonite-international-corp. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Whole Earth Brands, Inc. (Nasdaq: FREE), relating to its proposed
sale to affiliates of Sababa Holdings FREE, LLC. Under the terms of
the agreement, FREE shareholders are expected to receive $4.875 in
cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/whole-earth-brands-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders. . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
TRANSPRO LOGISTICS: Rule 16 Scheduling Conference Set for April 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leonard v. Transpro
Logistics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01061 (C.D. Ill.,
Filed Feb. 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Magistrate Judge Jonathan E.
Hawley entered an order setting the case for a Rule 16 scheduling
conference on April 5, 2024.
-- Counsel are to phone into conference by calling (551) 285-1373
and
enter the Meeting ID: 16009516536 when prompted to do so.
-- A discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3) shall be
filed on or before April 2, 2024.
-- The parties may, but are not required to, follow the format of
the
sample discovery plan set forth as Attachment A to the
standing
order attached to this text order.
-- If the complaint makes allegations on behalf of a class, the
proposed discovery plan should include a deadline for filing a
motion to certify class at a stage early in the case.
-- The Discovery Plan event may be found in the CM/ECF system
within
the other Documents category.
-- All counsel must read and be familiar with the standing order
attached to this text order prior to their Rule 26(f) planning
meeting.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Motor
Vehicle.
Trans-pro is a freight shipping and logistics company.[CC]
TUYA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Lian Suit
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as XIAOMENG LIAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TUYA INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06792-JPC-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge John Cronan entered an order granting the Defendants'
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to
Items 303 and 105, Tuya's Net Promoter Score, and the Section 15
claim against Immelt.
The Defendants' motion is otherwise denied. In the event that
Plaintiffs decide to file a second amended complaint, they must
file it within thirty days of this Opinion and Order.
Lead Plaintiffs bring this action alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with Tuya March 2021 initial
public offering of American Depositary Shares.
The Plaintiffs allege that Tuya violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. section 77k, along with two classes of
Defendants:
(1) various individuals involved in the IPO, namely, Xueji
(Jerry)
Wang, Liaohan (Leo) Chen, Yi (Alex) Yang, Yao (Jessie) Liu,
Scott Sandell, Carmen Chang, Jeff Immelt, Qing Gao, and Jing
Hong; and
(2) three of the IPO's underwriters, namely, Morgan Stanley &
Co.,
LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., and China International Capital
Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited.
The Plaintiffs also bring claims under Section 15 of the Securities
Act, 15 U.S.C., for control person liability against the Individual
Defendants.
Tuya is a China-based company founded in 2014 by Wang, Chen, and
Yang. The company is a Chinese artificial intelligence and Internet
of things platform as a service provider.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 5, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2twhlO
at no extra charge.[CC]
U.S. FARATHANE: Boykin Sues Over Unlawful Rounding Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
GINA BOYKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. FARATHANE, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-10563-DML-KGA (E.D.
Mich., May 6, 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.
Plaintiff Boykin has been employed by Defendant as an hourly
non-exempt employee since approximately November 14, 2022.
Allegedly, the Defendant has maintained an unlawful rounding policy
which rounds employee punch-in and punch-out times in a way that
inured to Defendant's benefit. In each workweek where Plaintiff
worked 40 hours or more, the rounding policy resulted in an
unlawful deprivation of the overtime wages required by the FLSA,
says the suit.
Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan, U.S. Farathane, LCC is a
leading source of plastics manufacturing, supplying the automotive
industry for over 50 years. [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
UNITED AIRLINES: Class Suit Seeks Damages Over Flight Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------
CJ Haddad, writing for Cape Coral Breeze, reports that a Cape Coral
law firm is spearheading a class action lawsuit against United
Airlines and The Boeing Company on behalf of passengers seeking
damages for a flight cancellation.
Berke Law Firm has filed the suit on behalf of Alexander Eaton and
an unknown-at-this-time number of other passengers whose flight to
Sun Valley, Idaho was cancelled due to a safety oversight.
Bill Berke, the leading attorney at Berke Law Firm, told The Breeze
that Eaton booked a flight with United Airlines out of RSW, and was
told everything was scheduled to go according to plan. Berke said
the plane scheduled to depart RSW was the same model Boeing, a
737-9 Max, where an Alaska Airlines flight experienced a door
blowing out, leading to an emergency landing.
"(Eaton) was wondering if (the flight) would be canceled or
delayed, if that plane was grounded by the (Federal Aviation
Administration), but he got no emails notifying him that the flight
was going to be delayed or canceled," Berke said. "We want more
transparency and better communication from the airlines."
The day before his scheduled flight, he contacted American Express,
which Eaton booked the trip through, and confirmation on the flight
was given. He eventually found out last minute the flight was
canceled.
"He was unable to rebook and lost his trip," Berke said.
On Jan. 6, Boeing released the following statement in regard to its
737-9 Max aircrafts: "Safety is our top priority and we deeply
regret the impact this event has had on our customers and their
passengers. We agree with and fully support the FAA’s decision to
require immediate inspections of 737-9 airplanes with the same
configuration as the affected airplane. In addition, a Boeing
technical team is supporting the NTSB’s investigation into the
Jan. 5 accident. We will remain in close contact with our regulator
and customers."
An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board found
a neglect of safety protocols by Boeing, as four bolts essential
for securing the door plug were missing.
According to the law firm, the class action lawsuit aims to hold
United Airlines and The Boeing Company accountable for their
actions and "to secure fair compensation for all passengers
affected by the flight cancellation."
Berke stated: "Our client, Alexander Eaton, along with countless
other passengers, have suffered undue travel disruption, stress,
opportunity loss, inconvenience, and damages, due to this egregious
oversight by United Airlines and The Boeing Company. Through this
class action lawsuit, we seek not only to recover damages for those
affected but also to ensure such negligence is never repeated in
the aviation industry." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Court Approves Settlement on Immigration Custody
---------------------------------------------------------------
thedesertreview.com reports that a federal judge approved a
settlement in a long-running class action lawsuit vindicating the
constitutional due process rights of people in immigration custody
in San Diego and Imperial Counties. Counsel for the plaintiffs and
the class are the ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties
(ACLUF-SDIC), Fish & Richardson, P.C., the Law Office of Bardis
Vakili, P.C. and the Law Offices of Leonard B. Simon, P.C.
Cancino Castellar v. Mayorkas, filed in March 2017, challenged
systemic delays in processing people arrested by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) or U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), including Border Patrol.
The settlement helps to address these wrongs and protect the due
process rights of those in immigration custody. Details of the
settlement include:
-- Immigration agencies will provide class members with written
notice in multiple languages informing them of their right to a
prompt first appearance;
-- Those who wish to see a judge promptly will have a first
appearance within 11 days of entering ICE custody;
-- Class members already residing in the U.S. who are arrested by
Border Patrol will be processed out of Border Patrol custody within
three days, either to ICE custody or released;
-- Class members who indicate on the processing forms that they
would like a bond hearing will receive one at the soonest available
date.
In every other form of custody, when the government arrests
someone, there is a constitutional obligation to begin court
proceedings before a judge promptly. This bedrock due process
protection ensures that the government does not disappear people
into its custody and that those arrested are promptly made aware of
their rights. Prior to this lawsuit victory, the federal government
asserted those in immigration custody were not entitled to the same
protections.
As a result, people arrested by U.S. immigration agencies, many of
whom reside in our local communities, routinely endured weeks and
sometimes months in harsh immigration detention conditions. While
waiting prolonged periods of time to see a judge, they were
separated from their loved ones and unable to attend to their jobs,
education and families. Because the federal government does not
provide attorneys to people in immigration custody, many were
unable to seek release or begin their case until their first
hearing.
In San Diego and Imperial Counties, immigration agencies have the
capacity to incarcerate more than 2,000 people every day in ICE
immigration jails and in Border Patrol stations, where conditions
are particularly gruesome.
"The Constitution protects everyone in the United States, and
nobody should ever be imprisoned simply because of where they were
born," said lead counsel for the class, Bardis Vakili of the Law
Office of Bardis Vakili, P.C. "As the never-ending cycle of
vilifying immigrants by both major political parties repeats itself
again, now is the time to step up to protect the due process rights
of our immigrant communities."
"We celebrate that the court honored the constitutional principles
we hold dear and that members of our communities will not be held
for prolonged periods without seeing a judge," said Efaon Cobb,
deputy legal director for the ACLUF-SDIC. "We will continue to
fight to ensure that the right of due process extends to all
people, including newly arrived people seeking asylum who are not
immediately covered by this decision."
"This hard-fought lawsuit focused on ensuring that constitutional
due process is fairly and evenly applied," said Alex Gelberg,
principal at Fish & Richardson P.C. "Prolonged immigration
detention has disastrous effects by imposing tremendous hardship on
detainees and their families. The settlement achieves important
protections for this vulnerable class. I am extremely proud that
Fish’s pro bono program supported the case from the outset and
throughout the years, making it possible to obtain the much-needed
relief."
Len Simon of the Law Offices of Leonard B. Simon P.C. said, "I am
very pleased to have been part of this lengthy and successful
effort to further due process rights for immigrants to the U.S.,
and this country that prides itself on giving everyone his or her
timely day in court."
"ICE arrested me when I was 18, and it was so hard not to see my
parents or my brother and sister for a month," said plaintiff Jose
Cancino Castellar. "I was scared at the time not knowing what was
going on with my case or if I would be released, but once I saw a
judge, I was released and able to return to them. That first
hearing is so important. I am proud I was able to help so that
other people won’t have to go through what I went through." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Can File Exhibits Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL MORINVILLE and
GILBERT P. HYATT, v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01779-CKK (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file under seal exhibits.
The Court further orders that Exhibits A, D, L, O, P, S, U, V, W,
Z, DD, EE, HH, II, KK, OO, and PP to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification shall be sealed.
The U.S. Patent is the agency responsible for granting U.S. patents
and registering trademarks.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JEgD4b at no extra
charge.[CC]
VARSITY BRANDS: Bid to Exclude Maki's Testimony Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA JONES and
CHRISTINA LORENZEN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, v. VARSITY BRANDS, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-02892-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' motion to exclude the Testimony of Dr. Jen Maki.
-- Defendants' motion to exclude the Testimony of Jen Maki, PhD is
granted only as to her damages calculations for states in which
Indirect Purchasers are not pursing damages.
-- The remainder of the motion is denied.
The Indirect Purchasers confirm that they have no intention of
using Dr. Maki to provide a factual narrative.
Instead, each of Dr. Maki's factual recitations were included to
provide adequate disclosure of the facts on which she relied to
form her opinions. Because this sort of testimony is admissible,
the motion to exclude this testimony is denied.
The Indirect Purchasers are the parents of competitive cheer
athletes who were members of either All Star Gym teams or school
cheer teams. They allege that they paid artificially inflated
prices for goods and services, including enrollment in cheer
competitions and apparel purchased indirectly from Varsity, and
they seek to represent a class of all indirect purchasers of
Varsity products and all entrants into Varsity or All Star Cheer
Competitions.
On Feb. 10, 2023, the Defendants filed this motion, seeking to
exclude Dr. Maki's testimony in its entirety.
Varsity is a host of competitive cheerleading camps and
competitions.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m3D07e at no extra
charge.[CC]
WALGREEN CO: Gliadkovsky Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ekaterina Gliadkovsky, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 37-02024-00004816-CU-BT-CTL was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on March 1,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00418-AGS-MSB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Class Action
Fairness Act.
Walgreens -- http://www.walgreens.com/-- is an American company
that operates the second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United
States, behind CVS Health.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zev Benjamin Zysman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN
15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 700
Encino, CA 91436
Phone: (818) 783-8836
Email: zev@zysmanlawca.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Amy Pesapane Lally, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 595-9500
Fax: (310) 595-9501
Email: alally@sidley.com
- and -
Anna Tutundjian, Esq.
Jessica A. Joyce, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 896-6046
Fax: (213) 896-6600
WALGREENS BOOTS: Mullins Sues Over Hazardous Beauty Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf, writing for Top Class Action, reports that plaintiffs
Grace Navarro and Chatham Mullins filed a class action lawsuit
against Walgreens Boots Alliance over its benzoyl peroxide acne
treatment drug products.
Why: The lawsuit claims Walgreens' benzoyl peroxide products
contain the human carcinogen benzene.
Where: The Walgreens class action was filed in federal court in
California.
Walgreens Boots Alliance faces a class action lawsuit alleging its
benzoyl peroxide (BPO) acne treatment drug products contain
dangerous levels of benzene.
In 2023, independent laboratory Valisure tested a representative
sample of the BPO products and found benzene levels many times
higher than allowed in any regulated drug, the class action lawsuit
claims.
Benzene is a human carcinogen that leads to increased risk of blood
cancers and other adverse effects even when exposure comes in low
amounts, according to the lawsuit.
The benzoyl peroxide benzene is a result of ingredient degradation,
which leads to dangerous levels of benzene even outside of the
product.
"If benzene is found in any on-market or post-market product, the
drug is adulterated, unlawful and the drug manufacturer must
contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initiate a voluntary
recall," the class action lawsuit says.
Valisure filed a citizen's petition with the FDA on March 5 asking
for the recall of all BPO products, the class action states. That
petition is pending.
Valisure's testing showed benzene levels as high as 1,600 parts per
million in the Walgreens 2.5% benzoyl peroxide cream, according to
the lawsuit. The FDA limit is 2 ppm. It also found benzene formed
at 800 times the FDA limit in BPO products generally.
Walgreens never listed benzene as an ingredient in its BPO products
nor did it warn customers of the carcinogen's existence in the
products, the class action alleges.
Defendant misled the plaintiffs, the putative classes and the
public by representing the BPO products were safe while concealing
material health and safety information known to them, e.g., that
the BPO products degraded to benzene, or were contaminated with
benzene," the class action lawsuit says.
The Walgreens class action follows a similar lawsuit against
Johnson & Johnson over its BPO products.
Have you purchased benzoyl peroxide products from Walgreens? Let us
know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by R. Brent Wisner and Stephanie B.
Sherman of Wisner Baum LLP.
The Walgreens benzoyl peroxide class action lawsuit is Navarro, et
al. v. Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc., et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00290-SKO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California. [GN]
WALMART INC: Magpayo Sues Over Fish Oil Supplement's False Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pearl Magpayo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-01350-SK (N.D. Cal., March 6, 2024) arises from the
Defendants' false and misleading claims related to Omega-3
supplements and asserts claims for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and for violations
of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising
Law, and Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Defendant's Spring
Valley Fish Oil Omega-3 supplement and paid a price premium relying
on the false and deceptive labeling, advertising, and marketing of
the products. The Defendants represented that the said product's
Omega-3s would reduce the risk of heart disease. However, there is
no conclusive research showing that they actually supported heart
health, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Bentonville, AR, Walmart Inc. is an American
multinational retail corporation that sells a variety of consumer
goods, including supplements. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2580
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 751-5948
E-mail: rglezakos@treehouselaw.com
bheikali@treehouselaw.com
jnassir@treehouselaw.com
WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Pileggi Appeals Dismissal of Privacy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nicole Pileggi filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 29, 2024 entered in the
lawsuit styled NICOLE PILEGGI, Plaintiff v. WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00345-BAH, in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The suit is brought to recover damages on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated individuals under the Video Privacy Protection
Act as a result of the Defendant sharing its users' private video
viewing information without obtaining the legally required
consent.
When consumers visit Washington Examiner's website, they can choose
to visit pages with videos they find relevant or interesting and
stream the videos using their internet browsers. These videos
include politically charged content, usually with a conservative
bent. Unbeknownst to the consumers, however, their video viewing is
not private.
In violation of the VPPA, since at least 2020, Washington Examiner
has partnered with Meta Platforms, Inc. and its "Facebook" social
media platform to collect personally identifiable information each
time a consumer views a video on Washington Examiner's website.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Chief Judge Beryl A.
Howell entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order on January 29, 2024
dismissing the Plaintiff's amended complaint, without prejudice,
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a
claim, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6).
Judge Howell opined that by failing to link her newsletter
subscription to the viewing of Washington Examiner's video
offerings, or to allege that the subscription allowed access to the
videos on the Washington Examiner site that any member of the
public would not otherwise have, the Plaintiff has alleged only
that she was a subscriber to Washington Examiner's newsletter, not
to audio-visual goods or services provided by Washington Examiner.
This is insufficient to make the Plaintiff a consumer of goods or
services from a video tape service provider entitled to bring a
cause of action under the VPPA, Judge Howell points out.
The appellate case is captioned as Nicole Pileggi v. Washington
Newspaper Publishing Company, LLC, Case No. 24-7022, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed
on February 22, 2024.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Nicole Pileggi, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
628 East 9th Street
Houston, TX 77007
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Defendant-Appellee Washington Newspaper Publishing Company, LLC is
represented by:
Grace W. Knofczynski Esq.
KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, PLLC
1615 M Street, NW
Sumner Square, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036-3209
Telephone: (202) 326-7900
WEBER METALS: Altamirano Sues Over Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
JESSE ALTAMIRANO, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff v. WEBER
METALS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCVO5326 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., February 29, 2024) arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California
Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to him, the State
of California, and the Aggrieved Employees, for civil penalties and
other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants'
failures to: 1) pay all wages, including minimum, regular,
overtime, and double time wages earned for all hours worked at the
correct rates of pay; 2) provide meal periods or pay
correctly-calculated premium wages in lieu thereof; 3) authorize
and permit rest periods or pay correctly-calculated premium wages
in lieu thereof; 4) only deduct wages lawfully; 5) indemnify for
business expenses; 6) issue only accurate and complete itemized
wage statements; 7) timely pay wages during employment; 8) timely
pay wages upon separation from employment; and 9) maintain accurate
employment records. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks to recover
civil penalties and related relief through this representative
action.
The Plaintiff was first employed by Weber Metals over 8 years ago,
on or around July 11, 2015 as a "Die Forge Helper." After being
laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff was re-hired on
May 16, 2022 to work as a "Saw Operator II" at the 60-ton press
building located at 16706 Garfield Ave. in Paramount, California.
Weber Metals, Inc. manufactures and supplies aluminum and titanium
forged product.[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
WEEE! INC: S.D. New York Dismisses Liau Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit captioned TYSON LIAU and RICHARD TENG, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WEEE! INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01177-PAE
(S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiffs Tyson Liau and Richard Teng are former customers of
Defendant Weee! Inc., an online grocery-delivery service
specializing in Chinese and Hispanic ingredients.
In February 2023, Weee informed its users that some customer
information had been leaked in a recent data breach. This putative
class action followed, alleging that Weee's conduct breached (1)
New York General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349 and other states'
similar consumer-protection laws, and (2) its implied contract with
its customers to take reasonable measures to safeguard their data.
Pending now is Weee's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC") pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Weee argues that because the
information disclosed was "non-sensitive in nature," the Plaintiffs
have failed to allege an injury in fact sufficient to support
Article III standing. For the reasons set forth here, the Court
agrees, and thus, grants Weee's motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1).
Plaintiff Liau created an account with Weee in August 2022 and has
purchased goods from The Company since then. Plaintiff Teng created
an account with Weee in October 2021 and purchased goods from Weee
at least twice a month until after the data breach. Both Plaintiffs
are New York citizens.
Weee! Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in California. As an "e-grocer," Weee does not have
brick-and-motor stores. Instead, Weee's customers use its website
and mobile application to place their orders online, and Weee
delivers their food to their doorstep. Weee pitches itself as the
largest e-grocer specializing in Chinese and Hispanic grocery items
in the United States.
On Feb. 6, 2023, a hacker by the name of "IntelBroker" uploaded a
subset of Weee's customers' personal information to a website on
the dark web. The leak included customers' names, email addresses,
and phone numbers, but not payment data or passwords. Two days
later, on Feb. 8, 2023, an online publication focused on
cybersecurity, Bleeping Computer, published a story about the
breach. In that story, Weee confirmed that it had recently become
aware of the data breach, which affected customers, who placed an
order between July 12, 2021, and July 12, 2022. The Plaintiffs'
data was disclosed in the breach.
The Plaintiffs allege that they suffered two injuries as a result
of the data breach. The first was the opportunity cost and value of
time that they have been forced to expend to monitor their
financial and bank accounts as a result of the data breach. The
second injury is specific to Teng. He alleges that he has received
numerous "spam" telephone calls and text messages due to the leak,
which included his phone number.
On Feb. 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed this action, asserting
subject matter jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act,
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). On May 31, 2023, after Weee moved to
dismiss their First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs filed the
operative SAC.
In the SAC, the Plaintiffs allege that Weee's conduct with respect
to the leak-and its datasecurity practices more broadly-breached
(1) GBL Section 349 and other states' similar consumer-protection
laws and (2) its implied contract with its customers to take
reasonable measures to safeguard their data.
As to their consumer-protection claims, the Plaintiffs seek to
represent all persons residing in one of the Consumer Fraud States,
who registered an account with Weee! e-grocery service at any time
from June 21, 2021, through Feb. 6, 2023.
As to their implied-contract claim, the Plaintiffs seek to
represent all persons residing in the United States, who registered
au account with Weee! e-grocery service at any time from June 21,
2021, through Feb. 6, 2023. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages.
The SAC defines the "Consumer Fraud States" as: Arkausas;
California; Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; the District of
Columbia; Florida; Hawaii; Idaho; Illinois; Maine; Massachusetts;
Michigan; Minnesota; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; Nevada; New
Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; Notth Dakota;
Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; South Dakota;
Virginia; Vermont; Washington; West Virginia; and Wisconsin.
On June 14, 2023, Weee moved to dismiss the SAC, and filed a
memorandum of law in support. On June 28, 2023, the Plaintiffs
opposed the motion. On July 12, 2023, Weee filed a reply.
Weee moves to dismiss the SAC on two grounds. First, under Rule
12(b)(1), it argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing under
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021). In the alternative,
under Rule 12(b)(6), it argues that the SAC does not state a claim.
Because the Court dismisses on the former ground, it does not reach
the 12(b)(6) arguments.
The Plaintiffs contend that they have suffered two
injuries-in-fact. They allege that they been "forced to" spend time
and money monitoring their financial and bank accounts as a result
of the data breach. Teng, in particular, alleges that he had to
subscribe to a $24.99/month credit-monitoring service that he would
not otherwise have purchased-to minimize the increased risk of
identity theft attributable to Wee's security breach.
Even accepting these allegations as true, Judge Engelmayer finds
the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries fail to satisfy Article III. That
is because they cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting
harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm
that is not certainly impending. They have not cited any case where
a data breach of relatively quotidian private information of the
sort alleged here has been held to support standing based on a
plaintiff's expenditure on preventive measures.
Judge Engelmayer opines that the two cases on which the Plaintiffs
rely do not assist their cause. Each involved sensitive data that
could more plausibly be used to steal a person's identity. In
Wallace v. Health Quest Systems, Inc., No. 20 Civ. 545 (VB), 2021
WL 1109727 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2021), Judge Engelmayer explains, the
risk was obvious, given that the leak involved customers' names in
combination with, dates of birth,
Social Security numbers, Medicare Health Insurance Claim Numbers
(HICNs), driver's license numbers, and payment card information.
In Rand v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 637 F. Supp. 3d 55 (S.D.N.Y.
2022), although Judge Briccetti deemed the injury in fact question
"a close call," he held that the leak of the plaintiffs name,
address, date of birth, and driver's license number warranted some
preventive measures, because such information (in particular, the
driver's license number) can readily be used to file fraudulent
unemployment claims, open a new account, take out a loan, or commit
income tax refund fraud.
Here, Judge Engelmayer points out, there was no leak of a driver's
license number, but only the name, address, and phone number of the
Plaintiffs. The Court, thus, holds that they have not pied an
Article III injury in fact based on their claim to have incurred
post-leak monitoring costs.
The Plaintiffs alternatively rely on Teng's allegation that he
received "spam" telephone calls and text messages as a result of
the leak. Judge Engelmayer holds that this basis for standing fails
on multiple grounds.
First, Judge Engelmayer explains, courts have generally rejected
the theory that unsolicited calls or emails constitute an injury in
fact. Second, even were the unwanted annoyances here to reach a
level constituting an injury in fact, on the facts alleged, the
spam is not "fairly traceable" to Weee's actions.
The Court, accordingly, finds that the Plaintiffs' alleged injury
based on post-leak spam text messages and calls fails to establish
Article III standing. The Court, therefore, dismisses the SAC under
Rule 12(b)(1).
The Plaintiffs seek, in the event that the SAC is dismissed, leave
to amend.
The Court denies the Plaintiffs' request to replead in this case
for a third time. Judge Engelmayer opines that the Plaintiffs have
had two opportunities to amend their complaint. And they have made
only a perfunctory request for leave to amend anew in the event of
dismissal. They have not identified any concrete amendments or
additions, let alone ones that might cure the deficiencies in their
claims as to jurisdiction. This supports denial of leave to amend,
Judge Engelmayer points out.
The Court, therefore, denies the Plaintiffs' request for leave to
amend. For avoidance of doubt, because the dismissal is for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, the dismissal is without prejudice to
the Plaintiffs' right to pursue--in a separate lawsuit--claims
arising from the events above.
For these reasons, the Court grants Weee's motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(I). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment, to
close this case, and to terminate all pending motions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Feb. 22,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3cyv7whk from
PacerMonitor.com.
WELCH FOODS: Winkelbauer Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Materials
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE WINKELBAUER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WELCH FOODS, INC., A Cooperative, and PROMOTION IN MOTION, INC.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-07028-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to consider whether the Defendants' materials should be sealed,
which the Plaintiff has provisionally filed under seal in support
of the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class
certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment
of class counsel, on March 7, 2024.
On Aug. 2, 2023, the Court entered the stipulated protective order
governing the confidentiality of information and documents in this
action. Subsequently, the parties participated in discovery during
which the Defendants designated certain materials as "CONFIDENTIAL"
and/or "ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY" pursuant to the Protective Order.
Under Civil L.R. 79-5(f) and the Protective Order, the Plaintiff
requests the Court to consider sealing the following documents:
The Memorandum of Points and Authorities for the
Plaintiff's Reply has been partially redacted to protect
the disclosure of information designated as
"CONFIDENTIAL"
and/or "ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY" by the Defendants;
The Supplemental Declaration of expert Steven P. Gaskin
in
Support of the Plaintiff's Reply has been partially
redacted
to protect the disclosure of information designated as
"CONFIDENTIAL" by the Defendants;
The Supplemental Declaration of expert Colin B. Weir in
Support of the Plaintiff's Reply has been partially
redacted
to protect the disclosure of information designated as
"CONFIDENTIAL" by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff has requested limited redactions to the Plaintiff's
Reply and the supplemental expert declarations, which all contain,
reference, and/or rely on information that Defendants have
designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" and/or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." The
Plaintiff also referred to the Silverman Decl. in making the
redactions. Due to the sensitivity of the materials at issue, the
Plaintiff does not believe other reasonable alternatives exist to
minimize the scope of this
request.
Welch offers refrigerated juices, juice cocktails, jams and
jellies, and snack.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 7, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TdmMSg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
Ryan D. Ardi, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
rardi@clarksonlawfirm.com
WELLS FARGO BANK: Delpapa Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Pamela Delpapa, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Wells Fargo and
Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-06009 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on March 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01026 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Civil
Miscellaneous Case.
Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 456-1496
Fax (805) 456-1497
Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
KELLER & ROHRBACK LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Fax: (206) 623-3384
Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy Pritchard Williams, Esq.
Andrew D. Atkins, Esq.
Joshua D Davey, Esq.
William C. Mayberry, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 S. College St., Suite 3400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 998-4102
Fax: (704) 998-4051
Email: amy.williams@troutman.com
andrew.atkins@troutman.com
joshua.davey@troutman.com
bill.mayberry@troutman.com
- and -
Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esq.
Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 477-5700
Fax: (415) 477-5710
Email: elizabeth.andrews@troutman.com
kalama.lui-kwan@troutman.com
WELLS FARGO BANK: Forsburg Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gerald Forsburg, Jenna Doctor, Luis Castro,
Jorge Goytisolo, III, Marisol Castro, Barbara Prado, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank
N.A., Wells Fargo and Co., Case No. 3:22-cv-02890 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on March 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01030 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
Racketeering (RICO) Act.
Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Abelardo Limon, Jr., Esq.
LIMON LAW OFFICE
890 W. Price Rd.
Brownsville, TX 78520
Phone: (956) 544-7770
Fax: (956) 544-4949
Email: alimon@limonlaw.com
- and -
Karen Lynn Kellett, Esq.
Theodore Ohmstede Bartholow, III,
KELLETT & BARTHOLOW PLLC
11300 N. Central Expwy, Ste 301
Dallas, TX 75243
Phone: (214) 696-9000
Email: kkellett@kblawtx.com
thad@kblawtx.com
- and -
Malissa Lambert Giles, Esq.
Tracy Allen Giles, Esq.
GILES & LAMBERT, PC
P.O. Box 2780
129 E. Campbell Ave., Suite 300
Roanoke, VA 24011
Phone: (540) 981-9000
Fax: (540) 981-9327
Email: mgiles@gileslambert.com
tgiles@gileslambert.com
- and -
Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
1129 State Street, Suite 8
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 456-1496
Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Oliver Max Gardner, III, Esq.
MAX GARDNER LAW, PLLC
P.O. Box 1000
1410 College Avenue
Shelby, NC 28151-1000
Phone: (704) 487-0616
Fax: (888) 870-1647
Email: maxgardner@maxgardner.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy Pritchard Williams, Esq.
Andrew D. Atkins, Esq.
Joshua D Davey, Esq.
William C. Mayberry, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 S. College St., Suite 3400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 998-4102
Fax: (704) 998-4051
Email: amy.williams@troutman.com
andrew.atkins@troutman.com
joshua.davey@troutman.com
bill.mayberry@troutman.com
- and -
Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esq.
Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 477-5700
Fax: (415) 477-5710
Email: elizabeth.andrews@troutman.com
kalama.lui-kwan@troutman.com
WELLS FARGO BANK: Green Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Samara Green; and Brett Jacob, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank
N.A., Wells Fargo and Co., Case No. 3:20-cv-05296 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on March 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01027 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: 800.400.6808
Facsimile: 800.520.5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Yana A. Hart, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
Email: yana@kazlg.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy Pritchard Williams, Esq.
Andrew D. Atkins, Esq.
Joshua D. Davey, Esq.
William C. Mayberry, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 S. College St., Suite 3400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 998-4102
Fax: (704) 998-4051
Email: amy.williams@troutman.com
andrew.atkins@troutman.com
joshua.davey@troutman.com
bill.mayberry@troutman.com
- and -
Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esq.
Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 477-5700
Fax: (415) 477-5710
Email: elizabeth.andrews@troutman.com
kalama.lui-kwan@troutman.com
WELLS FARGO BANK: Healy Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patrick Healy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; and DOES 1
through 5, Case No. 3:22-cv-00226 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on March 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01028 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessica Lohr, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130-2092
Phone: 858.509.6000
Facsimile: 858.509.6040
Email: jessica.lohr@troutman.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy Pritchard Williams, Esq.
Andrew D. Atkins, Esq.
Joshua D. Davey, Esq.
William C. Mayberry, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 S. College St., Suite 3400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 998-4102
Fax: (704) 998-4051
Email: amy.williams@troutman.com
andrew.atkins@troutman.com
joshua.davey@troutman.com
bill.mayberry@troutman.com
- and -
Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esq.
Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 477-5700
Fax: (415) 477-5710
Email: elizabeth.andrews@troutman.com
kalama.lui-kwan@troutman.com
WELLS FARGO BANK: Urista Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jose Urista, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; and DOES 1 through 5,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00227 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio on March 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01029 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ahren A. Tiller, Esq.
BLC LAW CENTER, APC
1230 Columbia St., Ste. 1100
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 894-8831
Facsimile: (866) 444-7026
Email: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy Pritchard Williams, Esq.
Andrew D. Atkins, Esq.
Joshua D. Davey, Esq.
William C. Mayberry, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 S. College St., Suite 3400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 998-4102
Fax: (704) 998-4051
Email: amy.williams@troutman.com
andrew.atkins@troutman.com
joshua.davey@troutman.com
bill.mayberry@troutman.com
- and -
Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esq.
Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 477-5700
Fax: (415) 477-5710
Email: elizabeth.andrews@troutman.com
kalama.lui-kwan@troutman.com
WELLS FARGO: Huber et al. Sue Over Unwanted Financial Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATT HUBER, NATALYA KASHIRINA, CHRISTOPHER BARKER, and NAZIA
BARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01348-LJC (N.D. Cal., March 6,
2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to inform Plaintiffs
about their enrollment to various financial products or services.
Allegedly, Wells Fargo paid itself fees, costs, interest, and other
consideration from the customers for these unwanted products and
services, such as Credit Defense or Identity Theft Protection. The
Plaintiffs bring this case against Wells Fargo for its violations
of laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state unfair and
deceptive trade practices laws, common law conversion, and unjust
enrichment.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Wells Fargo is a financial
services company with $1.875 trillion in assets, and provides
banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, and consumer and
commercial finance through more than 5,200 branches, 13,000 ATMs,
and the Internet. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alisa Rose Adams, Esq.
THE DANNLAW FIRM
26100 Towne Center Drive
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610-3442
Telephone: (949) 200-8755
Facsimile: (866) 843-8308
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
aadams@dannlaw.com
WESTERN CONFERENCE: Disclosure of Expert Testimony Due May 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PAIERI, v. WESTERN
CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-00922-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered
an order modifying case schedule as follows:
Event Date
Disclosure of expert testimony relating to May 31, 2024
class certification under FRCP 26(a)(2) due
Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony July 1, 2024
relating to class certification under
FRCP 26(a)(2) due
All motions related to class certification July 29, 2024
discovery must be filed by
Discovery on class certification issues Aug. 29, 2024
completed by
Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion Sept. 30, 2024
for class certification (noted on the fourth
Friday after filing and service of the
motion pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3) unless the
parties agree to different times for filing
the response and reply memoranda).
Western Conference provides plan coverage, participation and
vesting, losing and protecting benefits, normal retirement,
disability retirement, and other services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5prhwu at no extra
charge.[CC]
WG1 LLC: Castro Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due
------------------------------------------------------
Ramona Maria Castro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WG1, LLC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
24LBCV00430 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 1, 2024), is
brought for violations of the California Labor Code as a result of
the Defendants' failure to pay all wages due.
The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant meal
breaks because meal breaks were regularly missed, late or short
because of severe understaffing and very busy work environment. In
addition, Plaintiff was required to remain on call, on premises and
on duty during her meal breaks. Despite not being provided with
compliant meal breaks, Defendant did not pay premium pay for these
missed breaks at Plaintiff's regular rate of pay.
The Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant rest
breaks because Plaintiff was required to remain on call, on
premises and on duty during her rest breaks. Despite not being
provided with compliant rest breaks, Defendant did not pay premium
pay for these missed breaks at Plaintiff's regular rate of pay. The
Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage
statements because the wage statements issued to Plaintiff did not
accurately list total wages owed and hours worked, among other
things, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from 3/4/2022 to
10/5/2023.
WG1, LLC. is a California corporation with its principal place of
business located in Los Angeles County, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manny Starr, Esq.
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
dan@frontierlawcenter.com
WILMINGTON, DE: Seeks to Dismiss NAACP Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAACP DELAWARE, LAMOTTE
JOHNS, TRANECKA CHARLES, NICKEA ROWE, SEMAJ GWYN, NATASHA GREEN,
and ANTHONY GREEN, v. CITY OF WILMINGTON, WILFREDO CAMPOS, in his
official capacity as Chief of Police, Wilmington Police Department;
and MICHAEL PURZYCKI, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City
of Wilmington Case No. 1:23-cv-01205-GBW (D. Del.), the Defendants
move the Court to enter an order dismissing all counts pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, to
strike the class certification allegations pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.
Wilmington is largest city in Delaware, and seat of New Castle
county, located at the influx of the Christina River and Brandywine
Creek.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DMRtWn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
John D. Hendershot, Esq.
Kelly E. Farnan, Esq.
Christine D. Haynes, Esq.
Sara M. Metzler, Esq.
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
920 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 651-7700
Facsimile: hendershot@rlf.com
E-mail: farnan@rlf.com
haynes@rlf.com
metzler@rlf.com
- and -
Rosamaria Tassone-DiNardo, Esq.
CITY OF WILMINGTON LAW DEPARTMENT
City/County Building, 9th Floor
800 N. French Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 576-2175
[*] Rise in Class Action-Style Claims Fuels Mass Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Emelie Jones and Johanna Weibbach, writing for Pinsent Masons
reports that globally, there is a rise in class action-style claims
being raised against businesses.
Consumers and other groups of people are being drawn together by
claimant law firms and claims management companies seeking to
pursue collective redress on behalf of affected individuals when
there is perceived wrongdoing by companies.
In many jurisdictions, this claims industry is being fuelled by the
growth of third party funding for bringing cases. In some
jurisdictions, including in the EU where most member states have
implemented the EU Representative Actions Directive, the uptick is
also being driven by changes in legislation or procedure that allow
claims more easily to be brought by a class of individuals. The
changes include an increasing number of 'opt-out' litigation
procedures, whereby claims can be brought on behalf of members of a
class regardless of whether they have 'opted in' to participate in
the claim.
With the potential value of these claims running to many millions,
even billions, of dollars in some cases, it is little wonder that
the growing trend of collective action is rising up the risk
registers of businesses.
As this trend continues, businesses might increasingly explore
whether arbitration, instead of litigation, offers a viable
alternative way of dealing with some of these large-scale disputes
and, if so, how best to implement this.
The concept of mass arbitration is well-established in the US, a
particularly active geography for class actions. In the US, it has
become common for some businesses to incorporate 'class action
waivers' into their terms and conditions. These waivers provide
that customers or others, such as employees, cannot pursue class
action litigation against the business. They sometimes require that
any disputes be resolved through arbitration instead.
Courts and legislatures may take different approaches to the
enforceability of such 'class action waivers' in different
jurisdictions and different circumstances.
In addition, some law firms in the US behind class action claims
have sought to use class action waivers which include arbitration
clauses to their tactical advantage. In essence, their approach is
to gather large numbers of claims and pursue them by way of
individual arbitrations. Since some arbitration rules or agreements
require the corporate respondent in these circumstances to pay most
or all of the administrative fees for the arbitration, this
strategy can put respondent businesses to considerable expense long
before any consideration of the merits of the dispute, increasing
pressure on those businesses to settle.
In a paper published in February 2023 entitled "Mass Arbitration
Shakedown - Coercing Unjustified Settlements," the US Chamber of
Commerce Institute for Legal Reform described in detail what it saw
as abuses of arbitration as a mechanism for resolving mass claims.
Some arbitral institutions have been considering ways of addressing
the problem. For example, in August 2021, the American Arbitration
Association (AAA) introduced a new set of procedural rules for mass
arbitrations, aimed at streamlining the administration and reducing
the cost of mass arbitration filings. These were most recently
updated in January 2024, with an aim of further addressing some of
the ongoing issues involved in mass arbitration.
Some of the measures provided for in the latest AAA mass
arbitration rules include: a specific fee structure which
eliminates filing fees and replaces them with a flat initiation fee
followed, for cases that survive initial review, by tiered fees per
case which decrease as the volume of claims increases; an easier
process for businesses which challenge arbitration filings to
request a "process arbitrator" to deal with those challenges; and
strengthened provisions as regards mediation by the parties.
There remains debate about whether the AAA rules do enough to
address the issues with mass arbitration.
It will be interesting to see whether further institutions follow
suit in introducing specific rules for mass arbitration and what
shape such rules might take, particularly as mass actions risk
outside the US continues to grow.
In the meantime, however, businesses considering the use, or
continued use, of arbitration as a risk management tool to address
mass actions risk must carefully weigh and take legal advice on
their options, factoring in US experience of mass arbitration being
turned from a shield for businesses into a sword used against
them.
It is also possible that, in a challenging global economic
environment, we will see an increase in mass investment treaty
arbitration, for example by international bondholders or bank
depositors affected by government decisions impacting their
investments. ICSID has previously accepted jurisdiction over such
mass claims made against Argentina and Cyprus, and Pinsent Masons
has previously examined the potential for similar claims against
Switzerland in the wake of UBS's 2023 acquisition of Credit Suisse.
[GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***